We’re expecting bad weather here today, with Tropical Storm Hanna due to pass directly over our home area around 2:00 pm. It won’t be anything like this year’s real storms, like Gustav and Ike. I compare it, though, to blog storms we’ve had here in discussions recently. I’m no meteorologist, but I know that tropical storms are systems that grow under certain conditions. Blog storms do that too.

These “blog storms” are discussion threads in which misunderstandings escalate into anger and accusations. There are always personality factors involved. We’re not perfect. The most recent such storm came right out of a blog post on that very topic. Ironic.

On top of that there are systemic factors that can fuel misunderstandings. We start from different places, so it can be hard to see the world the way others do. That difficulty is compounded in a blog discussion format by at least four things:

1. We don’t really know each other. Anonymity can breed all kinds of behavior. Lack of true acquaintance with each other can turn a three-dimensional person into a one-dimensional arguer, at least in our perceptions.
2. We’re not professional writers or logicians, most of us. We might not write something clearly, or it might even come out meaning something different than we intended.
3. Our blog posts get complex, dealing with more than one topic or line of reasoning at a time. It’s easy (and sometimes the only sensible thing) to respond only to one or two points out of a long discussion. But we tend to focus on the weak spots and ignore points we have in common; and it’s all too easy for things to become distorted out of context.
4. Discussions are non-linear, sometimes with two or three completely different conversations wrapped around each other in one thread. That in itself complicates mutual understanding.

Even the best of people can get confused under these conditions, and confusion can lead any of us toward becoming irritated.

I don’t know how to solve all of these any more than I know how to tame a tropical storm. Personalities will always be flawed, including mine—that’s probably the one Christian doctrine that’s most easily confirmed by empirical observation. I do know of an experiment under development that might contribute to reducing some of the systemic problems I just named, but it will have its own limitations of a different sort.

Meanwhile blogs like mine will continue to host discussions like we do. What I hope to accomplish here is perhaps something parallel to preparing for a literal storm. If you know what the issues are likely to be, chances are you’ll come through it better. Having reflected on this a bit, I hope I can be more aware that where others misunderstand me, it’s not necessarily due to a character flaw. It’s partly the system, and we all have to learn to work through it as patiently as we can.

************************

And now a related technical note. I had thought that threaded comments (where replies sit on the page immediately attached to the comment they are responding to) would help reduce the non-linearity factor. It didn’t work that way, because it jumbled up the temporal sequences. A later comment could precede an earlier one on the page. And it made it hard to find some comments or to link back to them.

I had a poll up to see what others thought about threaded comments. If you were watching the poll results, the few votes that came in seemed to be in favor of keeping them. Behind the scenes, though, the system shows that those who voted in favor of them had never commented here (or if they had, they voted from a different computer).

So I’m going to turn off threaded comments today. This will unfortunately jumble up some past discussions, but they’re over anyway. Hopefully it will make future ones just slightly easier again.

Spammers are getting around every automatic filter I’ve tried to use here. I’ve finally had to give up and use a verification system for comments. I don’t like it, but the spam has been non-stop offensive the past few days.

I am adding the option to register for the blog. Registration is not required for any purpose, but if you do register, you won’t have to verify comments after that. You’ll find the registration link here or at the bottom of the sidebar.

Two fascinating articles on my newsreader today:

Yale researchers find ‘junk DNA’ may have triggered [sic]

Results from a comparative analysis of the human, chimpanzee, rhesus macaque and other genomes reported in the journal Science suggest our evolution may have been driven not only by sequence changes in genes, but by changes in areas of the genome once thought of as “junk DNA.”

Molecular evolution echoed in bat ears

Echolocation may have evolved more than once in bats, according to new research from the University of Bristol published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

“Junk DNA” was once considered just that: genetic material of no consequence to the organism, a useless remnant of prior evolutionary states. Once it was evidence against design; now it’s evidence of evolution. Interesting how that happens.

Meanwhile, the evolution of echolocation is a marvel of natural history. For it to have happened twice in one genus is even more marvelous, even (perhaps) incredible, especially since (as the linked article notes) “Examples of convergence at a molecular level are very rare.”

Also meanwhile, other assumptions keep falling…

As I just wrote on another brief blog entry, the dialogue on “Hitchens’s Second Question” has been continuing at a rapid pace for over a month now. It has now divided into two separate questions, and I’m opening up two new threads to deal with them separately.

The entry preceding this post is on whether there is grounding for morality outside of theism. This one is on whether such grounding really matters. Discussion on this thread should be focused on that topic.

To catch up on this discussion from the Hitchens thread, I suggest you begin here, and read at least three or four comments following that one.

Additional Explanation Added Tuesday Morning, per Charlie’s Advice:

The discussion here is not about moral behavior. Several of us worked hard in the earlier thread to keep that clear. It is also not about whether non-theists can live moral lives. That thread began (see the link above) with a strong affirmation that they can; in fact, some readers would consider it surprisingly strong. The discussion is about the grounding for moral duties and values, which I have defined loosely as

An answer to the question, “I don’t believe D moral duty or value applies to me, and I want you to tell me why I should. You might have some instrumental or pragmatic reasons for me to practice D, or you may tell me D is ‘what we customarily do in our culture,’ but I don’t know why D should be considered good in itself, or why I should take it on as a value or duty of my own.”

A proper ground for morals would be something that, if true and if understood by the subject (the questioner, in this case) to be true, would provide sufficient reason for the subject to change his or her mind about the goodness of the behavior, value, or duty in question. It would explain how said behavior, value or duty actually is good in itself; not merely instrumental, pragmatic, or customary.

It would do so by reference to some condition of reality that can bear the weight placed upon it. For example, if it is suggested that D is good because it contributes to reproductive fitness, then reproductive fitness’s goodness would have to be good in itself (or based on something else that is good in itself).

I apologize for being repetitious (this material was in the last blog entry), but I expect some readers to come to this blog entry without having read any others.

The dialogue on “Hitchens’s Second Question” has been continuing at a rapid pace for over a month now. It has now divided into two separate questions, and I’m opening up two new threads to deal with them separately.

This thread is on whether there is grounding for morality outside of theism. The best place to catch up on this question, if you haven’t been part of the dialogue, is probably here, followed by here.

Discussion on this thread will be limited to that topic. Another thread will be provided for the other question that’s come up on that other discussion, which is whether such grounding really matters.

Additional Explanation Added Tuesday Morning, per Charlie’s Advice:

The discussion here is not about moral behavior. Several of us worked hard in the earlier thread to keep that clear. It is also not about whether non-theists can live moral lives. That thread began (see the link above) with a strong affirmation that they can; in fact, some readers would consider it surprisingly strong. The discussion is about the grounding for moral duties and values, which I have defined loosely as

An answer to the question, “I don’t believe D moral duty or value applies to me, and I want you to tell me why I should. You might have some instrumental or pragmatic reasons for me to practice D, or you may tell me D is ‘what we customarily do in our culture,’ but I don’t know why D should be considered good in itself, or why I should take it on as a value or duty of my own.”

A proper ground for morals would be something that, if true and if understood by the subject (the questioner, in this case) to be true, would provide sufficient reason for the subject to change his or her mind about the goodness of the behavior, value, or duty in question. It would explain how said behavior, value or duty actually is good in itself; not merely instrumental, pragmatic, or customary.

It would do so by reference to some condition of reality that can bear the weight placed upon it. For example, if it is suggested that D is good because it contributes to reproductive fitness, then reproductive fitness’s goodness would have to be good in itself (or based on something else that is good in itself).

Our web hosting techs spent hours last night scrambling to fix a network problem that kept this blog offline for quite a while. They never told me what the problem was, but I’m glad we’re back online, anyway. I apologize for the downtime.

Even after it came back online it wasn’t quite right; none of the links worked except for the home page. I reset one of the settings, and I think that’s fixed now. If you find anything else strange happening here (I’m not talking about opinions you disagree with!) please leave a comment about it or notify me by using the contact form (above) or by email at tom AT thinkingchristian DOT net. Thanks.

A few weeks ago we had a poll on whether threaded comments were a good idea or not. Those who comment at least somewhat regularly here have had more experience with it now, and I want to ask the question again. So please mark your opinion over on the sidebar. Thanks.

Daniel Dennett, one of the four most prominent “New Atheists,” is no proponent of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The hallucination theory to explain Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances is no longer held by many scholars. Nevertheless there are exceptions to this, including Gerd Lüdemann (detailed further here). In Consciousness Explained, however, Dennett says on page 7,

Another conclusion it seems we can draw from this is that strong hallucinations are simply impossible! By a strong hallucination I mean a hallucination of an apparently concrete and persisting three-dimensional object in the real world—as contrasted to flashes, geometric distortions, auras, afterimages, fleeting phantom-limb experiences, and other anomalous sensations. A strong hallucination would be, say, a ghost that talked back, that permitted you to touch it, that resisted with a sense of solidity, that cast a shadow, that was visible from any angle so that you might walk around it and see what its back looked like.

(See the full argument here; go to page one if it doesn’t open directly there) Based on Dennett’s analysis, then, hallucinations cannot explain the events in Matthew 28:9-10, Luke 24:13-48, John 20:24-28, or John 21:4-19.

See Gary Habermas for more on hallucination theories.

From the comic strip Partially Clips, via Language Log.

“[The scientist] knew that he could say yes or no, and the reporter would print whatever answer he gave. But he also should be grateful for any kind of media interest in his field, even if treating scientists like oracles of knowledge this way is probably why some people confuse science with religion.”

Compare: Servants of a Twisted God