Download Touched By An Angel Complete Season 1-9 (English) torrent or any other torrent from the Video TV shows. Direct download via magnet link. Contents • • • • • • • • Series overview [ ] Season Episodes Originally aired First aired Last aired 1 unaired 29 September 15, 1965 April 27, 1966 30 September 14, 1966 April 26, 1967 24 September 6, 1967 March 6, 1968 Original unaired pilot [ ] Title Director Writers ' Story by: Irwin Allen Teleplay by: & In the year 1997, the Robinson family leaves Earth in the Gemini 12 space ship and sets out on a journey to be the first humans to colonize. Disaster strikes when their ship encounters a meteor storm, veers off course and crash lands on an alien planet. By December 2001, after a delayed revival from suspended animation, the family has settled in over a six-month period and made the planet their home, but a severe winter is coming and they must journey south. Traveling in their all-terrain 'chariot,' the family encounters fearsome cyclops monsters, survives a stormy sea, and explores the cave of an ancient civilization. Eventually they find a tropical region and set up camp, but unbeknownst to them they are being observed by a pair of humanoid aliens. Guest stars: Don Forbes (TV Commentator), (The President), (The Giant) Note: The characters of Dr. Zachary Smith and the Robot were not in the original pilot. Much of the footage from this episode was reused in the first five official series episodes. Episodes [ ] Season 1: 1965–66 [ ] No. In series No. In season Title Directed by Written by Original air date 1 1 'The Reluctant Stowaway' Anton M. Leader September 15, 1965 ( 1965-09-15) On October 16, 1997 at about 8PM ET, the Robinson family leaves Earth in the Jupiter 2 space ship to colonize Alpha Centauri, but Dr. Zachary Smith (), working as a saboteur for a foreign government, rigs the environmental control robot to destroy the ship's control systems within hours after take off. Events lead to Smith being trapped aboard the doomed ship, which encounters a meteor storm and veers light years off course. Soon, the robot becomes active and does further damage before it can be stopped. Later, Professor John Robinson () tries to fix the ship's sensor systems but must go outside the craft to perform the repairs. He becomes untethered and his wife Maureen goes out to help him. Guest stars: (Voice of TV Commentator), Don Forbes (Second TV Commentator), Hal Torey (General), (Lt. General Squires), Hoke Howell (Sgt. Rogers), Brett Parker (Security Guard), (The President) Note: This episode is the first regular pilot of the series. It was nominated in 1966 for, but did not win, an for special effects. [ ] 2 2 'The Derelict' Story by: S. Bar-David Teleplay by: Peter Packer September 22, 1965 ( 1965-09-22) Maureen saves her husband and he makes the repairs to the ship, but an approaching comet heats the hull of the Jupiter 2 and the hatch door becomes stuck. Major West forces the door open and saves the couple. Next, the family finds a large alien ship which pulls the Jupiter 2 inside. The Professor and West explore the ship and try to figure out the craft's advanced navigation system in hopes of locating Earth. Meanwhile, young Will Robinson ventures onto the alien ship, followed by Dr. The two meet an alien creature and Will tries to communicate with it, but Smith hastily shoots with a laser gun. More aliens appear and the furious creatures chase everyone back to the Jupiter 2 which forces its way out of the alien ship to safety. Guest stars: Dawson Palmer (Giant), Don Forbes (TV Commentator) Note: The voice reading belongs to an uncredited, then starring in Allen's other current series. 3 3 'Island in the Sky' Anton M. Leader Story by: S. Bar-David Teleplay by: September 29, 1965 ( 1965-09-29) The family finds a planet able to support human life and the Professor feels they should land there. He decides to first check out the planet himself and goes off in a space suit with forearm mounted. The thrusters malfunction and contact is lost. Major West tries to land on the planet, but Dr. Smith demands they return to Earth and uses the reprogrammed robot to force his authority. West manages to subdue Smith but the Jupiter 2 falls from orbit and crashes on the planet. With everyone safe, West leads a mission in the to find the Professor. Meanwhile, Smith schemes a plan to escape the planet and orders the robot to eliminate all 'non-essential personnel.' Guest star: (Debbie the Bloop/uncredited) Note: Some of this episode reuses footage from the original pilot 'No Place To Hide'. 4 4 'There Were Giants in the Earth' Story by: S. Bar-David Teleplay by: Carey Wilber October 6, 1965 ( 1965-10-06) The Robinsons begin to make themselves at home on the strange alien world, growing plants and herding local animals for food. After checking a, the Professor learns that a severe cold front is coming which will drop temperature to lethal levels. To make matters worse, the Professor and Major West are attacked by a giant creature that lurks in the area. The family decides to abandon the Jupiter 2 and head south to a warmer climate, but Dr. Smith refuses to go with them. Journeying in the, the family seeks shelter from a freak lightning storm inside a cave. There they find ruins of a past civilization in which to explore. Guest star: (Giant),, (Debbie the Bloop/uncredited) Note: Much of this episode again reuses footage from the original pilot 'No Place to Hide'. 5 5 'The Hungry Sea' Sobey Martin Story by: S. Bar-David Teleplay by: William Welch October 13, 1965 ( 1965-10-13) The Robinsons continue their journey south where they encounter a frozen sea and drive across the ice. Back at the Jupiter 2, Dr. Smith deals with the severe cold, but just when he's about to freeze solid the temperature begins to swiftly rise. The robot computes that the planet is in a peculiar orbit around its star and will eventually become superheated. Now at risk of burning up, Smith sends the Robot to find and warn the Robinsons, but when it arrives, Major West shoots it with a laser thinking Smith sent it to harm them. West's hasty decision puts him at odds with the Professor and tempers flare along with the blazing heat wave. Heading back to the ship, the amphibious must cross a now thawed and rough sea. Guest star: (Debbie the Bloop/uncredited) Note: Like the previous episode, some of this episode reuses footage from the original pilot 'No Place to Hide'. 6 6 'Welcome Stranger' Alvin Ganzer Peter Packer October 20, 1965 ( 1965-10-20) Will tries to raise Earth on the radio, but the signal is intercepted by a passing rocket ship that lands nearby. Appearing from the craft is a -wearing astronaut named Jimmy Hapgood. He explains he launched from Earth for in 1982, but veered off course when his guidance system failed and he has been lost in space ever since. Smith offers Hapgood the guidance system from the Robot as a gesture of good faith. Meanwhile, the Professor and Maureen make a critical decision – knowing Hapgood's capsule, Traveling Man, can carry two more passengers, they ask him to take Will and Penny off the dangerous planet and back with him to Earth. Hapgood refuses to accept the responsibility and Dr. Smith tries to weasel his way into the passenger seat. Guest star: (Jimmy Hapgood) 7 7 'My Friend, Mr Nobody' October 27, 1965 ( 1965-10-27) Penny finds a cave where she is greeted by a curious voice that draws her inside to play. Later, she returns to the ship with stories of her new friend, 'Mr. Nobody', who gave her shiny crystals as gifts. Smith realizes the crystals are really diamonds, he tails Penny to the cave but is unable to get inside. He then tricks Major West into helping him blast the cavern open. Penny learns of the scheme and fears the blast could hurt her friend, but she is too late to warn him and is caught in a cave in when the explosives go off. Thinking Penny is dead, the formless entity threatens to punish those who have hurt her with a powerful wrath. Guest star: (Mr. Nobody) Note: This was the last episode to be scored. (Williams also composed original scores for 'The Reluctant Stowaway,' 'Island in the Sky' and 'The Hungry Sea'.) 8 8 'Invaders from the Fifth Dimension' S. Bar-David November 3, 1965 ( 1965-11-03) Dr. Smith is beamed onto an alien ship that is bigger on the inside than on the outside. There, two mouth-less, floating heads tell him of their need for a replacement computer, but their technology requires the direct use of a human brain. After detecting treachery in Smith's mind, the aliens decide his brain is unreliable — much to Smith's relief — but they force him to provide them with another brain and fit him with a control collar which will kill him if he doesn't comply. To save his own neck, Smith decides to hand young Will over to the aliens and cons the boy into entering their ship. Meanwhile, the Robinsons come looking for their son and must save him before the aliens take him away. Guest stars: Ted Lohmann (Alien), Joe Ryan (Luminary) 9 9 'The Oasis' Sutton Roley Peter Packer November 10, 1965 ( 1965-11-10) While enduring another heat wave, the Robinsons try to conserve their dwindling supply of drinking water, but Dr. Smith selfishly uses the last of it for a shower. In their desperate search for more water, they find some delicious-looking fruit growing in an oasis and take it back to the ship. Smith however, finds the fruit and eats it before making sure it's safe. He then fears that he has been deliberately poisoned and accuses the Robinsons of trying to kill him and he runs away. As the men search for Smith, Penny's little pet Bloop, Debbie, eats some of the fruit and grows to human size. Likewise, Smith is found to have grown to giant size and he threatens to crush the Robinsons in revenge for what he thinks they did to him. Guest star: (Debbie the Bloop/uncredited) 10 10 'The Sky Is Falling' Sobey Martin Story by: Herman Groves Teleplay by: Herman Groves and Barney Slater November 17, 1965 ( 1965-11-17) An alien family, the Taurons, land on the Robinsons' planet and set up a camp nearby. Meanwhile, Dr. Smith is approached by the alien's scout robot, but he considers it an attack and thinks their new neighbors are hostile. Problems arise when attempts to communicate with the aliens becomes futile because they do not speak verbally. Later, Will encounters the alien's playful child, but the boy suddenly falls ill and Will takes him to a cave to rest. When the two boys do not return to their respective camps, the aliens and the Robinsons begin to suspect each other of foul play which could lead to a potentially deadly confrontation if the children are not found. Guest stars: (Retho), Francoise Ruggieri (Moela), Eddie Rosson (Lunon) 11 11 'Wish Upon a Star' Sutton Roley Barney Slater November 24, 1965 ( 1965-11-24) Major West is nearly killed when Dr. Smith causes an explosion, and a fed-up Professor thinks it best if he leaves. Dejected, Smith heads off, but he is followed by Will who feels sorry for him. Smith and Will then find the wreckage of an alien spaceship and a mysterious machine that creates anything they wish for. Word of the magical machine reaches the Robinsons who want to use the device as well, but their eventual greed forces the Professor to get rid of it. Refusing to destroy it, Smith takes it back to the alien ship, but there he summons a servant to tend to his needs. The machine instead conjures a menacing mummy-like creature who tries to take the machine away. Guest star: Dawson Palmer (Rubberoid) 12 12 'The Raft' Sobey Martin Peter Packer December 1, 1965 ( 1965-12-01) Major West and the Professor build a one-man space capsule in an attempt to reach help, but when Dr. Smith tampers with the ship, he and Will are accidentally launched into space. The two eventually land on a planet that Smith is convinced is Earth, but Will is not so certain. Will's fears are confirmed when they are captured by a strange plant monster that forces them to tend its garden. Meanwhile, the Robinsons pick up the capsule's signal and confirm it is still on their planet. West and the Professor begin a search to find the Doctor and the boy. Guest star: Dawson Palmer (Bush Creature) 13 13 'One of Our Dogs is Missing' Sutton Roley William Welch December 8, 1965 ( 1965-12-08) After a violent meteor shower, the women and Dr. Smith find the wreck of a spaceship, but whatever was aboard sneaks onto the Jupiter 2 and raids the food supply. Soon, a little dog makes an appearance, but Smith believes it a hostile alien in disguise. Meanwhile, a hairy creature spies the camp and the dog chases after it, but Smith believes the 'alien' canine left to summon an invasion force. As Smith arms himself for war, Judy goes out to look for the dog unaware that the monster is tracking her down. Guest star: Dawson Palmer (Mutant) 14 14 'Attack of the Monster Plants' Justus Addiss William Read Woodfield & Allan Balter December 15, 1965 ( 1965-12-15) The Professor and Major West become trapped in quicksand and cowardly Dr. Smith refuses to help them. Once safe, Don threatens to leave Smith behind once they've drilled enough deutronium fuel to take off. To secure his passage off-world, Smith attempts to steal the fuel, but he soon finds a strange plant which duplicates anything that is put inside its flower — including a canister of fuel. Smith then returns with more than enough fuel for everyone to return to Earth, but the duplicate canister is found to be made of useless vegetable matter. Meanwhile, having absorbed the deutronium, the flowers grow to enormous size and spread everywhere. Attracted by their beauty, Judy is lured closer to a flower and it absorbs her. Later, a plant-controlled clone of Judy appears who steals the rest of the fuel and threatens to kill the real Judy if the Robinsons don't provide more fuel for the hungry plants. Guest star: (Debbie the Bloop/uncredited) 15 15 'Return from Outer Space' Peter Packer December 29, 1965 ( 1965-12-29) Penny, Will and Dr. Smith find an alien machine that beams Penny and her pet Bloop away, but Will manages to bring them back. Despite the Professor telling him to stay away from the machine, Will becomes obsessed with fixing it and has the Robot beam him to Earth. Will arrives in a small town and he tries to contact Alpha Control, but the locals who help him don't buy his stories of being from the Jupiter 2 mission. Back on the alien world (which Will calls 'Priplanus'), the Robot stands by to bring Will back, but Dr. Smith reprograms him for another task which appears destined to strand Will on Earth. Guest stars: (Aunt Clara), (Sheriff Baxendale), (Davey Sims), (Ruth Templeton [as Sheila Mathews]), (Phone Operator Rachel), (Lacy), (Grover), Ann Dore (First Select-Person), Keith Taylor (Theodore), Johnny Tuchy (First Boy), (Debbie the Bloop/uncredited) 16 16 'The Keeper: Part 1' Nathan Juran Barney Slater January 12, 1966 ( 1966-01-12) Dr. Smith falls into a trance and walks into a glass cage where a monster comes and attacks him. A mysterious man suddenly appears and teleports the creature away. Later the man approaches the Robinsons and identifies himself as 'The Keeper' — a collector of animal specimens from across the galaxy. It soon becomes clear that The Keeper plans to add the family to his exhibition when he asks Major West and Judy to come with him. Smith however, asks the alien for a ride to Earth where he can find all the humans he wants, but The Keeper has no interest and turns his sights on Will and Penny. Using the mesmerizing power of a strange staff, The Keeper tries to lure the children onto his spaceship and into cages. Guest stars: (Keeper), (Lighted Head) Note: Michael Rennie and Jonathan Harris previously starred in as and Bradford Webster respectively. 17 17 'The Keeper: Part 2' Barney Slater January 19, 1966 ( 1966-01-19) Continuing the story from the last episode: Dr. Smith and the Robot sneak aboard The Keeper's ship where Smith tampers with the control systems and unwittingly releases a horde of monsters that escape onto the planet. Furious, The Keeper demands the Robinsons hand over Will and Penny, or he will let his creatures remain free to tear them apart. Both the Professor and Maureen, as well as Major West and Judy, offer themselves in their place, but The Keeper refuses them. Soon, The Keeper is injured during the escape of his most hideous monster and the Robinsons are left to deal with the beast themselves. Guest star: (Keeper) 18 18 'The Sky Pirate' Sobey Martin Carey Wilber January 26, 1966 ( 1966-01-26) While the Professor and Major West investigate a landed alien ship, Will and Dr. Smith are captured by a pirate named Tucker and his mechanical parrot Nick. Smith has the Robot attack the pirate who runs off with Will as his prisoner. Will however, quickly befriends Tucker and becomes envious of the pirate life after hearing some of Tucker's exciting tales. Tucker makes Will his first mate and has him swear the pirate oath. Later, Tucker strikes a deal with the Robinsons to return Will unharmed if they help fix his broken ship. The Professor agrees, but soon another ship arrives and releases a blob creature that begins stalking Tucker for his treasure – a device that forecasts the future. Guest star: (Alonzo P. Tucker) 19 19 'Ghost in Space' Don Richardson Peter Packer February 2, 1966 ( 1966-02-02) While drilling for fuel, Dr. Smith sets off an explosive in the wrong part of a bog and unleashes an invisible presence that begins prowling around. Later, Smith makes a and conducts a to contact his deceased Uncle Thaddeus. During the ceremony, the unseen force arrives and rampages around the Robinsons' camp leaving Smith believing it is the angry ghost of his uncle. When it is discovered that the entity can be trapped, and leaves behind three-toed footprints, the Professor and Major West believe it is something more real than supernatural – a dimensional creature that feeds off raw energy, and it is hungry for the Jupiter 2's vital power reserves. Guest star: Dawson Palmer (Bog Monster/Uncredited) 20 20 'War of the Robots' Sobey Martin Barney Slater February 9, 1966 ( 1966-02-09) Will and the robot stumble upon another robot. More capable than their own robot the alien robot works to gain the confidence of the Robinsons. At a critical point he plans to transport them to his home planet as slaves. Note: does not appear in this episode. 21 21 'The Magic Mirror' Nathan Juran Jackson Gillis February 16, 1966 ( 1966-02-16) Seeking shelter from a storm, Penny and Dr. Smith find a large mirror made of precious metal and Smith becomes obsessed with its potential value. After her pet bloop Debbie enters the mirror and returns with a bell, Penny tries the same trick but accidentally falls inside the mirror and into a pocket dimension. There, she meets a young boy who tells her that behind the mirror they can always have fun and stay as children forever. Penny, however, desperately tries to get out, and to make matters worse a hideous creature begins to stalk her. Smith tries to dismantle the mirror, not knowing he could trap Penny inside forever. Guest star: (The Boy), (Debbie the Bloop/uncredited) Note: does not appear in this episode until the episode-ending cliffhanger. 22 22 'The Challenge' Don Richardson Barney Slater March 2, 1966 ( 1966-03-02) Will and Dr. Smith are confronted by a young boy named Quano who is from a race of disciplined warriors. He explains he has been put on the Robinsons' hostile planet to prove his bravery, because one day he will take his father's place as ruler of his people. As part of his test, he is to challenge someone to a contest of strength and skill and he picks Will as his opponent. Meanwhile, Dr. Smith eavesdrops on Quano and his father and learns that if Will beats him the father will cover up his humiliating failure by destroying any witnesses – i.e., the Robinsons. Smith then tries to strike a deal with Quano to ensure Will fails the contest in exchange for a ride back to Earth. Guest stars: (The Ruler), (Quano) 23 23 'The Space Trader' Nathan Juran Barney Slater March 9, 1966 ( 1966-03-09) A freak storm destroys the Robinsons' garden and condenser unit, forcing the family to ration protein pills. Smith and Will soon find a series of alien advertising signs which lead them and to an outdoor bazaar run by a space trader. The trader shows them incredible wares and tasty food from around the galaxy, but the greedy businessman's prices are too high for the Robinsons who require every vital piece of equipment they have. Smith, on the other hand, is willing to trade anything for a decent meal, including the Robot. Learning of the unauthorized sale, the Professor orders Smith to get the Robot back, and in doing so, the trader tricks the doctor into signing himself over as a slave. When the Robinsons learn the merchant has a weather-controlling machine, they realize they have been swindled and try to get Dr. Guest star: (Trader) 24 24 'His Majesty Smith' Harry Harris Carey Wilber March 16, 1966 ( 1966-03-16) Will finds a golden crown and, putting it on, he summons an entourage of people who hail him as the new king of the planet Andronica. The aliens explain they leave a crown out in the open whenever they need a new leader and whoever finds it gets the job. Believing the position is too much for a boy, Smith convinces Will to surrender the crown to him. Smith gets the royal treatment but soon discovers his subjects are androids under the control of a mad scientist who plans to sacrifice Smith and rid the galaxy of a useless being. In the meantime, the man makes a good-natured clone of Smith whose kindness and hard work causes the Robinsons to suspect something isn't right and the real Smith must be in grave danger. Guest stars: (Nexus), (The Master) 25 25 'The Space Croppers' Sobey Martin Peter Packer March 30, 1966 ( 1966-03-30) Will, Penny and Dr. Smith are attacked by a and they set out to track the beast down. The footprints lead them to a family of farmers who seem to worship the strange plants they raise. A feud begins to brew when the Robinsons learn the aliens are stealing equipment, and Judy becomes jealous when the farmer's daughter Effra flirts with Don. Meanwhile, Smith is charmed by the mother, Sybilla, and proposes to her, but only to weasel a ride back to Earth. Soon however, Smith becomes horrified when he learns Sybilla and her daughter are witches and his future stepson Keel becomes a hairy beast under a full moon. Guest stars: (Sybilla), (Effra), Dawson Palmer (Keel/Werewolf) 26 26 'All That Glitters' Harry Harris Barney Slater April 6, 1966 ( 1966-04-06) Penny encounters an interstellar fugitive named Ohan whom she helps, and he gives her a talking disc that leads to a great treasure. Soon a galactic law man named Bolix arrives looking for Ohan, but the disc is what he's really after. Smith learns of the disc and follows it to the treasure – a box containing a metal collar that turns anything he touches into pure platinum. Smith's quickly becomes a curse when the collar won't come off and he accidentally turns Penny into a platinum statue. Guest stars: (Bolix), (Ohan), Theodore Lehmann (Voice), (Monster #1), Dawson Palmer (Monster #2) 27 27 'The Lost Civilization' Don Richardson William Welch April 13, 1966 ( 1966-04-13) During a search for water, the Professor, Major West, Will and the Robot find the remains of an ancient city deep inside a cave. Soon an earthquake hits, and Will and the Robot fall down a pit that leads to an underground world. The Professor and West try to rescue them, but they are captured by a group of soldiers and brought before their leader. Meanwhile, Will finds a little sleeping princess and he awakens her with a kiss. Once awake, she tells Will that he will fulfill a thousand-year-old prophecy where he becomes her consort and she leads an invasion army that will take over the universe – starting with planet Earth. Guest stars: (Princess), (Major Domo), Dawson Palmer (Soldier) 28 28 'A Change of Space' Sobey Martin Peter Packer April 20, 1966 ( 1966-04-20) Will and Dr. Smith find a strange alien spaceship that the Robot states is capable of traveling anywhere in the universe. Later, Will goes inside the craft, but the hatch closes and the ship takes him on a wild ride into the sixth dimension. Mutated by exposure to the cosmic forces, Will returns with super-human intelligence. Hoping a ride in the ship will give him similar mental prowess, Smith takes off next, but he instead returns a fragile old man and blames Will for his predicament. Will then uses his advanced intellect to find a way to revert Smith's condition, but soon a scaly alien arrives angry that his ship has been tampered with. Guest star: Frank Graham (Alien) 29 29 'Follow the Leader' Don Richardson Barney Slater April 27, 1966 ( 1966-04-27) While exploring a cave containing ancient artifacts, the Professor finds a tomb and encounters a ghostly entity named Canto who slowly possesses his mind. When he returns to the ship, he exhibits hostility and fatigue which Dr. Smith believes is the beginning of a mental breakdown. Meanwhile, the entity gives the Professor the technical knowledge to repair the Jupiter 2 so it can leave the planet. Once the family learns their father may be under the influence of an alien, they try to stop him, but time is running out as the being's control over their father grows stronger. Guest star: Gregory Morton (Alien Voice) Note: This was the last episode aired in black and white, with the cliff-hanger ending in color to transition the series being broadcast in color beginning with the first episode of the second season. Season 2: 1966–67 [ ] No. In series No. In season Title Directed by Written by Original air date 30 1 'Blast Off into Space' Nathan Juran Peter Packer September 14, 1966 ( 1966-09-14) Dr. Smith and Will encounter an intergalactic prospector named Nerim who is mining for Cosmonium, a substance he claims is the most valuable material in the universe and that it contains the force of life. Unfortunately, Nerim's subterranean blasting has caused the core of the planet to become unstable and the Robinsons rush to get the Jupiter 2 ready for departure. Meanwhile, Smith plays Nerim in a card game and gambles for some of the Cosmonium, but instead he ends up losing a vital component for the Jupiter 2 which could hinder the Robinsons' escape. Guest star: (Nerim) Note: This is the first color episode of the series. 31 2 'Wild Adventure' Don Richardson William Read Woodfield & Allan Balter September 21, 1966 ( 1966-09-21) Claiming he has found the way to Earth, Dr. Smith tampers with the navigation controls and inadvertently dumps all the Jupiter 2's reserve fuel supply. Hope is shattered when the Professor locates an Earth fuel barge but the tanks are found nearly empty. Meanwhile, Smith begins to see a beautiful, green-skinned woman floating outside the viewports who sings his name, but no one believes his wild story until the girl lures him outside the ship. With the little fuel they have squeezed from the barge, the family is forced to make the decision to save Dr. Smith and miss their chance of returning to Earth. Guest star: (Lorelei – Her name is changed to Athena when she returns in 'The Girl from the Green Dimension'). 32 3 'The Ghost Planet' Nathan Juran Peter Packer September 28, 1966 ( 1966-09-28) The Jupiter 2 is pulled down to a strange planet that Dr. Smith believes is Earth. Soon, a friendly voice makes contact and identifies itself as 'Space Control', but the Robinsons are suspicious. After landing, they send the Robot out to investigate, but Smith impatiently tries to make contact himself. Expecting a big welcome party, Smith instead is approached by a group of androids and their robot leader who demands he surrender all weapons and offers a treasure if he complies. Driven by greed, Smith steals the Robinsons' weapons and hands them over, but the robot tricks him and forces him to work on a laborious assembly line. Guest stars: Dawson Palmer (Cyborg), Sue England (Space Control), (Summit) 33 4 'Forbidden World' Don Richardson Barney Slater October 5, 1966 ( 1966-10-05) After evading an alien missile, the Jupiter 2 suffers damage and the Robinsons are once again forced down on an unknown world. Smith sends the Robot out to investigate the mist-shrouded planet and when it doesn't return, the Professor forces Smith to go out and search for it with Will sneaking out to join him. After finding the Robot, Smith and Will encounter a hostile, reclusive hermit named Tiabo, who pretends to be part of an alien army in hopes of frightening the Robinsons away. Meanwhile, Smith becomes a human bomb when he consumes what he thinks is an exquisite drink, only to learn it was an explosive liquid. Guest stars: (Tiabo), (Monster) 34 5 'Space Circus' Harry Harris Bob & Wanda Duncan October 12, 1966 ( 1966-10-12) Dr. Smith, Will and Penny encounter a charismatic entertainer named Dr. Marvello who operates an intergalactic circus. Although dismayed to learn that there are only the seven castaways to entertain, Marvello puts on a show anyway. Hoping the troupe will swing by Earth, Smith tries to join them with a song and dance routine, but the ringleader's interest is in young Will who exhibits amazing powers of conjuration. Marvello then offers Smith the job of being Will's manager if he can coax the boy into joining the show. Guest stars: (Dr. Marvello), (Fenestra), Harry Varteresian (Vicho), Michael Greene (Nubu), Dawson Palmer (Monster) 35 6 'The Prisoners of Space' Nathan Juran Barney Slater October 19, 1966 ( 1966-10-19) An alien from a galactic tribunal appears at the Robinsons' camp carrying a talking computer that accuses the family of committing crimes in space – namely their previous trespassing aboard an alien ship and leaving junk in space when the Professor lost tools while repairing the Jupiter 2. The aliens hold the family behind an energy containment wall and then summon them one at a time to give their testimony of what really happened. The aliens soon realize Dr. Smith is the only guilty one who caused the problems and threaten to imprison him. The Robinsons, however, sign a petition to excuse Smith by reason of insanity. Guest stars: Dawson Palmer (Monster), Gregory Morton (Judge Iko (voice/uncredited)). Note: This episode is often mistaken for a clip show but only about five minutes is taken filling up time by showing scenes from only two previous episodes. 36 7 'The Android Machine' Don Richardson Bob & Wanda Duncan October 26, 1966 ( 1966-10-26) Dr. Smith finds an alien vending machine and unintentionally orders a servant android named Verda. Smith however, becomes annoyed with the android and passes her off to Will and Penny to befriend. Soon, a celestial department store manager named Mr. Zumdish arrives and notifies Smith that the payment for Verda is past due, but Smith refuses to pay claiming Verda is defective merchandise. Zumdish demands Verda back, but the Robinsons refuse to hand her over believing she has developed human feelings and is no longer a piece of merchandise. Guest stars: Dawson Palmer (Monster), (Verda), (Mr. Zumdish), Tiger Joe Marsh (Elevator Operator) 37 8 'The Deadly Games of Gamma 6' Harry Harris Barney Slater November 2, 1966 ( 1966-11-02) After Professor Robinson defeats a gladiatorial brute in hand-to-hand combat, he is approached by an intergalactic fight promoter who requests he enter his games. The Professor refuses, but after Dr. Smith learns a fighter could stand to earn riches beyond imagination if they win, he tries to enter the games himself – but only after cutting a deal to face what he believes is the weakest opponent. Meanwhile, Major West and the Professor eavesdrop on the promoter and learn that if Smith should lose the match, he dooms Earth to alien invasion. Guest stars: (Myko), Harry Monty (Geoo), (Alien Leader), Ronald Weber (Gromack/uncredited), (Alien Fighter/uncredited) 38 9 'The Thief from Outer Space' Don Richardson Jackson Gillis November 9, 1966 ( 1966-11-09) Will and Dr. Smith are attacked by an thief and they run back to the safety of the Jupiter 2. No one, however, believes the story of their encounter, especially Penny – that is until she, Will and Smith are whisked away in a spaceship to a nearby asteroid where the thief has set up his camp. Penny is put to work tending a furnace while the thief recruits Will to help him find his lost love – a princess he believes is trapped somewhere back on the Robinsons' planet. Meanwhile, Smith is mistaken as the return of the cruel who imprisoned the princess and the thief vows revenge against him. Guest stars: (Thief), (Slave), (Fat Princess/uncredited) 39 10 'Curse of Cousin Smith' Justin Addiss Barney Slater November 16, 1966 ( 1966-11-16) Dr. Smith flees in terror when his estranged cousin, Colonel Jeremiah Smith, has tracked him down and pays him a visit. Although the Robinsons show Jeremiah hospitality, Dr. Smith adamantly refuses to see his relative. Everyone thinks Dr. Smith is being rude, until they learn that the cousin is trying to kill him because the last surviving member of the Smith family will get their late Aunt Maude's fortune. The Professor forces the two cousins to a truce, but Jeremiah cons Dr. Smith into gambling away the inheritance on a robotic slot machine. The scheme backfires, however, when the machine tries to kill one of them for the payment. Guest stars: (Jeremiah), (Little Joe(voice)/Gambling Machine(voice)/uncredited) 40 11 'West of Mars' Nathan Juran Michael Fessier November 30, 1966 ( 1966-11-30) Dr. Smith is accosted by an interstellar gunslinger named Zeno, who happens to be his mirror-double. Zeno forces Smith to swap clothes and has him arrested by a galactic lawman. While Zeno hides out among the Robinsons, Smith is taken to another planet to stand trial and Will is brought along as a material witness. Once at the planet, Smith and Will manage to escape the lawman and find a town full of residents who fear the real Zeno, and Smith takes advantage of the mistaken identity. When another gunslinger arrives to challenge Zeno, however, Smith's cowardice blows his cover. Fleeing back to the Robinsons' planet, Smith returns with the lawman right behind him, but a problem arises when no one can tell Zeno and Dr. Guest stars: (Space Enforcer Claudio), Ken Mayer (Pleiades Pete), (Dee), (Barfly/uncredited), Eddie Quinian (Bartender/uncredited), Charles Arthur (Smith's Double/uncredited) 41 12 'A Visit to Hades' Don Richardson Carey Wilber December 7, 1966 ( 1966-12-07) When Will and Dr. Smith find a golden lyre, Smith strums it and is transported to a hell-like place filled with fire and brimstone. There, a devilish man named Morbus presents a review of Smith's devious life and promises eternal damnation if he doesn't change his ways. Morbus lets the terrified Smith go, but only if he agrees to destroy the harp. Smith is happy to do so, but his attempt ends up releasing Morbus from his fiery dimension. Once free, Morbus meets Judy and quickly takes a liking to her which annoys Major West. Meanwhile, Smith learns Morbus isn't the Devil, but an alien, and the dimension is a prison that the harp provides access to. Smith tries to return Morbus back to the prison, but in doing so he unwittingly sends Judy there as well. West then threatens to rip Smith's head off if he doesn't figure out how to get Judy back. Guest star: (Morbus) ' Note: This is the only episode broadcast on CBS prime time on three occasions. Twice during the second season, and the third time as the final episode of the third season. This episode was a cast and crew favorite. Mark Goddard was injured making this episode. [ ] 42 13 'Wreck of the Robot' Nathan Juran Barney Slater December 14, 1966 ( 1966-12-14) Dr. Smith, Will and the Robot find a cave where they encounter shadowy beings who demand the Robot be given to them to examine. The three flee back to the Jupiter 2 where aliens project a message to Professor Robinson with an offer to buy the Robot, but he refuses to sell. When the aliens threaten to harm the family, the Robot voluntarily gives himself up for their experiment. The beings end up taking the Robot apart and then later dump his parts in a heap on the Robinsons' doorstep. Will rebuilds the Robot, but suddenly everything mechanical around the ship goes haywire. The Robot warns that the aliens are building a weapon that controls machinery and the Robinsons must stop their evil plans. Guest stars: Jim Mills (Saticon #1/uncredited), John Hunt (Saticon #2/uncredited), Paul Kessler (Saticon #3/uncredited) Trivia: Years before the from coined the phrase 'Resistance is futile,' the Saticon told the Robot 'Resistance would be futile.' 43 14 'The Dream Monster' Don Richardson Peter Packer December 21, 1966 ( 1966-12-21) Penny encounters an android named Raddion and its creator, Sesmar, who is intrigued with her feelings for beauty and compassion and wishes to instill such qualities upon his machine. Sesmar tests the Robinsons' feelings with a special camera he gives Dr. Smith, and then tricks the family into entering his lab where he drains the emotions from their minds and leaves them irritable and lazy people. Major West, who refused to participate in the experiment, has to team up with his nemesis Dr. Smith to stop the mad scientist and return the Robinsons to normal. Guest stars: (Sesmar), Dawson Palmer (Android Raddion), (First Midget Android/uncredited), (Second Midget Android/uncredited) 44 15 'The Golden Man' Don Richardson Barney Slater December 28, 1966 ( 1966-12-28) While the men are off exploring the planet, the women and Dr. Smith are approached by a handsome golden-skinned man named Keema, who offers them extravagant gifts and friendship. Keema explains he is at war with a belligerent and hostile, frog-headed alien that Penny and Dr. Smith had encountered earlier. Despite Keema's hospitality, Penny distrusts him and goes to talk to the frog. She finds the creature a more likable being who simply wishes to survive and fights only to preserve his people. Meanwhile, the golden man asks Smith for the Robinsons' weapons, and in return he offers Smith a lift back to Earth. Smith foolishly gives the man the weapons, and the alien reveals its true form – a twisted-faced monster who really plans to destroy the Robinsons once he finishes off his enemy. Guest stars: (Keema), (Frog Alien), Bill Troy (Handsome Alien) 45 16 'The Girl from the Green Dimension' Nathan Juran Peter Packer January 4, 1967 ( 1967-01-04) The green space girl Athena – who hypnotized Dr. Smith while the Jupiter 2 traveled through space – returns when Smith finds her with a dimensional telescope. While Athena showers affection upon Smith, a former suitor of hers, Urso, arrives and challenges Smith to a duel. To make sure Smith accepts the challenge, Urso curses innocent Will with green skin and hair. Meanwhile the telescope begins to show glimpses of the future, and Smith becomes terrified when he sees what he believes is his own funeral. Guest stars: (Athena - Her name was changed from Lorelei when she appeared in 'Wild Adventure'), Harry Raybould (Urso) 46 17 'The Questing Beast' Don Richardson Carey Wilbur January 11, 1967 ( 1967-01-11) Dr. Smith and Will encounter a bumbling knight named Sagramonte who is on a great quest to slay a beast called Gundemar. He has been chasing the beast for 40 years across many worlds and Will admires him for his bravery and tries to help him in his quest. Meanwhile, Smith tries to find the Knight's ship in hopes he can get back to Earth, until he learns the Knight travels via magic he does not understand. Later, Penny encounters Gundemar and finds the beast a kind being who she quickly befriends and tries to hide from the knight. Guest stars: (Sagramonte), (Gundemar Voice/uncredited), Jeff County (Gundemar/uncredited) 47 18 'The Toymaker' Robert Douglas Bob & Wanda Duncan January 25, 1967 ( 1967-01-25) Will finds another alien vending machine, but this one appears broken. Smith fiddles with the controls, but he disappears into the machine. Will tries to get him, but he too is teleported away. Will finds himself in a toymaker's shop where he meets Mr. O.M., who thinks Will and Smith are escaped toys and sends a windup monster after them. Outside the machine, the Professor and Major West try to get Will and Smith back, but the machine's owner, Mr. Zumdish of the Celestial Department Store, returns and declares the machine 'outdated' and must be destroyed. Guest stars: (Mr. O.M.), (Zumdish), Tiger Joe Marsh (Security Guard), Larry Dean (Wooden Soldier), Dawson Palmer (Monster) 48 19 'Mutiny in Space' Don Richardson Peter Packer February 1, 1967 ( 1967-02-01) Dr. Smith conducts a rain making experiment, but his device malfunctions and destroys a vital piece of equipment. Fed up with his mischief, Professor Robinson exiles him. While away, Smith finds a crashed spaceship and announces to the Robinsons that he will fix the craft and leave them behind. Smith's plan backfires when he and Will encounter the ship's owner – a bombastic space Admiral named Zahrt who forces Will, Smith and the Robot to repair and crew his vessel. After stealing a propulsion unit from the Robinsons, Zhart blasts off to seek revenge against his former mutinous crew who stranded him on the planet. Guest star: (Admiral Zahrt) 49 20 'The Space Vikings' Margaret Brookman Hill February 8, 1967 ( 1967-02-08) While reciting lines for a play, Dr. Smith summons a pair of magical gloves and the golden hammer of. Smith then encounters Thor's wife Brynhilda, who takes him to upon a winged horse. Soon, Will arrives with Thor who has been searching for the gloves and hammer, but Brynhilda claims the hammer has chosen Smith to replace Thor as the warrior deity. Infuriated, Thor challenges Smith to a duel to the death. Terrified that he will be killed, Smith tries to use psychology on Thor, who breaks down admitting that he feels washed up and is unable to fight again. Now Will and Smith must give Thor his confidence back when a group of Titans arrive and threaten to destroy his kingdom. Guest stars: (Brynhilda), Bern Hoffman (Thor), (Troll of Niffelheim/uncredited), (Troll of Niffelheim/uncredited), John Hunt (Hairy Beast/uncredited) 50 21 'Rocket to Earth' Don Richardson Barney Slater February 15, 1967 ( 1967-02-15) Dr. Smith thinks he is going mad when he encounters a magician named Zalto who only he can see. The Robot, however, confirms the Magician's presence and leads Smith and Will to his secret lair. There, Smith learns Zalto has his own spaceship and the wizard plans to promote himself by using the craft to destroy an asteroid with the resulting explosion spelling his name among the stars. Smith volunteers to be Zalto's apprentice so he can swindle his way aboard the ship and take it back to Earth. When Smith boards the craft, Zalto pushes Will inside with him and launches the ship. As planned, Smith goes to Earth, but thinking they are hostile aliens, Earth defense launches missiles at them. Guest star: (Magician), Bob May (Dummy's Voice) 51 22 'The Cave of the Wizards' Don Richardson Peter Packer February 22, 1967 ( 1967-02-22) While the Robinsons prepare the Jupiter 2 for lift off, Dr. Smith has an accident and suffers amnesia. He is then lured to a cave where he finds an ancient computer that manifests anything he desires. When Will fetches Smith for take off, he finds him physically transformed into a silver-skinned being named Oniak whose mind is being filled with alien knowledge. Later, the Professor and Major West try to convince Smith to return, but they find him completely taken over by the alien presence who refuses to leave the planet. With minutes before lift off, the Robinsons give up hope of returning Smith, but Will sneaks away determined to bring him back. Guest stars: Larry Dean (Mummy/uncredited), (Alien on Computer Screen (voice)/uncredited), John Hunt (Gog - First Rock Monster/uncredited), Paul Kessler (Magog - Second Rock Monster/uncredited), (Computer Eye (voice)/uncredited), (Computer Brain (voice)/uncredited) 52 23 'Treasure of the Lost Planet' Harry Harris Carey Wilber March 1, 1967 ( 1967-03-01) While Will and Penny learn the rules of roulette from Dr. Smith, Penny finds the entrance to a secret cave. Captain Tucker the space pirate returns in search of a mechanical head-in-a-box that thinks Dr. Smith is its former master – the late pirate 'Billy Bones'. Hot on the trail of Bones' treasure, Tucker lies in wait for the head to reveal the location to Smith. Tucker's impatient crew, however, wants the treasure now and forces Smith to lead them to it, but the head doesn't cooperate and puts Smith's life in danger. Meanwhile, Will, who admired Tucker, becomes disappointed when he learns he has taken up with bad company again when he promised to lead an honest living the last time they met. Guest stars: (Alonzo P. Tucker), Jim Boles (Smeek), Craig Duncan (Deek/uncredited), Dawson Palmer (Izrulan/uncredited) 53 24 'Revolt of the Androids' Don Richardson Bob & Wanda Duncan March 8, 1967 ( 1967-03-08) While Dr. Smith, Will and the Robot searching for, they encounter a super-android who identifies himself as IDAK (Instant Destroyer and Killer) and walks around shouting 'Crush! Thinking the machine could be useful to him, Smith tries to draw up a service contract. Meanwhile, the female android Verda returns to the Robinsons after escaping a disassembly order, and she warns them of the android that was sent to destroy her. When IDAK detects Verda's presence, he goes after her, but the family is determined to save Verda by playing off the destroyer's human emotions. Unbeknownst to everyone, a second IDAK – one stronger and unsusceptible to human feelings – is sent to replace the flawed IDAK. Guest stars: (Verda), (IDAK Alpha 12), Dawson Palmer (IDAK Omega 17) 54 25 'The Colonists' Ezra Stone Peter Packer March 15, 1967 ( 1967-03-15) While the Robinsons set up an array of radio dishes, a harsh feedback noise sounds though the system and fries all communications. A woman's voice, that orders them to surrender, is the only thing they can hear. The Robinson children and the Robot are then taken prisoner by alien guards while the adults are approached by a warrior woman named Niolani who has the men taken as slaves. Niolani has the men build her a transport arch so that her people can come to the world and colonize it as part of her female-dominated empire. Meanwhile, Will and Robot come up with a plan to sabotage the arch so everyone can escape. Guest stars: (Niolani), Dave Dunlap (First Alien Guard/uncredited), Erwin Niel (Second Alien Guard/uncredited), Orwin C. Harvey (Third Alien Guard/uncredited), Seymour Konic (Fourth Alien Guard/uncredited) 55 26 'Trip Through the Robot' Don Richardson Barney Slater March 22, 1967 ( 1967-03-22) Dr. Smith's carelessness causes a vital power unit to overload and the Professor orders a power ration until the system can be repaired; this means not recharging the Robot who is critically low on power. The depressed Robot uses his remaining power to go off and die alone, but Will refuses to let him go and he and Smith track him down into a dangerous area of unstable atmosphere. There, the two are shocked when they find the bizarre gases of the area have caused the Robot to grow to the size of a house. Will and Smith then venture inside the massive robot in hopes of stabilizing his power systems and returning him to normal size. 56 27 'The Phantom Family' Ezra Stone Peter Packer March 29, 1967 ( 1967-03-29) While the Professor and his wife are off exploring, the Jupiter 2 camp comes under attack by an alien force. Will tries to get a message through to his parents at a relay station, but when he returns to the ship, he finds Dr. Smith, Major West, Penny and Judy acting strangely and the Robot damaged. Will then finds a cave and encounters an alien named Lemnoc who has created android duplicates of the family while the real members have been put into stasis. Will demands their release, but Lemnoc wants him to teach his androids to act as humans. Will agrees to help, but Lemnoc has a devious plan for his androids to steal the Jupiter 2. Guest star: (Lemnoc) 57 28 'The Mechanical Men' Barney Slater April 5, 1967 ( 1967-04-05) Dr. Smith causes another accident, and once again the Professor banishes him from the camp. While spending the night in the wilderness, Smith is accosted by dozens of tiny robots who hold him prisoner. The mechanical men then approach the Robinsons and demand their Robot come to them to be their great leader. The Robot complies, but the sinister mechanical men find him too kind and tolerant for their needs. Preferring Smith's treachery and ruthlessness, they transfer Smith's personality to the Robot's body and vice versa. Now Smith-minded Robot commands an unstoppable mechanical army on a mission to seize the Jupiter 2 from the Robinsons, while the Robot-minded Dr. Smith feels he is obligated to stop them himself. Guest star: (Purple Robot/uncredited) 58 29 'The Astral Traveller' Don Richardson Carey Wilber April 12, 1967 ( 1967-04-12) Seeking shelter from a storm, Will and Dr. Smith enter a cave, but the opening collapses and traps them inside. Searching for a way out, Will finds a revolving door which leads to a Scottish castle back on Earth. There, Will is chased by a terrifying monster and later encounters a mischievous ghost named Hamish who follows Will back to the Robinsons' planet where he appears in the flesh. The Robinsons reopen the portal for him and Dr. Smith volunteers to go through as well to contact Alpha Control, but his stay on Earth is short once Hamish learns an ancestor of Smith was responsible for his ghostly curse and he tries to exact revenge upon him. Guest stars: (Hamish), Dawson Palmer (Angus/uncredited) Note: does not appear in this episode, as only his voice is heard. 59 30 'The Galaxy Gift' Ezra Stone Barney Slater April 26, 1967 ( 1967-04-26) While Dr. Smith, Penny and Will conduct a play, a sickly alien named Arcon appears and begs for help. Penny takes him back to the Jupiter 2 to rest, but soon a trio of aliens called the Saticons appear and demand Arcon surrender to them. Penny refuses to betray her new friend and the Saticons turn down the heat in an attempt to freeze the Robinsons to death. Arcon decides to leave, but he gives Penny his magic belt for safekeeping. Smith then goes to the Saticons to inform them that Arcon has left, but the aliens know Penny has the belt and offer Smith the use of their molecular transporter to beam himself back to Earth if he gets it for them. Smith schemes to hand off a forgery of the belt instead, but unbeknownst to him, the aliens really plan to transport him to a duplicate of on a lifeless asteroid. Guest stars: (Arcon), Jim Mills (Saticon #1), John Hunt (Saticon #2/(uncredited), Paul Kessler (Saticon #3/uncredited), (Monster Fly/uncredited), (Debbie the Bloop/uncredited) Season 3: 1967–68 [ ] No. In series No. In season Title Directed by Written by Original air date 60 1 'Condemned of Space' Nathan Juran Peter Packer September 6, 1967 ( 1967-09-06) A comet threatens to impact the Robinson's planet and the family is forced to make a hasty escape in the Jupiter 2. Once in flight, Dr. Smith fools with the airlock controls and accidentally sends The Robot into space. Next, the Jupiter 2 docks with an alien spaceship and the Professor and Major West venture inside and reunite with the Robot. They soon realize the ship is an automated prison filled with alien felons in suspended animation. Once again, Smith tampers with controls he doesn't understand and releases a dangerous prisoner who tries to free the other inmates and take over the ship. Guest stars: (Phanzig), Duke Fishman (Convict/uncredited), Ben Frommer (Convict/uncredited), Eldon Hansen (Robot Guard/uncredited), Lars Hensen (Convict/uncredited), Mike Morelli (Convict/uncredited), (Convict/uncredited), (Robot/uncredited) Note: This was the first episode featuring a live action opening credit sequence accompanied with new theme music and to conclude with a teaser of highlights from the next week's episode rather than the previous two seasons freeze style conclusion. 61 2 'Visit to a Hostile Planet' Sobey Martin Peter Packer September 13, 1967 ( 1967-09-13) The Jupiter 2 is caught in a space warp and accelerates on a wild ride. Once it's over, the Robinsons are shocked to see planet Earth lingering before them. There is no contact with Alpha Control, but the Professor decides to land anyway and sets the ship down in a small town which they find strangely deserted. Turning on a radio, the Professor learns they have time warped to the year 1947 and the townsfolk think they have been invaded by aliens. Meanwhile, Dr. Smith believes he can make a fortune advancing the technology of the backward era and, disguised as a fire chief, he tries to lead a vigilante force to take the Robinsons prisoner. Guest stars: (Joe Cragmire), Pitt Herbert (Grover), Claire Wilcox (Stacy), Norman Leavitt (Charlie), (Craig), (Car Radio Announcer/uncredited) 62 3 'Kidnapped in Space' Don Richardson Robert Hamner September 20, 1967 ( 1967-09-20) Dr. Smith intercepts a distress call from an alien ship that asks for medical assistance and promising a 'great reward' to whoever helps. Smith and the Robot take the and board the alien craft where they find a crew of androids who take Smith to their sick leader – a malfunctioning computerized brain. Smith realizes he is in over his head and tries to leave, but the androids threaten to kill him if he backs out. The Robot comes to the rescue stating he can fix the computer, but he refuses once he learns the brain is evil and wants to take over the universe. Meanwhile, the androids capture the Jupiter 2 and threaten to kill the Robinsons if the Robot doesn't conduct the repairs. Guest stars: (Alien #764), Carol Williams (Alien #1220), Maritza Elsen (Alien Soldier #1/uncredited), Jeffrey Trayler (Alien Soldier #2/uncredited), Craig Chudy (Alien Soldier #3/uncredited), Rita Fabotta (Alien Soldier #4/uncredited), Joey Russo (Young Smith/uncredited) 63 4 'Hunter's Moon' Don Richardson Jack Turley September 27, 1967 ( 1967-09-27) Professor Robinson and the Robot head out in the to investigate a nearby planet. After landing, the Professor kills a hostile creature and he is quickly approached by a furious alien named Megazor who claims he has cost him points in an intergalactic hunt by killing the beast. The alien hunter then decides the Professor will make a more valuable target and has him prepare himself to survive as the target for the next hunt. Back on the Jupiter 2, Dr. Smith refuses to risk a rescue of the Professor and tries to force the ship back to Earth. He instead fouls the controls and causes a crash landing. Once again, the Robinson family is stranded on an alien world. Guest star: (Megazor), (Invisibo/uncredited), Jim Mills (Voices/uncredited), (Robot Judge Voice/uncredited) 64 5 'The Space Primevals' Nathan Juran Peter Packer October 4, 1967 ( 1967-10-04) While the Jupiter 2 is threatened by lava flows from an erupting volcano, Major West and a reluctant Dr. Smith are on a mission in the to cap the mountain with a nuclear explosive. Arriving at the site, the two are accosted by a tribe of cavemen who worship an ancient computer, Protinius, that gives the chief strange powers. Major West tries to warn them of the danger the volcano poses, but the chief has him and Smith sealed up inside a cave. As the oxygen runs out, Smith and West try to reconcile their differences as the end draws near. Meanwhile, the Professor, Will and the Robot mount a rescue, with the Robot challenging the computer as the mechanical leader of the tribe. Guest star: (Rangah) 65 6 'Space Destructors' Don Richardson Robert Hamner October 11, 1967 ( 1967-10-11) After Dr. Smith, Will and the Robot find a cave full of strange machinery, Smith fiddles with the controls and creates a faceless android that chases him back to the ship. The Professor destroys the android and has Smith confined to his quarters. Later Smith sneaks back to the cave to make more androids. This time, however, they are not only programmed to serve Smith, they look just like him. When Will learns of Smith's personal army, he tries to stop him, but Will becomes trapped in the android machine and emerges as a Smith-faced android programmed with the twisted desire to control the universe. Guest star: (Cyborg) Note: This episode was nominated in 1968 for an for Outstanding Individual Achievement in the Visual Arts, Dan Striepeke [ ] 66 7 'The Haunted Lighthouse' Sobey Martin Jackson Gillis October 18, 1967 ( 1967-10-18) Moments before takeoff, Penny encounters an elf-like boy named J-5 who claims to be the last survivor of a doomed colony, and the Robinsons take him with them when they leave. Soon the Jupiter 2 comes upon a remote Earth space station commanded by an eccentric old man, Colonel Silas Fogey, who offers the Robinsons enough fuel to get back to Earth. Unfortunately, he doesn't have enough for them to swing by J-5's world as well. Upset that he won't be going home, J-5 unleashes his imaginary friend Zaybo upon the station and tries to steal the Jupiter 2. Guest stars: (J-5), (Col. Silas Fogey), Kenya Coburn (Zaybo), Zamba (The Lion/uncredited) 67 8 'Flight into the Future' Sobey Martin Peter Packer October 25, 1967 ( 1967-10-25) Dr. Smith, Will and the Robot are accidentally launched away in the and land on a nearby planet. The family chases after them but crash lands nearby in a barren desert. Meanwhile, the pod crew find themselves in a tropical rainforest even though they are only a half-mile from the ship. Feeling sleepy, Smith and Will take a nap, but wake up over 270 years in the future where Will meets a distant relative that looks like Judy. Likewise, Smith meets a great-great-great-great-grandson who blames him for tarnishing the Smith family name. Guest stars: (Commander Fletcher), Don Eitner (Sergeant Smith), John Hunt (First Stone Monster/Spike Monster/uncredited), (Illusion Machine voice/uncredited) 68 9 'Collision of Planets' Don Richardson Peter Packer November 8, 1967 ( 1967-11-08) A group of spaced-out arrive on the Robinson's planet and begin setting up planetary explosives. They claim the planet is on a collision course with their world and they have been tasked to destroy it, leaving the Robinson's little choice but to rush repairs and get the Jupiter 2 back into space. In the meantime, Dr. Smith is exposed to a strange gas and passes out. He later awakens with curly green hair and superhuman strength. Guest stars: (Ilan), (Alien Girl), (Short Alien/uncredited), Steve Merjanian (Muscular Alien/uncredited) 69 10 'The Space Creature' Sobey Martin William Welch November 15, 1967 ( 1967-11-15) The Jupiter 2 is caught in the orbit of a fog-shrouded planet where a gaseous entity creeps aboard. When it learns Will 'just wants to be alone,' people begin to disappear, starting with Maureen, Judy, Penny, Major West then Dr. Eventually the Professor and the Robot vanish and Will finds himself completely alone and terrified. Meanwhile, the others find themselves in a foggy realm and tormented by an evil entity who feeds off their fear. Guest stars: (Creature voice/uncredited), (Id Monster/uncredited), Dawson Palmer (Creature/uncredited) 70 11 'Deadliest of the Species' Sobey Martin Robert Hamner November 22, 1967 ( 1967-11-22) The Robinsons land on a planet and are followed down by a space capsule that crashes nearby. Soon, two androids arrive with orders to take the capsule, but they believe the Robinsons are hiding it and attack them. Meanwhile, the Robot locates the capsule and encounters a female robot. Although she is evil, the Robot begins to fall in love and is easily manipulated to serve her. When she demands a device the Robinsons cannot live without, the Robot's loyalties are tested. Guest stars: (Alien Leader), (Mechanical Man I), Ralph Lee (Mechanical Man II), (Female Robot voice/uncredited) 71 12 'A Day at the Zoo' Irving J. Moore Jackson Gillis November 29, 1967 ( 1967-11-29) Penny encounters a caveboy named Oggo who tries to warn her of an evil zookeeper named Farnum, but she is captured in Farnum's trap and he adds her to his collection of human exhibits. Farnum then captures Major West and Judy, then Dr. Smith, Will and the Robot. When Will and Oggo try to escape, Will and Farnum are knocked through a portal and become trapped on a hostile planet. With Farnum out of the way, Dr. Smith tries to take over the show once he learns how lucrative a space zoo can be. Guest stars: (Farnum), Gary Tigerman (Oggo), Ronald Weber (Mort) Note: does not appear in this episode. 72 13 'Two Weeks in Space' Don Richardson Robert Hamner December 13, 1967 ( 1967-12-13) A group of alien bank robbers, disguised as humans, brainwash the Celestial Department Store manager Mr. Zumdish into thinking he is a galactic tour guide. With the thieves looking for a place to lie low, Zumdish contacts Dr. Smith who learns the 'vacationers' are willing to spend lots of money for some R & R. With the rest of the Robinsons off on a survey mission, Smith turns the empty Jupiter 2 into a 5-star resort with Will as the bellboy and the Robot laboriously filling every other position a hotel needs. Guest stars: (Zumdish), Richard Krisher (MXR), Eric Matthews (QZW), (NON), Carroll Roebke (TAT) 73 14 'Castles in Space' Sobey Martin Peter Packer December 20, 1967 ( 1967-12-20) Major West, Judy, Will, Dr. Smith and the Robot are on a mission to install a radar station when Smith stumbles upon a being frozen in a block of ice. While standing guard, Smith carelessly places a thermal blanket over the ice and it melts releasing an alien princess. Soon, a silver-skinned bounty hunter-desperado named Chavo arrives and holds Will captive under the guard of fake soldiers. Chavo then demands West surrender the ice woman or he will harm the boy. West challenges Chavo to a duel to save to her instead. Guest stars: Alberto Monte (Chavo), (Princess Reyka) 74 15 'The Anti-Matter Man' Sutton Roley K.C. Alison December 27, 1967 ( 1967-12-27) While conducting a power experiment, Professor Robinson brings forth an evil double of himself from a parallel universe. The double takes him back to an anti-matter world where a sinister clone of Major West also exists. Trying to find the Professor, Will and Robot recreate the experiment and venture to the alternate dimension, but they bring back the anti-matter duplicate instead (thinking it's the real Professor). Everyone suspects something is wrong as the Professor acts cruel, demanding, paranoid and casts no shadow. Will then sneaks away to find his real dad, followed by the anti-Professor and later Smith and the robot. After escaping his cage, the real Professor meets up and fights his anti-self, winning and bringing the universe to it's normal state. Guest star: (Alien Monster/uncredited) 75 16 'Target Earth' Nathan Juran Peter Packer January 3, 1968 ( 1968-01-03) While in space, Dr. Smith separates the Robot's upper body from his track section which wheels itself into the and takes off. The Robinsons chase the pod to a nearby planet where it lands amidst an alien city. There, the crew encounter a race of blob creatures that all look the same. Wanting to experience human individuality, the aliens take the form of the crew and hijack the Jupiter 2 on a course for Earth. Will and Smith, having sneaked aboard, try to sabotage the ship and warn Earth that their ship has been taken over by hostile aliens. Guest stars: Jim Gosa (Gilt Proto), Brent Davis (Mike Officer/uncredited), Thant Brann (2nd Officer/uncredited), Ralph Madlener (Proto #2/uncredited), Jeffrey Trayler (Proto #3/uncredited) 76 17 'Princess of Space' Don Richardson Jackson Gillis January 10, 1968 ( 1968-01-10) On a search to find a missing Princess, a space captain named Kraspo believes Penny is the girl he is looking for. Will tries to convince the captain that he's made a mistake, but Penny passes all his tests to verify her identity including feeling a pea hidden under a mattress. Smith learns he could live like royalty serving Penny in her kingdom, he tries to convince the bewildered girl to accept the situation. Meanwhile, Will overhears Kraspo's robotic crew plotting a mutiny to take over during Penny's coronation ceremony. Guest stars: (Kraspo), (Fedor), (Aunt Gamma) 77 18 'Time Merchant' Ezra Stone Bob & Wanda Duncan January 17, 1968 ( 1968-01-17) While conducting an experiment to capture cosmic energy, Will inadvertently traps Chronos, an alien who controls time. Furious at Will for interfering in his business, Chronos forces the boy to return with him to his factory. When Professor Robinson learns what happened, he and the Robot pursue the alien, followed by Dr. When Smith learns Chronos' machine can transport him through space as well as time, he 'steals' a ride back to Earth in 1997, hours before the launch of the Jupiter 2. Chronos warns Robinson that unless Dr. Smith is on board the Jupiter 2 at lift off, the ship will eventually be destroyed by an uncharted asteroid and the Robinsons and Major West will all be killed. Guest star: (Dr. Chronos), (General Squires), Hoke Howell (Sgt. Rogers), (Chronos' Alien Assistant/uncredited), Brett Parker (Security Guard/uncredited) Note: Regulars,, and only appear in flashback sequences in this episode. 78 19 'The Promised Planet' Ezra Stone Peter Packer January 24, 1968 ( 1968-01-24) The Robinsons finally arrive at their destination, the Alpha Centauri system, but they are surprised to find an Earth colony already established there. Another oddity is that it only seems to be populated by teenagers who try to brainwash Penny and Will into rebelling against the 'olders.' Smith snoops around, he discovers the teens are really aliens in human guise, but they give Smith his youth back and make him forget what he saw. The aliens, who never grow older-minded than adolescents, try to discover what makes the human children mature. Guest stars: Gil Rogers (Bartholomew), Keith Taylor (Edgar), (Computer Voice) 79 20 'Fugitives in Space' Ezra Stone Robert Hamner January 31, 1968 ( 1968-01-31) Major West and Dr. Smith encounter an alien fugitive who forcibly swaps his prison shirt for Smith's jacket and flees the scene just as prison guards arrive. West and Smith then find themselves accused of aiding the criminal and stand trial before a computerized judge. Will and the Robot act as their legal council, but the two are found guilty as charged and sent to the notorious prison planet Destructon to serve life sentences. There the two overhear another prisoner's escape plan and Smith is willing to go along with it. West, however, holds on to hope that Will and the Robot can somehow arrange a legal release. Guest stars: (Creech), (Warden), Charles Horvath (Guard #1), John Hunt (Monster #1/uncredited), Ralph Madlener (Monster #2/uncredited) Notes: Regulars,, and do not appear in this episode. This episode had been in production at the same time as Planet of the Apes, and John Chambers' make-up was tested during this episode. Jonathan Harris was offered a part in the movie, but disliked the four-hour make-up process, and turned it down. 80 21 'Space Beauty' Irving J. Moore Jackson Gillis February 14, 1968 ( 1968-02-14) The space traveling showman Farnum B. Returns seeking contestants for a Miss Galaxy pageant and sets his sights on Judy when his mysterious sponsor demands she enter. Judy turns down the offer, but Dr. Smith, knowing he could profit greatly for signing her up, coerces her into signing a contract. When Major West reads the fine-print he learns the winner of the contest must be given over to the sinister being who is made of fire and comes from a dark world without beauty. Guest stars: (Farnum), (Nancy Pi Squared), Miriam Schillar (Miss Teutonium), Ronald Weber (Alien Dictator/uncredited), Jim Mills (Alien Knight #1/uncredited), (Alien Knight #2/uncredited) Note: Regulars and do not appear in this episode. 81 22 'The Flaming Planet' Don Richardson Barney Slater February 21, 1968 ( 1968-02-21) The Jupiter 2 passes through a radiation storm and Dr. Smith's alien plant mutates, growing into an intelligent monster. He dumps it out the airlock, but it attaches to the hull and endangers the ship. The Professor takes the ship into a planet's atmosphere to burn it off the hull, but the inhabitant of the world attacks and drains the ship's energy. Stuck in orbit, Major West forces Smith to go with him down to the planet to talk to the attacker – an alien called the Sobram. The being offers to spare the Jupiter 2 only if the Robot stays behind and plays a wargame with him. Unbeknown to all, the plant creature has made it to the surface and begins to multiply into an army of its own – and becomes a far better challenge for the Sobram. Guest stars: (Sobram), (Small Plant/uncredited), Jerry Traylor (Plant Creature #1/uncredited), John Hunt (Plant Creature #2/uncredited), Paul Kessler (Plant Creature #3/uncredited) 82 23 'The Great Vegetable Rebellion' Don Richardson Peter Packer February 28, 1968 ( 1968-02-28) As the Robinsons celebrate the Robot's birthday, Dr. Smith sneaks off in the to a planet dominated by plants. After pulling a flower, he is accused of murder by Tybo, a carrot-man, who punishes him to an eternity of literal tree-hugging. The family lands to search for Smith and meets a purple-haired botanist named Willoughby who explains that Tybo is the one in charge. After Smith is transformed into a talking stalk of celery, and Penny grows into a flower bed, the Professor and Major West try sabotaging Tybo's moisture-control system to stop the plant tyrant. Guest stars: (Tybo), (Willoughby the ), Jerry Traylor (Plant) Notes: In 1997 ranked this episode number 76 on it's '100 Greatest Episodes of All Time' list. Because of ' and 's inability to control their laughter during filming of this episode, they were put on suspension, explaining why they do not appear in the next episodes to be produced, 'Fugitives in Space' and 'Space Beauty.' 83 24 'Junkyard in Space' Ezra Stone Barney Slater March 6, 1968 ( 1968-03-06) A fire breaks out aboard the Jupiter 2 and the Robinsons must land on a nearby planet to make repairs. They momentarily lose contact with the Robot, who has taken the to scout ahead. Upon landing, the family discovers the entire planet is a massive junkyard run by a strange metallic junkman who has no intention of letting the Robinsons leave. When the ship's food supply becomes contaminated by a 'rust blight,' Dr. Smith bargains with the junkman for food, offering parts from the Robot to replace the junkman's own degrading circuits. The junkman eventually sets his sights on Jupiter 2, and after upgrading himself with the Robot's parts, he steals the ship with Dr. Smith aboard and leaves the Robinsons behind. Will follows in the hoping the Robot's memory banks, now part of the junkman, can influence a change of heart. Guest star: Marcel Hillaire (Junkman) Note: While this episode was in production, the cast and crew were informally made to believe the series had been renewed for a 4th season and indeed at least one script (4th season premiere 'Malice in Space') was written. Some accounts claim as many as five scripts. However, less than two months later, in May 1968, announced they had cancelled the series and no 4th season was produced. [ ] DVD and Blu-ray Releases [ ] Complete box sets of all 3 seasons (and the original pilot film) of the original TV series have been released on DVD in South America, North America, Europe, and Australia. The following sets have been released. DVD set Episodes Release date Lost in Space: Season 1 30 January 13, 2004 Lost in Space: Season 2, Volume 1 16 September 14, 2004 Lost in Space: Season 2, Volume 2 14 November 30, 2004 Lost in Space: Season 3, Volume 1 15 March 1, 2005 Lost in Space: Season 3, Volume 2 9 July 19, 2005 All episodes of Lost in Space were remastered and released on a Blu-ray disc set on September 15, 2015 (the 50th anniversary of the premiere on the CBS TV Network). References [ ]. • – • – • – • Skagra – • – • Chris Parsons – • Clare Keightley – • Wilkin – • Dr Caldera – • Motorist/Constable – Stuart Crossman • The Ship – • Think Tank Voice – Written by, Directed by Produced by Gary Russell Production code II Length 150 Release date December 2003 2003: Big Finish audio play / Web animation [ ] In 2003, the BBC commissioned to remake Shada as an audio play which was then webcast in six episodic segments, accompanied by limited animation, on the using illustrations provided by comic strip artist. The play starred as the and as Romana. The audio play was also broadcast on digital radio station BBC 7, on 10 December 2005 (as a 2 1⁄ 2-hour omnibus), and was repeated in six parts as the opening story to the 's summer season which began on 16 July 2006. The webcast version (originally broadcast via BBCi's 'Red Button') remains available from the BBC Doctor Who 'classic series' website, and an expanded audio-only version is available for purchase on CD from Big Finish. This expanded version was the one broadcast on BBC7. Production [ ] Tom Baker was originally approached to reprise the role of the Doctor, but declined. The Eighth Doctor was then substituted and the story reworked accordingly. Portions of the Big Finish version were reworked by to make the story fit into Doctor Who continuity. This included a new introduction, and a new explanation for the Fourth Doctor and Romana being 'taken out of time' during the events of The Five Doctors; the has come to collect Romana and K9 because he has begun to have a feeling that there was something they should have done at that time. [ ] When Skagra is investigating the Doctor, clips from three other Big Finish productions can be heard, exclusively on the CD version –, and. The original serial was to have used clips from,,,,, and. [ ] Outside references [ ] In Episode 2 of the webcast version, when Chris is in his lab showing Clare the book, a vending machine-like object in the background is labelled 'Nutrimat', a reference to a similar device in Adams'. Two other references are a sequence where Skagra steals a and when images of Hitchhiker's Guide characters appear as inmates on Shada itself. 2011: Levine animated version [ ] In 2010, funded an unofficial project to complete the original Shada story using animation and the original voice actors, minus Tom Baker and David Brierley, to complete the parts of the story that were never filmed. Would replace Brierley as the voice of K9, and Paul Jones would replace Tom Baker as the Doctor. The completed story was finished in late 2011 and announced by Levine, via his Twitter account, on 8 September 2011. Southall, writer for the science fiction magazine, reviewed Levine's completed version and scored it 10 out of 10 in an article published on 15 September 2011. The completed Levine version appeared on torrent sites over two years later, on 12 October 2013. Doctor Who – Shada Author Gareth Roberts Series book Publisher. Publication date 15 March 2012 2012: Novelisation / Audio book [ ] Elements of the story were reused by Adams for his novel, in particular the character of Professor Chronotis who possesses a time machine. Adams did not allow Shada, or any of his other Doctor Who stories, to be novelised. It is, therefore, one of only five serials from the 1963–1989 series not to be novelised by Target – along with Adams' other stories and, plus 's two stories ( and ). A six-part adaptation of the story by Jonathan V Way appeared in issues 13–18 of Cosmic Masque, the 's fiction magazine. Adams granted permission for the adaptation on condition that it was never published in collected form. Published a novelisation of this serial on 15 March 2012, written. Roberts has drawn on the latest versions of the scripts available, as well as adding new material of his own to 'fix' various plotholes and unanswered questions., in his review of the book for heartily praised it, calling it a 'successful duet'. Audio book [ ] Lalla Ward delivered an 11hr 30min unabridged reading of the Gareth Roberts novelisation for; joining her, voicing K9, was John Leeson. The audio recording was released on 15 March 2012 and is available for download or on 10 CDs (CD, Download ). Vanessa Bishop reviewed it favourably for Doctor Who Magazine, singling out Simon E Power's sound design for special praise. Reception [ ],, and gave the serial a mixed review in (1995), saying; 'I dunno, nowadays they'll publish anything.' Infamous because it was never completed, it was for a long time stated that 'Shada' would have been the highlight of the seventeenth season. What was filmed doesn't quite encourage such optimism. It's a very cheap looking story, and there are lashings of bad puns and dull comedy, including three takes on the 'One lump or two? Against that, the basic plot is interesting – almost justifying its six episodes, which is rare – and the Cambridge scenes, though stilted, are well executed. It's hugely flawed, but it's a shame that this one was clobbered by a strike and ' wasn't.' References [ ]. • Sullivan, Shannon (23 September 2008).. A Brief History of Time (Travel). Shannon Patrick Sullivan. Retrieved 9 June 2009. Retrieved 2017-10-11. 25 November 2017. Retrieved 25 November 2017. • ^ Southall, J. (12 September 2011). Jordan, Royce, ed... London, England... Archived from on 3 January 2012. Retrieved 1 April 2012. • Sullivan, Shannon (2007-08-07).. A Brief History of Time Travel. Retrieved 2013-03-27. • ^ (11 September 2001). Doctor Who: The Five Doctors (DVD). London, England: BBC. Event occurs at 12:45.. • Ley, Shaun (12 December 2009)... Retrieved 1 April 2012. Hitchhiker: A Biography of Douglas Adams. Boston, Massachusetts, US: Justin, Charles & Co... Doctor Who News. Retrieved 2013-10-09. Doctor Who News. Retrieved 28 May 2017. • McEwan, Cameron (10 October 2017).. Retrieved 10 October 2017. Retrieved 2017-10-11. • Lambert, David (27 November 2017).. Retrieved 28 November 2017. Retrieved 3 December 2017 – via Amazon. Retrieved 4 December 2017. Retrieved 19 November 2010. • Sullivan, Lee (2008).. Lee Sullivan Art. Lee Sullivan. Retrieved 19 November 2010. • Burk, Graeme (16 September 2011).. Doctor Who Blog. Doctor Who Information Network. Retrieved 1 April 2012. • Southall, J. (15 September 2011). Jordan, Royce, ed... Retrieved 3 April 2012. • Foster, Chuck (13 February 2012).. Doctor Who News. News in Time and Space. Retrieved 3 April 2012. • Berriman, Ian (6 March 2012).. Future Publishing Limited. • Pegg, Nicholas (4 April 2012). 'The DWM Review: Shada'.. Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent:. Retrieved 2013-10-09. • Bishop, Vanessa (30 May 2012). 'The DWM Review: Shada'.. Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent:. Doctor Who: The Discontinuity Guide. Bibliography [ ] • Howe, David J; Stammers, Mark; Walker, Stephen James. Doctor Who: The Seventies (1994) (London: Doctor Who Books) External links [ ] Wikiquote has quotations related to: • at • at • at the • • title listing at the Reviews [ ] • reviews at • reviews at • reviews at Fan novelisation [ ] • ebook • title listing at the • reviews at Webcast [ ] • at the • •.
0 Comments
Ciao e complimenti per il blog. Ovviamente tutti di noi abbiamo problemi a trovare una via che ci possa accontentare in materia di musica liquida. Nel mio caso direi che piu semplice di cosi, non possa esistere. Io, ho praticamente solo la musica e dovrei partire a crearmi un sistema non al top ma insomma, decente. Qualche suggerimento? PS: tengo a precisare che preferisco la strada nano tecnologica cioe: senza ampfi da 30kg in casa e casse acustiche che pesano come me. Mi accontenterei delle cuffie ottime e sistemi nano! Grazie per la risposta velocissima. Ho installato anche foobar sul portatile che uso come cavia prima di pasticciare sul “pc musicale”. Video Games Movies & TV Shows Music Andriod TV Phone and Tablet Apps The best of what Sony has to offer on iOS or Android. Download our apps. Premesso che il tablet l’ho acquistato ieri e ci sto smanettando un pochino ma le app android non riescono a vedere nient’altro che loro stesse come riprodutori dei file storati sul pc( che voglio che sia il mio player di rete,forse non mi sono siegato bene,non voglio acquistare un’altro componente da interporre tra il pc+dac e l’apli.) Nel frattempo mo linko alla pagina da te suggerita e vediamo se riesco a fare chiarezza. Ciao Francesco,complimenti per la professionalita’ e disponibilita’,ti chiedo parere su quanto mi e’ stato proposto in un negozio specializzato della mia citta’: Vorrei dare ” voce “al mio pc windows di ultima generazione in maniera piu’ professionale dei soliti sistemi 2.1 che si trovano in commercio cosi ho pensato ad un dac + diffusori attivi che possiedo ovvero m-audio bx5adeluxe. Mi hanno proposto un Marantz hd dac1,( MARCA MOOOLTO APPREZZATA) o in alternativa un Naim mu-so.costi diversi ovviamnete, Cosa mi consigli? Accetto molto volentieri tue indicazioni, grazie. Choose the right size for you, from 2GB to Unlimited. No smartphone? Connect your basic phone, tablet, hotspot or connected device to America’s best network. No annual contract. Monthly plans for your smartphone or connected device. Find a plan for your business, no matter how big or small. Connect from abroad or reach out to 200+ countries while in the U.S. Connect tablets, hotspots and other devices on a shared data-only plan. Back up your content, personalize your device and more. Store photos, videos, contacts, music, documents, call logs and text messages. Coverage for damage, loss, theft and Verizon Tech Coach support Estimate your expected monthly payments in two steps. Software Version: 2.11.605.4 Android Security Patch Level: 2017-08-01 Verizon Wireless is pleased to announce a new software update for your HTC Desire 530. Android速 7.0 Nougat improves your mobile experience with new battery-smart features and multitasking enhancements. This update also includes the latest Android security updates and bug fixes. Data saver With Android Nougat on your HTC Desire 530, Data Saver can restrict specific apps from using data in the background. Under the Data Usage menu, open Data Saver, and slide or tap it on. You can enable or disable background data for each app installed on your device. Quicker multi-tasking You can now double-tap the recent apps button to switch between your two most recently used apps. For example, if you're writing an email in Gmail but need to look something up, you can open Chrome, find and copy a link, then double-tap the recent apps button and your HTC Desire 530 will switch back to Gmail. Reply with speed You can now reply directly in Notifications from apps like Facebook® Messenger, Hangouts™, or Messenger, so you can continue your conversation without having to bounce between apps. Next steps and additional links: Please allow additional time for the apps on your device to continue to download after the software update. • If for any reason this software update doesn't fully download, our tool can provide immediate self-serve troubleshooting guidance. • • Check out the latest Verizon offers for HTC devices and upgrade to a newer. Not sure if you're eligible to upgrade yet? Find out fast in. Section A: Mandatory Update: • You'll see a download notification pop-up on the top left side of your device screen after a server initiated software update. Swipe down on the notification bar to see download progress. • System update notifications are displayed on the device screen once the over the air (OTA) download has completed. You'll have the option to Install Now or Install Later. • If you tap Install Now, installation will begin immediately and your device will power down and restart. • If you tap Install later, it will ask you to specify an installation time, with deferred date and time information. You can also tap NO to dismiss. You can start the installation manually by tapping Install deferred SW under Settings, then Software update. • Once the device has finished the software upgrade, it'll display a successful update message. Tap OK to dismiss. Section B: Optional/User Update: • To see your device is ready for a software upgrade: • Go to Settings • Tap System Update • Tap Check for new System update • If there's a new update available, your device will get pop up download notification screen with 2 options, Download Now or Download Later. • If you tap Download Now, you'll see a download icon in the notification bar. Swipe down to review the download progress. • If you tap Download Later, you'll see warning message with deferred date and time information, followed by another pop up download notification screen. Tap No Thanks. If the download is cancelled, your device will display a Download Cancelled message. • System update notifications are displayed on screen once the OTA package download has completed. You can either select Install Now or Install Later. • If you tap Install Now, the download will begin immediately and your device will power down and restart. • If you tap Install later, it will ask you to specify an installation time, with deferred date and time info. You can also tap NO to dismiss. You can start the installation manually by tapping Install deferred SW under Settings, then Software update. • Once the device has successfully upgraded, it will display a successful update message. Tap OK to dismiss. Roaming • If your device is roaming, it won't be able to initiate any software update connections, including network-initiated and user-initiated sessions. The Check new option under Settings, Software update will be grayed out. Low Battery notification • Depending on the device, minimum battery required might vary from 30% to 50%. Please make sure your phone has a full charge or is connected to a wall outlet. Software Upgrade Assistant Tool If you don't have a strong connection to Wi-Fi or the Verizon Wireless network, you may not be able to perform a software update over the air. Instead, you can connect your device to a computer with Internet access with a USB cable, then download the (*PDF) tool to your computer, which will check for software updates and initiate the software update process. Software Version: Build Number: 1.13.605.1; Baseband: 2.12.C1 Verizon Wireless is pleased to announce a new software update for your HTC Desire 530. This update includes: • Latest Android速 security updates and bug fixes • Removes preloaded Visual Voice Mail app Next steps and additional links: Please allow additional time for the apps on your device to continue to download after the software update. • If for any reason this software update doesn't fully download, our tool can provide immediate self-serve troubleshooting guidance. • • Check out the latest Verizon offers for HTC devices and upgrade to a newer. Not sure if you're eligible to upgrade yet? Find out fast in. If, like me, you don't have root privileges on your network because of your wonderful friends in I.S., and you are working in a local install you may have some problems with the above approaches. I spent ages on Google - but in the end, it's easy. Download the tcl and tk from and install them locally too. If you're on Linux and installed using your OS package manager, you may have to install pip separately, see Installing pip/setuptools/wheel with Linux Package Managers. Run python get-pip.py. [2] This will install or upgrade pip. Additionally, it will install setuptools and wheel if they're not installed already. Sudo apt-get install build-essential python-dev python-setuptools python-numpy python-scipy libatlas-dev libatlas3gf-base. If there are no binary packages matching your python, version you might to try to install scikit-learn and its dependencies from christoph gohlke unofficial windows installers or from a python. To install locally on Linux (I did it to my home directory), extract the.tar.gz files for tcl and tk. Then open up the readme files inside the./unix directory. I ran cd ~/tcl8.5.11/unix./configure --prefix=/home/cnel711 --exec-prefix=/home/cnel711 make make install cd ~/tk8.5.11/unix./configure --prefix=/home/cnel711 --exec-prefix=/home/cnel711 --with-tcl=/home/cnel711/tcl8.5.11/unix make make install It may seem a pain, but the files are tiny and installation is very fast. Then re-run python setup.py build and python setup.py install in your python installation directory - and it should work. It worked for me - and I can now import Tkinter etc to my heart's content - yipidy-yay. An entire afternoon spent on this - hope this note saves others from the pain. The situation on macOS is still, but do-able: Python.org strongly suggest downloading tkinter, but you should read first (hint: don't redistribute or want Support). When the download is opened OS X 10.11 rejected it because it couldn't find my receipt: 'ActiveTcl-8.6.pkg can’t be opened because it is from an unidentified developer'. I followed an which suggested allowing from anywhere. But OS X has now added an 'Open Anyway' option to allow (e.g.) Active-Tcl as a once off, and the 'Anywhere' option has gained a timeout. Based on the true life experiences of poet Jimmy Santiago Baca, the film focuses on step-brothers Paco and Cruz, and their bi-racial cousin Miklo. It opens in 1972, as the three are members of an East L.A. Gang known as the 'Vatos Locos', and the story focuses on how a violent crime and the influence of narcotics alter their lives. Miklo is incarcerated and sent to San Quentin, where he makes a 'home' for himself. Cruz becomes an exceptional artist, but a heroin addiction overcomes him with tragic results. Paco becomes a cop and an enemy to his 'carnal', Miklo.|. I believe that is one of the better movies ever to come out. A truly amazing story of what life can entail between brothers and how the choices you make defines your direction in life. Jan 24, 2017 - 173 min - Uploaded by Thomas Whittecenas eliminadas de SANGRE POR SANGRE //22 ANIVERSARIO DE LA MOVIE - Duration. Crime Based on the true life experiences of poet Jimmy Santiago Baca, the film focuses on step-brothers Paco and Cruz, and their bi-racial cousin Miklo. It opens in 1972, as the three are. There have been a few reviewers here who feel that the character of Miklos was not believable as Latino, as he was 'too' white looking. OK, one might argue that it is rather cheap in the budgetary sense and consequently not a respectable director nor actors are in it makes the flick only more interesting. The acting is however quite good and the prisoners are more than realistic. In other words it gives a nice insight in US (prison-gang)life. On top of that i personally am a great fan of true stories as this is. It is a shame that bad distribution has not given this the place in movie history that it deserves. Best of Emraan Hashmi Music Playlist on Gaana.com. Download and listen to Best of Emraan Hashmi on Gaana.com. Teri Meri Kahaani by Arijit Singh Full Mp3 Song Download. Nav Bajwa Samiksha Singh Yaad Grewal Puneet Issar Deep Dhillon Gurpreet Ghuggi Karamjit Anmol Shivendra Mahal Movie TvHd MoviesMovies 2014WatchesPunjabi CultureAdventure FilmOblivionSummaryHtml. Check out the song DANCE BASANTI featuring Shraddha Kapoor as Basanti alongside Emraan Hashmi as they groove together in the first song from our upcoming film, UNGLI. Put on your dancing shoes and practice the Basanti move! Starring: Emraan Hashmi, Kangana Ranaut, Randeep Hooda, Neil Bhoopalam, Angad Bedi & Sanjay Dutt. Directed by Rensil D’Silva Produced by Hiroo Yash Johar & Karan Johar In Theatres 28th November, 2014. Celomusic.com is Media search engine and does not host any files, No media files are indexed hosted cached or stored on our server, They are located on soundcloud and Youtube, We only help you to search the link source to the other server. Celomusic.com is not responsible for third party website content. It is illegal for you to distribute copyrighted files without permission. The media files you download with celomusic.com must be for time shifting, personal, private, non commercial use only and remove the files after listening. If one of this file is your intelectual property (copyright infringement) or child pornography / immature sounds, please or email to info[at]celomusic.com to us. Nov 11, 2015. One could be sir2 reverb + crack data from other countries with a plush infants toy. First, but if you can. I like RedWirez Mix IR if your wanting to use multiple IR files at once. Next to that, if you just want to use one IR at a time but insert multiple instances. Reflektor that is built into NI Guitar Rig is awesome. Guitar Rig is actually designed to be a multi effect plugin, not just a guitar processor. Hence the Studio Processors built into it. And you can just chain multiple processors together in Guitar Rig, or load multiple instances of the vst itself in your DAW. Next if you want a more studio processor type IR reverb, I like Liquidsonics Reverberate for that. And there is always Waves IR-1, which there is plenty of bonus IR files made by outside companies that can be loaded into Waves IR-1! Like the Acousticas collection of IR files can be loaded directly into Waves IR-1, including the presets. +1 Aether/Breeze +1 Lexicon PCM (one of my all time favorites and truly a beautiful high quality reverb) +1 112db Redline Waves IR1 & Waves IR-Live are both great for convolution as well as LiquidSonics Reverberate and Voxengo Pristine Space. Rob Papen RP-Verb isn't mentioned as much and is better than most reverb plugs I've heard. Magix Variverb II is also a great algorithmic reverb plug. There's also Soft-Tube TSAR-1 Even NI RC24/RC48 are GREAT Reverbs with a very cool spectrogram that allows you to see what the reverb is doing in real time. Definitely worth checking out. 2CAudio is good and I also like the Lexicon plugs (they're awesome). Then Native Instruments also put out the RC24 and RC48 plugs and though they have a simpler interface and not always as many settings as the Lexicon I think it's a great verb. Valhalla also makes some awesome and cheap reverbs. However none of these are convolution reverbs if that's what you're looking for. LiquidSonics Reverberate can fit that bill and if you use Cubase then you can use their convolution reverb. Catnaps I've been dying to hear that Softube plug-in but it's not available cracked and money is really tight. I have been a proud owner of SIR2 since it's release - Christian has done a superb job with it, and it is up there with the best of them. It also comes alive a little more if you get the extension impulse pack designed by Ralph Kessler - it's the same HDIR algorithm that was also used as a third of the much lamented WizooVerb W2 and W5. The only downside to SIR2 is paradoxically one of it's strengths - there is no real library supplied with it (with the exception of the add-on pack, which I highly recommend) so you are dependent on having a good library of 3rd party IR. REVerence suffers from the same problem too, and unless the library gets updated along the lines of AudioEase' excellent regular - free - library additions (or to a lesser extent the Acoustics.net site for Waves IR-1 owners) then it will never get the recognition it deserves. It also needs some work, but if the bugs get ironed out, REVerence has the potential to be a good IR Reverb Tool. SIR2 works beautifully, and is extremely stable with regular updates - support is very quick as well. It's not cheap though. Neilwilkes wrote:It's not cheap though. No, it ain't, hence the post. But thanks, you have put my mind at rest for now and thanks for the tips on where to go for some IRs. One thing I'm not quite clear on. You mentioned HDIR algorithm - that was referring to SIR2, not the IRs, right? I was under the impression that an IR was an IR (quality issues aside!) and would work with any host. HDIR is an alternate type of IR, and is a proprietary type rather like the ones that are for Waves IR-1 and AltiVerb (they cannot be used in any other convolution player) and HDIR only work in either W2/W5 (sadly deleted - thanks for nothing, Avid) or in SIR2 (which ships with a few, but there is an add-on pack for additional HDIR. The beauty of the old W2/W5 plugs was that they could use Algorithmic reverb, AIR (Wizoo's proprietary form), HDIR (Ralph Kessler's IR type) and also user IR as WAV files & better still you could mix & match these in ER & Tail as you saw fit. You could use an imported IR file in ER (or tail) and something completely different for the tail. It's been killed off though, so no use my moaning about it I guess. IR libraries are a good way to go though, and as already posted there are some crackers available for free in addition to other paid ones. Again, it pains me to have to say one of the better IR library companies has also gone under - Acousticas - who did some great Plates & Lexicons, but we still have Samplicity (Peter Roos' outfit) who have done some cracking libraries of the TC6000 (and more) as well as the standby Lexicon 960L at €65 each and believe me they are well worth the outlay. There is also a library called 'Halls Of Fame' - again it's our old friends the TC6000 & the Lexicon 960 - very nice, but to my ears the Samplicity ones are nicer. I also have discs here from the Eventide 8000 & 3000 - cannot remember the company but will dig the discs out & see. There are free IR out there as well. I can think of a couple of different versions of the Bricasti M7 (Samplicity, Signal-2-Noize & Acousticas) as well as whole heaps of files from the sadly missed Noisevault IR site - these were all made by enthusiastic users back when commercial libraries simply did not exist & we had no choice but to make our own by spiking or sweeping hardware units & deconvolving the sweeps back to the IR goodies. Drop me a PM with your email address & I will send you a list of the freebies I collected over the years if interested. Will Ferrell, Actor: Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. John William Ferrell was born in Irvine, California, to Betty Kay (Overman), a teacher, and Roy Lee. This Pin was discovered by Terence Sheppard. Discover (and save!) your own Pins on Pinterest. (performer: 'Me and Bobby McGee', 'Best of All Possible Worlds', 'Help Me Make It Through the Night', 'Casey's Last Ride', 'Loving Her Was Easier', 'Jesus was a Capricorn', 'Sunday Mornin' Comin' Down' (uncredited), 'The Silver Tongued Devil and I' (uncredited), 'For the Good Times', 'Why Me') / (writer: 'Me and Bobby McGee', 'Best of All Possible Worlds', 'Help Me Make It Through the Night', 'Casey's Last Ride', 'Loving Her Was Easier', 'Jesus was a Capricorn', 'Sunday Mornin' Comin' Down' (uncredited), 'The Silver Tongued Devil and I' (uncredited), 'For the Good Times', 'Why Me'). 1985 (TV Movie) (performer: 'Here Comes That Rainbow Again', 'To Make a Long Story Short, She's Gone', 'Help Me Make It Through The Night', 'Ping Pong', 'The Bandits of Beverly Hills', 'Put It Off Until Tomorrow', 'The Bigger The Fool, The Harder The Fall', 'Me and Bobby McGee', 'Born To Love Me', 'Casey's Last Ride', 'Don't Let Your Left Hand Know (What Your Right Hand Does)') / (writer: 'Here Comes That Rainbow Again', 'They Killed Him', 'Help Me Make It Through The Night', 'The Bandits of Beverly Hills', 'The Bigger The Fool, The Harder The Fall', 'Me and Bobby McGee', 'Casey's Last Ride'). Funnygames.in Ricky Bobby's Fast Track game - FunnyGames.in 640 × 480 - 88k - jpg funnygames.in Ricky Bobby's Fast Track game - FunnyGames.in 185 × 145 - 11k - jpg nascarracinggames.org NASCAR GAMES - Play 150+ Free NASCAR Games Online! 234 × 170 - 30k - jpg rfactorcentral.com rFactor Painters Profile: icyd45| rFactor Car Skins| rFactor Central 800 × 600 - 104k - jpg racing3dgames.com Play Ricky Bobbys Fast Track game| 3D Racing Games 180 × 135 - 8k - jpg funnygames.us Ricky Bobby's Fast Track game - FunnyGames.us 664 × 595 - 69k - jpg youtube.com Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby - YouTube 279 × 402 - 38k - jpg in.pinterest.com The 25+ best Ricky bobby ideas on Pinterest| Talladega nights. 500 × 711 - 86k - jpg pinterest.com Talladega Nights - Ricky Bobby & Susan| Scene| Pinterest| Ricky. 236 × 269 - 18k - jpg en.wikipedia.org Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby - Wikipedia 269 × 400 - 49k - jpg amazon.com Amazon.com: Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (PG-13. 313 × 445 - 52k - jpg youtube.com Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby - YouTube 1920 × 1080 - 247k - jpg funnygames.com.ng Ricky Bobby's Fast Track game - FunnyGames.com.ng 185 × 145 - 9k - jpg funnygames.us Ricky Bobby's Fast Track game - FunnyGames.us 697 × 544 - 98k - jpg pinterest.com Best 25+ Ricky bobby ideas on Pinterest| Talladega nights. 290 × 290 - 25k - jpg pinterest.com Best 25+ Ricky bobby ideas on Pinterest| Talladega nights. 640 × 640 - 63k - jpg funnygames.us X Speed Race 1 game - FunnyGames.us 800 × 450 - 87k - jpg funnygames.com.ng Ricky Bobby's Fast Track game - FunnyGames.com.ng 185 × 145 - 7k - jpg amazon.com Amazon.com: Ricky Bobby #62 ME / Talladega Nights / 2005 Monte. 300 × 300 - 25k - jpg birthdosatrad.ame-zaik. Classic fighting arcade games 500 × 379 - 39k - jpg. That is today’s typical view of a literal Adam and Eve. Yet, contrary to current skepticism, a real Adam and Eve remain credible—both in terms of Catholic doctrine and sound natural science. The electron is a subatomic particle, symbol e − or β −, with a negative elementary electric charge. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton. By calling the Genesis story a “myth,” people avoid saying it is mere “fantasy,” that is, with no foundation in reality at all. While rejecting a literal first pair of human parents for all mankind, they hope to retain some “deeper” truth about an original “sinful human condition,” a “mythic” meaning. They think that the latest findings in paleoanthropology and genetics render a literal pair of first true human parents to be “scientifically impossible.” The prevailing assumption underlying media reports about human origins is that humanity evolved very gradually over vast periods of time as a population (a collection of interbreeding organisms), which itself originally evolved from a Homo/Pan (human/chimpanzee) common ancestor millions of years ago. Therefore, we are not seen as descendants of the biblical Adam and Eve. This universal evolutionary perspective leads many Catholics and others to conclude that a literal Adam and Eve is “scientifically impossible” for two reasons: First, paleoanthropologists deny the sudden appearance of intelligent, self-reflective, fully-human primates, but rather view the emergence of consciousness and intelligence as taking place slowly and incrementally over long periods of time. Second, in light of recent findings in molecular biology, especially from studies based on genetic data gleaned from the Human Genome Project, it is claimed that the hominin population (the primate group from which modern man is said to have arisen) has never had a bottleneck (reduced population) of a single mating pair in the last seven or more million years: no literal Adam and Eve. Many succumb to the modernist tendency to “adjust” Church teaching to fit the latest scientific claims—thus intimidating Catholics into thinking that divinely revealed truths can be abandoned—“if need be.”. From CCC 337: “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day.” In the Genesis account the story of creation is told “symbolically,” not literally. There is nothing in the Catechism that makes any teaching concerning original sin dependent on the sudden appearance of two immediately intelligent beings. Might we say that at some point in evolutionary history the mind of a being had the capacity to understand good and evil? Evil was chosen; our need for Christ’s redemption then made sure. Christianity and modern science are not at odds. To speculate otherwise, does no favor to either. Ok, that’s texas sharpshooting to a new level, especially if you claim the ‘almost the same order’. The timescales are nonsensical (the length of each ‘day’ is non-standard too). The biggest, most important detail of the big bang theory is ‘the universe was denser in the past and expanded, cooling in the process’. The only way you can really try to draw parallels with the bible would be saying ‘the bible implies a beginning’, to which physics hasn’t even settled on that question yet. (Again the big bang is describing cosmic expansion from a smaller state, NO ONE comments on the planck-epoch seriously) Such a loose description could be found in nearly any creation myth, and frankly, doesn’t seem that hard a thought for bronze age priests to conceive of. You are free to believe the bible is a representation in some fashion of reality, but to call the genesis story an ‘accurate’ portrayal of the actual history of the universe, and an accurate portrayal of the big bang theory makes me believe you have no clue what the big bang theory really entails, the physics, or the timescales involved. I thought people in Texas could read and comprehend. When did I mention timescales. There was no numbering system. I really don’t care if the universe after the big bang was denser, expanding or cooling, thats all baloney to my point. Although incoherent I think you truly believe in the “Big Bang” and the Bible believes that there was a specific beginning. But are you trying to deny that there is a theory as to the different stages of the solar systems beginning and in my example how Earth was formed, as to how and in what order we became what we are today, I hope you smarter than that. My question was how could “in an unknown age” did an (OUTLINE) of this complex formation of the solar system and earth end up in Genesis, before a written language or numbering system, was created? My point was that in this (OUTLINE) it follows today’s theory of our creation. I hope your not to confused. Texas sharpshooter, to shoot a bullet then paint a target around it, ‘perfect shot!’ The ‘outline’ is exactly what bronze age mythics could believe the world was created as, it DOESN’T ‘outline the complex formation of the solar system’. It tells us nothing about accretion. It tells us nothing about decoupling, or any of the general features that we actually use to identify the major stages of the big bang. As an ‘outline’ it’s as accurate as a five year old noticing ‘if I swing a bat, it takes effort to keep it from flying out of my hand’ then saying “when I was five years old I understood the basics of angular momentum and inertia! “But are you trying to deny that there is a theory as to the different stages of the solar systems beginning and in my example how Earth was formed” That there are different stages? I won’t go denying that. That the ‘different stages’ bare any resemblance to the order or events that are written about in Genesis, damn right I deny it. The sun formed before earth, and was the result of a supernova. That supernova was of an already second generation star, the universe had existed for nearly 10 billion years by that point, so if you want to go for the solar system the stages are, ‘dust, explosion, disturbance, accretion, fusion’. If you want to go for the galaxy, you’re looking at older stages brought about by basic thermal fluctuations, the kind of things we see in the CMB. The larger structures than even that, we fully admit, we have limited good models to explain them but we’re getting better. The ‘stages’ form fractal patterns. They aren’t discrete and separate, they come from (and branch off into) more refined and self-producing ‘stages’. In that sense we can add any number of intermediate ‘stages’, the idea of ‘stages’ itself is only useful for illustrating large scale changes. But those ‘large scale changes’ are precisely the changes that are ignored by the ‘stages’ in creation. It isn’t describing dynamic processes that change from one state into another, it’s describing discrete ‘god events’ in succession which DONT reflect the actual history of the universe. Those kind of myths seem easy to imagine, which is why I have no trouble understanding why genesis has steps outlined as such. “in an unknown age” did an (OUTLINE) of this complex formation of the solar system and earth end up in Genesis, before a written language or numbering system, was created? My point was that in this (OUTLINE) it follows today’s theory of our creation. I hope your not to confused. You’re the one that sounds confused. How did anything end up written down in genesis “before a written language” was created?? That might be the dumbest thing I’ve read all morning. The rest of your post makes no intelligible sense. Here is Pope Leo XIII takes on the Senses, from the Providentissimus Deus/On the Study of Holy Scripture (Rome: Holy See, 1893): “To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Spirit ‘who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation’ [S. Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are daily used at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers – as the Angelic Doctor [St. Aquinas] also reminds us -‘went by what sensibly appeared’ [Summa Theol. 1, ad 3.] or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.” •. That is not my understanding. And besides, as I responded to JERD2 here: “Why would the use of “day” in Genesis 1 be considered symbolic, given that the author goes out of his way six times to define day (e.g. “there was evening and there was morning, an x day”) AND given the author has already acknowledged the existence of seasons and years in Genesis 1:14? If “day” meant a much longer time period, why wouldn’t Scripture read something like “And God created X over many *years*, a fifth *season*”? I just posted the same point about “day” to you, below. I thought this was a reply to someone else. Now, I’m no expert on Saint Augustine, so, I can’t provide a specific citation without doing some research. As far as yom goes, I don’t speak Hebrew, either. But, the point of Genesis 1 is to show why God created, not how. Just because seasons and years are used, in no way negates that yom is referring to ages. The point is that the sun, moon, & stars were created to tell time, a celestial clock for man to use. Have you ever heard Dr. Scott Hahn & Jeff Cavins explain Genesis in Our Father’s Plan? You can listen to it by going to EWTN’s site, under their archives. I can provide a link, if you have trouble finding it, God Bless! The opening of that movie is quite revealing. It’s interesting to think of God’s most perfect creation as a bunch of apes running around, and original sin as one ape discovering that he could hit another over the head with a bone. An evolutionary and anthropological perspective really isn’t Catholic at all. Adam and Eve were suppose to have had predernatural gifts such as immortality, infused knowledge, and direct contact with God. I think the theological ramifications even to this sort of theistic evolutionary approach are huge. Because we are really taking away from the humanity and perfection of the first human couple God created. I also question how a Professor of Philosophy is qualified to make judgments on something really not related to his field. If the author of this is credible, then so are the people over at the The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, who are also Catholics and qualified Scientists, yet seem to take a different approach towards the scientific observations in recent times. If you would read my book, Origin of the Human Species: Third Edition, pp. 145-180, you would find that I take great pains to show how the claims of paleoanthropology might comport with the findings of the 1909 Biblical Commission regarding such things as the preternatural gifts given by God to Adam and Eve. Since evolutionary theory is so broadly interdisciplinary in its nature and implications, philosophy properly serves a regulative function in evaluating the epistemic claims of the various sciences. Did you ever notice that the highest academic degrees are always doctorates of philosophy, even if the holder never studied a course in philosophy? This is because philosophy was the original mother science from which all the particular natural sciences, such as chemistry, physics, and biology, were derived as sub-parts of Aristotle’s Physics, the philosophy of nature. I am not claiming that evolutionary theory is true, but simply testing to what degree Catholic doctrine concerning human origins is able to comport with mainstream claims about human origins. Clearly, if nothing else, the appearance of the human intellectual, spiritual soul requires a direct creative intervention by God which utterly transcends the competence of natural science. I would hesitate to say that anyone isn’t qualified to make judgments. Of course, some of us are better versed than others, but that should come out in the argumentation, not in which piece of paper the person possesses. But, if we are to appeal to authority, let’s appeal to Aristotle, who labeled the appeal to authority as a logical fallacy (irony intended). I do agree that evolutionary and anthropological perspectives aren’t Catholic, per se, but they aren’t anti-Catholic, either, and, at any rate, one can use to the same logic to say that theology isn’t particularly scientific. We’re trying to reconcile the two, not use one as an authority for the other. I don’t think that your comparison works, Icowrich. The figurative part of Gen.3 is the part about being tempted by the Serpent and eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil. The historic part is that Adam & Eve, our first parents, disobeyed God, disrupting Creation and causing all of their descendants to inherit Original Sin. In 2001, where is the temptation? Where is the disobedience? Kubrick advances a purely materialistic view. The opening scene presents the realization, that bones can be used as weapons, as an advance in human evolution. With this “advancement” comes the arrival of the Monolith. (Or, did the Monolith cause the “advancement”? Not having read the book, I go back & forth on this point.) A better comparison might be that the opening scene could represent, very loosely, Cain’s killing of Abel. For a Catholic, it is important to know that the first three chapters of Genesis are telling us why God created, not how He created. Genesis, and the rest of the Old Testament, needs to be read as the Hebrews of the First Century would have understood it. Or, else, the books of the New Testament will not be fully revealed to those seeking more knowledge of Christ. As modern Gentiles, there is a lot going on in the Old Testament that we don’t understand, or see. I have only begun to learn about these hidden gems in the past 10 years. Learning from great teachers like Fr. Mitch Pacwa and Dr. Scott Hahn (among many others) has really opened the Scriptures for me. I used to be a Catholic fundamentalist concerning the Six Days of Creation, by the way. “In 2001, where is the temptation? Where is the disobedience?” It’s loose, but I’d argue that the temptation was to use budding intelligence for violence. The proto-humans lived in harmony with God’s creatures before gaining knowledge, and started killing them (as well as their own kind) immediately thereafter. That was the temptation, and the whole thing, it seems to me, is disobeying the divine mandate (or what Clarke and Kubric might consider a natural one) that is written in our souls (Clarke and Kubric might say in our humanity). But my point doesn’t rely on 2001 per se. I just mean to say that there is no reason we can’t see Genesis 1-3 as having occurred, but in a vastly different context than a strictly literal reading would imply. Isn’t that what Matthew 13:10-17 is all about? “(Or, did the Monolith cause the “advancement”? Not having read the book, I go back & forth on this point.)” The Monolith causes the advancement. For all intents and purposes, the monolith is God. Yes, Clarke posits it as a galaxy-spanning artificial intelligence built by aliens, but it is so far in advance of us that it is indistinguishable from the Divine, at least in terms of potency. As a metaphor, both explanations work. Where’s the violence in Gen. Where is the fruit, or Serpent, in 2001? It’s not loose, it’s invisible, I’m afraid. I think you’re grasping at straws. Clarke was an atheist and Kubrick surely didn’t believe in the God of the Bible. The Catholic Church says that forms of evolution are not contrary to the Faith, but, She does NOT say that one HAS to believe in evolution. Materialistic, Darwinian evolution is contrary to the Faith, because God is the source of creation, not some random accident. And, since science will never be able to prove that man evolved from lower lifeforms, I don’t spend much time thinking about it any more. Certainly, neither man was religious any sense of the term that you or I would recognize, but, then again, science hasn’t anything to do with religion, either. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t appropriating Judeo-Christian culture to make an aesthetic and philosophical argument. It seems to me that they were doing just that. No, Genesis 3 isn’t about violence, but it IS about sin, and the sin we see violently portrayed in Dawn of Man is, in Kubric’s view, the original sin. Is that specifically Biblical? Of course not. But, again, I’m not arguing specifically Kubric’s or Clarke’s vision. I’m just saying that many natural events (not unlike that scene) could be described in parabolic terms, much in the way that Christ commonly did (again, Matthew 13:10-17). “The Catholic Church says that forms of evolution are not contrary to the Faith, but, She does NOT say that one HAS to believe in evolution.” Of course not. She also doesn’t say I have to believe in heliocentrism, but I do. This seems to be the whole point of the exercise. We are free to follow science wherever it leads us because we no longer view Scripture as a scientific treatise. It authoritative in spiritual terms, but not in terms of physics. Therefore, I’m not required to, say, believe that pi = 3.0, whatever 1 Kings: 7:23-26 implies. “Materialistic, Darwinian evolution is contrary to the Faith, because God is the source of creation, not some random accident.” I agree with this, and I find Intelligent Design to be a compelling concept (even if it is sprinkled with crackpots) precisely because science has nothing to say about a Prime Mover (yet). I don’t even think science can say that anything is a “random accident,” except insofar as such a claim is understood to be a placeholder for gaps in the current model. This is precisely why I maintain that there is room for literature (2001 is literature) in telling the stories of the universe and our own evolution. It’s just that I give precedence to science, not to interpretations of Scripture, just as Augustine did so long ago. “since science will never be able to prove that man evolved from lower lifeforms” We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. I’m with the last three popes on this matter. Evolution is no longer just a theory, and God is not a magician. But, It does look like there is more common ground between us than it might, at first, appear. Yes, I agree, we’re not as far apart as I first thought we were. You can fit many scenes (film or literature) to say something more than what is being portrayed. Thousands of professors and critics make a living at this sort of thing. (Whether it’s true, or not.) And, while Christ did use parables many times, it does not follow, therefore, that Gen. 3 is a parable. Have you ever read about the chiasmus literary structure of Gen. I find it very interesting, and enlightening. I would give priority to Sacred Scripture, not in scientific matters, but, that it is passing on truths that God wants us to know. I’m more than willing to follow the science. I just don’t see enough convincing evidence that man evolved from lower species, that’s all. There is plenty of fraud in science, as well as confirmation-bias. So, if better proof ever emerges, I will look at it with an open mind. I’m old enough to remember when it was widely presumed that Neanderthals (Homo Erectus) were thought to have been the ancestors of Homo Sapiens, until there was a question raised about the long period of contemporaneous existence and the assertion of Neanderthal ancestry was firmy disposed by the determination that no living person has Neanderthal DNA, much less exhibits any substantial H. Erectus phenotypical expression. On the other hand, it is now widely believed that there was single matrilineal ancestor, the “Mitochondrial Eve”. She may the Biblical Eve or not. It is possible Adam and Eve are literal and it is possible that they are figurative. I am fully aware (more so as I get older and realize how short I have fallen and how often) that I bear the defects of the fall from grace. Check your facts please. Homo Erectus was a separate species from Homo Neandertalis, Erectus possibly being the ancestor of both Neandertalis and Homo Sapiens. There is also genetic evidence that Neanderthals, late Erectus, and Sapiens might have interbred to some degree, making us very close cousins. For a modern equivalent, horses and zebra can breed, as well as lions and tigers. The mitochondrial Eve was very long ago, and was not contemporary with any ancient Adam. At some point we were more us and less what came before (possibly Erectus), and either a female or a male had the dominant, successful mutation that led to us, but where you put that is open to debate. That female would still have been breeding with ancient hominids, speciation not yet occurring, but the children would have the new mutations and not the old. A mathematical approximate origin can be determined with a known probability range. However, several possible events and chances could alter the math substantially. Merger of early populations before Homo, or manipulation of genetic material among species as is done today in genetic engineering. Man has influenced many species to domesticate animals and plants to his own needs by deliberate mating and separation of offspring of wild species and semi-domestic forms. There are far more forms of domestic dog, than viable wild forms. Cattle have been selectively bred for meat or milk. Humans have self-separated by choice in racially prejudicial reproduction and by isolation in wild migrations over thousands of years. Ignorance of our own nature and superstitions before modern science are still propagated by family loyalty and choice. It was and still is a political agenda, even if no longer expressed from the pulpit or from the lectern. I distinctly remember being told two things in some college class I remember little else from. One, that Neanderthals were Homo Erectus. Apparently they are now as you write,Homo Neandertalis or other sources say a subspecies of H. Either way, I stand corrected. I wonder if that changed or the textbook was in error. Item 2 was that Neanderthals were distinct from Modern Humans (and when I was loafing through this class, they were just abandoning the Neanderthal as an ancestor idea) and Neanderthal DNA in modern humans didn’t exist, something that was still in vogue in 2009. Now my class mentioned nothing of the Denisovians, being discovered long after I was loosed upon the world; so I might be need a paleoanthropology refresheror maybe the “science” isn’t as settled as it might be. One of the things I love about science is that it always changes, but gets closer to truth, like Asimov proposed in his “Relativity of Wrong”. Biblical Genesis was wrong, but core items like mortality and ancestry and a flawed humanity and asking about origins were correct. When you studied there was so much more known and we were far closer to the truth than the authors of Genesis, but still wrong. Today we have more info than a couple decades ago, but in a few decades more we will be shown to be closer but still wrong. Science circles around the truth, getting closer all the time but never completely right, always something new to discover. I enjoy the newness of the discovery, using our talents to get closer to the truth. The species separation is much fuzzier than once thought. Neanderthal and Sapiens could both be considered evolved Erectus, in some ways still Erectus. An ancient Erectus didn’t just wake up and give birth to a modern Sapiens. Small changes built over time, analogous to you and I living every moment from toddler in diapers till now, we didn’t fall asleep at 18 months then wake up adults. It was unnoticeable but always changing. A very recent study based on a new discovery of partially intact Neanderthal DNA shows that modern Sapiens of European descent likely had a Neanderthal in our lineage, that Sapiens and Neanderthal both being evolved Erectus could still interbreed to some extent. About other fossils like heidelbergensis or habilis or denosovian, they are part of that curve of change, like some random date between toddler and adult. Where do you put a line down and call it different species? Paleontologists argue that all the time. I’m sure the answer will be different ten years from now, probably more accurate than today. The Genetic Eve was already a Sapiens most likely, though genetically not required. She could have been a late, nearly modern Erectus and the genetic lineage would be the same. There is also a genetic Eve further back that is the mother of both humans and Chimps. Further back, humans, chimps and gorillas. Further back add the other another is the mother of all Apes. Still older is the mother of all Primates, maybe 35-40 million years ago, though I could be off on those dates – fairly certain Primates are younger than the K/T event 65 million years ago, but I’d have to look that up. Rodent-like burrowing mammals were around before dinosaurs, if you really want to dig into your umpteenth great grandparents. Closer to the truth is still wrong. Right and wrong are binary, not analog, and you have no way to know when you are “right” As for when “I studied” it’s measured in decades, not centuries-one assertion (No Neanderthal DNA) was still considered valid 5 years ago. What happens when the January 2014 study is disputed? You assume that the newest information is the most valid, that we are always on a trajectory of greater truth-that’s not science, it’s neophilia. “I’m sure the answer will be different ten years from now, probably more accurate than today.” But how will you know if it is “more accurate”? Neophilia first. I enjoy the new, but I agree that new isn’t the defining criteria for better. However, new has the benefit of more data to draw from. The writers of Genesis had no inkling of DNA or heredity or hard data on why two parents would not be enough material for a species to survive, incest causing the problems it does. I remember the minimum is something like 300 evenly split male/female, and throw monogamy out as a loser in that small of a population: each woman would have to bear 5-6 children that survived to breed, each child from a different father. Exact parentage would have to be documented for many generations to avoid too much inbreeding. The first Neanderthal skeleton gave us a false impression, since that skeleton was from a sick individual. Newer discoveries allowed better understanding. New doesn’t guarantee accuracy, but old doesn’t guarantee proven wisdom. All things considered, newer ideas benefit from more available information and trend towards more accurate understanding. I’d take modern genetics and paleontology over Genesis any day of the week. Truth is only binary if you have a limited understanding of truth. Believing the Earth is a sphere at the center of the universe is less wrong and more true than believing the Earth is a flat circle with domes above, as described in Genesis. Believing the Earth is a sphere going in circles around the sun is less wrong and more true still. BTW, the Earth is an oblate spheroid somewhat pear shaped traveling in a mildly chaotic ellipse around the constantly changing center of gravity of the solar system, a point usually inside the sun but not at its center. We will never know the truth completely. I argue that anyone saying otherwise is selling something, and operating with far less affinity for truth than I have. Problem is, humanity doesn’t deal with acts such as pedophilia, the gunning down of helpless little children, brutality, genocide, gang rape, racism or even serial homicide as merely socially improper conduct, like, say, picking your nostrils at the dinner table. Much rather, these jolt, outrage as well as horrify. They’re dealt with as moral abominations – acts of evil. (This is why, since time immemorial, even the most primitive cultures, regardless of their metaphysical values, enforced laws and regulations against homicide and various other acts of evil.) On the flip side, love, equality or self-sacrifice are more than just socially useful acts, like, say, bringing a lady roses on a first date. Rather, these are regarded as conduct which is actually good. That being said, irrational beasts don’t possess **objective** morals. When ever a lion savagely kills some other it doesn’t believe it’s committing homicide. Any time a peregrine falcon or a bald eagle snatches prey away from another it doesn’t believe it’s stealing. Each time primates violently force themselves onto females as well as their little ones they’re not tried and convicted of rape or pedophilia. Needless to say, we undoubtedly did not “inherit” our **objective** moral sense from these. **Objective** morals are never derived from scientific research because science, by it’s very nature, is morally nihilistic. From where, then perhaps, do we obtain our **universal objective morals** from? Consider the following: (1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. (2) Evil exists. (3) Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist. (4) Therefore, God exists. (5) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties. That is to say, as Dostoevsky once mused, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” •. A moral code is derivative of an instinctive desire for peaceful coexistence. The standard of morality need not be mandated by imaginary beings. Deriving one’s moral code from reason is in no way ‘proclaiming one’s self god’ any more than is using analytic geometry to build a reliable bridge. Many atheists are moral; many religious people are immoral. These two facts alone prove that religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for moral conduct. What religionists really mean when they insist on ‘morality’ is that one worship their preferred idol. “What if one’s parents deserve to be cursed?” If one has vicious parents, they, like everyone else, will have to give an account to their Creator. “The Old Testament makes it clear that parents can kill their kids for cursing them.” One may deserve to be put to death in view of one’s wicked acts. It does not follow that one must kill those who deserve to be put to death. Furthermore, spiritual death is much worse than physical death! Today, however, many have little or no appreciation for the surpassing importance of spiritual life. “Is this ‘objectively’ moral?” I’ve already addressed the complex question of God’s unique power and authority to bestow and take life. (Sadly, the divine authority if often disregarded today, as in cases of IVF and elective abortion, for instance.) A more detailed treatment of this issue can be found elsewhere. What matters here is the moral principle itself. Is it morally acceptable to kill children for cursing their parents, period? Spiritual death is irrelevant. Answer the question with a simple yes or no. I’ve already addressed the complex question of God’s unique power and authority to bestow and take life. (Sadly, the divine authority if often disregarded today, as in cases of IVF and elective abortion, for instance.) Yes you’ve addressed the question but you just made a bunch of assertions with no evidence backing them up. It’s a good thing divine authority is disregarded today. Follow god’s commands and you will end up in prison. The transcendent ground of created being is absolutely prior to moral principles by which human acts are measured as either good or evil. Those who subordinate the divine to morality are sadly misguided. The sacrifice of children to false gods (demons) was not uncommon in ancient times. One of the important lessons derived from the story of Abraham and Isaac is that child sacrifice is displeasing to God. At the last moment Abraham was commanded not to slay Isaac. Abraham was obedient in both cases. Obedience to God is essential. Today child sacrifice–elective abortion–is all too common, and many believe it is a right! What a remarkable twist in logic! We have a “right” to do what is evil? Certainly not. “Yes you’ve addressed the question but you just made a bunch of assertions with no evidence backing them up.” I’ve offered reasons. Not every knowable truth requires scientific evidence. The reality of love or goodness, for instance, can be known without recourse to scientific evidence. “It’s a good thing divine authority is disregarded today.” I beg to differ. What is most responsible for the corruption of morals is the rejection of God! “Follow god’s [sic] commands and you will end up in prison.” Persons who obey God may be, and have been, persecuted or put to death (e.g., Sir Thomas More), but those who disobey God risk everlasting spiritual death! Spiritual death–separation from God–is far from irrelevant. One counter argument to the moral argument is called the Euthyphro Dilemma. It was posed by Socrates 2,400 years ago. It asks, “Is something moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral?” The person who believes objective morality is founded in God here has two options. If something is moral because God commands it, then morality is arbitrarily decided by God. God could command that we murder our children or own slaves and it would be good – merely because God said so. The actual commands would be meaningless and we’d have no way to gauge whether something is morally good or not except on whether it was commanded by God. This would be a “might makes right” ideology. In the other option, God is merely a messenger who alerts us to what is right or wrongindependently to whether God exists or not. Morality is not decided by God, God is simply the enforcer of what is naturally right or wrong. Neither option is particularly appealing to the theist. The first option makes morality simply dependent on God’s opinion at any given time. He could command that murder and rape are good, then change his mind and command that they are wrong. The second option turns God merely into a messenger, who one might say is redundant, and at best can only serve as a medium by which natural truths are known. The ontological foundation of [good] would exist independently of him. Now the Euthyphro Dilemma has been around for over 2000 years and theists have had plenty of time to respond to it. One common objection is to say that God is good – he is the absolute standard by which good is measured and founded. But is this a successful refutation of the dilemma? If God is the standard of goodness, by what means can we know this to be true? So we can ask, why is God good? The theist might say God is good because he is intrinsically loving, compassionate and fair. But then all we have to do is reformulate the Euthyphro Dilemma accordingly: Is God good because he is loving, compassionate and fair, or is being loving, compassionate and fair good because God is good? If you pick the former, then the attributes God has that make him good exist independently of God and are merely descriptive terms applied to God, if you pick the latter then how can we possibly know that being loving, compassionate and fair is good? It can’t simply be good because God is good, because then the word “good” is meaningless. There has to be a reason why we call something good. So what characteristic comes first – God’s goodness, or his being loving, compassionate and fair? The theist is in a squirm here. He cannot simply define God as being “good” without justification. Goodness has to be justified descriptively. But if those descriptions are warranted, then they imply goodness for epistemological reasons that are verifiable due to their intentions and effects. And thus the source of goodness would exist independently of God. God Almighty doesn’t have moral duties to fulfill, since He doesn’t issue commands to Himself. So we don’t praise Him for doing His duty. Rather He is to be adored for His moral character because He is essentially loving, just, kind, etc. It is because God is that way that these qualities count as virtues in the first place. Essentially, God is good the same way rain is wet, diamond gemstones are hard, photons tear across space at luminous speeds and cerulean suns blaze. So if you think of God’s goodness in terms of His possessing certain virtues rather than fulfilling certain duties, we have a more exalted and adequate concept of God Almighty. Non sequitur! The fact that God always keeps His promises does not logically entail that the category of moral obligations is applicable to divine action. When created persons honor a promise (to do good), they act in conformity with the natural moral law. God, however, is not under the natural moral law. Those who believe that God is under the natural moral law are operating with an anthropomorphic (pagan) conception of the transcendent One Who Is. We need a metaphysically purified, albeit limited, conception of God. In that connection, read Fides et Ratio. In view of what you write, it does not seem that you recognize a transcendent Creator, the One Who Is. God is not like intelligent creatures. The natural moral law measures the actions of finite persons. God is not a finite person. The transcendent divine action cannot be measured by moral categories! Have you read the Book of Job? In saying that God is good, one must remember that good is analogical, not univocal. God is metaphysically good, Self-subsisting Goodness. Consider what I wrote earlier in connection with the transcendentals, namely, being, unity, truth, and goodness. No I do not believe in any god. I’m sure you believe god is the paradigm of goodness, right? If so, and if god has no moral obligations, such that he can do what he wills, how can we even know god is good? Could god torture sentient beings for fun? If no, what stops him? His intrinsic goodness? If so, his intrinsic goodness prevents him from doing certain things. It limits god. In saying all the terms that apply to god are analogical and not univocal, you’re making god out to be a mystery wrapped inside an enigma. I cannot even coherently think about god. There is a term called ignostic, are you familiar with it? I agree with them. “I don’t think you’ve demonstrated that goodness cannot exist independently of god [sic]. Can you make a formal, logical argument making such a case?” Consider what I said earlier concerning law and legislators. As regards the term “good,” it’s not clear that you and I share the same understanding. I’ve not seen where you articulate your understanding of goodness. “Then how do you explain the millions of years of suffering endured by both humans and non-humans?” Catholics understand suffering within the context of original sin. Unbelievers are not well disposed to take seriously the revealed doctrine of original sin. See Edward T. Oakes, S.J., “Original Sin: A Disputation” “How do you know lying is imperfect or a defect? By what objective standard are you measuring this against? Tell me why it’s wrong.” The objective standard is the natural moral law divinely inscribed in human nature. Much has been written on the topic of lying. If you’re truly interested, see CCC, 2482-86. Also see (Do you prefer to be viewed as a liar, or do you prefer to be regarded as an honest person?) “Then Yahweh cannot be god [sic], because the character described in the Bible is anything but ‘unlimited Goodness.' ” I’m sorry you hold that erroneous belief. ? “All the more reason to think god [sic] is a man-made concept.” All human concepts are produced by the human intellect. They help us to understand what exists independently of the human mind. Human persons employ theological concepts in order to speak about God. “That’s a perfect way to hide the incoherency of god [sic].” Non sequitur. Around the globe, people speak about God every day. They aren’t babbling meaningless nonsense. Actual and meaningful communication between persons is taking place. Extremely intelligent writers publish important articles in professional theological journals. There is a legitimate place for kataphatic theology, not only apophatic theology. Both types of theology are important. If the term “God” were meaningless, we would not be engaged in a meaningful linguistic exchange. One can hardly eliminate all theological discourse by simply asserting that the term “God” is meaningless! In short, theological non-cognitivism is a non-starter. “I’m an ignostic for that reason.” If you’re really an “ignostic” as you claim, then stop spinning your wheels and move on! “Ignostics” cannot honestly participate in a theological discussion without being guilty of a performative contradiction. Consider what I said earlier concerning law and legislators. As regards the term “good,” it’s not clear that you and I share the same understanding. I’ve not seen where you articulate your understanding of goodness. Laws don’t need lawmakers. You haven’t even demonstrated a moral law to begin with. Please, make a coherent formal argument, if you could be so kind, arguing that goodness cannot exist independently of god. Catholics understand suffering within the context of original sin. Unbelievers are not well disposed to take seriously the revealed doctrine of original sin. See Edward T. Oakes, S.J., “Original Sin: A Disputation” You’re right that we don’t believe in original sin, because it makes no sense, and it doesn’t fit the data. As this post tries to argue but fails, Adam and Eve were not historical people. When did original sin enter into the evolutionary development of human beings? And why did suffering predate that event? The objective standard is the natural moral law divinely inscribed in human nature. Much has been written on the topic of lying. If you’re truly interested, see CCC, 2482-86. Also see(Do you prefer to be viewed as a liar, or do you prefer to be regarded as an honest person?) But why is the natural moral law such that lying is wrong? I want to know your reasons why it is wrong. Saying “The objective standard is the natural moral law divinely inscribed in human nature” doesn’t answer the challenge. You could respond the same way to a question of why slavery is good. It doesn’t tell me why it is wrong. I’m sorry you hold that erroneous belief. I’m sorry you fail to see the obvious truth. Non sequitur. Around the globe, people speak about God every day. They aren’t babbling meaningless nonsense. Actual and meaningful communication between persons is taking place. They could be talking about Star Wars, or some incorrect theory about science, economics or sociology. Being meaningful to humans or popular does not make something true. That’s a non sequitor. If the term “God” were meaningless, we would not be engaged in a meaningful linguistic exchange. One can hardly eliminate all theological discourse by simply asserting that the term “God” is meaningless! In short, theological non-cognitivism is a non-starter. I didn’t say god was meaningless, I said god was incoherent. Plenty of things are incoherent and are subjectively meaningful to people. I’m not trying to eliminate theological discourse, I’m trying to eliminate serious theistic belief. In short, if you’re going to tell me god exists, and has a very specific set of rules for my life, and yet is an “infinite mystery” whose most basic ontologies cannot be explained, I’m sorry but I just cannot take you seriously. If you’re really an “ignostic” as you claim, then stop spinning your wheels and move on! “Ignostics” cannot honestly participate in a theological discussion without being guilty of a performative contradiction. Performative contradiction? An ignostic I simply claim that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Constant appeals to mystery lead me to think god is a man-made concept, not mapped to anything ontological. “I didn’t say [G]od was meaningless, I said [G]od was incoherent. Plenty of things are incoherent and are subjectively meaningful to people. I’m not trying to eliminate theological discourse, I’m trying to eliminate serious theistic belief.” As I understand it, “ignosticism” appears to be an endorsement of theological non-cognitivism. Proponents of theological non-cognitivism hold that theological discourse is meaningless, and theology is thereby precluded. Ayer advanced the curious opinion that theological discourse is meaningless. As far as the project of eliminating serious theistic belief is concerned, don’t hold your breath! “I simply claim that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Constant appeals to mystery lead me to think [G]od is a man-made concept, not mapped to anything ontological.” One cannot provide a real definition of a thing, unless one possesses quidditative knowledge of the thing. In this life we cannot have quidditative knowledge of God. That said, one may offer a more or less complex nominal (non-quidditative) definition of God. For example, God is that-than-which-none-greater-can-be-conceived, or an absolutely necessary cause that cannot not be, etc. A nominal definition expressed in audible or legible words is the external manifestation of an interior concept. Whenever people talk about God, they are employing some interior theological concept, a concept which provides no truly quidditative knowledge of God; nevertheless, the theological concept makes possible meaningful talk about God based on analogy and the principle of causality. So kataphatic theology is not precluded. Quidditative knowledge of God is to be found in the beatific vision after death, among virtuous believers–friends of God–who are spiritually prepared, through humility and divine grace, to receive this supernatural vision of the transcendent divine nature. (In Heaven there is no room for hubris or any other vice.) •. As I understand it, “ignosticism” appears to be an endorsement of theological non-cognitivism. Proponents of theological non-cognitivism hold that theological discourse is meaningless, and theology is thereby precluded. Ayer advanced the curious opinion that theological discourse is meaningless. As far as the project of eliminating serious theistic belief is concerned, don’t hold your breath! There are different ways to look at “meaningless”. I do think it is meaningless to talk about god if you want a rational ontological explaination, but things that aren’t real can be subjectively meaningful as personal interests, like mythology. One cannot provide a real definition of a thing, unless one possesses quidditative knowledge of the thing. In this life we cannot have quidditative knowledge of God. That said, one may offer a more or less complex nominal (non-quidditative) definition of God. Or it could be that god doesn’t exist, and that’s why we can’t know such a thing. For example, God is that-than-which-none-greater-can-be-conceived, or an absolutely necessary cause that cannot not be, etc. Well, I can easily conceive a a being that is greater than Yahweh, therefore Yahweh cannot be god. Quidditative knowledge of God is to be found in the beatific vision after death, among virtuous believers–friends of God–who are spiritually prepared, through humility and divine grace, to receive this supernatural vision of the transcendent divine nature. (In Heaven there is no room for hubris or any other vice.) I know it all sounds poetic, but I cannot take any of that stuff seriously. I think a failure of religious advocates is that they assume too much from the starting point. In response to my reference to A.J. Ayer, you wrote: “There are different ways to look at ‘meaningless’. I do think it is meaningless to talk about [G]od if you want a rational ontological explaination, [sic] but things that aren’t real can be subjectively meaningful as personal interests, like mythology.” Regarding the school of thought promoted by A.J. Ayer, would you agree that (a) logical positivism (LP) is untenable? Or (b) are you an adherent of LP? Or perhaps (c) you have no knowledge of LP. I want to spread secularism in both its political definition and its philosophical definition. That is a separation or religion and government all over the world, and a society where religion is not seen as important, and where people use reason and not faith to tackle problems. If you are god-fearing, impose that on yourself, not others. Religion should be a personal, private relationship, like going on a diet, that you impose on yourself. I would prefer not to ever even hear your religious beliefs. But I’m not saying there should be laws against public displays of religiosity. I’m all for free speech, but that means I have the right to argue against religion to try and convince people it is a bad thing that should be jettisoned. “If you are god-fearing, impose that on yourself, not others. Religion should be a personal, private relationship, like going on a diet, that you impose on yourself.” People who hold opinions such as those expressed above pose a real threat to authentic religious freedom. If I have children, I have the God-given responsibility and right to raise and educate my children according to my faith. As a Christian, I have the responsibility to raise my children as Christians. I do not consider that to be “imposing” my faith on others. Moreover, true religion isn’t something purely private. We are social beings by nature, and sound religion is inherently communal in nature; we are called to worship our Creator not only in solitude, but together. The individualism you advocate may appeal to some people, especially in this country, but, as Aristotle saw clearly, it is not consistent with human nature; rather, individualism is a modern construct, and it is inherently problematic. One might add that false religion is not a good thing, but true revealed religion is good and indispensable to true happiness. You don’t allow for the possibility of true religion, while I affirm the reality of true religion. In that regard, I doubt that you and I will ever reach a meeting of minds. For those interested in the position that religion is at the very heart of culture, they should read the influential work of Christopher Dawson. I would also recommend highly the famous little, but penetrating, book by Josef Pieper, Leisure: The Basis of Culture. Eople who hold opinions such as those expressed above pose a real threat to authentic religious freedom. If I have children, I have the God-given responsibility and right to raise and educate my children according to my faith. I meant others outside your family. Sorry for any confusion. Moreover, true religion isn’t something purely private. We are social beings by nature, and sound religion is inherently communal in nature; we are called to worship our Creator not only in solitude, but together. I’m just recommending social norms, I’m not advocated laws preventing public displays of religion. When your religion effects me, I have the obligation to argue against it. One might add that false religion is not a good thing, but true revealed religion is good and indispensable to true happiness. You don’t allow for the possibility of true religion, while I affirm the reality of true religion. In that regard, I doubt that you and I will ever reach a meeting of minds. There is no way for you to show with good evidence that your religion is true. All religions claim to be true. Have your religion, but respect the wall of separation between church and state. “I’m just recommending social norms, I’m not advocated laws preventing public displays of religion.” Are the social norms in question supposed to remain in your mind exclusively, or are they supposed to be implemented in some public way? The latter would be more troubling than the former. “When your religion effects [sic] me, I have the obligation to argue against it.” In this country the civil law permits you to articulate in a respectful way arguments against any and all religions. And believers have the right to defend their faith against unsound arguments. But don’t insist that every reasonable person must accept your dubious materialistic assumptions! I don’t share your belief that philosophical materialism is sound. Nor do I share the false belief that modern natural science supports philosophical materialism! Modern natural science presupposes not philosophical materialism (PM), but methodological naturalism (MN). There is a great difference between PM and MN. Unlike PM, MN is a reasonable scientific assumption. It’s a disastrous error to overlook or deny the important distinction between PM and MN; PM is much stronger than MN. MN does not preclude the reasonableness of true faith, while PM is logically incompatible with true faith. I don’t necessarily think many people need something in its place. Look, I live in New York City, and there are very few religious people around me. Millions and millions of people are getting along with their lives quite nicely without the need for religion. But if religious activities are desired, there are things like Sunday Assembly that can fulfill this. As far as absolutes, I’m not sure what you mean. Religions don’t have absolutes. There are over 40,000 different denominations of Christianity for example, each with a different version of the “truth”. Once Christ was resurrected, he “entered... Into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.” ( Hebrews 9:24 ) This demonstrates a couple of significant elements relating to God Almighty. For starters, he has a location where he resides. Furthermore, he is actually a Person, not merely some ineffable force that pervades all of reality. The Scriptures plainly inform us that God Almighty possesses a body as well as revealing he is situated in the heavens. Matthew 6:9; John 4:24; 1 Corinthians 15:44) Put simply, he possesses corporealness and therefore locality. Understanding that, in fact, each and every heavenly spirit possesses corporealness makes it substantive when the Scriptures refer to God relative to his spirit creatures: “Micaiah then said: “Therefore, hear the word of Jehovah: I saw Jehovah sitting on his throne and all the army of the heavens standing by him, to his right and to his left.” -1 Kings 22:19 ““I kept watching until thrones were set in place and the Ancient of Days [Jehovah God] sat down. A stream of fire was flowing and going out from before him. A thousand thousands kept ministering to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.” -Daniel 9:9,10 (Bracket mine.) The Holy Bible additionally explains that our Creator bears a personal name, Jehovah, and even unveils his personality to us. It reveals that his most distinguished traits are love, justice, wisdom, together with power. ( Deuteronomy 32:4; Job 12:13; Isaiah 40:26; 1 John 4:8 ) The Scriptures informs us, likewise, that he is certainly merciful, kind, forgiving, big-hearted, as well as patient. Personality is the blend of traits or attributes that pattern an individual’s unique persona. It is the aggregation of all the attributes–behavioral, temperamental, emotional as well as mental–that represent a distinct individual. It is the manifestation of individual values, hopes, aspirations, principles, and behaviors. In effect, personality is to a particular person as culture would be to a group. Seeing as personality is the quality or fact of being a person as distinguished from a particular thing or creature it follows that Jehovah God is absolutely a person. Jesus Christ, the Second ( divine) Person of the Holy Trinity, possesses two natures–one human, one divine. Hypostatically united with his divine nature, his human nature includes body and soul. HIs divine nature, however, is altogether immaterial and without potentiality. None of the foregoing is inconsistent with Catholic doctrine. To hold that the divine nature is blended or mixed with matter, just as matter is an essential part of human nature, is to hold a heterodox position. It is true that the body of Christ is not without place; however, the transcendent divine nature is omnipresent and eternal, not contained within the created boundaries of space and time. Many years ago I learned that intelligent conversation is seldom advanced when people (in more than a few instances without any formal training in biblical science) throw scriptural passages at each other. One reason is that people not infrequently differ in their interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and when private individuals view themselves as the ultimate authority in matters of biblical exegesis, they spin their wheels to no good effect. For those who recognize the Apostolic authority of the Magisterium of the Church, see 4th Lateran Council (Denzinger: 800). Not sure what you mean by “Bible-based reasoning.” In any event, sound Catholic theology involves the wholesome integration of theological faith and natural reason. Sound Catholic theology is neither fideist nor rationalist in nature. Both the supernatural light of faith and the natural light of reason are gifts from God, and we are called to exercise these complementary gifts. If we reject the gift of theological faith, fallen human reason inevitably falls into error. If we abandon the gift of natural reason, we end up with little more than superstitious religious beliefs, not true faith! “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” First, Catholic theology involves a systematic and rigorous rational reflection on the truths of faith expressed in Sacred Scripture. Second, the biblical passage in question is not equivalent to “Sola Scriptura.” Third, that passage does not prevent people from offering conflicting and incompatible interpretations of scriptural passages. People often misinterpret various passages found in Sacred Scripture. The question you raise is complex, and it deserves more than a brief reply, which is all I can offer in this context. If God issues a command, it must be in accord with his eternal and infallible Wisdom. To disobey God’s command is to act contrary to His Wisdom, to act contrary to prudence and right reason, which is not good. If God forbids an action (e.g., don’t eat that fruit), then it would be wrong to eat the forbidden fruit. For one’s action would be in opposition to the eternal law, i.e., God. It is always wrong to oppose the eternal law, as the lower should always be subordinate to the higher, and man is neither above nor equal to God. It is also true that there is an objective order of goods (including human life), and this order is established and sustained by divine providence. To destroy innocent human life is to act against the objective order of goods and to act in opposition to the divine Author of the objective order of goods. God would never command us to do what is evil, for He would never command us to act against His Wisdom. That would be incoherent. Furthermore, after the Original Sin, we are all under a death sentence. Among the wages of sin is death. So, it is up to God to determine when each fallen human person will die, and the way in which each one will die. Regarding the latter, the manner of death is either willed positively by God, or via God’s permissive will (e.g., when God permits abortionists to destroy innocent human lives in the wombs of mothers). When man takes innocent human life on his own authority, he commits murder. If God commands a man to take a human life (e.g., the story of Abraham and Isaac), one should obey, for God–the Author of life–has the authority to take the life He has given. In the latter case, no murder is committed. Murder obtains only when man, on his own authority, takes innocent human life. There is an objective moral law (the natural law), but this law is not independent of God, who is the eternal law, the source of all other laws. So, God is neither capricious nor is He subordinate to anything other than Himself. God is self-subsisting Goodness, and His actions transcend the natural law He established in His creation. The Euthyphro dilemma is a dilemma only for those who follow a false god, not the transcendent God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Jesus Christ. God is good because God is God! One must keep in mind that the term “good” applies to God in an analogical, not univocal, sense. Moral attributes predicated of created human persons (e.g., justice) are not predicable of God in the same sense, although many make that mistake. For many lack a metaphysically refined notion of the transcendent Godhead. We can grow in moral goodness, insofar as we can become increasingly conformed to God’s will, by growing in virtues such as justice and love. God cannot grow in goodness, for God cannot become more God. He is Self-subsisting Goodness. The virtues of justice and love are not predicable of God; rather, God is Self-subsisting Holiness and Self-subsisting Love. As long as one harbors a distorted or pagan conception of divinity (the proper target of Socrates’ line of philosophical questioning), the dilemma articulated in Plato’s Euthyphro cannot be resolved satisfactorily. The revealed doctrine of faith promulgated by the Catholic Church, however, does not advocate a distorted or pagan conception of divinity. Thomas Aquinas, one of the great Doctors of the Catholic Church, had more than a little to say about the mysterious reality of God. His metaphysically refined notion of the One Who Is can be found in works like his Summa Theologiae and his Summa Contra Gentiles. One may find seeds of truth in Divine Command Theory (DCT); however, the voluntarist aspects of DCT (e.g., William of Ockham) are philosophically problematic. Thomas Aquinas rightly rejects such voluntarism. Thomas elaborates a highly nuanced theocentric understanding of the natural moral law inscribed in human nature. Everything I stated in my previous response stands as before. If someone fails to grasp what I stated earlier, it doesn’t follow that what I wrote makes no sense. Regarding natural law theory, not all theories of natural law are equal. I’m not a fan of the so-called “New Natural Law Theory” (NNLT) (e.g., John Finnis). Far superior, in my judgment, is St. Thomas Aquinas’ theocentric and metaphysically robust natural law theory. All law presupposes a legislator, and the universal natural moral law presupposes a divine Lawgiver. (My mind didn’t make, but discovered, the natural moral law, which was established at the beginning of the creation of finite, participated persons by a transcendent Intellect, a.k.a., God.) Those who believe that the universal and objective moral law was made by a finite human mind are off track. Regarding the philosophical question of goodness, I take a metaphysical approach. Goodness is one of the transcendentals. Insofar as something is, it is good. God is essential (unparticipated) Being ( Ipsum Esse Subsistens, cf. Exodus 3:14), so God is essential (unparticipated) Goodness. Finite entities are participated beings, so finite entities are participated goods. Evil is privation. Evil presupposes an order of finite (contingent) goods, and an order of finite (contingent) goods presupposes essential (uncreated) Goodness that transcends the created order of contingent, participated goods. Can finite entities be without receiving their act of existing from the One Who Is, namely, God? If not, then no finite, contingent good can be without receiving its participated goodness from essential (unparticipated) Goodness. God is the transcendent and primary source of all good things and acts, notwithstanding the objections of Pelagians and Semipelagians! I’m reading about Aquinas now and I don’t find his natural law theory impressive. It relies on Aristotle’s theory of forms. I don’t see how you get specific objective morals from this. I understand that god is thought of as pure being and existence by Aquinas but this to me is nothing but word games derived from bad metaphysics. If privation is lacking good, you haven’t defined evil or good. Can you give a robust definition of either? Besides I’m not buying this god is existence thing. It’s trying to define god into existence. “I’m reading about Aquinas now and I don’t find his natural law theory impressive.” One is hardly in a position to appreciate what one does not understand. “It relies on Aristotle’s theory of forms. I don’t see how you get specific objective morals from this.” One must first understand his philosophy of nature and his sophisticated theory of causality, including final causality. Today many lack a philosophical understanding of nature. That’s a serious philosophical lacuna, which leads to other critical difficulties. “I understand that god [sic] is thought of as pure being and existence by Aquinas[,] but this to me is nothing but word games derived from bad metaphysics.” St. Thomas certainly isn’t playing games with words. He knows how to employ philosophical language to convey important philosophical truths. Thomistic metaphysics isn’t bad, but it is intellectually challenging, and it demands no small investment on our part if we are to derive benefit from the metaphysical wisdom he shared with others. “If privation is lacking good, you haven’t defined evil or good.” Evil is the privation of good, as blindness is the privation of sight. Life is good, death–the privation of life–is evil. Good is the end ( telos) toward which all things aim, consciously or otherwise. Ultimately, all things by nature aim, in their own proper way, toward God, the ultimate perfection of the universe. Moreover, as I noted in a previous post, there can be no finite good that does not have its absolutely first or primary source in essential Goodness, i.e., God. “Besides I’m not buying this god [sic] is existence thing.” Have you read Exodus 3:14? What exactly do you think “I Am Who Am” signifies? Is that a word game? Or is it an astonishingly profound metaphysical revelation? Of course, one must bear in mind the metaphysical truth that being is analogical, not univocal. Pantheism is erroneous. “It’s trying to define god [sic] into existence.” God cannot be defined, for God transcends all species and genera, which are limited. The existence of God can be demonstrated philosophically, notwithstanding the misguided objections of fideists. The world of contingent beings requires an efficient cause, and no contingent being can be its own efficient cause of existence. Only Self-subsistent Being ( Ipsum Esse Subsistens) can be the primary efficient cause of contingent or participated being. One is hardly in a position to appreciate what one does not understand. True, but can’t the same be said of you regarding science and other religions? One must first understand his philosophy of nature and his sophisticated theory of causality, including final causality. Today many lack a philosophical understanding of nature. That’s a serious philosophical lacuna, which leads to other critical difficulties. I know final causes play a very large role in A-T philosophy. I see no evidence of final causes in nature. Defenders of final causes just take the latter event in a series of causes and simply attribute that as the final cause. How are final causes distinguishable from events that would’ve just happened? How are final causes falsifiable? Thomas certainly isn’t playing games with words. He knows how to employ philosophical language to convey important philosophical truths. Thomistic metaphysics isn’t bad, but it is intellectually challenging, and it demands no small investment on our part if we are to derive benefit from the metaphysical wisdom he shared with others. I think A-T metaphysics is just a very sophisticated way to be wrong. Can you prove final causes exist in nature without doing what I described above? Have you read Exodus 3:14? What exactly do you think “I Am Who Am” signifies? Is that a word game? Or is it an astonishingly profound metaphysical revelation? Of course, one must bear in mind the metaphysical truth that being is analogical, not univocal. Pantheism is erroneous. Have you considered that the Bible is man made? Have you considered that a book that has a god saying “I Am Who Am” doesn’t have any real ontological implications and is really just words and ideas written out onto paper? God cannot be defined, for God transcends all species and genera, which are limited. God is limited: he cannot do the logically impossible, he cannot be immoral (according to some theists). There are an infinite number of things god cannot do. If god cannot be defined, then he is an incoherent concept and no one should take it seriously, especially when “God” is given such a neurotic personality, as Yahweh has. The world of contingent beings requires an efficient cause, and no contingent being can be its own efficient cause of existence. Only Self-subsistent Being (Ipsum Esse Subsistens) can be the primary efficient cause of contingent or participated being. God is contingent on us. We created god in our image. No people, no god. The universe may be eternal, in the eternalistic sense given by Special Relativity. In fact we have good evidence that is so. Such a universe never came into existence, and although we can imagine it not existing, the actual possibility of that is impossible. Eternalism redefines our notions of contingency. How does a timeless god who knows everything freely choose to create our world and not some other world? God can’t make decisions, because if he did that would require time, and he can’t be indecisive because that would falsify his omniscience. So god must have the eternal desire and knowledge to create our world, say World X, and not some other world, say World Y, – meaning there was never a time god wanted to create World Y instead of World X; he always wanted to create World X. How then is the creation of World X “freely” decided by god if the creation of world Y or the forbearance to create any world never existed? And how does god create time, if prior to time existing literally nothing can happen? “This fosters the illusion that the world itself is full of purpose and design.” Here I would recommend a valuable work by the late Stanley Jaki, O.S.B., The Purpose of It All. “To say final causes exist is to make a claim on physical reality, that falls within the domain of science. So no, not everything is scientific, but claims on physical reality are.” Your reasoning here is flawed. Consider an example. God created the world. It does not follow, however, that modern natural science is competent to investigate divine action. Modern natural science is competent to investigate certain visible effects of divine action. At this point you might wish to deny that there can be any real causes beyond the epistemic limits of modern natural science. If so, that would imply scientism, but you have denied that you endorse scientism. “I wouldn’t call that [theological faith] a gift, I’d call that a bias.” That sounds to me like an expression of rationalism. “It is a simple statement of fact that the divine attribute[s] aren’t coherent.” The alleged statement of fact is merely your private opinion, not fact! Here I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. Thankfully, I’m not an “ignostic.” “Saying god [sic] is timeless and yet does things that requires [sic] time is a non sequitor [sic].” No non sequitur on my part. I never said that the divine act of creation is a temporal act. The divine act of creation ex nihilo does not presuppose time; time is part of creation. Time presupposes motion, but creation ex nihilo is not a motion. “Your answer indicates your utter ignorance towards science.” I wasn’t offering a scientific argument; rather, it was an instance of meta-scientific reasoning. It seems that modern natural science is, for you, the ultimate standard of human knowledge. That’s scientism, not science! Your reasoning here is flawed. Consider an example. God created the world. It does not follow, however, that modern natural science is competent to investigate divine action. Modern natural science is competent to investigate certain visible effects of divine action. At this point you might wish to deny that there can be any real causes beyond the epistemic limits of modern natural science. If so, that would imply scientism, but you have denied that you endorse scientism. Well divine action is usually made in such a way that it is purposely exempt from the prying eyes of scientists. The thing here is that if god is effecting the the physical world, that is comprehensible to scientists. To say god works in the universe in a way completely undetectable to science, or to the 5 senses for that matter, is to make god’s actions indistinguishable from his non actions. That sounds to me like an expression of rationalism. Call it what you want. The alleged statement of fact is merely your private opinion, not fact! Here I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. Thankfully, I’m not an “ignostic.” Yes, we can agree to disagree. No non sequitur on my part. I never said that the divine act of creation is a temporal act. The divine act of creation ex nihilo does not presuppose time; time is part of creation. Time presupposes motion, but creation ex nihilo is not a motion. I know that Thomists do not think of god as temporal. The divine act of creation ex nihilo does presuppose time. How does god will something if there’s no time? And how does god create time, if prior to time existing literally nothing can happen? God’s will to create our universe and not a different one would have to exist eternally, and in what sense can we consider that even “free” if your decision existed eternally? I wasn’t offering a scientific argument; rather, it was an instance of meta-scientific reasoning. It seems that modern natural science is, for you, the ultimate standard of human knowledge. That’s scientism, not science! Meta-scientific reasoning based on a false view of the world. Modern natural science for me is the most reliable standard of human knowledge when it comes to fundamental ontology. If we were talking about math, I wouldn’t use empirical science, I’d use logic. Metaphysics should be derived from physics. It shouldn’t try to tell physics what to do. That will result in flawed reasoning. “Well divine action is usually made in such a way that it is purposely exempt from the prying eyes of scientists. The thing here is that if [G]od is effecting the physical world, that is comprehensible to scientists. To say [G]od works in the universe in a way completely undetectable to science, or to the 5 senses for that matter, is to make [G]od’s actions indistinguishable from his non[-]actions.” First, you grant too much epistemic credit to modern natural science, and insufficient epistemic credit to metaphysics. In other words, you don’t appreciate the proper methodological boundaries of modern natural science, a question treated in the philosophy of science. In any case, as regards divine action and the epistemic scope of modern natural science, the philosophical complexities involved preclude an adequate treatment in the present venue. You’ll need to do some careful homework if you wish to make any fruitful progress. I recommend again the exceptional work of Michael Dodds, O.P., Unlocking Divine Action: Contemporary Science and Thomas Aquinas. Second, when you refer to God, you appear to be assuming uncritically a deistic conception of God. I would agree that a deistic conception of God is deeply problematic. Third, what could be meant by God’s “non-actions”? Since there is no potentiality in God, who is Pure Act, the non-actions in question must refer to the purely possible effects not actualized by God. What has been actualized and what has not been actualized are certainly distinguishable. We can know divine action, not directly, but analogically and through discernible created effects. “Meta-scientific reasoning based on a false view of the world. Modern natural science for me is the most reliable standard of human knowledge when it comes to fundamental ontology. If we were talking about math, I wouldn’t use empirical science, I’d use logic. Metaphysics should be derived from physics. It shouldn’t try to tell physics what to do. That will result in flawed reasoning.” Fundamental ontology exceeds the methodological competence of modern natural science. You deny that you endorse scientism, but you speak like a proponent of scientism. If the shoe fits •. First, you grant too much epistemic credit to modern natural science, and insufficient epistemic credit to metaphysics. In other words, you don’t appreciate the proper methodological boundaries of modern natural science, a question treated in the philosophy of science. In any case, as regards divine action and the epistemic scope of modern natural science, the philosophical complexities involved preclude an adequate treatment in the present venue. You’ll need to do some careful homework if you wish to make any fruitful progress. I recommend again the exceptional work of Michael Dodds, O.P., Unlocking Divine Action: Contemporary Science and Thomas Aquinas. I think you might be underestimating the epistemic credit f modern science. Metaphysics is important, and I don’t think it’s useless, like some atheists do. But, metaphysics should be derived from physics, not the other way around. I am well aware of the tradition in Christian theology that god is not something scientifically demonstrated. The point I would want to make is that if you accept what science has to say about the universe, it doesn’t fit in with theism. I’ve tried really hard to image what it would be like if Christianity was true and I cannot reconcile it with reality. Second, when you refer to God, you appear to be assuming uncritically a deistic conception of God. I would agree that a deistic conception of God is deeply problematic. I don’t think I’m assuming deism here. But since you mention it, I think deism is the only coherent idea of god, given the data we have. Third, what could be meant by God’s “non-actions”? Since there is no potentiality in God, who is Pure Act, the non-actions in question must refer to the purely possible effects not actualized by God. What has been actualized and what has not been actualized are certainly distinguishable. We can know divine action, not directly, but analogically and through discernible created effects. By non-actions, I mean the same thing could have happened without god. The idea that god cured someone’s cancer, or god caused a hurricane, or a plague, etc., they can all be explained without reference to god at all. The idea of “god caused X,” and “X happened without god” are indistinguishable. We cannot “know” divine action through inference. You simply assume it based on Thomistic metaphysics, which is wrong. Or you use a god of the gaps argument. And please answer me this, if god has no potentiality, how does god potentially become a physical person as Jesus? Wouldn’t that represent an ontological change in god? Fundamental ontology exceeds the methodological competence of modern natural science. You deny that you endorse scientism, but you speak like a proponent of scientism. If the shoe fits Wrong. You don’t know that. You’re assuming that because you think the supernatural exists. Scientism says “the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge.” I’m not saying they are the only methods, I’m saying they’re the most reliable when it comes to fundamental ontology. Faith and “witness to the Holy spirit” are not reliable epistemologies. “The point I would want to make is that if you accept what science has to say about the universe, it doesn’t fit in with theism. I’ve tried really hard to image what it would be like if Christianity was true and I cannot reconcile it with reality.” The created world includes both spiritual being (e.g., rational souls, free acts, moral virtues, etc.) and material being (e.g., minerals, plants, comets, etc.). Modern natural science is competent to treat material being, while presupposing spiritual being. There would be no natural science without intelligent agents; natural science presupposes intellect, which is a spiritual or inorganic faculty. Based on what you have said previously, your worldview does not include spiritual being. Your worldview does not seem to recognize the distinction between matter and being, that the latter is more comprehensive than the former. That helps to explain why you’re unable to reconcile theism with reality. Your narrow view of reality does not allow for theism. The created world includes both spiritual being (e.g., rational souls, free acts, moral virtues, etc.) and material being (e.g., minerals, plants, comets, etc.). Moral virtues are spiritual beings? This is just one more thing derived from your faulty metaphysics. Modern natural science is competent to treat material being, while presupposing spiritual being. There would be no natural science without intelligent agents; natural science presupposes intellect, which is a spiritual or inorganic faculty. There is no need to presuppose spiritual being in science. And intelligent agents do not need to be explained via spiritual or inorganic faculty. This is something you believe. Your worldview does not seem to recognize the distinction between matter and being, that the latter is more comprehensive than the former. That helps to explain why you’re unable to reconcile theism with reality. Your narrow view of reality does not allow for theism. Reality far exceeds the limits of your imagination. (Incidentally, deism is metaphysically bankrupt.) Here your metaphysics guides you and I don’t hold to your metaphysics. I think it is wrong and in some cases, vague. I cannot reconcile theism with reality because theism doesn’t match reality. There are too many problems, too much lacking of evidence, and too much faith one has to have. I don’t know how you included deism here, but you’ve made no good argument against it. “Moral virtues are spiritual beings? This is just one more thing derived from your faulty metaphysics.” I don’t share your faulty conception of being. The analogical notion of being can be applied to anything that exists in some way or another, including substances and accidents (e.g., habitus), powers (e.g., will) and acts (e.g., thoughts). Although not substances, moral virtues are still real, not nothing. “There is no need to presuppose spiritual being in science. And intelligent agents do not need to be explained via spiritual or inorganic faculty. This is something you believe.” I’m familiar with the sterile creed of materialists. It doesn’t wash. “I cannot reconcile theism with reality because theism doesn’t match reality.” Repeating an opinion doesn’t make it true. Furthermore, I don’t endorse that opinion. In fact, I’m absolutely certain that atheism if false! I should add that I don’t think that all theologies are equal. Some conceptions of God are distortions. “There are too many problems, too much lacking of evidence, and too much faith one has to have.” Everybody has beliefs! Even scientists have beliefs. Having beliefs is not necessarily a bad thing, but false beliefs are not good. The belief that matter and being are altogether synonymous, for example, is not a good belief. “I don’t know how you included deism here, but you’ve made no good argument against it.” You indicated elsewhere that you deem deism to be superior to theism, although you consider both to be false. I understand why you, an atheist, would view deism as superior to theism. Those who appreciate the radical contingency of participated being, however, can see why deism is metaphysically untenable. I don’t share your faulty conception of being. The analogical notion of being can be applied to anything that exists in some way or another, including substances and accidents (e.g., habitus), powers (e.g., will) and acts (e.g., thoughts). Although not substances, moral virtues are still real, not nothing. In what sense do moral virtues exist as “spiritual beings”? Describe the ontology of spiritual being: what they are, and what they’re not. It’s one thing to say moral virtues exist, it’s another to say they exist as spiritual beings. I’m familiar with the sterile creed of materialists. It doesn’t wash. Well I’m familiar with the woo-woo of equivocation religious language. It doesn’t wash, and you haven’t made any good logical arguments against materialism. Repeating an opinion doesn’t make it true. Furthermore, I don’t endorse that opinion. In fact, I’m absolutely certain that atheism if false! I should add that I don’t think that all theologies are equal. Some conceptions of God are distortions. Would you like to really debate this issue? We can do it here or on my blog. If you are certain atheism is false, let’s debate that. I want to hear your best arguments why atheism is false and why Christianity is true. Everybody has beliefs! Even scientists have beliefs. Having beliefs is not necessarily a bad thing, but false beliefs are not good. The belief that matter and being are altogether synonymous, for example, is not a good belief. You’re conflating belief with faith. By “faith” I mean the belief in something without good evidence. Therefore faith is a kind of belief, the worst kind. There’s nothing wrong with beliefs, you just have to have good reasons and evidence for holding your beliefs. You indicated elsewhere that you deem deism to be superior to theism, although you consider both to be false. I understand why you, an atheist, would view deism as superior to theism. Those who appreciate the radical contingency of participated being, however, can see why deism is metaphysically untenable. And those us of who are scientifically and philosophically inclined, and knowledgeable of religion, can see why Thomistic metaphysics is metaphysically untenable. But since we disagree so much, why don’t we have a real debate? “It’s one thing to say moral virtues exist, it’s another to say they exist as spiritual beings.” Apparently you’ve either not read or not understood Aristotle, who was neither a Christian nor a Jew. Furthermore, he was not a materialist. Moral virtues–good habitus–are real, yet they are immaterial. We cannot engage in rational inquiry, including scientific investigation, without thinking, and we cannot think without employing concepts. Concepts are not nothing, yet they are immaterial. If materialism were true, there would be no concepts. There are concepts. Ergo Materialists hold that everything real can be derived from or reduced to matter, that matter is the ultimate explanatory principle of all that is real. In that case, why isn’t all matter living? What differentiates living matter from inert matter? The materialist cannot answer that question without appealing to a principle that is not material. Matter in itself is not intelligible apart from an immaterial principle of intelligibility. Aristotle would say that a living thing’s principle of life and intelligibility is its form. Form is to matter as act is to potency. Materialists don’t like that. It doesn’t fit with their dogmatic belief that whatever is real is real insofar as it is material or a derivative of matter, that matter is the absolute principle of explanation and existence. That dogmatic belief has no truly rational basis. Moreover, materialism does not allow any room for truth, for truth transcends matter. Truth belongs to the realm of spiritual being, to which the realm of material being is subordinate. Apparently you’ve either not read or not understood Aristotle, who was neither a Christian nor a Jew. Furthermore, he was not a materialist. Moral virtues–good habitus–are real, yet they are immaterial. Aristotle’s predecessor Plato, as I already mentioned, showed that deities have nothing to do with morality. We cannot engage in rational inquiry, including scientific investigation, without thinking, and we cannot think without employing concepts. Concepts are not nothing, yet they are immaterial. If materialism were true, there would be no concepts. There are concepts. Ergo There are versions of materialism, such as property dualism, and non-reductive physicalism that are compatible with the idea of concepts as mental phenomenon. I’m an epiphenominalist. All ideas and concepts are caused by brain states, the mental doesn’t cause anything. Without physical brains there are no concepts, there is no mental. That’s perfectly compatible with atheism, which is not the same as materialism. Materialists hold that everything real can be derived from or reduced to matter, that matter is the ultimate explanatory principle of all that is real. In that case, why isn’t all matter living? What differentiates living matter from inert matter? Your first question commits the fallacy of composition. Living things are made of matter, but matter itself doesn’t have to be living. When matter forms a certain complex arrangement, we get life; by itself, it’s just matter. There is no difference between the matter in life from the matter in non-living things. It is their interconnection that makes the difference. The materialist cannot answer that question without appealing to a principle that is not material. You have to prove that principles exist apart from matter. Matter in itself is not intelligible apart from an immaterial principle of intelligibility. Aristotle would say that a living thing’s principle of life and intelligibility is its form. I don’t think Aristotle is a competent authority on ontology, considering how much he got wrong. You need to demonstrate that immaterial principles can exist apart from matter. Every example of a principle or a concept you know comes from a mind, which comes from a physical brain. Form is to matter as act is to potency. Materialists don’t like that. It doesn’t fit with their dogmatic belief that whatever is real is real insofar as it is material or a derivative of matter, that matter is the absolute principle of explanation and existence. That dogmatic belief has no truly rational basis. Anything physical will have a form. It is not dogmatic to say everything is material or derived from the material, as the preponderance of evidence shows this to be true. That is its rational basis. Moreover, materialism does not allow any room for truth, for truth transcends matter. Truth belongs to the realm of spiritual being, to which the realm of material being is subordinate. Materialism absolutely allows room for truth. Truth is anything in accord with fact or reality. Material beings can know this through the senses or through the intellect. The idea of truth transcending matter, like logical truths, do not mean they exist in a “third realm” – they are simply truths that have to be so because it is logically impossible that they aren’t. “[1] I don’t think Aristotle is a competent authority on ontology, considering how much he got wrong. You need to demonstrate that immaterial principles can exist apart from matter. [2] Every example of a principle or a concept comes from a mind, which comes from a physical brain.” Regarding 2, the opinion that mind emerges from cerebral matter violates the principle of causality, according to which there cannot be an effect without a cause, and no effect can be ontologically superior to its cause. Proponents of Darwinian orthodoxy often violate that meta-scientific principle. (The author of The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex was a committed philosophical materialist.) Mind is ontologically superior to matter, as human persons are ontologically superior to non-rational sentient animals, which are ontologically superior to living plants, which are ontologically superior to inert minerals. The aforesaid ontological hierarchy of being is not something that philosophical materialists are prepared to entertain seriously. They feel compelled to do all that they can to oppose any recognition of the ontological hierarchy of being. No version of philosophical materialism, including property dualism and non-reductive physicalism, can admit the objective hierarchy of being. The hierarchy of being and philosophical materialism are mutually exclusive. It’s difficult to take very seriously anyone who obstinately refuses to recognize the hierarchy of being, including the ontological superiority of man over beast. Unlike human persons, wild beasts are not free moral agents. It makes little sense to put a brute animal (e.g., a bear or a venomous snake) on trial for killing a human person. Brute animals cannot understand the difference between moral right and wrong. Only rational animals can be held accountable for their free actions. Regarding 1, one of the most brilliant thinkers in recorded history, Aristotle was not what one would properly describe as a “religious person,” and I do not hold that his views were correct in every case. That said, Aristotle’s realist philosophy is most certainly superior to philosophical materialism and its hopeless fictions. If you choose to give your life over to the inhumane fictions of philosophical materialism, that is your decision, but please don’t try to impose such pseudo-scientific fictions upon others. Regarding 2, the opinion that mind emerges from cerebral matter violates the principle of causality, according to which there cannot be an effect without a cause, and no effect can be ontologically superior to its cause. The mind is caused by the brain. We have lots of data backing that up, and no data the mind causes the brain. The principle of causality, interestingly, also shows how there cannot be fre will. If every effect has a cause, then your will has a cause, and whatever caused that has a cause, and eventually you will get to a cause outside your person. Mind is ontologically superior to matter, as human persons are ontologically superior to non-rational sentient animals, which are ontologically superior to living plants, which are ontologically superior to inert minerals. Animals have minds. So are there minds ontologically superior to our bodies? Prove mind is ontologically superior to matter using evidence. No version of philosophical materialism, including property dualism and non-reductive physicalism, can admit the objective hierarchy of being. Yes, because that heirarchy of being is false. Mind is not superior to matter. Mind is cause by matter. No matter, no mind. It’s difficult to take very seriously anyone who obstinately refuses to recognize the hierarchy of being, including the ontological superiority of man over beast. The ontological superiority of man over beast does not violate materialism. Materialists can recognize that humans have capacities that animals do not. Unlike human persons, wild beasts are not free moral agents. It makes little sense to put a brute animal (e.g., a bear or a venomous snake) on trial for killing a human person. Brute animals cannot understand the difference between moral right and wrong. Only rational animals can be held accountable for their free actions. You have to argue with evidence that humans have libertarian free will. You just asserted it. And you’re ignoring that we evolved. There is no demarcation line between human and man, it blends in during our evolution. So did Neanderthals have “free will” according to you? What about homo erectus? The idea that lower animals have no free will makes little sense why they should suffer and die in the same ways we do for no purpose or reason. Regarding 1, one of the most brilliant thinkers in recorded history, Aristotle was not what one would properly describe as a “religious person,” and I do not hold that his views were correct in every case. That said, Aristotle’s realist philosophy is most certainly superior to philosophical materialism and its hopeless fictions. If you choose to give your life over to the inhumane fictions of philosophical materialism, that is your decision, but please don’t try to impose such pseudo-scientific fictions upon others. One of the things I think Aristotle god wrong was his version of realism. The reason why philosophical materialism dominates the sciences, is because it makes the most sense given the evidence and allows science to advance further than any assumptions of an intervening god and supernaturalism. So, in school we teach evolution from a naturalistic perspective because that’s what the evidence shows. Some creationists consider that “imposing”, I consider it science. Your last sentence seems to suggest that I shouldn’t tell anyone about materialism, is that true? Do you mean this in the social sense or legal sense? I consider your beliefs pseudo-science fictions, that should have no place in government or public schools, etc. The mind is caused by the brain. We have lots of data backing that up, and no data the mind causes the brain.” That’s part of the questionable creed of philosophical materialism. In truth, the human mind or intellect, like God and all immaterial beings, transcends the methodological boundaries of modern natural science. Strictly in terms of logic, to say that modern natural science cannot prove the reality of immaterial things, like angels and human intellects, is not to say that they do not exist. Similarly, the fact that we haven’t proven the existence of extraterrestrial life does not prove that there is no extraterrestrial life. (Incidentally, I’m not suggesting that I actually believe that there are extraterrestrial forms of life, but I don’t absolutely preclude the possibility.) “The principle of causality, interestingly, also shows how there cannot be fre[e] will. If every effect has a cause, then your will has a cause, and whatever caused that has a cause, and eventually you will get to a cause outside your person.” You’re beyond your depth. Determinism and libertarian freedom (a.k.a. Freedom of indifference) are not the only options. Thomas Aquinas, among others, held that universal causality and freedom of choice are perfectly compatible. In fact, he argues forcefully that without divine causality, there could be no human freedom of choice. Furthermore, when you write “whatever caused that [human will] has a cause,” you make a false assumption. From the fact that X caused Y, it does not follow that something else caused X. X could be the absolutely first or primary cause, namely, the One Who Is. “Animals have minds. So are there [sic] minds ontologically superior to our bodies? Prove mind is ontologically superior to matter using evidence.” First, subhuman animals do not have minds or intellects in the strict sense. Unlike those who assume a materialistic conception of the human person, Catholics recognize that there is an ontological gap between human persons and lower animals. The human intellect entails the capacity to produce concepts and employ linguistic communication. In his philosophically penetrating book, Origin of the Human Species, Professor Bonnette discusses the question of language, not simply non-linguistic communication, among subhuman animals. Second, the ontological superiority of mind over matter has been recognized not only by believers (e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas, Stanley Jaki), but also by non-believers (e.g., Aristotle). See Stanley Jaki, Brain, Mind and Computers. “Yes, because that heirarchy [sic] of being is false. Mind is not superior to matter. Mind is cause [sic] by matter. No matter, no mind.” You’ve got it backwards. No mind, no matter! Matter presupposes mind, but mind does not necessarily presuppose matter. “The ontological superiority of man over beast does not violate materialism.” Well, that’s interesting. Earlier you said, in effect, that there is no hierarchy of being. Now you imply that philosophical materialism is compatible with the objective hierarchy of being. For the ontological superiority of man over beast implies the hierarchy of being recognized by Aristotle and many others. One cannot consistently (1) affirm the ontological superiority of man over beast, and simultaneously (2) deny the objective hierarchy of being. And philosophical materialism is not compatible with the objective hierarchy of being. Insofar as you reject the objective hierarchy of being, you do not really accept the ontological superiority of man over beast. You need to rethink your views, at least for the sake of consistency. “You have to argue with evidence that humans have libertarian free will. You just asserted it.” First, one can affirm genuine freedom of choice without endorsing the philosophically controversial theory of libertarian freedom. Second, there can be no morality without presupposing real freedom of choice. Morality presupposes freedom. “The reason why philosophical materialism [PM] dominates the sciences, is because it makes the most sense given the evidence and allows science to advance further than any assumptions of an intervening god and supernaturalism.” First, PM has no real evidential or scientific basis. Second, you are ignoring the crucial distinction between philosophical materialism (PM) and methodological naturalism (MN). MN is scientifically useful, while PM is unscientific. Modern natural science does not prove PM, which exceeds the methodological boundaries of modern natural science. It’s also true that the reality of the Supernatural transcends the methodological boundaries of modern natural science. “So, in school we teach evolution from a naturalistic perspective because that’s what the evidence shows. Some creationists consider that ‘imposing’, I consider it science.” I’m not a creationist in the sense that you intend, and I don’t believe that all theories of evolution are necessarily problematic, although some are problematic. (Yes, there are several theories of evolution, not just one theory of evolution.) The problem is that the naturalistic perspective in question is most often not methodological naturalism (MN), but philosophical materialism (PM)! It’s perfectly legitimate for students to learn about PM, but it is highly objectionable to teach PM to unsuspecting students as if PM were true or self-evident. And PM is logically incompatible with the religious teachings handed on to students by their Christian parents. Such indoctrination, usually implicit rather than explicit, is injurious to the common good. That helps to explain the unfriendly attitude of many parents toward public education. You say that believers shouldn’t impose their religious beliefs on others. Well, let’s be honest. The truth of the matter is that indoctrination is taking place in public schools, and the indoctrination is in favor of secular humanism, not traditional religion! Religious neutrality in public schools is myth, not fact. “Your last sentence seems to suggest that I shouldn’t tell anyone about materialism, is that true?” See what I said above. “I consider your beliefs pseudo-science fictions, that should have no place in government or public schools, etc.” On the contrary, secular humanism has no legitimate place in public schools. As regards religious faith, believers should act as if their faith really matters, and their actions must have a real impact on society. The a priori exclusion of rational faith from the public square is arbitrary and contrary to the common good. That’s part of the questionable creed of philosophical materialism. In truth, the human mind or intellect, like God and all immaterial beings, transcends the methodological boundaries of modern natural science. There you go again with your appeal to mystery. I need evidence, not smoke and mirrors. Strictly in terms of logic, to say that modern natural science cannot prove the reality of immaterial things, like angels and human intellects, is not to say that they do not exist. Similarly, the fact that we haven’t proven the existence of extraterrestrial life does not prove that there is no extraterrestrial life. (Incidentally, I’m not suggesting that I actually believe that there are extraterrestrial forms of life, but I don’t absolutely preclude the possibility.) This same logic can be used to say that just because we haven’t proved how life formed naturally is not to say that it didn’t. I agree with the logic. I’m not arguing that we don’t have proof, therefore immaterial things, like angels and human intellects are false. I’m also including positive evidence that the mind has a cause that is materialistic: our brain. You’re beyond your depth. Determinism and libertarian freedom (a.k.a. Freedom of indifference) are not the only options. Thomas Aquinas, among others, held that universal causality and freedom of choice are perfectly compatible. So you deny libertarian free will? Furthermore, when you write “whatever caused that [human will] has a cause,” you make a false assumption. From the fact that X caused Y, it does not follow that something else caused X. X could be the absolutely first or primary cause, namely, the One Who Is. I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that causality denies human libertarian free will. First, subhuman animals do not have minds or intellects in the strict sense. Unlike those who assume a materialistic conception of the human person, Catholics recognize that there is an ontological gap between human persons and lower animals. Materialists recognize an ontological gap. Almost no materialist says that humans are exactly the same as animals. We recognize we’re more evolved. The human intellect entails the capacity to produce concepts and employ linguistic communication. In his philosophically penetrating book, Origin of the Human Species, Professor Bonnette discusses the question of language, not simply non-linguistic communication, among subhuman animals. Neanderthals had the capacity for language, physiologically and genetically, yet were not fully human. Second, the ontological superiority of mind over matter has been recognized not only by believers (e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas, Stanley Jaki), but also by non-believers (e.g., Aristotle). Aristotle was a believer. He was a polytheist. You’ve got it backwards. No mind, no matter! Matter presupposes mind, but mind does not necessarily presuppose matter. You’re working from an entirely metaphysical view that is false. Show me evidence of this. Show me a mind that is not caused by a physical brain. Show me how our human minds are not caused by our brains. Show me any data that mental things have a causal effect on matter. Use actual evidence since these are all scientific claims. Well, that’s interesting. Earlier you said, in effect, that there is no hierarchy of being. Now you imply that philosophical materialism is compatible with the objective hierarchy of being. For the ontological superiority of man over beast implies the hierarchy of being recognized by Aristotle and many others. One cannot consistently (1) affirm the ontological superiority of man over beast, and simultaneously (2) deny the objective hierarchy of being. I deny that mind is at the top of that hierarchy of being. And philosophical materialism is not compatible with the objective hierarchy of being. Insofar as you reject the objective hierarchy of being, you do not really accept the ontological superiority of man over beast. You need to rethink your views, at least for the sake of consistency. Your hierarchy isn’t objective, it’s subjective. You don’t have objective proof that it is true. First, one can affirm genuine freedom of choice without endorsing the philosophically controversial theory of libertarian freedom. Second, there can be no morality without presupposing real freedom of choice. Morality presupposes freedom. So what’s your view, libertarian, compatiblisitic, or deterministic? Morality does not presuppose libertarian freedom. First, PM has no real evidential or scientific basis. Second, you are ignoring the crucial distinction between philosophical materialism (PM) and methodological naturalism (MN). MN is scientifically useful, while PM is unscientific. Modern natural science does not prove PM, which exceeds the methodological boundaries of modern natural science. It’s also true that the reality of the Supernatural transcends the methodological boundaries of modern natural science. PM does have a scientific and philosophical basis. I know that distinction. Science assumes MN, and scientists are mostly PMs. PM is not supposed to be a science, it is a philosophy. You cannot assess the “reality” of something unless you have good evidence. Your metaphysics is not good evidence. The problem is that the naturalistic perspective in question is most often not methodological naturalism (MN), but philosophical materialism (PM)! It’s perfectly legitimate for students to learn about PM, but it is highly objectionable to teach PM to unsuspecting students as if PM were true or self-evident. Tell that to Kenneth Miller, a Catholic who teaches biology. One can teach evolution as completely naturalistic without promoting PM. One can be a deistic and fully accept a naturalistic evolutionary process, as well as a theist. And PM is logically incompatible with the religious teachings handed on to students by their Christian parents. Such indoctrination, usually implicit rather than explicit, is injurious to the common good. That helps to explain the unfriendly attitude of many parents toward public education. Again, no one is teaching PM in school by teaching naturalistic evolution. Teaching theistic evolution is something theists have to believe on their own, it isn’t science, a the Dover PA case showed: You say that believers shouldn’t impose their religious beliefs on others. Well, let’s be honest. The truth of the matter is that indoctrination is taking place in public schools, and the indoctrination is in favor of secular humanism, not traditional religion! Religious neutrality in public schools is myth, not fact. How is indoctrination taking place? Give me examples from the curriculum? Is it because god is not mentioned in the classroom it is indoctrinating PM? Where is your evidence? On the contrary, secular humanism has no legitimate place in public schools. As regards religious faith, believers should act as if their faith really matters, and their actions must have a real impact on society. Thea priori exclusion of rational faith from the public square is arbitrary and contrary to the common good. Is secular humanism taught in public schools? Teaching kids moral values without appeal to god is secular humanism? If you appeal to god you’re making it religious. A secular society prevents that. So of course morality taught in school will have to be secular. Do you want god in public school? “There you go again with your appeal to mystery. I need evidence, not smoke and mirrors.” One of the points on which we differ is that I, unlike you, allow room for mystery. I’m not a rationalist. You’re a rationalist. “This same logic can be used to say that just because we haven’t proved how life formed naturally is not to say that it didn’t.” I don’t deny the legitimate causal role of nature. We should recognize and give credit to secondary and instrumental causality. I also affirm, however, that the transcendent Creator operates within nature, and the divine operation is not something that falls within the investigatory competence of natural science. I don’t reduce reason to scientific reason. There are various ways of knowing, just as there are various ways of being. You recognize neither the analogy of being nor the analogy of knowing. The reality of divine causality transcends the boundaries of methodological naturalism, but the reality of primary causality can be apprehended indirectly through another way of knowing–metaphysics. “I’m also including positive evidence that the mind has a cause that is materialistic: our brain.” Proof of the objective reality of mind, an inorganic faculty or spiritual power, is beyond the scope of natural science. To deny the reality of spiritual powers is to deny the reality of mind, although the immaterial concepts employed in such denial presuppose the existence of mind. The human mind typically employs cerebral matter, but that does not entail that the human mind is an effect of cerebral matter or of any other matter. The fact that human persons ordinarily don’t actually think without using cerebral matter doesn’t logically entail that mind can be reduced to matter or is an organic faculty. In this context you seem to commit the post hoc fallacy. “So you deny libertarian free will?” Libertarian freedom of freedom of indifference is not the only conception of freedom. One can consistently reject determinism without thereby implying the theory of libertarian freedom. I unequivocally affirm freedom of choice, rooted in the spiritual power of intellect; for metaphysical reasons, however, I don’t subscribe to the theory of libertarian freedom. There is no real conflict between genuine human freedom and divine causality. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were well aware of that. The compatibility of human freedom and divine causality is also thoroughly scriptural. Within the problematic framework of philosophical materialism, however, there is no room whatsoever for real freedom. Real freedom pertains to the realm of spiritual being, which you have denied. I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that causality denies human libertarian free will.” First, I’m not the one who is guilty of the strawman fallacy here. You stated that whatever caused the human will has a cause. I deny that the efficient cause of the human will has a cause. The efficient cause of the human soul and all of its spiritual powers, including intellect and will, is God and cannot be anything other than God. Only a cause with infinite power can make rational souls. Rational souls, which are spiritual, cannot be derived from matter. (Remember the objective hierarchy of being and the principle of causality.) Rational souls must be created ex nihilo. A cause that creates something ex nihilo must have infinite power to bridge the chasm between non-being and being. The only cause with infinite power is the primary efficient cause of being—God. Second, I do not deny that the theory of libertarian freedom, in which human choices are not caused by anything other than the human will itself, does not admit causality within its orbit. Unlike you, however, I deny universal determinism. “Materialists recognize an ontological gap. Almost no materialist says that humans are exactly the same as animals. We recognize we’re more evolved.” First, philosophical materialists do not admit the ontological gap between man and beast. For they do not recognize the gap between matter and spirit, and the ontological leap from brute animal to the human person (rational animal) involves a radical ontological leap from the realm of matter to the realm of spirit. The difference is not simply material or bodily in nature. As long as you deny the reality of spiritual being, you must, if you are consistent, deny the radical ontological leap from brute animal to human person. Second, the differences between brute animals and human persons are more than can be established on the basis of modern natural science alone, which presupposes methodological naturalism. Third, evolution alone cannot explain the introduction of spiritual or rational souls. As a philosophical materialist, you will deny that, because you do not recognize the reality of spiritual souls. I don’t buy your truncated materialist anthropology, and neither should any believer. “Neanderthals had the capacity for language, physiologically and genetically, yet were not fully human.” If Neanderthals actually employed linguistic communication, then they were rational animals. But if they didn’t, it does not follow that they were rational animals. “Aristotle was a believer. He was a polytheist.” He was not a believer in the relevant sense. He recognized, on the basis of philosophical argumentation, the existence of immaterial beings (separate substances), but that does not make him a person who recognized and affirmed special divine revelation on the basis of infused theological faith. Furthermore, I’m not aware of any clear evidence that he practiced divine worship or engaged in liturgical practices. So, he was not a believer in the relevant sense. In the relevant sense of theological faith, you and he are in he same boat. You and he are non-believers. “You’re working from an entirely metaphysical view that is false. Show me evidence of this. Show me a mind that is not caused by a physical brain. Show me how our human minds are not caused by our brains. Show me any data that mental things have a causal effect on matter. Use actual evidence since these are all scientific claims.” First, not all truth claims are scientific claims. I don’t need to play by your questionable rules of argumentation. I don’t buy scientism, and I’m not going to provide reasons based on the faulty assumption of scientism. I don’t grant that modern natural science is the only or highest way of knowing. If you find that unacceptable, then you need to make some adjustments. Second, your faulty materialist assumptions preclude the epistemic possibility of recognizing the reality of inorganic minds. You are not really open to the fullness of truth within the bounds of metaphysical reason, which cannot be entirely grasped within the methodological limits of modern natural science. Third, using their minds, human persons make free choices, and these choices have a real causal impact on the world (e.g., pollution). The reality of free choice cannot be explained on the basis of philosophical materialism or even on the basis of modern natural science. Modern natural science presupposes free choice. “I deny that mind is at the top of that hierarchy of being.” Your denial that mind is over matter was made clear long ago. “Your hierarchy isn’t objective, it’s subjective. You don’t have objective proof that it is true.” Despite your serious philosophical errors, I think that you are ontologically superior to a dog or a dolphin or a chimpanzee. They are unable to participate in philosophical, or even scientific, conversations. “So what’s your view, libertarian, compatiblisitic, or deterministic? Morality does not presuppose libertarian freedom.” I concur that morality does not presuppose any theory of libertarian freedom, but morality is precluded by universal determinism. What is a sound philosophical conception of human freedom? That is a highly complex theoretical question. To answer that question, one needs a sound philosophical psychology. A sound philosophical psychology, however, is not admitted within the narrow confines of philosophical materialism. “Tell that to Kenneth Miller, a Catholic who teaches biology.” Insofar as Dr. Miller adheres to the Catholic faith he professes, he will tell you that not all beings are material, and that the existence of the world depends on a transcendent Creator who is not material. In that regard you and he are not in agreement. If you wish to cite Dr. Miller as an authority, please don’t ignore the faith that he professes. It may be inconvenient, but truth isn’t always convenient. “Again, no one is teaching PM in school by teaching naturalistic evolution. Teaching theistic evolution is something theists have to believe on their own, it isn’t science, a the Dover PA case showed:?” Several years ago I watched Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial twice. I found it to be a tendentious presentation of the facts. “Do you want god in public school?” In our country, which is indebted to the Judeo-Christian tradition, I think the arbitrary exclusion of God from public discourse is highly objectionable. The question of spiritual being and higher causes can be discussed without indoctrination. In accord with the principle of free inquiry, students should be encouraged to think critically about secular humanism and religion. In fact, in Torcaso v. Watkins 367 U.S. 488 (1961), secular humanism is recognized as a form of religion. You might not like that, but there it is. “There you go again with your appeal to mystery. I need evidence, not smoke and mirrors.” One of the points on which we differ is that I, unlike you, allow room for mystery. You’re the rationalist. I, in contrast, affirm the integration of supernatural faith and natural reason. “This same logic can be used to say that just because we haven’t proved how life formed naturally is not to say that it didn’t.” I don’t deny the legitimate causal role of nature. We should recognize and give credit to secondary and instrumental causality. I also affirm, however, that the transcendent Creator operates within nature, and the divine operation is not something that falls within the investigatory competence of natural science. I don’t reduce reason to scientific reason. There are various ways of knowing, just as there are various ways of being. You recognize neither the analogy of being nor the analogy of knowing. The reality of divine causality transcends the boundaries of methodological naturalism, but the reality of primary causality can be apprehended indirectly through another way of knowing–metaphysics. “I’m also including positive evidence that the mind has a cause that is materialistic: our brain.” Proof of the objective reality of mind, an inorganic faculty or spiritual power, is beyond the scope of natural science. To deny the reality of spiritual powers is to deny the reality of mind, although the immaterial concepts employed in such denial presuppose the existence of mind. The human mind typically employs cerebral matter, but that does not entail that the human mind is an effect of cerebral matter or of any other matter. The fact that human persons ordinarily don’t actually think without using cerebral matter doesn’t logically entail that mind can be reduced to matter or is an organic faculty. In this context you seem to commit the post hoc fallacy. “So you deny libertarian free will?” Libertarian freedom of freedom of indifference is not the only conception of freedom. One can consistently reject determinism without thereby implying the theory of libertarian freedom. I unequivocally affirm freedom of choice, rooted in the spiritual power of intellect; for metaphysical reasons, however, I don’t subscribe to the theory of libertarian freedom. There is no real conflict between genuine human freedom and divine causality. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were well aware of that. The compatibility of human freedom and divine causality is also thoroughly scriptural. Within the problematic framework of philosophical materialism, however, there is no room whatsoever for real freedom. Real freedom pertains to the realm of spiritual being, which you have denied. I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that causality denies human libertarian free will.” First, I’m not the one who is guilty of the strawman fallacy here. You stated that whatever caused the human will has a cause. I deny that the efficient cause of the human will has a cause. The efficient cause of the human soul and all of its spiritual powers, including intellect and will, is God and cannot be anything other than God. Only a cause with infinite power can make rational souls. Rational souls, which are spiritual, cannot be derived from matter. (Remember the objective hierarchy of being and the principle of causality.) Rational souls must be created ex nihilo. A cause that creates something ex nihilo must have infinite power to bridge the chasm between non-being and being. The only cause with infinite power is the primary efficient cause of being—God. Second, I do not deny that the theory of libertarian freedom, in which human choices are not caused by anything other than the human will itself, does not admit causality within its orbit. Unlike you, however, I deny universal determinism. “Materialists recognize an ontological gap. Almost no materialist says that humans are exactly the same as animals. We recognize we’re more evolved.” First, philosophical materialists do not admit the ontological gap between man and beast. For they do not recognize the gap between matter and spirit, and the ontological leap from brute animal to the human person (rational animal) involves a radical ontological leap from the realm of matter to the realm of spirit. The difference is not simply material or bodily in nature. As long as you deny the reality of spiritual being, you must, if you are consistent, deny the radical ontological leap from brute animal to human person. Second, the differences between brute animals and human persons are more than can be established on the basis of modern natural science alone, which presupposes methodological naturalism. Third, evolution alone cannot explain the introduction of spiritual or rational souls. As a philosophical materialist, you will deny that, because you do not recognize the reality of spiritual souls. I don’t buy your truncated materialist anthropology, and neither should any believer. “Neanderthals had the capacity for language, physiologically and genetically, yet were not fully human.” If Neanderthals actually employed linguistic communication, then they were rational animals. But if they didn’t, it does not follow that they were rational animals. “Aristotle was a believer. He was a polytheist.” He was not a believer in the relevant sense. He recognized, on the basis of philosophical argumentation, the existence of immaterial beings (separate substances), but that does not make him a person who recognized and affirmed special divine revelation on the basis of infused theological faith. Furthermore, I’m not aware of any clear evidence that he practiced divine worship or engaged in liturgical practices. So, he was not a believer in the relevant sense. In the relevant sense of theological faith, you and he are in he same boat. You and he are non-believers. “You’re working from an entirely metaphysical view that is false. Show me evidence of this. Show me a mind that is not caused by a physical brain. Show me how our human minds are not caused by our brains. Show me any data that mental things have a causal effect on matter. Use actual evidence since these are all scientific claims.” First, not all truth claims are scientific claims. I don’t need to play by your questionable rules of argumentation. I don’t buy scientism, and I’m not going to provide reasons based on the faulty assumption of scientism. I don’t grant that modern natural science is the only or highest way of knowing. If you find that unacceptable, then you need to make some adjustments. Second, your faulty materialist assumptions preclude the epistemic possibility of recognizing the reality of inorganic minds. You are not really open to the fullness of truth within the bounds of metaphysical reason, which cannot be entirely grasped within the methodological limits of modern natural science. Third, using their minds, human persons make free choices, and these choices have a real causal impact on the world (e.g., pollution). The reality of free choice cannot be explained on the basis of philosophical materialism or even on the basis of modern natural science. Modern natural science presupposes free choice. “I deny that mind is at the top of that hierarchy of being.” Your denial that mind is over matter was made clear long ago. “Your hierarchy isn’t objective, it’s subjective. You don’t have objective proof that it is true.” Despite your serious philosophical errors, I think that you are ontologically superior to a dog or a dolphin or a chimpanzee. They are unable to participate in philosophical, or even scientific, conversations. “So what’s your view, libertarian, compatiblisitic, or deterministic? Morality does not presuppose libertarian freedom.” I concur that morality does not presuppose any theory of libertarian freedom, but morality is precluded by universal determinism. What is a sound philosophical conception of human freedom? That is a highly complex theoretical question. To answer that question, one needs a sound philosophical psychology. A sound philosophical psychology, however, is not admitted within the narrow confines of philosophical materialism. “Tell that to Kenneth Miller, a Catholic who teaches biology.” Insofar as Dr. Miller adheres to the Catholic faith he professes, he will tell you that not all beings are material, and that the existence of the world depends on a transcendent Creator who is not material. In that regard you and he are not in agreement. If you wish to cite Dr. Miller as an authority, please don’t ignore the faith that he professes. It may be inconvenient, but truth isn’t always convenient. “Again, no one is teaching PM in school by teaching naturalistic evolution. Teaching theistic evolution is something theists have to believe on their own, it isn’t science, a the Dover PA case showed:?” Several years ago I watched Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial twice. I found it to be a tendentious presentation of the facts. “Do you want god in public school?” In our country, which is indebted to the Judeo-Christian tradition, I think the arbitrary exclusion of God from public discourse is highly objectionable. The question of spiritual being and higher causes can be discussed without indoctrination. In accord with the principle of free inquiry, students should be encouraged to think critically about secular humanism and religion. In fact, in Torcaso v. Watkins 367 U.S. 488 (1961), secular humanism is recognized as a form of religion. You might not like that, but there it is. “There you go again with your appeal to mystery. I need evidence, not smoke and mirrors.” One of the points on which we differ is that I, unlike you, allow room for mystery. You’re the rationalist. I, in contrast, affirm the integration of supernatural faith and natural reason. “This same logic can be used to say that just because we haven’t proved how life formed naturally is not to say that it didn’t.” I don’t deny the legitimate causal role of nature. We should recognize and give credit to secondary and instrumental causality. I also affirm, however, that the transcendent Creator operates within nature, and the divine operation is not something that falls within the investigatory competence of natural science. I don’t reduce reason to scientific reason. There are various ways of knowing, just as there are various ways of being. You recognize neither the analogy of being nor the analogy of knowing. The reality of divine causality transcends the boundaries of methodological naturalism, but the reality of primary causality can be apprehended indirectly through another way of knowing–metaphysics. “I’m also including positive evidence that the mind has a cause that is materialistic: our brain.” Proof of the objective reality of mind, an inorganic faculty or spiritual power, is beyond the scope of natural science. To deny the reality of spiritual powers is to deny the reality of mind, although the immaterial concepts employed in such denial presuppose the existence of mind. The human mind typically employs cerebral matter, but that does not entail that the human mind is an effect of cerebral matter or of any other matter. The fact that human persons ordinarily don’t actually think without using cerebral matter doesn’t logically entail that mind can be reduced to matter or is an organic faculty. In this context you seem to commit the post hoc fallacy. “So you deny libertarian free will?” Libertarian freedom of freedom of indifference is not the only conception of freedom. One can consistently reject determinism without thereby implying the theory of libertarian freedom. I unequivocally affirm freedom of choice, rooted in the spiritual power of intellect; for metaphysical reasons, however, I don’t subscribe to the theory of libertarian freedom. There is no real conflict between genuine human freedom and divine causality. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were well aware of that. The compatibility of human freedom and divine causality is also thoroughly scriptural. Within the problematic framework of philosophical materialism, however, there is no room whatsoever for real freedom. Real freedom pertains to the realm of spiritual being, which you have denied. I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that causality denies human libertarian free will.” First, I’m not the one who is guilty of the strawman fallacy here. You stated that whatever caused the human will has a cause. I deny that the efficient cause of the human will has a cause. The efficient cause of the human soul and all of its spiritual powers, including intellect and will, is God and cannot be anything other than God. Only a cause with infinite power can make rational souls. Rational souls, which are spiritual, cannot be derived from matter. (Remember the objective hierarchy of being and the principle of causality.) Rational souls must be created ex nihilo. A cause that creates something ex nihilo must have infinite power to bridge the chasm between non-being and being. The only cause with infinite power is the primary efficient cause of being—God. Second, I do not deny that the theory of libertarian freedom, in which human choices are not caused by anything other than the human will itself, does not admit causality within its orbit. Unlike you, however, I deny universal determinism. “Materialists recognize an ontological gap. Almost no materialist says that humans are exactly the same as animals. We recognize we’re more evolved.” First, philosophical materialists do not admit the ontological gap between man and beast. For they do not recognize the gap between matter and spirit, and the ontological leap from brute animal to the human person (rational animal) involves a radical ontological leap from the realm of matter to the realm of spirit. The difference is not simply material or bodily in nature. As long as you deny the reality of spiritual being, you must, if you are consistent, deny the radical ontological leap from brute animal to human person. Second, the differences between brute animals and human persons are more than can be established on the basis of modern natural science alone, which presupposes methodological naturalism. Third, evolution alone cannot explain the introduction of spiritual or rational souls. As a philosophical materialist, you will deny that, because you do not recognize the reality of spiritual souls. I don’t buy your truncated materialist anthropology, and neither should any believer. “Neanderthals had the capacity for language, physiologically and genetically, yet were not fully human.” If Neanderthals actually employed linguistic communication, then they were rational animals. But if they didn’t, it does not follow that they were rational animals. “Aristotle was a believer. He was a polytheist.” He was not a believer in the relevant sense. He recognized, on the basis of philosophical argumentation, the existence of immaterial beings (separate substances), but that does not make him a person who recognized and affirmed special divine revelation on the basis of infused theological faith. Furthermore, I’m not aware of any clear evidence that he practiced divine worship or engaged in liturgical practices. So, he was not a believer in the relevant sense. In the relevant sense of theological faith, you and he are in he same boat. You and he are non-believers. “You’re working from an entirely metaphysical view that is false. Show me evidence of this. Show me a mind that is not caused by a physical brain. Show me how our human minds are not caused by our brains. Show me any data that mental things have a causal effect on matter. Use actual evidence since these are all scientific claims.” First, not all truth claims are scientific claims. I don’t need to play by your questionable rules of argumentation. I don’t buy scientism, and I’m not going to provide reasons based on the faulty assumption of scientism. I don’t grant that modern natural science is the only or highest way of knowing. If you find that unacceptable, then you need to make some adjustments. Second, your faulty materialist assumptions preclude the epistemic possibility of recognizing the reality of inorganic minds. You are not really open to the fullness of truth within the bounds of metaphysical reason, which cannot be entirely grasped within the methodological limits of modern natural science. Third, using their minds, human persons make free choices, and these choices have a real causal impact on the world (e.g., pollution). The reality of free choice cannot be explained on the basis of philosophical materialism or even on the basis of modern natural science. Modern natural science presupposes free choice. “I deny that mind is at the top of that hierarchy of being.” Your denial that mind is over matter was made clear long ago. “Your hierarchy isn’t objective, it’s subjective. You don’t have objective proof that it is true.” Despite your serious philosophical errors, I think that you are ontologically superior to a dog or a dolphin or a chimpanzee. They are unable to participate in philosophical, or even scientific, conversations. “So what’s your view, libertarian, compatiblisitic, or deterministic? Morality does not presuppose libertarian freedom.” I concur that morality does not presuppose any theory of libertarian freedom, but morality is precluded by universal determinism. What is a sound philosophical conception of human freedom? That is a highly complex theoretical question. To answer that question, one needs a sound philosophical psychology. A sound philosophical psychology, however, is not admitted within the narrow confines of philosophical materialism. “Tell that to Kenneth Miller, a Catholic who teaches biology.” Insofar as Dr. Miller adheres to the Catholic faith he professes, he will tell you that not all beings are material, and that the existence of the world depends on a transcendent Creator who is not material. In that regard you and he are not in agreement. If you wish to cite Dr. Miller as an authority, please don’t ignore the faith that he professes. It may be inconvenient, but truth isn’t always convenient. “Again, no one is teaching PM in school by teaching naturalistic evolution. Teaching theistic evolution is something theists have to believe on their own, it isn’t science, a the Dover PA case showed:?” Several years ago I watched Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial twice. I found it to be a tendentious presentation of the facts. “Do you want god in public school?” In our country, which is indebted to the Judeo-Christian tradition, I think the arbitrary exclusion of God from public discourse is highly objectionable. The question of spiritual being and higher causes can be discussed without indoctrination. In accord with the principle of free inquiry, students should be encouraged to think critically about secular humanism and religion. In fact, in Torcaso v. Watkins 367 U.S. 488 (1961), secular humanism is recognized as a form of religion. You might not like that, but there it is. One of the points on which we differ is that I, unlike you, allow room for mystery. You’re the rationalist. I, in contrast, affirm the integration of supernatural faith and natural reason. Not true at all. I acknowledge that our knowledge is incomplete, but I think we have enough knowledge to know theism is incorrect. I don’t reduce reason to scientific reason. There are various ways of knowing, just as there are various ways of being. You recognize neither the analogy of being nor the analogy of knowing. The reality of divine causality transcends the boundaries of methodological naturalism, but the reality of primary causality can be apprehended indirectly through another way of knowing–metaphysics. There is no reality of something that you cannot explain or demonstrate empirically or logically. The issue comes down to whether your metaphysics is true – I see no reason to think so. Proof of the objective reality of mind, an inorganic faculty or spiritual power, is beyond the scope of natural science. To deny the reality of spiritual powers is to deny the reality of mind, although the immaterial concepts employed in such denial presuppose the existence of mind. I can fully recognize the existence of the mind as an emergent phenomena caused by physical brains. The human mind typically employs cerebral matter, but that does not entail that the human mind is an effect of cerebral matter or of any other matter. The fact that human persons ordinarily don’t actually think without using cerebral matter doesn’t logically entail that mind can be reduced to matter or is an organic faculty. In this context you seem to commit the post hoc fallacy. I’m not making an a priori claim, I’m making an posteriori claim. I’m making an inference to the best explanation about the mind. All the evidence shows is it is caused by the brain in a one way causal relationship. Damage the brain in part A, and the mind associated with part A fails. This happens every time. It is causal. The post hoc fallacy is employed mostly by theists who derive god’s powers from events whose causes they are ignorant of. There is no real conflict between genuine human freedom and divine causality. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were well aware of that. The compatibility of human freedom and divine causality is also thoroughly scriptural. Within the problematic framework of philosophical materialism, however, there is no room whatsoever for real freedom. Real freedom pertains to the realm of spiritual being, which you have denied. There absolutely is a conflict between human freedom and divine causality. How do I have the freedom to do something if it was caused by events that came before me that I had no conscious awareness of? First, I’m not the one who is guilty of the strawman fallacy here. You stated that whatever caused the human will has a cause. I deny that the efficient cause of the human will has a cause. The efficient cause of the human soul and all of its spiritual powers, including intellect and will, is God and cannot be anything other than God. You did make a strawman, because I was not arguing about a cause of god. That is a strawman. If you believe god causes all of our wills, then that is similar to a Calvinistic picture of predetermination. What you’re doing is like trying to argue that the puppet of a ventriloquist has freedom of choice. A cause that creates something ex nihilo must have infinite power to bridge the chasm between non-being and being. The only cause with infinite power is the primary efficient cause of being—God. What evidence do you have that the universe was created ex nihilo? First, philosophical materialists do not admit the ontological gap between man and beast. For they do not recognize the gap between matter and spirit, and the ontological leap from brute animal to the human person (rational animal) involves a radical ontological leap from the realm of matter to the realm of spirit. They do, but not in the sense that you speak of. Ontology is simply what exists. Every human being is ontologically different. At what point did brute animal become a human person in our evolution? The difference is not simply material or bodily in nature. As long as you deny the reality of spiritual being, you must, if you are consistent, deny the radical ontological leap from brute animal to human person. It is material. It is our evolved brains that allows us rationality that animals do not have. It is all dependent on matter. That’s why people with damaged brains aren’t rational. Third, evolution alone cannot explain the introduction of spiritual or rational souls. As a philosophical materialist, you will deny that, because you do not recognize the reality of spiritual souls. I don’t buy your truncated materialist anthropology, and neither should any believer. Yes because you believe in souls on faith, not evidence, and you use bad metaphysics for it. You cannot even hint at an answer to when the soul entered humans as we were evolving. If Neanderthals actually employed linguistic communication, then they were rational animals. But if they didn’t, it does not follow that they were rational animals. But irrational people can communicate. And language didn’t develop overnight, it evolved from proto languages as far as we can tell. What evidence do you have that fully rational animals occurred overnight. In the relevant sense of theological faith, you and he are in he same boat. You and he are non-believers. Muslims say the same thing about you Christians. First, not all truth claims are scientific claims. I didn’t claim that. I claimed that the claims you’re making are scientific claims. Second, your faulty materialist assumptions preclude the epistemic possibility of recognizing the reality of inorganic minds. Without real good evidence you have no basis of claiming the reality of inorganic minds. Plain and simple. Why should I continue wasting time to a person who admits he has no evidence of his claims? Third, using their minds, human persons make free choices, and these choices have a real causal impact on the world (e.g., pollution). The reality of free choice cannot be explained on the basis of philosophical materialism or even on the basis of modern natural science. Modern natural science presupposes free choice. A determined choice can have just as much consequences as a “free” choice that you deny even exists since god controls everything we do in your worldview. Despite your serious philosophical errors, I think that you are ontologically superior to a dog or a dolphin or a chimpanzee. They are unable to participate in philosophical, or even scientific, conversations. I agree I’m ontologically superior to a dog or a dolphin or a chimpanzee, because I have a more evolved brain! No need for pseudo-scientific souls. It’s you who’ve made such bad philosophical errors. I concur that morality does not presuppose any theory of libertarian freedom, but morality is precluded by universal determinism. What is a sound philosophical conception of human freedom? That is a highly complex theoretical question. To answer that question, one needs a sound philosophical psychology. A sound philosophical psychology, however, is not admitted within the narrow confines of philosophical materialism. If you define morality as the distinction between right and wrong, determinism does not necessarily preclude morality. And I’m surprised you cannot answer the question. You’re as much a determinist as I am, you just think god controls everything. Insofar as Dr. Miller adheres to the Catholic faith he professes, he will tell you that not all beings are material, and that the existence of the world depends on a transcendent Creator who is not material. In that regard you and he are not in agreement. The point is that Miller doesn’t need to appeal to religion to explain biology. His religious beliefs are his personal beliefs, not his scientific beliefs. Several years ago I watched Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial twice. I found it to be a tendentious presentation of the facts. Your opinion. In our country, which is indebted to the Judeo-Christian tradition, I think the arbitrary exclusion of God from public discourse is highly objectionable. The question of spiritual being and higher causes can be discussed without indoctrination. In accord with the principle of free inquiry, students should be encouraged to think critically about secular humanism and religion. So your answer is yes. We’re talking about public school. In the public square people can talk about religion, in government it is a bit different. For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must have a legitimate secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and also must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion. In fact, in Torcaso v. Watkins 367 U.S. 488 (1961), secular humanism is recognized as a form of religion. You might not like that, but there it is. On what line does it say that? You write: “In the public square people can talk about religion, in government it is a bit different. For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must have a legitimate secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and also must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.” That is a particular interpretation. That is a particular interpretation. Yeah and you know who’s interpretation that was? The Supreme Court’s. The 1st Amendment does not prohibit in public schools the objective rational discussion of the existence and nature of causes beyond the material universe, nor does it prohibit citizens with religious convictions from participating in the political process in a way that is consistent with their religious principles. The second amendment doesn’t say anything about individuals owning firearms, and yet that’s how it’s been interpreted since its incarnation. The 1st amendment has been interpreted as a wall of separation between church and state. That’s what Jefferson intended. The thing is, you don’t have any evidence of “the existence and nature of causes beyond the material universe”. You infer it from your metaphysics. That’s not science, it is metaphysics. If you want to teach that, teach it in college. Once you allow “the existence and nature of causes beyond the material universe” you open the door to alchemy and astrology, as the Kitsmiller vs. Dover case showed. Now citizens can of course vote on their religious principles. I never argued they couldn’t. But any law that is passed has to have a secular justification, you cannot appeal to scripture to justify a law. If, however, their religious principles included the requirement that they sacrifice babies, for example, one could then contend on the basis of the natural moral law established by God and accessible to human reason that such a practice is not lawful. But what about “religious freedom”? So apparently, you can use a moral law that your religion holds to in order to prevent another religion from practicing theirs. Why can’t we just use the Koran to determine what is moral or not? According to them, you’re a pagan because you worship a false concept of god and idols and you must accept a dhimmi status. Natural law is false. If you want to debate natural law, just let me know. Is slavery wrong under natural law? What about female genital mutilation, or killing witches, or homosexuals? Please tell me. But many people today, religious or otherwise, believe that destroying unborn human babies is permissible. Perhaps you are among that group of persons. Philosophical materialism cannot support natural human rights. Natural human rights do not come from god or religion. The rights we have in the US are not found anywhere in the Bible. There is a conflict between Christianity and Constitutional rights. “On what line does it say that?” Clearly you haven’t read Torcaso v. Watkins 367 U.S. 488 (1961) in toto. I’m asking you to help me as my time is limited. “1st amendment has been interpreted as a wall of separation between church and state.” Your unstated conclusion is: The 1st Amendment precludes the recognition of the essential connection between culture and religion. I deny that conclusion. I do not deny that Church and state are distinct. I take the 1st Amendment as an attempt to protect organized religion against encroachments by the federal government. Those interested in this question should become familiar with some excellent scholarship in this field of inquiry, including the work of a noted American legal scholar, Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at the Columbia University School of Law. See his book, Separation of Church and State. “That’s what Jefferson intended.” So? What follows from that? Jefferson must be correct? Non sequitur. “The thing is, you don’t have any evidence of ‘the existence and nature of causes beyond the material universe’. You infer it from your metaphysics. That’s not science, it is metaphysics. If you want to teach that, teach it in college. Once you allow ‘the existence and nature of causes beyond the material universe’ you open the door to alchemy and astrology, as the Kitsmiller [sic] vs. [sic] Dover case showed.” First, you suggest (here and elsewhere) that all evidence is scientific evidence. You assume a certain rule of evidence, and your assumption is not self-evident. You haven’t established that there cannot be proof of things beyond the scope of natural science. You assume that there cannot be proof of things beyond the scope of natural science. That’s a huge assumption, and one may legitimately question that controversial assumption. As I’ve indicated previously, I don’t buy scientism. You claim that you do not endorse scientism, but you proceed as if scientism were true. Who are you trying to fool? Second, in public schools where evolutionary theory is studied, one can have serious and intelligent discussions about the existence and attributes of causes beyond the observable material universe, and one can do this without raising all of the complex and technical questions treated in metaphysics. Third, one can have such discussions without opening the door to things like alchemy and astrology. Despite what you may believe, causes beyond the material universe are not like alchemy or astrology. “But any law that is passed has to have a secular justification, you cannot appeal to scripture to justify a law.” Any law passed must be reasonable and in accord with the common good. Being reasonable and supporting secular humanism are not equivalent. Civil laws can be made without any explicit reference to Sacred Scripture. “But what about ‘religious freedom’? So apparently, you can use a moral law that your religion holds to in order to prevent another religion from practicing theirs.” First, you appear to have a distorted understanding of religious freedom. It does not mean that one can do whatever one wishes to do. Do your homework! Second, the natural moral law is not the exclusive property of any particular religion. The natural moral law is accessible to all rational beings. Third, religion need not be contrary to reason, despite your faulty opinion that all religion is unreasonable. If a particular religion includes elements opposed to man’s God-given reason, such elements I would not defend. As I said, religious freedom does not mean that one can do whatever one wishes. “Natural law is false. If you want to debate natural law, just let me know. Is slavery wrong under natural law? What about female genital mutilation, or killing witches, or homosexuals? Please tell me.” First, without natural law, there can be no natural rights! Inalienable natural rights, granted by God, and civil rights, granted by human legislators, are not synonymous. Second, I certainly don’t support female genital mutilation, or state-approved execution of “witches” (the preferred term is “wicca”) or of persons with same-sex tendencies, just as I do not support procured abortion or physician-assisted suicide. I would note that you have not disclosed whether you support the practice of procured abortion (or physician-assisted suicide), and I would not be surprised if you continued to remain silent as to whether you support such anti-life practices. “Natural human rights do not come from [G]od or religion. The rights we have in the US are not found anywhere in the Bible. There is a conflict between Christianity and Constitutional rights.” First, as regards the so-called “right to (procured) abortion,” I agree. Sacred Scripture cannot properly be used to support any such “right.” There can be no genuine right to do what is objectively evil, e.g., child molestation. Moreover, Sacred Scripture is silent about the right to drive automobiles or fly airplanes, but this right is not inconsistent with the teaching expressed in Sacred Scripture, unlike the so-called “right to (procured) abortion.” Second, inalienable natural rights have no place in your narrow materialistic vision of reality. I’m asking you to help me as my time is limited.” I would suggest that you expend your precious spare time on the sincere and arduous quest for the plenitude of truth, rather than on cantankerous disputation. Your unstated conclusion is: The 1st Amendment precludes the recognition of the essential connection between culture and religion. I deny that conclusion. Be as religious as you want, just keep it out of government. I take the 1st Amendment as an attempt to protect organized religion against encroachments by the federal government. There is that, but there is also the protection of the government from religious encroachment. The wall applies to both sides. What follows from that? Jefferson must be correct? Non sequitur. It helps us interpret that amendment. First, you suggest (here and elsewhere) that all evidence is scientific evidence. You assume a certain rule of evidence, and your assumption is not self-evident. You haven’testablished that there cannot be proof of things beyond the scope of natural science. I do not assume all evidence is scientific. But we’re talking about a science class here. In science class belongs science. Not ancient metaphysics. I don’t have to prove a negative. You have to prove a positive. You have the burden of proof. You cannot disprove an infinite number of claims, that doesn’t mean we allow them in a science classroom. As I’ve indicated previously, I don’t buy scientism. You claim that you do not endorse scientism, but you proceed as ifscientism were true. Who are you trying to fool? Apparently a person who cannot understand that we shouldn’t allow unproven metaphysics into a science classroom. Nothing I said is scientism. Second, in public schools where evolutionary theory is studied, one can have serious and intelligent discussions about the existence and attributes of causes beyond the observable material universe, and one can do this without raising all of the complex and technical questions treated in metaphysics. Why would we want to encourage our kids to assume god does things? That would hinder scientific progress and encourage intellectual laziness. One reason why religion and science are incompatible. Third, one can have such discussions without opening the door to things like alchemy and astrology. Despite what you may believe, causes beyond the material universe are not like alchemy or astrology. Then you need to make a really good argument showing this. Any law passed must be reasonable and in accord with the common good. Being reasonable and supporting secular humanism are not equivalent. Civil laws can be made without any explicit reference to Sacred Scripture. They have to be. First, you appear to have a distorted understanding of religious freedom. It does not mean that one can do whatever one wishes to do. Do your homework! I agree, but some theists think religious freedom means they have the right to trounce all other religions but theirs. We see this today with the religious right trying to make Christianity the official state religion in many states. Second, the natural moral law is not the exclusive property of any particular religion. The natural moral law is accessible to all rational beings. I don’t think NL works. It assumes moderate realism, among other things. Third, religion need not be contrary to reason, despite your faulty opinion that all religion is unreasonable. All religions have rules that are contrary to reason. That’s why we don’t base our laws on religion. First, without natural law, there can be no natural rights! Inalienable natural rights, granted by God, and civil rights, granted by human legislators, are not synonymous. That’s not true. God thinks slavery is OK, that’s not a natural right we uphold today. Second, I certainly don’t support female genital mutilation, or state-approved execution of “witches” (the preferred term is “wicca”) or of persons with same-sex tendencies, just as I do not support procured abortion or physician-assisted suicide. Your views on rights conflict with our civil rights. Your god apparently thinks it’s OK to kill witches and homosexuals. I would note that you have not disclosed whether you support the practice of procured abortion (or physician-assisted suicide), and I would not be surprised if you continued to remain silent as to whether you support such anti-life practices. I’m for all those things. Although, I don’t like abortions and wish there were zero. Assisted suicide is a matter of compassion. Only in America can you be pro death penalty, pro war, pro unmanned droned bombs, pro nuclear weapons, pro guns, pro torture, and still call yourself pro life. I hope you don’t subscribe to these things. Sacred Scripture cannot properly be used to support any such “right.” That’s not exactly true. There can be no genuine right to do what is objectively evil, e.g., child molestation. What about forcing a 14 year old girl into an arranged marriage with an older man? Where does the Bible say that is wrong? Moreover, Sacred Scripture is silent about the right to drive automobiles or fly airplanes, but this right is not inconsistent with the teaching expressed in Sacred Scripture, unlike the so-called “right to (procured) abortion.” Second, inalienable natural rights have no place in your narrow materialistic vision of reality. That’s not the point. No where in the “Sacred Scripture” does it say women or homosexuals have equal rights. No where does it say the institution of slavery is morally wrong. It proposes the death penalty for women who have sex before marriage. The Bible’s morality is a violation of basic human rights. This is obvious to anyone with a brain. I would suggest that you expend your precious spare time on the sincere and arduous quest for the plenitude of truth, rather than on cantankerous disputation. You cannot point to a single sentence where it says secular humanism is a religion? I’m starting to doubt it says that. “Why would we want to encourage our kids to assume [G]od does things? That would hinder scientific progress and encourage intellectual laziness. One reason why religion and science are incompatible.” Your atheistic and non-scientific opinion is anything but obvious. For a more reasonable understanding of the relation between natural science and God, the transcendent Creator, see Robert Barron, “Stephen Hawking’s God-Haunted Movie”. Aristotle did not admit any rational conflict between natural theology (see his famous Metaphysics) and careful empirical investigation of natural phenomena. Furthermore, brilliant Christian theologians, such as St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas, did not encourage “intellectual laziness.” Moreover, the famous theologian/physicist Stanley L. Jaki was among those who have effectively refuted the controversial “conflict thesis” advanced by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White in the 19th century. Regarding the conflict thesis advanced by Draper and White, see, for example, and. Those who fail to do their homework are well advised to remain silent. Some, however, believing they are wise, continue speaking out of ignorance. Folly is the reward of hubris. Your atheistic and non-scientific opinion is anything but obvious. For a more reasonable understanding of the relation between natural science and God, the transcendent Creator, see Robert Barron, “Stephen Hawking’s God-Haunted Movie”. There is nothing reasonable about your understanding at all. It is simply a case of inferring intentionality to nature due to our evolution. It’s called hyperactive agency detection. If you assume god works in the universe, this will increase your tendency to look for supernatural answers (i.e. ‘God did it’) and that hinders scientific progress. It’s no coincidence that it is the religious who are the evolution-deniers, and the big-bang deniers. Some theists, have thankfully realized the ignorance of this and have adopted a kind of deistic view of god as the creator but then allows the universe to evolve naturally. This is a step in the right direction, but it still can hinder scientific work on the origin of the universe, because there it would be due to magic, (i.e. ‘God did it’). Aristotle did not admit any rational conflict between natural theology (see his famousMetaphysics) and careful empirical investigation of natural phenomena. Furthermore, brilliant Christian theologians, such as St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas, did not encourage “intellectual laziness.” Of course. Who would admit intellectual laziness? I don’t care about what they admit to, I care about the consequences of their theology. Christian theology can lead to intellectual laziness by increasing the tendency of people to assume god works like a magician in the universe. Genesis is one of the biggest sources of scientific ignorance in the world. Half of all US Christians think it is a literal account of creation, and many of them vehemently deny evolution. Those who fail to do their homework are well advised to remain silent. Some, however, believing they are wise, continue speaking out of ignorance. Folly is the reward of hubris. OK, but that means all Christians who are science-deniers need to shut up. And all Christians who haven’t done their homework on atheism, need to shut up. That’s most Christians. “OK, but that means all Christians who are science-deniers need to shut up. And all Christians who haven’t done their homework on atheism, need to shut up. That’s most Christians.” I have not cited any believers who dismiss the legitimacy of modern natural science, keeping in mind that scientism is not science. (Remember, you are the one who believes that science and theistic religion are mutually exclusive. I, in contrast, reject the conflict thesis.) Furthermore, the believers I have cited are highly sophisticated thinkers who display a remarkable depth of thought not in the least exhibited in your numerous cavalier and sophomoric comments. Moreover, given your dogmatic assumptions, it seems clear that you have neither the time nor the inclination to take their writings and argumentation seriously. Don’t expect others, then, to take your assertions seriously. I have not cited any believers who dismiss the legitimacy of modern natural science, keeping in mind that scientism is not science. (Remember,you are the one who believes that science and theistic religion are mutually exclusive. I, in contrast, reject the conflict thesis.) I wasn’t talking about the people you’ve cited, I was talking about the 50% of US Christians who are indeed science deniers, and the millions of others who believe anti-science things, like that there was a literal Adam and Eve, or a virgin birth. Again, you’re misunderstanding of me causes you to respond ignorantly. Furthermore, the believers I have cited are highly sophisticated thinkers who display a remarkable depth of thought not in the least exhibited in your numerous cavalier and sophomoric comments. Highly sophisticated thinkers can be wrong if the point of view that they’re defending is wrong. Just look at all the “highly sophisticated thinkers” who are apologists for other religions you think are false. Moreover, given your dogmatic assumptions, it seems clear that you have neither the time nor the inclination to take their writings and argumentation seriously. Don’t expect others, then, to take your assertions seriously. What I’d prefer that you do is make their arguments in a debate with me, since you apparently agree with them and know their arguments. I’ve done enough research into religion and science to know the BS that religionists pull when trying to defend their untenable positions. In this case, however, the erroneous point of view is that of philosophical materialism, which precludes God, free human agency, and the objective natural moral law, among other things. It’s not erroneous, it’s an accurate interpretation of the data. You reject free human agency too, so you’re a hypocrite at least on that. And prove to me that objective natural moral law exists. I’ll ask once again: Have you replied to my comment concerning empirical scientific evidence and data? You’ll have to link me to it, as you comment so much I’m not sure where it is. Any reasonable person who has carefully read my previous comments can see that I, in agreement with St. Thomas Aquinas and many other believers, affirm free human agency and that I firmly reject universal determinism. The belief in universal determinism, like belief in philosophical materialism, is morally toxic. If you obstinately refuse to abandon such morally toxic beliefs, that is your choice. Morally toxic? It is your religion that supports slavery, discrimination of women and homosexuals, and your church that aided the Nazis in the holocaust. You can reject determinism if you want, but if you reject libertarian FW, as all respectable philosophers do, there is no free human agency. In your world, we are controlled by god, just like Calvin thought. And if PM was morally toxic, you’d have data on that to show its causal effects and harm on our society. Where is that data? You wrote: “Morally toxic? It is your religion that supports slavery, discrimination of women and homosexuals, and your church that aided the Nazis in the holocaust. You can reject determinism if you want, but if you reject libertarian FW, as all respectable philosophers do, there is no free human agency. In your world, we are controlled by god, just like Calvin thought.” First, that is a blatantly false and malicious characterization of my religion. Second, universal mechanistic determinism is morally toxic, because it contradicts free human agency. Where there are no free agents, there is no objective morality, no objective moral good and evil. A robot, or any brute animal for that matter, cannot properly be morally praised or blamed for the things that are accomplished by means of said robot. Those who deny the reality of free choice seek to escape moral responsibility for their morally disordered acts, e.g., idolatry, blasphemy, impiety, murder, adultery, theft, perjury, covetousness, etc. In addition, philosophical materialism (PM) cannot be detached from universal determinism and the denial of free human agency. So PM is morally toxic. Third, the universal rule of divine providence does not contradict authentic human freedom; on the contrary, authentic human freedom depends on divine causality. Fourth, not everyone who defends the universal rule of divine providence is a Calvinist or a proponent of theistic determinism! In that regard we see another instance in which you exhibit your ignorance in the domain of theology. One should strive to avoid the terribly embarrassing example of Richard Dawkins. Whenever he ventures into the territory of theology, he exposes his remarkable lack of theological formation. He would be well advised to restrict his public comments to his professional field of expertise and not pretend to be an expert on theological questions. First, that is a blatantly false and malicious characterization of my religion. It is entirely accurate. It is your religion that supports slavery, discrimination of women and homosexuals, and your church that aided the Nazis in the holocaust. If you cannot own up to this, you cannot be a real Christian. Second, universal mechanistic determinism is morally toxic, because it contradicts free human agency. Where there are no free agents, there is no objective morality, no objective moral good and evil. You essentially believe in determinism too, just with god determining everything. Rejecting LFW means rejecting free human agency. The fact that LFW is incoherent means there is no free human agency. The only way to reconcile this is to redefine free human agency in a compatibilist manner. No free human agency does not hinder objective morality. I’ve already showed you via the Euthyphro dilemma that objective morality exists independently of god. A robot, or any brute animal for that matter, cannot properly be morally praised or blamed for the things that are accomplished by means of said robot. Those who deny the reality of free choice seek to escape moral responsibility for their morally disordered acts, e.g., idolatry, blasphemy, impiety, murder, adultery, theft, perjury, covetousness, etc. It is not true that those who deny the reality of free choice seek to escape moral responsibility for their morally disordered acts. Most philosophers who deny free choice do so based on the evidence that there is no free choice in the LFW sense of the term. Now if you’re using free choice in a compatibilistic sense, then many philosophers accept free choice in this respect. In addition, philosophical materialism (PM) cannot be detached from universal determinism and the denial of free human agency. So PM is morally toxic. Completely untrue again. PM is not tied to universal determinism, it works just as well under universal indeterminism. This failure to understand the basics of PM shows me you’re very uneducated in the subject matter. Christian morality is morally toxic because it supports slavery, discrimination of women and homosexuals, and many other barbaric morals. Third, the universal rule of divine providence does not contradict authentic human freedom; on the contrary, authentic human freedom depends on divine causality. So explain to me a linear timeline of causality when you think a person makes a “free choice”. What’s the first event in the chain? And what’s the last? Fourth, not everyone who defends the universal rule of divine providence is a Calvinist or a proponent of theistic determinism! In that regard we see another instance in which you exhibit your ignorance in the domain of theology. You may not be a Calvinist, but your view on morality is theistic determinism. IF you deny this, you must answer my question above in detail to show how it is not. One should strive to avoid the terribly embarrassing example of Richard Dawkins. Whenever he ventures into the territory of theology, he exposes his remarkable lack of theological formation. It seems that you’re as ignorant about PM and science as he is about theology. So you’re being a total hypocrite here. I know the difference between a Calvinist, Lutheran and a Catholic. If you deny LFW, as you have to, then logically the only opportunity for you is theistic determinism. You write: “Nope. It is entirely accurate. It is your religion that supports slavery, discrimination of women and homosexuals, and your church that aided the Nazis in the holocaust. If you cannot own up to this, you cannot be a real Christian.” Repeating your false and malicious accusations does not make them true. Jesus Christ, the Head of the Catholic Church, never taught that slavery is morally good. In societies where the institution of slavery exists in consequence of human sin–both actual sin and original sin–one must make prudential decisions about how to deal with such corrupt institutions. Prostitution and usury would be two more examples of morally corrupt institutions. In connection with such institutions, Pope John Paul II referred to “structures of sin,” which we must strive to overcome. Also, the Catholic hierarchy teaches that we must avoid all unjust discrimination against persons with same-sex tendencies. Also, what does it mean to say that a religion supports discrimination against women if the same religion venerates Mary the mother of Jesus as the Mother of God and, in the order of grace, the greatest created person in the universe? As regards the charge that the Catholic Church aided the Nazis in the Holocaust, that is a stupid and vicious accusation contrary to historical facts. You write: “You essentially believe in determinism too, just with god determining everything. Rejecting LFW means rejecting free human agency. The fact that LFW is incoherent means there is no free human agency. The only way to reconcile this is to redefine free human agency in a compatibilist manner.” Again, repeating your errors does not make them true. It only helps to underscore your profound ignorance concerning questions pertaining to the fields of philosophy and theology, not natural science. You write: “No free human agency does not hinder objective morality.” Lacking true freedom, robots and brute animals are not moral agents. To assert that beings lacking freedom of choice can be responsible moral agents is to use the term “moral” in a very different and unconventional sense. The natural moral law presupposes freedom. You, however, have already admitted that you do not recognize the reality of the natural moral law. You write: “I’ve already showed you via the Euthyphro dilemma that objective morality exists independently of [G]od.” Whatever you may believe, you definitely have not shown or proven any such thing. On the contrary, objective morality depends upon God, who established the objective moral order. You and I are not using the term “objective morality” in the same sense. Again, you’re in over your head here. You write: “It is not true that those who deny the reality of free choice seek to escape moral responsibility for their morally disordered acts.” You’re free to deny that determinists seek to escape moral responsibility for their disorders acts, but the fact remains that universal mechanistic determinism provides a convenient, albeit false, excuse to commit acts in violation of the natural moral law. You write: “Most philosophers who deny free choice do so based on the evidence that there is no free choice in the LFW sense of the term. Now if you’re using free choice in a compatibilistic sense, then many philosophers accept free choice in this respect.” Here again you’re in over your head. You lack a sound conception of free choice. Universal mechanistic determinism is incompatible with authentic free choice. Free human agency, which is spiritual in nature, is impossible without God. You write: “Completely untrue again. PM is not tied to universal determinism, it works just as well under universal indeterminism. This failure to understand the basics of PM shows me you’re very uneducated in the subject matter.” Within the theoretical framework of philosophical materialism, every effect must be explained on the basis of matter in motion, which absolutely cannot be the source of authentic free agency. Those who reject the universal and necessary metaphysical principle of causality, which requires that every effect has a cause, are stepping outside the boundaries of scientific rationality. Inasmuch as universal indeterminism absolutely precludes the real relation of effect to cause, universal indeterminism has no basis in either scientific rationality or philosophical reason. I was assuming that you did not wish to abandon scientific rationality, and you do buy into universal determinism, which I reject. You write: “Christian morality is morally toxic because it supports slavery, discrimination of women and homosexuals, and many other barbaric morals.” Clearly you exhibit little or no real understanding of genuine Christian morality. You write: “So explain to me a linear timeline of causality when you think a person makes a “free choice”. What’s the first event in the chain? And what’s the last?” Your reference to a “linear timeline of causality” indicates that you are uncritically presupposing a conception of causality that is too narrow and insufficiently nuanced. Read Michael Dodds, O.P., Unlocking Divine Action. I’ve made several references to that work in previous posts. Presently I’m not in a position to offer you a free online course on the philosophy of causality, and this isn’t the proper venue for such a course. If I begin to offer philosophy courses online, I can let you know if you desire to study philosophy online, but I rather doubt that you have a serious interest in classical Thomistic philosophy. You write: “You may not be a Calvinist, but your view on morality is theistic determinism.“ Again, you’re in over your head. I reject theistic determinism. You need to acquire a properly metaphysical understanding of the analogy of causality. You write: “IF you deny this, you must answer my question above in detail to show how it is not.” Again, read Prof. Michael Dodds’s book. That would cost considerably less than an online tutorial. You write: “It seems that you’re as ignorant about PM and science as he is about theology. So you’re being a total hypocrite here. I know the difference between a Calvinist, Lutheran and a Catholic. If you deny LFW, as you have to, then logically the only opportunity for you is theistic determinism.” Again, you are speaking out of ignorance. You clearly do not understand the rich and robust Catholic theology propounded by St. Thomas Aquinas, who was not a Calvinist or a proto-Calvinist. Repeating your false and malicious accusations does not make them true. Jesus Christ, the Head of the Catholic Church, never taught that slavery is morally good. Jesus is not head of the Catholic Church, the Pope is. Jesus uses slavery as an example in Luke 12:47-48 and never speaks against it. Jesus’ words do not make a total account for Christian theology. If that were so, then since Jesus says nothing on gay marriage it is OK. But there are many passages in the NT that condone slavery: Ephesians 6:5 “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear.” 1 Peter 2:18 “Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” Titus 2:9 “Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,” Given the doctrine of biblical inspiration, your god clearly has no problem with slavery. Catholic hierarchy teaches that we must avoid all unjust discrimination against persons with same-sex tendencies. Yeah today, due to the pressure of modern secular culture, which is making the Church progress on gay issues. Centuries ago you wouldn’t be able to make this statement. Also, what does it mean to say that a religion supports discrimination against women if the same religion venerates Mary the mother of Jesus as the Mother of God and, in the order of grace, the greatest created person in the universe? Venerating a single woman does not mean that Christianity views women as the equals to men. If it did, it wouldn’t have sexist verses in the Bible. As regards the charge that the Catholic Church aided the Nazis in the Holocaust, that is a stupid and vicious accusation contrary to historical facts. First, there is a saying that even the Devil can quote Scripture, but one can be sure that the Prince of Darkness does not intend to lead his audience to the truth. Your attempt to show that the Christian New Testament treats slavery as a positive moral good in itself is an example of the proof-texting fallacy. That’s an old, but dishonest, trick. I don’t know any sincere Christians who are thoroughly familiar with the Good News and who defend the practice of human slavery. Second, slavery is a consequence of human sin, and the worst form of slavery is slavery to sin. The Son of God became man to free fallen human persons from sin. Those who deny the reality of sin set themselves in opposition to God. The fruit of sin is death, not freedom. Third, as regards your assertion about the Church and “gay issues,” have you ever heard the old saying: “Love the sinner, hate the sin”? It’s still true today. We should avoid judging agents, but we must judge actions, distinguishing between good and evil acts. Fourth, regarding women, authentic Christianity affirms the dignity of the human person, men and women. In non-Christian cultures women have often been treated as chattel, and in today’s secular culture women are not treated with due respect but as sex toys. Just consider the sinful example of pornography, which is a thriving industry in countries deeply affected by secularism. One cannot count on help from philosophical materialism (PM) in terms of opposing “structures of sin.” PM is morally vacuous. Moreover, the Catholic veneration of the Mother of God can hardly be reconciled with the false opinion that, according to biblical Christian doctrine, women are inferior to men. Fifth, regarding the Church and Nazism, the first link takes one to a book that includes the following: ”The subject matter of this book is controversial.” The second link takes one to an essay entitled “Not Hitler’s Pope.” I don’t know what you think that the essay proves, but it ends as follows: “This, however, should be clear: to dub Pius XII ‘Hitler’s Pope’ is almost as absurd as calling Hitler ‘Pacelli’s Puppet.’” The third link takes one to a book written by Victor J. Stenger, an avowed enemy of religion. One can hardly expect an impartial treatment of the Catholic Church from such an author with an ideological axe to grind. Your other comments in no way support the claim that Nazism is consistent with the faith or moral doctrine of the Catholic Church. Slandering Catholicism will not win you any points among honest persons. Sixth, regarding your reference to the Euthyphro dilemma, I don’t endorse the pagan conception of deity that was presupposed in that Platonic dialogue. Those who grasp a sound metaphysical conception of God see that the Euthyphro dilemma poses no real difficulties for Christian theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas. Seventh, you wrote: “And belief in salvation provides an excuse to sin.” Simply put, that makes no sense! Eighth, you wrote: “There is no free human agency, and if you think there is without LFW you need to argue for this in your own words.” The argument for non-libertarian freedom of choice has already been made by others, e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas. In the present context, I don’t need to repeat what has already been done elsewhere. Ninth, you wrote: “if you accept the universal and necessary metaphysical principle of causality, then you must logically accept determinism, theistic or non-theistic.” (Emphasis added.) No I don’t. Once again, you display your philosophical ignorance. The universal metaphysical principle of causality does not imply universal mechanistic determinism. I’ve already commented very briefly on the question of metaphysical causality more than once in previous posts. Tenth, you wrote: “That’s not true. Many interpretations of quantum mechanics are deterministic [sic].” I think you meant indeterministic. In any case, I’m certainly aware of the Copenhagen interpretation of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The Copenhagen interpretation, however, is highly controversial. Not all scientists, e.g., Albert Einstein, accept the Copenhagen interpretation. Stanley Jaki has written incisively on this controversial philosophical question. The Copenhagen interpretation is not “metaphysically modest.” Eleventh, you wrote: “I do understand it [Christian morality], I also understand that Christians reinterpret their religious texts and it evolves with the times.” There is legitimate development of doctrine, but that doesn’t mean what you believe it means. See, for instance, John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Twelth, you wrote: “If you reject theistic determinism, explain how a human being makes a freely decided action in your own words absent LFW and given the universal and necessary metaphysical principle of causality. I don’t think it is logically possible.” I’m not in a position to offer gratis an online tutorial on the complex philosophical question of free will. And this isn’t the proper venue. You’ll need to do your own homework, or seek guidance from a qualified expert. Perhaps you can find a qualified expert who will provide free instruction. As regards texts, I’ve already supplied some references in previous posts. First, there is a saying that even the Devil can quote Scripture, but one can be sure that the Prince of Darkness does not intend to lead his audience to the truth. Your attempt to show that the Christian New Testament treats slavery as a positive moral good in itself is an example of the proof-texting fallacy. That’s an old, but dishonest, trick. I don’t know any sincere Christians who are thoroughly familiar with the Good News and who defend the practice of human slavery. Your attempt to show that the Bible does not support slavery fails. It does not matter what Christians today do. We know modern Christians are against slavery, what matters is whether the writers of the Bible thought slavery was permissible, and they did. Lev 25:44-46 says non-Israelites can be slaves for life and treated harshly. This is antithetical to humanistic morality. Plenty of sincere Christians condoned the practice of slavery. Paul did, the other writers of the Epistles that were not written by Paul did. Jesus condoned it. And 200 years ago, millions of sincere Christians condoned slavery. Second, slavery is a consequence of human sin, and the worst form of slavery is slavery to sin. The Son of God became man to freefallen human persons from sin. Those who deny the reality of sin set themselves in opposition to God. The fruit of sin is death, not freedom. I am aware of Paul’s constant analogies that used slavery to sin as a metaphor to teach. But the Bible condones human slavery. It does not matter whether contemporary Christians think slavery is good or not, the Bible thinks it is permissible, ergo, your god does too, and his morality is unchanging, absolute. It doesn’t change when we morally progress. Third, as regards your assertion about the Church and “gay issues,” have you ever heard the old saying: “Love the sinner, hate the sin”? It’s still true today. We should avoid judging agents, but we must judge actions, distinguishing between good and evil acts. It is only a matter of time before the church condones the “sin”. When will happen, as we’ve seen among many Protestant denominations is that homosexuality will no longer be seen as “evil”. Fourth, regarding women, authentic Christianity affirms the dignity of the human person, men and women. In non-Christian cultures women have often been treated as chattel, and in today’s secular culture women are not treated with due respect but as sex toys. The 10th commandment treats women as man’s property. The NT says the head of women is man 1 Cor 11:3 and we created for men 11:7-9, and must submit to their husbands Eph 5:22-25, and cannot wear fancy clothes or have elaborate hair styles, not have any authority over man 1 Tim 2:9-15, and OT laws were just a sexist if not more. Just consider the sinful example of pornography, which is a thriving industry in countries deeply affected by secularism. One cannot count on help from philosophical materialism (PM) in terms of opposing “structures of sin.” PM is morally vacuous. Moreover, the Catholic veneration of the Mother of God can hardly be reconciled with the false opinion that, according to biblical Christian doctrine, women are inferior to men. Pornography is more popular among conservative Christians states. Christians watch it just as much, if not more than atheists. Pornography is fine so long as it is done by consenting adults. Catholicism says pornography among consenting adults is wrong, but it is OK for a 14 year old girl to be forced into an arranged marriage to an older man, as happened throughout Christendom. The Bible treats women as inferiors to men, there is absolutely no doubt about it. Praising Mary, who was underage by the way, does not absolve Christianity from is sexist morality. Ifth, regarding the Church and Nazism, the first link takes one to a book that includes the following: ”The subject matter of this book is controversial.” The second link takes one to an essay entitled “Not Hitler’s Pope.” I don’t know what you think that the essay proves, but it ends as follows: “This, however, should be clear: to dub Pius XII ‘Hitler’s Pope’ is almost as absurd as calling Hitler ‘Pacelli’s Puppet.’” See here: Your other comments in no way support the claim that Nazism is consistent with the faith or moral doctrine of the Catholic Church. Slandering Catholicism will not win you any points among honest persons. That was not my point. My point was to show how the church right before and during WW2, did side with the Nazis on many issues and matters and were not unequivocally against the Nazis. So your church is far from the beacon of goodness. And this is not even to mention the pedophilia scandal. Sixth, regarding your reference to the Euthyphro dilemma, I don’t endorse the pagan conception of deity that was presupposed in that Platonic dialogue. Those who grasp a sound metaphysical conception of God see that the Euthyphro dilemma poses no real difficulties for Christian theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas. You still cannot make a sound argument that objective moral values depend on god. Seventh, you wrote: “And belief in salvation provides an excuse to sin.” Simply put, that makes no sense! Sure, one can sin and expect forgiveness and continue sinning. The argument for non-libertarian freedom of choice has already been made by others, e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas. In the present context, I don’t need to repeat what has already been done elsewhere. In the context of a debate, you ought to repeat Aquinas’ argument. Ninth, you wrote: “if you accept the universal and necessary metaphysical principle of causality, then you must logically accept determinism, theistic or non-theistic.” (Emphasis added.) No I don’t. Once again, you display your philosophical ignorance. The universal metaphysical principle of causality does not imply universal mechanistic determinism. I’ve already commented very briefly on the question of metaphysical causality more than once in previous posts. You haven’t made a coherent argument showing free choice given the universal and necessary metaphysical principle of causality, which you hold to. You just insist it isn’t a problem and that Aquinas has resolved it. I’m asking you to make an argument. Tenth, you wrote: “That’s not true. Many interpretations of quantum mechanics are deterministic [sic].” I think you meant indeterministic. In any case, I’m certainly aware of the Copenhagen interpretation of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The Copenhagen interpretation, however, is highly controversial. Not all scientists, e.g., Albert Einstein, accept the Copenhagen interpretation. Stanley Jaki has written incisively on this controversial philosophical question. The Copenhagen interpretation is not “metaphysically modest.” No!! I mean deterministic, not indeterministic. The leading interpretations of QM, like the many-worlds and the Bohmian view are fully deterministic. The Copenhagan view is not considered coherent by most physicists, and it is indeterministic. I’m not in a position to offer gratis an online tutorial on the complex philosophical question of free will. And this isn’t the proper venue. You’ll need to do your own homework, or seek guidance from a qualified expert. Perhaps you can find a qualified expert who will provide free instruction. As regards texts, I’ve already supplied some references in previous posts. You need to learn about atheism, naturalism, and secularism. You seem to show stunning ignorance given your claim to be credentialed. I will be focusing on natural law in my writings from now on and yes, I will do more research. I highly doubt to see anything that absolves this issue. “And prove to me that objective natural moral law exists.” There are many writings devoted to natural law theory,, including: Russell Hittinger, The First Grace: Rediscovering the Natural Law in a Post-Christian World; Goyette, Latkovic, and Myers, ed., St. Thomas Aquinas & the Natural Law Tradition: Contemporary Perspectives; Henry Veatch, Human Rights: Fact or Fancy?; Edward McLean, ed., Common Truths: New Perspectives on Natural Law,; and Yves Simon, The Tradition of Natural Law: A Philosopher’s Reflections. Of special significance in this connection is Pope John Paul II’s important encyclical, The Splendor of Truth. Note that there are different theories of natural law. (See, for instance, Russell Hittinger, A Critique of the New Natural Law Theory ). A proper philosophical understanding of the natural law depends, at least in part, on a proper philosophical understanding of human nature. Such an understanding transcends the narrow boundaries of scientism and philosophical materialism. Those who are dogmatically committed to scientism or philosophical materialism are not open to recognizing the reality of natural law as such. One must adopt a properly humanistic approach to natural law, and neither scientism nor philosophical materialism are truly humanistic in character. Thank you for the resources, but I’d prefer you make the case for NL and we debate it. A proper philosophical understanding of the natural law depends, at least in part, on a proper philosophical understanding of human nature. Such an understanding transcends the narrow boundaries of scientism and philosophical materialism. If by “proper” understanding you mean a biblical understanding, then you will be assuming your conclusion from the start. I need to hear your arguments for these aspects of human nature that PM cannot accommodate for. If such an understanding requires faith-based beliefs derived from religious texts, or ancient metaphysical beliefs, then you’re going to be asserting dogmatic nonsense. One must adopt a properly humanistic approach to natural law, and neither scientism nor philosophical materialism are truly humanistic in character. Your opinion. “You reject free human agency too, so you’re a hypocrite at least on that.” First, the charge that I reject free human agency is false. I reject a libertarian conception of freedom as metaphysically untenable, but not all conceptions of freedom are libertarian, e.g., and. If you believe that there is only one conception of freedom, then you simply expose your own philosophical ignorance. Second, hypocrisy is a moral category. Philosophical materialism precludes free human agency, objective moral truth, moral good and evil. As a philosophical materialist, you cannot consistently employ meaningful moral language founded on objective reality. “The point is that Miller doesn’t need to appeal to religion to explain biology. His religious beliefs are his personal beliefs, not his scientific beliefs.” The point is that if Prof. Miller’s thinking about reality, material and immaterial, is not deeply confused, you need to be challenged when you draw attention to what you like about his thought and simply dismiss what you don’t like about his thought. Religion is here to stay. If you dislike it, it doesn’t follow that it is false. Furthermore, if you like something (e.g., philosophical materialism), it doesn’t follow that it is true. One might add that your faith in philosophical materialism (PM) is misplaced. Natural science does not support PM. Modern natural science relies on methodological naturalism (MN), but MN does not entail PM. The transition from MN to PM involves a huge irrational leap in thought. Finally, if you wish to enter into intelligent philosophical discussions of freedom, you need to do your homework. One can defend authentic human freedom without endorsing libertarian freedom. The rejection of libertarian freedom does not logically entail either universal determinism or Calvinism. The point is that if Prof. Miller’s thinking about reality, material and immaterial, is not deeply confused, you need to be challenged when you draw attention to what you like about his thought and simply dismiss what you don’t like about his thought. I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. Miller does not need to appeal to god to do his job. Any thoughts on god he has are his personal views. Religion is here to stay. That may be true. However the level of religiosity is not here to stay. It can and will decline, and you’re helping me do it. If you dislike it, it doesn’t follow that it is false. That’s never been my position. I’ve always relied on arguments and evidence as to why religions are all false and PM is true. One might add that your faith in philosophical materialism (PM) is misplaced. Natural science does not support PM. Modern natural science relies on methodological naturalism (MN), but MN does not entail PM. The transition from MN to PM involves a huge irrational leap in thought. Natural science does support PM. It doesn’t support supernaturalism or theism. You can say MN does not entail PM, but the success of MN might be due to the reality of PM. Science isn’t committed to there being no supernatural. It’s just the case that there has never been any evidence or methodology that includes the supernatural that helps us make any sense of anything in science. The huge irrational leap is on your side, whereby you take testimony in a book, or emotion, or metaphysics and conclude that one religion is true. Finally, if you wish to enter into intelligent philosophical discussions of freedom, you need to do your homework. One can defend authentic human freedom without endorsing libertarian freedom. The rejection of libertarian freedom does not logically entail either universal determinism or Calvinism. Ok, then explain how human thoughts and actions are “freedom” absent libertarian free will. In what sense are they free? “Natural science does support PM [philosophical materialism]. Science isn’t committed to there being no supernatural.” (P1) PM (philosophical materialism) necessarily precludes the existence of God, who is beyond or above the order of nature (supernatural). (P2) If PM could be established on the basis of natural science, then on this same basis the existence of God would be untenable. But you stated that (P3) “Science isn’t committed to there being no supernatural.” Consequently, (P4) PM cannot be established on the basis of natural science. But you stated that (P5) “Natural science does support PM.” P4 & P5 are mutually contradictory. So it appears that there is an internal contradiction within your system of beliefs. To remedy the contradiction, you must give up one of the preceding propositions, namely, P3 or P5. Since you seem dogmatically committed to P5, it seems likely that you will reject P3. In that case you would endorse the controversial opinion that natural science is committed to there being no God, i.e., natural science is committed to positive unbelief or the rejection of God’s existence. If it were true that natural science is committed to the rejection of God’s existence, then all persons who practice natural science and render due worship to God would be engaged in a performative contradiction. For they, as theists, would be worshipping what they, as practicing scientists, are committed to rejecting! I would suggest that P5 is certainly false. In its place, I would maintain that (P6) modern natural science relies on methodological naturalism (MN). Moreover, philosophical materialism cannot be derived from methodological naturalism. I recognize that some scientists are committed to philosophical materialism (PM), but this commitment to PM is not rationally justifiable on the basis of their commitment to modern natural science. Their commitment to PM is based on non-scientific considerations (e.g., emotional difficulties, the loss of a close friend or relative, addiction to some form of disordered behavior, intellectual arrogance, etc.). (P1) PM (philosophical materialism) necessarily precludes the existence of God, who is beyond or above the order of nature (supernatural). (P2) If PM could be established on the basis of natural science, then on this same basis the existence of God would be untenable. But you stated that (P3) “Science isn’t committed to there being no supernatural.” Consequently, (P4) PM cannot be established on the basis of natural science. But you stated that (P5) “Natural science does support PM.” P4 & P5 are mutually contradictory. So it appears that there is an internal contradiction within your system of beliefs. To remedy the contradiction, you must give up one of the preceding propositions, namely, P3 or P5. Since you seem dogmatically committed to P5, it seems likely that you will reject P3. In that case you would endorse the controversial opinion that natural science is committed to there being no God, i.e., natural science is committed to positive unbelief or the rejection of God’s existence. There is no internal contradiction, you’re just misunderstanding my position. P1-5 do not represent all of my views. I agree with P1. I agree with P2 but I’m not sure if science alone can establish PM without philosophy. Science can support PM. P3 is correct. If there was evidence for the supernatural, science would confirm it and incorporate it into its system of evidence, but it hasn’t found any evidence, and has found that human beings infer intentionality in nature when there is none. P4, like P2, is unknown to me. It seems that philosophy is needed to break down god-concepts to show how they’re incoherent along with data from science. In P5, saying that natural science supports PM is not to say that it has proven it. This is where you’re incorrect. Data X can support proposition Y, but that doesn’t mean that it can prove it. I think science supports PM and philosophy can allow one to justifiable and tenably conclude that PM is the best model of reality. For they, as theists, would be worshipping what they, as practicing scientists, are committed to rejecting! This seems absurd because your reasoning above is absurd. You start with a false argument and then draw absurd conclusions. What else do you expect. What theistic scientists usually do, if they’re good at their job, is adopt MN on the job, and then go back to believing their crazy religious beliefs at home. I recognize that some scientists are committed to philosophical materialism (PM), but this commitment to PM is not rationally justifiable on the basis of their commitment to modern natural science. That’s not completely true. There are plenty of evidences that natural science gives us that can justify one’s disbelief in a deity. The rational atheist however, also uses philosophy, history and religion itself to conclude PM. Their commitment to PM is based on non-scientific considerations (e.g., emotional difficulties, the loss of a close friend or relative, addiction to some form of disordered behavior, intellectual arrogance, etc.). As I said, completely not true. This is your ignorance showing its true colors. If you’d like to read about why I’m personally an atheist, you can read that here. You won’t find any emotional difficulties, loss of loved ones, or addictions there. There is plenty of scientific data that supports PM and creates problems for theism. One is the fact that Adam and Eve never existed, which makes Christianity absurd. You need to do your own homework on this complex philosophical topic. This is not the proper venue for such a discussion. Among the works I would recommend, see Vernon J. Bourke, Will in Western Thought: An Historico-Critical Survey (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1964). I have done a lot of homework, but if you can’t summarize an argument, and have to refer me to a book, when in fact some of your responses to me are essays in and of themselves, it makes me think you might not have an actual response. “Thinker”: “Tell me what my atheistic errors are.” papagan: This needs to be unpacked, but the basic philosophical insight is as follows: Nothing caused can be its own efficient cause of existence. Some things are caused, but not everything can be caused. There must be an uncaused cause. Material things are caused. So a material thing cannot be the uncaused cause. The uncaused cause must transcend material things. Thomas has more to say about prime matter and its dependence on a higher cause:. Nothing caused can be its own efficient cause of existence. Some things are caused, but not everything can be caused. There must be an uncaused cause. Material things are caused. So a material thing cannot be the uncaused cause. Saying that material things are caused is an inductive statement. It is also inductive to say that all causes are (a) temporal and (b) material. Now if you can say that the material world needs a cause that is a-temporal, and a-material, that is a massive exception to everything we see. If you can get away with that, then I can get away with saying the material world itself is uncaused, that is, it’s the exception to the rule. Besides, I already showed you how the universe was eternal, and things that are eternal cannot be caused, since they always existed. So you have to show evidence that the material world didn’t exist and came to be. Plus you have to logically and coherently explain how does a timeless god who knows everything “freely” choose to create our world and not some other world? God can’t make decisions, because if he did that would require time, and he can’t be indecisive because that would falsify his omniscience. So god must have the eternal desire and knowledge to create our world, say World X, and not some other world, say World Y, – meaning there was never a time god wanted to create World Y instead of World X; he always wanted to create World X. How then is the creation of World X freely decided by god if the creation of world Y or the forbearance to create any world never existed? And how does god create time, if prior to time existing literally nothing can happen? The uncaused cause must transcend material things. Thomas has more to say about prime matter and its dependence on a higher cause:. No it doesn’t. This is your bad logic at it again and the fact that you cannot explain in incoherency of timeless mental causes shows you don’t have an explanation. You just have another mystery, and one that cannot be solved. You have to explain causality sans time and explain the incoherency of god, time and creation. You also have to explain how our world being created in a computer simulation by advanced life forms is less probably than being created by a omni-god. We know computer simulations exist, we don’t know gods exist. Those who reject the reality of immaterial being (e.g., spiritual souls, angels, etc.) are adherents of philosophical materialism (PM). You reject the reality of immaterial being. Ergo This is a total non-sequitor, and shows your ignorance of PM. Eliminative materialism is the minority view among PMs. You fail to understand that there are other views, like property dualism, non-reductive physicalism, and epiphenominalism which can accommodate the mental within a naturalistic framework. There is no reality of immaterial being that exists independently of material being and that has a causal influence on material being. You just assert it. The fact that you haven’t cited one piece of evidence shows this. Incidentally, epiphenomenalism will not save you. If the inorganic spiritual faculty of mind is real, it can and does have a real impact on physical reality. My typed comments, which are part of physical reality, convey my thoughts which proceed from my mind. This statement shows how ignorant you are of neuroscientific data. The thoughts in your mind are caused by your physical brain. This is what neuroscience shows. You mistakenly think that your mind is controlling your body. That is a false assumption from dualism, which religion’s hold to. Here is some data from neuroscience showing how the brain always comes before the mind and that the mind has no causal powers on the brain. Highlights: Taken together, two specific regions in the frontal and parietal cortex of the human brain had considerable information that predicted the outcome of a motor decision the subject had not yet consciously made. This suggests that when the subject’s decision reached awareness it had been influenced by unconscious brain activity for up to 10 seconds. The temporal ordering of information suggests a tentative causal model of information flow, where the earliest unconscious precursors of the motor decision originated in frontopolar cortex, from where they influenced the buildup of decision-related information in the precuneus and later in SMA, where it remained unconscious for up to a few seconds. Highlights: Researchers show that It was possible to decode the decision outcomes of such free motor decisions from the pole of anterior medial prefrontal cortex (BA 10) and the precuneus/posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), up to 7 s before subjects were aware of their intention. Taking into account the temporal delay of the BOLD signal (which is in the order of a few seconds), it is possible that these signals reflect processes up to 10 seconds before the actual decision. The claim that natural science and theistic religion are necessarily at war is untenable. Religion forces one to believe things that are scientifically untenable and that have massive scientific evidence against it. The existence of Adam and Eve is just one example. You might be ignorant of all the nuances in this area, but there is no way one can accept mainstream science and not have cognitive dissonance with their religious views. You simply have to believe things on faith despite the evidence. “Ok, then explain how human thoughts and actions are ‘freedom’ absent libertarian free will. In what sense are they free?” To understand human freedom in terms other than libertarian freedom or freedom of indifference (advanced by William of Ockham, for example), which I find deeply problematic, one must develop an adequate philosophical conception of causality, which is analogous. Today many assume an insufficiently nuanced theory of causality. In reference to a metaphysically robust theory of causality, I’ve already made reference to an outstanding work by Michael J. Dodds, O.P., Unlocking Divine Action. Whatever is other than God and has being must be brought into existence by the transcendent First Efficient Cause of finite being. Since free human acts are not nothing, they must be caused. They are caused both by God (as primary cause) and by the human person (as secondary cause). The primary cause operates, and the secondary cause cooperates. Note that moral evil is privation. As privation, moral evil stems from deficient causes. Much has been written on the important subject of causality, and providing a complete philosophical theory of causality is not something that can properly be done within a brief space. I would refer readers to works like that of Michael J. Dodds, O.P., Unlocking Divine Action. One may also refer to and. You assert: “You’re working from an entirely metaphysical view that is false. Show me evidence of this. Show me a mind that is not caused by a physical brain. Show me how our human minds are not caused by our brains. Show me any data that mental things have a causal effect on matter. Use actual evidence since these are all scientific claims.” My response: How do you know about the brain and all the other sensible things that you so confidently take as given in your empirical scientific worldview? You cannot justify any “scientific” claim without assuming the epistemological realism upon which any particular scientific datum is based. “Evidence-based data” means nothing unless one can justify how one knows the evidence. You cannot use scientific information to verify empirical evidence, since all such evidence presumes epistemological realism. Epistemological realism is a philosophical position, however, and you do not want to base your science on any traditional philosophical assumptions. The plain fact is that without the total “assumption” that your external senses actually attain the external objects of the physical world, you have no way of making any “scientific” judgments at all. Any and all scientific claims about how we know things using brain and senses necessarily presuppose knowledge of the external physical world, knowledge that antecedently depends on the validity of sensation. You cannot, without begging the question, use natural science to validate your knowledge of empirical data upon which your natural science depends. Unless you can provide philosophical (meta-scientific) justification of how and why we know that we can rely on our senses, you must abandon the entire scientific enterprise and all of your worldview claims upon which your “scientific” claims are based. How do you know about the brain and all the other sensible things that you so confidently take as given in your empirical scientific worldview? You cannot justify any “scientific” claim without assuming the epistemological realism upon which any particular scientific datum is based. Unless you’re prepared to argue that we’re living in an illusion where our senses are 100% unreliable, you’re going to have to do what everyone does, which is grant certain basic assumptions about the external world and your senses. This does nothing to help your point of view. You still need scientific evidence of your claims since they are claims in the domain of science. Epistemological realism is a philosophical position, however, and you do not want to base your science on any traditional philosophical assumptions. Completely untrue. You’re assuming things about me that you don’t know, and that is very unwise. Epistemological realism is a philosophical position but the thing is it matches the data we get from science. There is nothing to contradict it. Whereas with your Thomistic metaphysics, it is not compatible with science. Moderate realism has no basis in science, nor do formal causes, or final causes, unless you want to water down the definition of final causes to make them compatible with naturalism, but then you would have defeated your view. Thomistic metaphysics tries to force a metaphysical framework over science, over reality. That’s what all religions do. Instead metaphysics has to be derived from physics, not be superimposed onto it. You cannot, without begging the question, use natural science to validate your knowledge of empirical data upon which your natural science depends. Unless you can provide philosophical (meta-scientific) justification of how and why we know that we can rely on our senses, you must abandon the entire scientific enterprise and all of your worldview claims upon which your “scientific” claims are based. Everyone has to grant that their senses are at least capable of being accurate and that they’re not, say, a brain in a vat. But by doing so, I’m not presupposing atheism. Granting one’s senses could allow one to conclude atheism, deism or theism. Once one grant’s one’s senses (which we all have to do) then the question becomes can you find any evidence to justify your metaphysical views? The evidence we have from neuroscience shows brain always causes mind, and since you reject libertarian free will as I do, this shouldn’t be an issue. “Thinker”: “Agreed. Unless you’re prepared to argue that we’re living in an illusion where our senses are 100% unreliable, you’re going to have to do what everyone does, which is grant certain basic assumptions about the external world and your senses. This does nothing to help your point of view. You still need scientific evidence of your claims since they are claims in the domain of science.” papagan: Many claims, like the claim that there is or isn’t a transcendent First Cause, or that there are or aren’t immortal rational souls, or that we are or aren’t free moral agents, or that there is or isn’t an objective natural moral law, are not claims within the domain of modern natural science. The admission that such claims are not claims within the domain of modern natural science does not entail that such meta-scientific claims are not rational claims one can prove on philosophical or theological grounds. Not all rationally accessible truths fall within the methodological boundaries of modern natural science. The truth that God created the world or that God acts in the world is not a truth within the domain of modern natural science. “Thinker”: “Completely untrue. You’re assuming things about me that you don’t know, and that is very unwise. Epistemological realism is a philosophical position but the thing is it matches the data we get from science.” papagan: That isn’t a scientific claim. If you cannot establish scientifically that the empirical scientific data gathered through the senses are fully in accord with objective extramental reality, how do you know that traditional epistemological realism is a truly reliable philosophical assumption? “Thinker”: “[1] Whereas with your Thomistic metaphysics, it is not compatible with science. [2] Moderate realism has no basis in science [3] Thomistic metaphysics tries to force a metaphysical framework over science, over reality. [4] Instead metaphysics has to be derived from physics, not be superimposed onto it.” papagan: Regarding 1, that is your own opinion, and it is unjustified. Regarding 2, moderate realism, unlike either nominalism or conceptualism, is a metaphysically tenable philosophical position, and it does not preclude scientific rationality; rather, it provides a crucial philosophical underpinning of scientific rationality. Regarding 3, that is your opinion, and it is a false opinion in my judgment. Your comments exhibit no real grasp of either Aristotelian metaphysics or Thomistic metaphysics. You claim to have done your homework. Under which philosopher(s) did you study metaphysics? Or are you an autodidact? Regarding 4, physics depends on metaphysical assumptions. The opinion that physics does not depend on any metaphysical assumptions is an opinion one would expect from a person with a dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism. Even so, philosophical materialism is a metaphysical position, and a very bad one at that! “Thinker”: “Everyone has to grant that their senses are at least capable of being accurate and that they’re not, say, a brain in a vat. But by doing so, I’m not presupposing atheism.” papagan: Your dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism automatically precludes any transcendent divine reality. Moreover, given your dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism, it is hardly surprising that you are unable to provide a sound philosophical theory of human knowing. Insofar as one assumes that natural science can supply an adequate account of human knowing, one will end up going down a blind alley. “Thinker”: “Once one grant’s one’s senses (which we all have to do) then the question becomes can you find any evidence to justify your metaphysical views? The evidence we have from neuroscience shows brain always causes mind” papagan: That assumes that a scientific theory can be developed without any metaphysical assumptions. That is a false assumption. Furthermore, I’ve already indicated elsewhere that claims about mind or intellect are not claims within the domain of natural science. Your assumption that claims about the mind are claims within the domain of natural science points to your prior unjustified commitment to philosophical materialism and scientism. Many claims, like the claim that there is or isn’t a transcendent First Cause, or that there are or aren’t immortal rational souls, or that we are or aren’t free moral agents, or that there is or isn’t an objective natural moral law, are not claims within the domain of modern natural science. The admission that such claims are not claims within the domain of modern natural science does not entail that such meta-scientific claims are not rational claims one can prove on philosophical or theological grounds. Not all rationally accessible truths fall within the methodological boundaries of modern natural science. The truth that God created the world or that God acts in the world is not a truth within the domain of modern natural science. No one is saying all rationally accessible truths are scientific. That’s your go-to strawman. But your metaphysics has to be compatible with physics, if it isn’t I see no reason to accept your metaphysics. That isn’t a scientific claim. If you cannot establish scientifically that the empirical scientific data gathered through the senses are fully in accord with objective extramental reality, how do you know that traditional epistemological realism is a truly reliable philosophical assumption? Did I say it was a scientific claim? Epistemological realism is a justified assumption because it is provisionally in accord with all the data we get through empirical science. If it didn’t work, we wouldn’t assume it. Regarding 1, that is your own opinion, and it is unjustified. It’s also the “opinion” of most scientists. Regarding 2, moderate realism, unlike either nominalism or conceptualism, is a metaphysically tenable philosophical position, and it does not preclude scientific rationality; rather, it provides a crucial philosophical underpinning of scientific rationality. It doesn’t help scientific rationality. Few scientists accept it and are not hindered when doing their jobs. Regarding 3, that is your opinion, and it is a false opinion in my judgment. Your comments exhibit no real grasp of either Aristotelian metaphysics or Thomistic metaphysics. You claim to have done your homework. Under which philosopher(s) did you study metaphysics? Or are you an autodidact? We haven’t debated either Aristotelian metaphysics or Thomistic metaphysics enough for you to say such a thing. You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with either Aristotelian metaphysics or Thomistic metaphysics is simply uneducated on the subject, as if a proper understanding cannot coexist with a disbelief in Aristotelian metaphysics or Thomistic metaphysics. Under which scientists did you study science? Under which atheist did you study atheism and secularism? Regarding 4, physics depends on metaphysical assumptions. The opinion that physics does not depend on any metaphysical assumptions is an opinion one would expect from a person with a dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism. Even so, philosophical materialism is a metaphysical position, and a very bad one at that! What you don’t seem to understand is that assuming your senses are capable of understanding an external world is not the same as assuming an entire metaphysical worldview, like Christianity or naturalism. You seem to think that because we all have to assume we exist and are not brains in vats, that this means I’m committed to philosophical materialism when I do it. We all have to grant basic assumptions, but they you still need to use evidence to make a case for your worldview. I’m saying the evidence we get is perfectly compatible with PM and offers us evidence against theism. You want to debate god? I’m down for it. Your dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism automatically precludes any transcendent divine reality. Moreover, given your dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism, it is hardly surprising that you are unable to provide a sound philosophical theory of human knowing. Insofar as one assumes that natural science can supply an adequate account of human knowing, one will end up going down a blind alley. If you want me to believe in a transcendent divine reality, you have to provide actual evidence for it. I’m not going to believe it on 2300 year old metaphysics that is not supported by science and that has problems with it. Now you bring up human knowing. Tell me why this is a problem for the PM and how theism resolves it using actual objective data. And speaking of dogmatic commitments, have you not recognized your dogmatic commitment to Christianity and theism? What would falsify your view? That assumes that a scientific theory can be developed without any metaphysical assumptions. That is a false assumption. No it doesn’t. I clearly said one has to grant their senses. Furthermore, I’ve already indicated elsewhere that claims about mind or intellect are not claims within the domain of natural science. Your assumption that claims about the mind are claims within the domain of natural science points to your priorunjustified commitment to philosophical materialism and scientism. Yeah, your simply wrong, and this is further evidence why science is incompatible with religion. You think minds are supernatural and not caused by brains. That flies in the face of all the neuroscience data and will hinder further scientific research, since your answer to the mind is literally supernatural woo-woo. Your assumption that claims about the mind are claims outside of the domain of natural science points to your prior unjustified commitment to supernaturalism and theism. Can you cite any evidence that minds cause physical brains? Staircase in two-point perspective Perspective (from: perspicere 'to see through') in the is an approximate representation, generally on a flat surface (such as paper), of an image as it is seen by the eye. The two most characteristic features of perspective are that objects are smaller as their distance from the observer increases; and that they are subject to foreshortening, meaning that an object's dimensions along the line of sight are shorter than its dimensions across the line of sight. Painters and architects including,,, and studied linear perspective, wrote treatises on it, and incorporated it into their artworks, thus contributing to the. Rays of light travel from the object, through the picture plane, and to the viewer's eye. This is the basis for graphical perspective. Linear perspective always works by representing the light that passes from a scene through an imaginary rectangle (realized as the plane of the painting), to the viewer's eye, as if a viewer were looking through a window and painting what is seen directly onto the windowpane. If viewed from the same spot as the windowpane was painted, the painted image would be identical to what was seen through the unpainted window. Each painted object in the scene is thus a flat, scaled down version of the object on the other side of the window. Because each portion of the painted object lies on the straight line from the viewer's eye to the equivalent portion of the real object it represents, the viewer sees no difference (sans ) between the painted scene on the windowpane and the view of the real scene. All perspective drawings assume the viewer is a certain distance away from the drawing. Objects are scaled relative to that viewer. An object is often not scaled evenly: a circle often appears as an ellipse and a square can appear as a trapezoid. This distortion is referred to as foreshortening. Perspective drawings have a horizon line, which is often implied. This line, directly opposite the viewer's eye, represents objects infinitely far away. They have shrunk, in the distance, to the infinitesimal thickness of a line. It is analogous to (and named after) the Earth's. Any perspective representation of a scene that includes parallel lines has one or more in a perspective drawing. A one-point perspective drawing means that the drawing has a single vanishing point, usually (though not necessarily) directly opposite the viewer's eye and usually (though not necessarily) on the horizon line. All lines parallel with the viewer's line of sight recede to the horizon towards this vanishing point. This is the standard 'receding railroad tracks' phenomenon. A two-point drawing would have lines parallel to two different angles. Any number of vanishing points are possible in a drawing, one for each set of parallel lines that are at an angle relative to the plane of the drawing. Perspectives consisting of many parallel lines are observed most often when drawing architecture (architecture frequently uses lines parallel to the ). Because it is rare to have a scene consisting solely of lines parallel to the three Cartesian axes (x, y, and z), it is rare to see perspectives in practice with only one, two, or three vanishing points; even a simple house frequently has a peaked roof which results in a minimum of six sets of parallel lines, in turn corresponding to up to six vanishing points. In contrast, natural scenes often do not have any sets of parallel lines and thus no vanishing points. Early history [ ] The earliest art paintings and drawings typically sized many objects and characters hierarchically according to their spiritual or thematic importance, not their distance from the viewer, and did not use. The most important figures are often shown as the highest in a composition, also from motives, leading to the so-called 'vertical perspective', common in the, where a group of 'nearer' figures are shown below the larger figure or figures. The only method to indicate the relative position of elements in the composition was by overlapping, of which much use is made in works like the. A Chinese watercolor painting of a mill in an, 12th century Chinese artists made use of from the first or second century until the 18th century. It is not certain how they came to use the technique; some authorities suggest that the Chinese acquired the technique from India, which acquired it from Ancient Rome. Oblique projection is also seen in Japanese art, such as in the paintings of (1752–1815). In the 18th century, Chinese artists began to combine oblique perspective with regular diminution of size of people and objects with distance; no particular vantage point is chosen, but a convincing effect is achieved. Systematic attempts to evolve a system of perspective are usually considered to have begun around the fifth century BC in the, as part of a developing interest in allied to theatrical scenery. This was detailed within 's as skenographia: using flat panels on a stage to give the illusion of depth. The philosophers and worked out geometric theories of perspective for use with skenographia. Had paintings in his house designed using skenographia, so this art was not confined merely to the stage. 's introduced a mathematical theory of perspective, but there is some debate over the extent to which Euclid's perspective coincides with the modern mathematical definition. (7th century). Portrait, of Ezra, from folio 5r at the start of By the later periods of antiquity, artists, especially those in less popular traditions, were well aware that distant objects could be shown smaller than those close at hand for increased realism, but whether this convention was actually used in a work depended on many factors. Some of the paintings found in the show a remarkable realism and perspective for their time. It has been claimed that comprehensive systems of perspective were evolved in antiquity, but most scholars do not accept this. Hardly any of the many works where such a system would have been used have survived. A passage in suggests that classical artists and theorists thought in terms of 'circles' at equal distance from the viewer, like a classical semi-circular theatre seen from the stage. The roof beams in rooms in the, from about 400 AD, are shown converging, more or less, on a common vanishing point, but this is not systematically related to the rest of the composition. In the Late Antique period use of perspective techniques declined. The art of the new cultures of the had no tradition of attempting compositions of large numbers of figures and Early Medieval art was slow and inconsistent in relearning the convention from classical models, though the process can be seen underway in. Geometrically incorrect attempt at perspective in a 1614 painting of. () Various paintings and drawings during the Middle Ages show amateur attempts at projections of furniture, where parallel lines are successfully represented in, or by non parallel ones, but without a single vanishing point. Medieval artists in Europe, like those in the Islamic world and China, were aware of the general principle of varying the relative size of elements according to distance, but even more than classical art was perfectly ready to override it for other reasons. Buildings were often shown obliquely according to a particular convention. The use and sophistication of attempts to convey distance increased steadily during the period, but without a basis in a systematic theory. Was also aware of these principles, but also had the convention for the setting of principal figures. Renaissance: mathematical basis [ ] External video,. Further information: In about 1413 a contemporary of Ghiberti,, demonstrated the geometrical method of perspective, used today by artists, by painting the outlines of various buildings onto a mirror. When the building's outline was continued, he noticed that all of the lines converged on the horizon line. According to, he then set up a demonstration of his painting of the in the incomplete doorway of the. He had the viewer look through a small hole on the back of the painting, facing the Baptistery. He would then set up a mirror, facing the viewer, which reflected his painting. To the viewer, the painting of the Baptistery and the building itself were nearly indistinguishable. Two painter's apprentices studying perspective. Drawing by, 1609 Soon after, nearly every artist in Florence and in Italy used geometrical perspective in their paintings, notably, and. Donatello started sculpting elaborate checkerboard floors into the simple portrayed in the birth of Christ. Although hardly historically accurate, these checkerboard floors obeyed the primary laws of geometrical perspective: the lines converged approximately to a vanishing point, and the rate at which the horizontal lines receded into the distance was graphically determined. This became an integral part of art. First used the technique of upward foreshortening (in Rome,, and others), and was celebrated for that. Not only was perspective a way of showing depth, it was also a new method of a painting. Paintings began to show a single, unified scene, rather than a combination of several. 's use of perspective in this at the (1481–82) helped bring the to Rome. As shown by the quick proliferation of accurate perspective paintings in Florence, Brunelleschi likely understood (with help from his friend the mathematician ), but did not publish, the mathematics behind perspective. Decades later, his friend wrote (1435/1436), a treatise on proper methods of showing distance in painting. Alberti's primary breakthrough was not to show the mathematics in terms of conical projections, as it actually appears to the eye. Instead, he formulated the theory based on planar projections, or how the rays of light, passing from the viewer's eye to the landscape, would strike the picture plane (the painting). He was then able to calculate the apparent height of a distant object using two similar triangles. The mathematics behind similar triangles is relatively simple, having been long ago formulated. In viewing a wall, for instance, the first triangle has a at the user's eye, and vertices at the top and bottom of the wall. The bottom of this triangle is the distance from the viewer to the wall. The second, similar triangle, has a point at the viewer's eye, and has a length equal to the viewer's eye from the painting. The height of the second triangle can then be determined through a simple ratio, as proven. Alberti was also trained in the science of optics through the school of Padua and under the influence of who studied 's (see what was noted above in this regard with respect to Ghiberti). Elaborated on Della Pittura in his in the 1470s. Alberti had limited himself to figures on the ground plane and giving an overall basis for perspective. Della Francesca fleshed it out, explicitly covering solids in any area of the picture plane. Della Francesca also started the now common practice of using illustrated figures to explain the mathematical concepts, making his treatise easier to understand than Alberti's. Della Francesca was also the first to accurately draw the as they would appear in perspective. 's 1509 De divina proportione ( On Divine Proportion), illustrated by, summarized the use of perspective in painting. Perspective remained, for a while, the domain of Florence., among others, was unable to create a consistent structure for the converging lines in paintings, as in London's, because he was unaware of the theoretical breakthrough just then occurring in Italy. However he achieved very subtle effects by manipulations of scale in his interiors. Gradually, and partly through the movement of academies of the arts, the Italian techniques became part of the training of artists across Europe, and later other parts of the world. The culmination of these Renaissance traditions finds its ultimate synthesis in the research of the 17th century architect, geometer, and optician on perspective, optics and projective geometry. Further, in the 19th and 20th centuries, led to the development of,, and. Present: computer graphics [ ] 3-D and often use a modified version of perspective. Like the painter, the computer program is generally not concerned with every ray of light that is in a scene. Instead, the program simulates rays of light traveling backwards from the monitor (one for every pixel), and checks to see what it hits. In this way, the program does not have to compute the trajectories of millions of rays of light that pass from a light source, hit an object, and miss the viewer. [ – ], and some computer games (especially games using 3-D polygons) use linear algebra, and in particular matrix multiplication, to create a sense of perspective. The scene is a set of points, and these points are projected to a plane (computer screen) [ – ] in front of the view point (the viewer's eye). The problem of perspective is simply finding the corresponding coordinates on the plane corresponding to the points in the scene. By the theories of linear algebra, a matrix multiplication directly computes the desired coordinates, thus bypassing any theorems used in perspective drawing. Types of perspective [ ] Of the many types of perspective drawings, the most common categorizations of artificial perspective are one-, two- and three-point. The names of these categories refer to the number of in the perspective drawing. One-point perspective [ ]. One-point perspective A drawing has one-point perspective when it contains only one vanishing point on the horizon line. This type of perspective is typically used for images of roads, railway tracks, hallways, or buildings viewed so that the front is directly facing the viewer. Any objects that are made up of lines either directly parallel with the viewer's line of sight or directly perpendicular (the railroad slats) can be represented with one-point perspective. These parallel lines converge at the vanishing point. One-point perspective exists when the is parallel to two axes of a rectilinear (or Cartesian) scene – a scene which is composed entirely of linear elements that intersect only at right angles. If one axis is parallel with the picture plane, then all elements are either parallel to the picture plane (either horizontally or vertically) or perpendicular to it. All elements that are parallel to the picture plane are drawn as parallel lines. All elements that are perpendicular to the picture plane converge at a single point (a vanishing point) on the horizon. • Examples of one-point perspective •. A cube drawing using 2-point perspective A drawing has two-point perspective when it contains two on the horizon line. In an illustration, these vanishing points can be placed arbitrarily along the horizon. Two-point perspective can be used to draw the same objects as one-point perspective, rotated: looking at the corner of a house, or at two forked roads shrinking into the distance, for example. One point represents one set of, the other point represents the other. Seen from the corner, one wall of a house would recede towards one vanishing point while the other wall recedes towards the opposite vanishing point. Two-point perspective exists when the painting plate is parallel to a in one axis (usually the ) but not to the other two axes. If the scene being viewed consists solely of a cylinder sitting on a horizontal plane, no difference exists in the image of the cylinder between a one-point and two-point perspective. Two-point perspective has one set of lines parallel to the picture plane and two sets oblique to it. Parallel lines oblique to the picture plane converge to a vanishing point, which means that this set-up will require two vanishing points. Three-Point Perspective Three-point perspective is often used for buildings seen from above (or below). In addition to the two vanishing points from before, one for each wall, there is now one for how the vertical lines of the walls recede. For an object seen from above, this third vanishing point is below the ground. For an object seen from below, as when the viewer looks up at a tall building, the third vanishing point is high in space. Three-point perspective exists when the perspective is a view of a Cartesian scene where the picture plane is not parallel to any of the scene's three axes. Each of the three vanishing points corresponds with one of the three axes of the scene. One, two and three-point perspectives appear to embody different forms of calculated perspective, and are generated by different methods. Mathematically, however, all three are identical; the difference is merely in the relative orientation of the rectilinear scene to the viewer. Four-point perspective [ ] Four-point perspective, also called infinite-point perspective, is the curvilinear (see ) variant of two-point perspective. A four-point perspective image can represent a 360° panorama, and even beyond 360° to depict impossible scenes. This perspective can be used with either a horizontal or a vertical horizon line: in the latter configuration it can depict both a and of a scene at the same time. Like all other foreshortened variants of perspective (one-point to six-point perspectives), it starts off with a horizon line, followed by four equally spaced vanishing points to delineate four vertical lines. The vanishing points made to create the curvilinear orthogonals are thus made ad hoc on the four vertical lines placed on the opposite side of the horizon line. The only dimension not foreshortened in this type of perspective is that of the rectilinear and parallel lines perpendicular to the horizon line – similar to the vertical lines used in two-point perspective. One-point, two-point, and three-point perspective are dependent on the structure of the scene being viewed. These only exist for strict Cartesian (rectilinear) scenes. By inserting into a Cartesian scene a set of parallel lines that are not parallel to any of the three axes of the scene, a new distinct vanishing point is created. Therefore, it is possible to have an infinite-point perspective if the scene being viewed is not a Cartesian scene but instead consists of infinite pairs of parallel lines, where each pair is not parallel to any other pair. Zero-point perspective [ ] In its usual sense, zero-point perspective is not truly 'zero-point'. Rather, because vanishing points exist only when parallel lines are present in the scene, a perspective with no vanishing points ('zero-point' perspective) occurs if the viewer is observing a non-linear scene containing no parallel lines. The most common example of such a nonlinear scene is a natural scene (e.g., a mountain range) which frequently does not contain any parallel lines. This is not to be confused with, since a view without explicit vanishing points may still have been drawn such that, there would have been vanishing points had there been parallel lines, and thus enjoy the sense of depth as a perspective projection. On the other hand, parallel projection such as elevation can be approximated by viewing the object in question from very far away, because projection lines from the point of view approaches parallel when the point of view (POV) approaches infinity. This may account for the confusion over zero-point perspective, since natural scenes often are viewed from very far away, and the size of objects within the scene would be insignificant compared to their distance to the POV. Any given small objects in said scene would thus mimic the look of parallel projection. Foreshortening [ ]. (lower left) and (right). The two moons appear close because of foreshortening; in reality, Janus is about 40,000 km (two hundred times the width of Janus) farther from the observer than Epimetheus. Foreshortening is the or that causes an object or to appear shorter than it actually is because it is toward the viewer. Additionally, an object is often not scaled evenly: a circle often appears as an ellipse and a square can appear as a trapezoid. Although foreshortening is an important element in art where perspective is being depicted, foreshortening occurs in other types of two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional scenes. Some other types where foreshortening can occur include drawings. Foreshortening also occurs when imaging rugged terrain using a system. [ ] In painting, foreshortening in the depiction of the human figure was perfected in the, and the by (1480s) is one of the most famous of a number of works that show off the new technique, which thereafter became a standard part of the training of artists. Methods of construction [ ] Several methods of constructing perspectives exist, including: • Freehand sketching (common in art) • Graphically constructing (once common in architecture) • Using a perspective grid • Computing a (common in 3D computer applications) • Mimicry using tools such as a proportional divider (sometimes called a variscaler) • Copying a photograph Example [ ]. Determining the geometry of a square floor tile on the perspective drawing One of the most common, and earliest, uses of geometrical perspective is a. It is a simple but striking application of one-point perspective. Many of the properties of perspective drawing are used while drawing a checkerboard. The checkerboard floor is, essentially, just a combination of a series of squares. Once a single square is drawn, it can be widened or subdivided into a checkerboard. Where necessary, lines and points will be referred to by their colors in the diagram. To draw a square in perspective, the artist starts by drawing a horizon line ( black) and determining where the vanishing point ( green) should be. The higher up the horizon line is, the lower the viewer will appear to be looking, and vice versa. The more off-center the vanishing point, the more tilted the square will be. Because the square is made up of right angles, the vanishing point should be directly in the middle of the horizon line. A rotated square is drawn using two-point perspective, with each set of parallel lines leading to a different vanishing point. The foremost edge of the ( orange) square is drawn near the bottom of the painting. Because the viewer's picture plane is parallel to the bottom of the square, this line is horizontal. Lines connecting each side of the foremost edge to the vanishing point are drawn (in grey). These lines give the basic, one point 'railroad tracks' perspective. The closer it is the horizon line, the farther away it is from the viewer, and the smaller it will appear. The farther away from the viewer it is, the closer it is to being perpendicular to the picture plane. A new point ( the eye) is now chosen, on the horizon line, either to the left or right of the vanishing point. The distance from this point to the vanishing point represents the distance of the viewer from the drawing. If this point is very far from the vanishing point, the square will appear squashed, and far away. If it is close, it will appear stretched out, as if it is very close to the viewer. A line connecting this point to the opposite corner of the square is drawn. Where this (blue) line hits the side of the square, a horizontal line is drawn, representing the farthest edge of the square. The line just drawn represents the ray of light traveling from the farthest edge of the square to the viewer's eye. This step is key to understanding perspective drawing. The light that passes through the picture plane obviously can not be traced. Instead, lines that represent those rays of light are drawn on the picture plane. In the case of the square, the side of the square also represents the picture plane (at an angle), so there is a small shortcut: when the line hits the side of the square, it has also hit the appropriate spot in the picture plane. The ( blue) line is drawn to the opposite edge of the foremost edge because of another shortcut: since all sides are the same length, the foremost edge can stand in for the side edge. Original formulations used, instead of the side of the square, a vertical line to one side, representing the picture plane. Each line drawn through this plane was identical to the line of sight from the viewer's eye to the drawing, only rotated around the y-axis ninety degrees. It is, conceptually, an easier way of thinking of perspective. It can be easily shown that both methods are mathematically identical, and result in the same placement of the farthest side. Limitations [ ] was one of the first to discuss the problems of perspective. 'Thus (through perspective) every sort of confusion is revealed within us; and this is that weakness of the human mind on which the art of conjuring and of deceiving by light and shadow and other ingenious devices imposes, having an effect upon us like magic. And the arts of measuring and numbering and weighing come to the rescue of the human understanding – there is the beauty of them – and the apparent greater or less, or more or heavier, no longer have the mastery over us, but give way before calculation and measure and weight?' By, 1753 Perspective images are calculated assuming a particular vanishing point. In order for the resulting image to appear identical to the original scene, a viewer of the perspective must view the image from the exact vantage point used in the calculations relative to the image. This cancels out what would appear to be distortions in the image when viewed from a different point. These apparent distortions are more pronounced away from the center of the image as the angle between a projected ray (from the scene to the eye) becomes more acute relative to the picture plane. In practice, unless the viewer chooses an extreme angle, like looking at it from the bottom corner of the window, the perspective normally looks more or less correct. This is referred to as 'Zeeman's Paradox'. It has been suggested that a drawing in perspective still seems to be in perspective at other spots because we still perceive it as a drawing, because it lacks depth of field cues. For a typical perspective, however, the field of view is narrow enough (often only 60 degrees) that the distortions are similarly minimal enough that the image can be viewed from a point other than the actual calculated vantage point without appearing significantly distorted. When a larger angle of view is required, the standard method of projecting rays onto a flat picture plane becomes impractical. As a theoretical maximum, the field of view of a flat picture plane must be less than 180 degrees (as the field of view increases towards 180 degrees, the required breadth of the picture plane approaches infinity). To create a projected ray image with a large field of view, one can project the image onto a curved surface. To have a large field of view horizontally in the image, a surface that is a vertical cylinder (i.e., the axis of the cylinder is parallel to the z-axis) will suffice (similarly, if the desired large field of view is only in the vertical direction of the image, a horizontal cylinder will suffice). A cylindrical picture surface will allow for a projected ray image up to a full 360 degrees in either the horizontal or vertical dimension of the perspective image (depending on the orientation of the cylinder). In the same way, by using a spherical picture surface, the field of view can be a full 360 degrees in any direction (note that for a spherical surface, all projected rays from the scene to the eye intersect the surface at a right angle). Just as a standard perspective image must be viewed from the calculated vantage point for the image to appear identical to the true scene, a projected image onto a cylinder or sphere must likewise be viewed from the calculated vantage point for it to be precisely identical to the original scene. If an image projected onto a cylindrical surface is 'unrolled' into a flat image, different types of distortions occur. For example, many of the scene's straight lines will be drawn as curves. An image projected onto a spherical surface can be flattened in various ways: • An image equivalent to an unrolled cylinder • A portion of the sphere can be flattened into an image equivalent to a standard perspective • An image similar to a fisheye photograph See also [ ]. 5.0.Magix.Video.Easy.5.Hd.5.0.3.10;Quickoffice.Connect.IPA.download.iPhone.Apps.iPa d.apps.IPA. MAGIX Video easy 5 HD 5.0.2.105 FUll Crack. Video editing tidak pernah begitu mudah! MAGIX Video HD mudah adalah sempurna pemula program untuk seluruh keluarga. Sangat mudah untuk membuat video yang mengesankan dalam waktu singkat sekali bahkan tanpa sebelumnya video editing. Apowersoft Streaming Video Recorder 5.1.5 (Build 01192016) is a powerful tool for recording streaming video and online TV shows from sites such as YouTube, Dailymotion, Facebook, MegaVideo, CNN, BBC etc. It acts as both as YouTube downloader and a live video recorder. Streaming Video Recorder records RTMP/RTMPE video from Hulu, Netflix and SBS and it records in HD. If you need to convert videos after recording, Streaming Video Recorder also includes a built-in video converter too. Streaming Video Recorder 5.1.5 Serial Patch Features: Streaming Video Recorder downloads YouTube videos and records streaming video and TV shows from the internet, including support for recording from your webcam. Streaming Video Recorder 5.1.5 Crack downloads YouTube videos and records streaming video and TV shows from the internet, including support for recording from your webcam. The application records RTMP/RTMPE video from Hulu, Netflix and SBS and it records in HD. If you need to convert videos after recording, Streaming Video Recorder also includes a built-in video converter too. – Capture all screen activities on computer; – Record online video & rental movie smoothly; – Get perfect video quality with advanced video recording technology; – Record sound with advanced virtual sound card; – Provide adaptive recording settings; – Support video stream recording from 200+ video sharing sites; – Detect video recording area automatically; – Support hot key to start or stop recording; – Easy to use and safe to download; – 100% Freeware, NO toolbar, NO spy. Installation Instructions: 1- Open [streaming-video-recorder.exe] and install the software. 2- Do not open the program. Close it completely. 3- Go to crack folder and copy reg file to C: Users USERNAME AppData Roaming Apowersoft Streaming Video Recorder for Vista, 7/8. 4-Enjoy Streaming Video Recorder 5.1.5 final full version. Most Downloaded Files • >The 1st on Net - Microsoft Office 2016 Professional 16. 466,640 views • Vray for SketchUp 2016 Full Final - SketchUp is an appl. 355,089 views • Microsoft Windows 10 Pro with Crack Activator for 32bit. 305,867 views • Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 Final Release Direct Download L. 247,999 views • Paragon NTFS for Mac OS X 14.0.332 Final is a software. 215,807 views • Parallels Desktop v11 Build 31193 Business Edition - Th. 196,760 views • This list contains the top ten cracked data recovery, f. 192,657 views. You can also read the thoughts written below about this video. Individuals these days focus on themselves and value their existance and self significance all the more exceptionally, that`s why individuals look for regalement and i`m beyond any doubt this video assigned DANGDUT KOPLO TERBARU 2015 ~ DUO ALASKA NEW MORENA DANGDUT KOPLO HOT REMIX XPOZZ LIVE BATHOK AJA will completely make a profit XD! Regardless of what engenderments and stars i ken their endeavors to make us merry are for all intents and purposes indistinguishably equivalent. The execution highlighted by Lagu Dangdut ASLI Musik Indonesia whithin this video. Was great and have a few guts to consider. Let`s savor the video on the off chance that it was great and an enthusiasm of you. This is such an awesome video! This video is transferred to speak to Entertainment purposes. It is a video caused by the uploader with such an awesome exertion and have the craving and commitment to benefit you or inform you about DANGDUT KOPLO TERBARU 2015 ~ DUO ALASKA NEW MORENA DANGDUT KOPLO HOT REMIX XPOZZ LIVE BATHOK AJA. Moreover would like to add to your enthusiasm under Enlightenment and I trust the two of us delighted you. Java green - pagi di pantai mp3 download, free download lagu java green pagi di pantai mp3 mp3 gratis. USA; Country; Kids; Rock; U.K; J-pop; Latin;; Music Be. Download Lagu Dangdut Koplo Cinta Di Pantai Bali - uMp3 Song. Java Green - Pagi Di Pantai - Reggae Musik - m Video Java Green - Pagi Di Pantai. Recent Download MP3 Story Of My Life One Direction Baixar Palco Mp3 James Bay Cartoon Vande Mataram Instrumental Music Free Dangdut Koplo Cinta. Lagu Reggae Cinta Dipantai Bali Dangdut Koplo Raib Bounce Locash Justin Bieber Take Care Acoustic One Direction Rock Me Instrumental Mp3 Download All I. There are 0 (Zero) watchers who left their remarks so i guess it was such an interesting video. Read More Video Courtesy to Lagu Dangdut ASLI Musik Indonesia. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |