The Two Main Principles of Disagreement between Mr. Lundahl and Myself as Promoted by Lundahl (2022v)
Kevin R. Henke
November 5, 2022
In Henke (2022bi), I made the following statements:
“Previously, I discussed the alchemy stories associated with Theophrastus Paracelsus in Henke (2022b) and Henke (2022bg). Lundahl (2022k) then makes some additional comments about Paracelsus and the Enlightenment:
“I do not need to believe Paracelsus had an actual contract with the devil, since that could be a misunderstanding on the part of his contemporaries, just as Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II, if I recall correctly) was considered as having made such a contract, because he was exceptionally using some not commonly used mathematical algorithms, probably no more diabolic than long division.
That there is in the Enlightenment era a story about his changing a copper penny into gold doesn't break this, since the Enlightenment era was (like Henke) obnoxiously negligent of distinctions about historicity and generally started to believe legends were a sort of fiction, to which one could obviously add.
However, it could be that the Küssdenpfennig legend should actually be classified as fake history (rather than entertaining fiction) : the owners of that house wanting to obliterate a memory of stingy rich people who "kissed each penny" like Uncle Scrooge, by claiming (falsely) it came from a "near miracle" by Paracelsus, done to sympathetic poor people.”
In this case, I at least agree with Lundahl (2022k) that there is no rational reason to believe any of these stories about Paracelsus or others having contracts with the devil. However, I’m the skeptic in this debate. It’s Mr. Lundahl that cannot separate cartoonish delusions (e.g., Genesis 3) from reality (e.g., an ancient Earth). I also do not automatically believe any story coming out of the Enlightenment. All stories must be verified with evidence, no matter if they are in today’s New York Times, recorded in the Enlightenment or found in the Bible. As I state in Henke (2022b), Henke (2022dv) and Henke (2022eu), the first reaction to any claim should be skepticism. Skepticism is the default position. This is why good evidence should always accompany a new claim. If the purveyors of a claim simply promise to provide evidence later or if they claim that large numbers of people already accept it as fact or that the “earliest known audience” believed it, it’s wise not to accept the claim until reliable evidence comes forward.”
Lundahl (2022v) then comments on my bolded statement:
“It cannot be biographically in any given person as to all and any claims given by his parents.
The end result of this position is therefore that most people applying it (converts and apostates being two exceptions) will continue believing what the parents taught them, and use that as ground for scepticism against any claim going against it. End of debate, not just this one but every one.
The first reaction to any unusual claim will inevitably be some kind of scepticism. Mild or suspicious, hidden or shown.
But finally, the reason for not believing story A cannot be that it isn't backed up by stories B and C, each of which needs to be backed up by two more stories, since ultimately that would be a reason against believing any story at all, including obliging you to second guess everything you were taught by your parents. The final reason for not believing story A is believing story B instead.
Both I and Henke show this attitude.
I have quoted how Henke shows it : his ultimate reason against Genesis 3 being his belief that "an ancient Earth" (presumably beyond the 7000 + years accorded by Biblical chronology, and presumably very far beyond it, nearly 7 million times beyond it) is not a story, but reality itself. That is exactly how little he realises a very basic reality, that, reality or not reality, Henke learned this precisely as a story.
Now, the two principles where we disagree (when evaluating stories, apart from belief systems) are:
·
o I believe that most people under most circumstances behave like the NYT journalist and like people believing him so that a story presented as historic fact should be believed until there are specific reasons to doubt it;
o Henke believes that journalistic standards of some paper (perhaps NYT, perhaps some other, certainly peer reviewed journals) are an exceptional mild breeeze of sanity in an overall hurricane of human irrationality;
·
o Henke believes that reconstruction by scientific agreed on standards of research is a fairly safe way at arriving at truth, also about the past, even without support from stories;
o I believe that is another example of the trope "history lost and spectacularily recovered" which is, on my view, the real bad thing not to believe, which unfortunately Mormons believed about Golden Plates, some Scientologists (perhaps not lower levels) about Xenu, and Evolutionists about Millions and Billions of Years.
I don't think this adds up to Henke being and me not being the sceptic in this debate. For that matter, it need not add up to me being and Henke not being the sceptic in this debate either.
That's why I think a certain concentration on actual arguments and refraining from ad hominem's like Henke's would be a good idea.
Because, obviously, it was a very grave ad hominem and also a claim of authority on Henke's part, to state, in essence "I am the sceptic between me and HGL, therefore I am the one who can tell what one should be sceptic about."”
I previously commented on the unbolded red paragraphs in the above quotation from Lundahl (2022v). I’ll now comment on the bolded section.
Mr. Lundahl fails to understand the critical role of skepticism in evaluating claims. He should not believe whatever he reads in a newspaper and then wait to see if a retraction eventually occurs. This is a terribly wrong attitude to have towards the media as I discussed in Henke (2022ix). I don’t trust single articles in the New York Times and other newspapers, especially if the journalists have no relevant scientific training on the topic that they’re writing about. I want to see any original peer-reviewed articles that are referenced in the newspaper articles. Even then, if the peer-reviewed article is making a new claim, I would want to see confirmation of the claim in subsequent peer-reviewed articles before I would accept it as likely. We should all remember the cold fusion fiasco. Furthermore, I would not include the New York Times or other newspapers with peer-reviewed journals in Mr. Lundahl’s characterization of my attitudes towards claims in the media: “Henke believes that journalistic standards of some paper (perhaps NYT, perhaps some other, certainly peer reviewed journals) are an exceptional mild breeeze of sanity in an overall hurricane of human irrationality”.
On the second principle, NO, I do not accept any past claims, or “stories” as Mr. Lundahl misdefines them, that don’t have at least some good evidential support. Mr. Lundahl fails to realize that unlike the groundless Scientologists’ beliefs in Xenu, the Mormon’s beliefs in the Golden Plates and his belief in Genesis, biological evolution and the age of the Earth are solidly supported by a large amount of good evidence if Mr. Lundahl would simply study Strahler (1999), Prothero (2007), my website and my other recommended references.
Certainly, I’m not a perfect skeptic. No one is. Nevertheless, I would certainly welcome Mr. Lundahl becoming a skeptic and becoming less willing to accept whatever newspapers, the Bible and church leaders tell him. He can do that by first rejecting the numerous groundless stories in the Bible. From my personal experience, I can testify that this is not easy. To be a successful skeptic, an individual has to be willing to reject their most cherish beliefs. Mr. Lundahl hasn’t done this and I’m still working on it. Despite all of the evidence that is available to him, Mr. Lundahl continues to misapply “skepticism” to biological evolution and not apply any skepticism to the groundless stories in the Bible. I continue to work hard to grow in my abilities to be a successful skeptic, but Mr. Lundahl is no skeptic and has not shown any ability to judge what is appropriate skepticism.
Throughout this debate, I have given numerous arguments supported by peer-reviewed references with more details on the evidence. In contrast, Mr. Lundahl relies on questionable sources from Wikipedia (Henke 2022fq; Henke 2022gq), depends on outdated and invalid arguments from Lewis (1960) (Henke 2022b; Henke 2022ax), quotes Bible verses and just expects our readers and I to accept them as fact (Henke 2022dc), and either can’t or won’t read my recommended references (Henke 2022at). Also, for some hypersensitive individuals, they will simply accuse you of engaging in “ad hominem” attacks if you simply dare to disagree with them and their agenda, and call them out for their deficiencies.
References:
Lewis, C.S. 1960. Miracles, 2nd ed., printed 1974: Harper One: HarperCollinsPublishers, 294pp.
Prothero, D.R. 2007. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters: Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 381pp.
Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy: 2nd ed., Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 552 pp.