Lundahl 2022h

lundi 16 mai 2022

Henke Can't Read

Second Round essays: Henke Can't Read · Henke Can't Argue Philosophy Very Well Either

Here is a kind of answer for my essays:

https://sites.google.com/site/respondingtocreationism/henke-2022b

Both in Abstract and in 1, Kevin R. Henke claims, I can't write. Or, "I could do better" - but didn't bother to write correctly. I will go through the examples he gives, and show them baseless.

I also found it frustrating when sometimes he discusses the same topic among two or more of the seven essays. This is one reason why he should have replied to Henke (2022a) with just one well-organized response, and not seven separate essays.

I obviously deal with same object or same story in more than one of them. The difference is the angle. Yes, there is some overlap.

The arguments Henke gave in round one that refute atheist and similar (he's agnostic, not atheist) viewpoints are given in Two Arguments for Alexander that Atheists (and Likeminded) Should Not Use - Or Three, while arguments that would generally support Henke's viewpoint, but not in a decisive way, are given in the essay Undecisives. In fact, first essay deals with a quadrilemma by Henke, following two involve reasoning about the supernatural, following three by arguments insufficient to know Alexander was whom we historically think we know him to be, and final one leaves our real arguments for whom we know Alexander to be, and shows them corresponding to "we know it from narrative" and "we know narratives to be historical" (as opposed to fictional) "from first known audience."

In particular, the title of Lundahl (2022g) is “Undecisives”, which is not a word in the English language. Lundahl (2022g) probably meant indecisive, which according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary online means inconclusive, prone to indecision, irresolute, or indefinite.

No, I meant "non-decisives". Conflating the derivation for the compound non-decisive with a half shade taken over from indecisives is imperfect vocabulary (happens to indigenous people too) and most certainly not a bad spelling for either of them. Here is a reference for "non-decisive" (which I nominalised or substantivised) and how it fits to what I am saying:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nondecisive

Example given is very to the point for the word choice:

It was a nondecisive victory, leaving open the possibility of a second attack.

Since in the Classical tradition I think of the process of arguing back and forth as a kind of battle (like chess more peaceful than punching someone in the face, for instance), the martial tone of the example is very much to the point for my word choice. And as said, recalling "undecisive" instead of "non-decisive" is clearly not a spelling mistake, but looking for a word. Then I substantivise it, as instead of saying "the red cars" I could say "the reds" in an enumeration of differently coloured cars, instead of "some non-decisive arguments" I give the heading "non-decisives" with a bad word formation giving "undecisives."

Furthermore, it does not help the reader when Mr. Lundahl does not define his abbreviations (e.g., COTUS in Lundahl 2022f).

POTUS = President Of The United States

COTUS = COntinuous Territory (of the) United States

I thought a US American were supposed to know this!

Now, I could have separately responded to each of Lundahl (2022a-g), but then in the next round he may have responded to each of my seven with seven more creating a total of 49. If I then respond to the 49 separately, he might respond to each one of the 49 with seven more giving a total of 343.

Or I would have divided only where the viewpoints to answer are different. As I did in the seven essays already answered.

None of Lundahl (2022a-g) has a decent bibliography.

My format is not the Academic essay.

For example, when Lundahl (2022a) claims that angels can explain the talking donkey of Numbers 22:22-35, he quotes a Bishop Challoner. No reference is given for this citation.

No, it would be in (2022c) if he ordered things the order I gave. Note, I did not authorise him to give my essays in order of date and hour, they should be given in the order I gave. It is the essay : Several Types of "Supernatural" Featured in Stories Believed to be True.

We don’t know who Bishop Challoner is, the context of his statement and whether or not it was in a peer-reviewed journal or part of a joke in a sermon.

I could have given a link to the Douay-Rheims Bible Online, which is in the Challoner revision, not the original 16th C. which is why it is a bit more modern than King James. The online version of Douay Rheims is providing in red comments that Bishop challoner gave to the text. Below a verse or below a passage including the verse. Here is how it looks:

And here is the link I forgot to give:

http://drbo.org/chapter/04022.htm

So - as a Catholic would know, when I give a passage with numbered verses and a comment is attributed to Challoner, featuring the verse number and a quote about what he is explaining, Challoner is in fact commenting on that precise verse and on that precise aspect of the verse. In his capacity as Bible reviser and as magisterially competent commenter on Holy Scripture, since he is a bishop. Even without the link, the logic of the format should have jumpted to Henke's eyes:

[28] And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said: What have I done to thee? Why strikest thou me, lo, now this third time?

Bible text. Note, it is including the words "opened the mouth" - important for the next point:

[28] "Opened the mouth": The angel moved the tongue of the ass, to utter these speeches, to rebuke, by the mouth of a brute beast, the brutal fury and folly of Balaam.

· Verse number is given as [28]

· words are cited in quotation marks, followed by a colon, "Opened the mouth":

· an explanation of what this means is given.

We don’t know who Bishop Challoner is,

All Catholics of English culture (including American) usually do. For non-Catholics, allow me to give a brief introduction. After Mary I Tudor died in 1558, and the usurper Elizabeth took the English throne, and up to 1830, Catholicism was to varying degrees a legal offense in England and later in the United Kingdom, confer the so-called Penal laws. Especially, being a priest and saying Mass could get you drawn, hung and quartered. The actual number of Catholic martyrs under this period corresponds fairly much to the number of Lollards and early Anglicans killed under Catholic régimes, a little more than 280 each. This in practise came to mean, priests serving the needs of English Catholics were trained, equipped with Bibles, and received ordination in France. Two of the bishops for England residing in Douay or in Rheims were Witham and Challoner. As the Bible text of the original Douay Rheims version had become a bit archaic, he made a revision of it. Any online version of Douay Rheims (older than King James, btw, as such) is likely to be using Challoner's text. In this context, he also gave a comment, not on every verse, but on stray verses which he thought might require explanation. As he lived in the 18th C. he reckoned on Enlightenment hecklers (they haven't ceased to this day, and Henke examplifies this), and so commented on this verse.

the context of his statement

The clues provided in the text connexions between the Bible verse should have made it clear: it's the comment on the Bible verse.

and whether or not it was in a peer-reviewed journal

Peer reviewed journals are highly overrated. And they are also, as a phenomenon, clearly way after the times of Bishop Challoner.

or part of a joke in a sermon.

Henke seriously has no clue of how un-universal his feeling of ridicule for the angel vocalising for the ass is. What is common sense to St. Thomas Aquinas or Bishop Challoner is to Kevin R. Henke so little comprehensible that he suggests it could be "part of a joke in a sermon" - it leaves me flabberghasted as to his lack of effective reading skills. Outside the kind of very modern production (including no doubt also comic books, but in the case he want's to shoehorn me into, modern academic papers) which is his daily fare of words.

In Lundahl (2022d), he placed several [citation needed] markers in his paragraphs along with the footnote numbers [5], [6] and [7], as shown in his following paragraphs:

No, I didn't place them there. The paragraphs quoted are from something I had marked, by use of blockquote, as a quotation. It is a quotation from wikipedia. On wikipedian articles you often do find markers [citation needed] due to editor number 10 finding a statement inserted by editor number 8 suspicious or likely to raise suspicions in others, and inserting that marker instead of deleting or looking for a reference himself, hoping editor number 8 will return and as editor number 12 insert the references he was not giving as editor number 8. I also introduced the quote from wiki by a statement marking it as from wiki.

And by the way, I find it highly disrespectful of Henke not to give the essays in the order I put them, but instead use the order I wrote them in, destroying my structuring of the answer. Here is a screenshot from the essay which finishes my answer, but which I wrote before some of the other ones:

I have put a heavy line below the words "I will give you wikipedian article reference" just so Henke can't miss that again, sorry that it obliterats the line below.

Obviously, Mr. Lundahl later planned to add citations to support his claims.

No, I cited a wikipedian article precisely as it stood. Whoever actually inserted it didn't plan to add citations himself, usually, but was challenging the one who had added the previous text to in next edit of the wiki insert a reference, replacing reference needed.

However, because he did not carefully proofread his own work before sending it to me, the citations were never added.

It is not lack of proofreading, it's simply a question of citing wikipedia as it stands, and also not waiting to next edit or the one after that replaces the [citation needed] with a reference visible as footnotes at the bottom of the article.

This is totally unacceptable and frustrating.

People who use the wikipedia are used to this regularly while reading the wikipedia. Kevin R. Henke is a man who cannot read the wikipedia because he cannot get used to seeing a text which has no final edit - something which is true for all articles on wikipedia. This explains mountains on why people of his age and in his position refuse to accept wikipedia as references.

Furthermore, rather than the [5], [6] and [7] being numbers for references in a bibliography at the end of Lundahl (2022d), the PPS section at the end of Lundahl (2022d) lists these numbers as verses from 1 Maccabees 1:1-8 in the Roman Catholic Bible, which have absolutely nothing to do with the discussions in the above quoted text from Lundahl (2022d).

Not the least. [5], [6] and [7] in the paragraph refer to notes on the article on wikipedia which I did not bother to quote, and [5], [6] and [7] in the PPS (post-post-scriptum) are verses in the span [1] to [8]. They are giving the OLDEST reference we have in preserved texts for Alexander being BOTH Greek AND ruler of the Orient, and ALSO combining these by conquering the Orient from Greece. It is highly germaine to the argument of the essay, which is my final one and should absolutely NOT have been given as "d". And it was not the least trying to present itself as a bibliography. It was a PS added after another PS, and while some would say "PS2" I prefer, like Tolkien in his letters (not just fictional ones by Gandalf, but also own ones) "PPS" - Henke should not have looked even for a bibliography in a place where no such thing was presented as being present.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Paris

St. Ubaldo of Gubbio

16.V.2022

Eugubii sancti Ubaldi, Episcopi et Confessoris, miraculis clari.

PS, I will ask Kevin R. Henke to undo the malfeasance in garbling the order of my essays./HGL

Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 02:37

Libellés : Kevin R. Henke