Mitterer isn't tired, nor am I

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Proto-IE or Sprachbund? Dialogue with Josef G. Mitterer · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Indo-European Branches for I and II p. Plural, Pronouns · back to Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: An Anti-Christian Bumped in On My Dialogue with Mitterer, Starting with a Red Flag · Continuing with Mitterer · More Mitterer · Mitterer isn't tired, nor am I

As with previous, the quiz continues between the comments, originally 10 questions, nine remain when we start this part, and eight go on to the end.

Actually, I was a bit tired, on this part of the debate, I missed two things I should have answered. I hope to catch up next rounds.

Pre-Quiz parts

St. Joseph's Day

Tue 19.III.2024

Josef G. Mitterer

That sounds a little bit like "if you don't evaluate the facts according to OUR ideology, you do it wrong"

No, science is not an ideology. You don’t have to believe anything and you should always doubt. Ideology is about blind faith and doesn’t allow critics. Science is always criticised, from inside and from outside. Plus, it is based on falsification (depending on the object, of course). Take historical linguistics. The fact that you can explain all individual continuants of the root *bʰer- (and many, many others) applying well-attested sound laws has nothing to do with “ideology”. Everybody can formulate objections, and if it turns out that something is wrong, then the root will be discussed and maybe abandoned. Besides, those cases were indeed there are “troubles” (like Greek ἵππος from *h₁ék̑wos) are thoroughly discussed and not just ignored or pseudo-explained by some “mystery”. That’s the complete contrary of ideology: it’s not based on power, but on evidence.

That does not settle whether divergence from an Ursprache or convergence in a Sprachbund best accounts for what we see?

Well, in Romance it’s obviously from an Ursprache, namely Latin.

Lat / Slav / German / Lithuanian ... given your reconstruction of PIE, none of this is unlikely after that, but if you don't proceed from it, it may be likelier that they were from different languages.

Perhaps, but I do base the reconstruction on the forms I mentioned.

I p. Pl from three different languages, beginning in m-, n- and u̯- / II p. Pl. from at least two different ones, beginning in u̯- and i̯-

Yes, but they can be explained well by analogy and contamination. I don’t see anything surprising in it. Note that also in Catalan nos has the dialectal variant mos and the proclitic variant ens — three different initial sounds in one only language!

Lithuanian shares the through-out m- with Finnish, which also has a conjugation of the verb in -mme.

And ‘name’ in Japanese is namae. One “similarity” in the pronominal system is by far not enough to draw any conclusion. You have very good correspondence with other IE languages, so one superficial similarity to Finish is nothing at all, the more so as you can explain the m- also within Lithuanian. Rapanui even has two correspondences with Finnish: mātou ‘we’, tātou ‘you’. (And even if one would take a connection into account, it could still be from a secondary language contact — historical linguistics does of course consider language contact with Finno-Ugric or Semitic).

Have all followed him on that one? Did he not voice the idea in response to people who precisely thought wind is moving air?

Right, Eratosthenes. But Aristotle also believed that all animals are in a hierarchy of complexity based on the degree of body heat.

But "habeo" doesn't mean "to take" it means "to have" ... anyway, there are more divergences of meaning than just this etymology in my enumeration.

Historical semantics is not based on rules (unlike historical phonetics), you also have to take into account that it’s more heavily influenced by cultural circumstances, taboo phenomena etc. Besides, I still don’t really understand how a Sprachbund would make these divergencies more plausible. Anyway, you also have attested sematic shifts like in silly or Arabic لَحْم laḥm ‘meat’ alongside Hebrew leḥem ‘bread’.

But not in an anti-religious élite.

And the church had no power?

Especially as long as dissenting voices are either silenced, or, as has so far happened to me, marginalised.

Well, I can only say that I don’t find the Sprachbund hypothesis convincing at all, and I do discuss about it. At least in linguistics I know pretty well that the “mainstream” has by far the best arguments and proofs, and I know a lot of “anti-mainstream” proponents in language, and mostly they claim complete nonsense or don’t even understand basic concepts such as sound laws. — I read the discussion with PreußenHeute.

To the quiz:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"No, science is not an ideology."

You are already highly ideologic when you deny that the state of research in given departments would be ideological.

The research state in that department (that type of department across the world even) is not simply science. It's a specific culture and as such it can be ideological. Identifying that culture of that department with "science" in order to deny it's an ideology is like identifying Christianity with "what God does for us" in order to define Christianity (but not Catholicism) away from the category "religion" ...

"Ideology is about blind faith and doesn’t allow critics. Science is always criticised, from inside and from outside."

Not exactly how you have been behaving to an outside critic so far.

"The fact that you can explain all individual continuants of the root *bʰer- (and many, many others) applying well-attested sound laws has nothing to do with “ideology”."

I think the Sprachbund theory can account for that too.

"Besides, those cases were indeed there are “troubles” (like Greek ἵππος from *h₁ék̑wos) are thoroughly discussed and not just ignored or pseudo-explained by some “mystery”."

If you ask me, it could be a loan from an Anatolian language, and as such has a laryngeal, which would have disappeared if loaned earlier.

In other words, that, like the divergence "dzygon" vs "hepar" it is one of the things accounted for by Sprachbund.

"Well, in Romance it’s obviously from an Ursprache, namely Latin."

A positive parallel is not all that good an evidence. It happened from Latin to diverse Romance languages, therefore it can have happened from PIE to x number of IE languages. Key word can ... if the timescale and the reconstruction of PIE are plausible.

You forget that the resulting conditions between Balkan languages (not of same branch) to the Balkan linguist Trubetskoy, resembled conditions between IE branches.

"Perhaps, but I do base the reconstruction on the forms I mentioned."

Could it be more economic to posit a Sprachbund? The pronouns were only partly harmonised, I and II pp. Pl less than I and II pp Sg.

"Note that also in Catalan nos has the dialectal variant mos and the proclitic variant ens — three different initial sounds in one only language!"

Between nos and ens, I am not surprised. Ens just adds a vowel before the nos, and deletes it's mid vowel.

"And ‘name’ in Japanese is namae. One “similarity” in the pronominal system is by far not enough to draw any conclusion."

I sg -en (previously *em)
II sg -et
I pl -emme
II pl -ette

A very good parallel to Indo-European conjugations. Then come minä as I sg pronoun and me as I pl pronoun, parallelled by sinä (<*tinä), te in II p. sg and pl. The only forms that have no direct parallel in IE languages are -et for II sg verb ending and te for II pl pronoun. That's beyond coincidence.

Plus, Balts and Finns have shared territories.

"Rapanui even has two correspondences with Finnish: mātou ‘we’, tātou ‘you’."

How about the sg pronouns? How about the verb endings, if any?

"But Aristotle also believed that all animals are in a hierarchy of complexity based on the degree of body heat."

Extrapolation from mammals being hotter than lizards, no doubt ... all animals are in a hierarchy, that much is correct.

"I still don’t really understand how a Sprachbund would make these divergencies more plausible"

Diverging comprehension of same words in same situations. I think French pénible and German penibel are a great example of what one is likely to get by loans rather than divergence of inherited words.

"And the church had no power?"

In the 17th C.? The Catholic Church had no power to impede the Westphalian Peace Treaty and also not to suppress Gallican tendencies in the Church of France. Lutheran and Calvinistic Churches had always shied away from the kind of power that the Catholic Church had in the Middle Ages. If not in practise when dealing with Catholics, at least in principle, when stating why the Reformation was needed. Even so it took another century, the next one kings who pretended to be Catholics could chase away the Jesuits and the Pope could do nothing.

"and I do discuss about it."

A noble exception. Perhaps motivated by the fact that Sprachbund can also be discussed without referring to Babel as making it ... I will not say a necessity, but at least a probability. The one Urheimat which would fit the Biblical (but not the Uniformitarian) timeline is the one starting in Anatolia, spreading to Europe with Anatolian farmers, as Alinei upheld and as Renfrew thought he had refuted (and accepting carbon dates as given, I think he has a good point). But an Urheimat in Anatolia is an Urheimat in an area very prone to Sprachbünder, both as known historically, and as presumed if Anatolia includes the relevant part of Mesopotamia for Genesis 11.

Josef G. Mitterer

You are already highly ideologic when you deny that the state of research in given departments would be ideological.

Science is about developing theories and subject them to falsification and criticism. Ideologies are based on some dogmatic “truths” which can’t be criticised and are only “legitimated” by power and indoctrination.

Not exactly how you have been behaving to an outside critic so far.

I think I did listen to your arguments and answer with other arguments. I admit that it wasn’t always as “businesslike” as I had wanted, but as far as I remember I never answered with simple claims.

I think the Sprachbund theory can account for that too.

I don’t think so. PIE reconstruction is also embedded in a very clear (phonetic) chronology. All that only works out if you start from one common root which developed regularly in the individual languages. A Sprachbund would yield much more chaotic results. Besides —and that was my main argument in the initial answer— the proof of a proto-language is in morphology.

If you ask me, it could be a loan from an Anatolian language, and as such has a laryngeal, which would have disappeared if loaned earlier.

*h₁ék̑u̯os is attested in Anatolian, but without laryngeal (*h₁ is not conserved in Anatolian).

The difference between ζυγόν and ἧπαρ is most likely caused by a laryngeal initial sound of *Hi̯ekʷr̥. *h₁i̯- and *h₂i̯- shifted to /h-/, while Greek ʣ derives from *i̯- and *h₃i̯-. You have very good hints for this distinction in words like ὑσμίνη or ἵημι, where the initial laryngeal is immediately proven by the Old Indian cognates (in compositis).

A positive parallel is not all that good an evidence. It happened from Latin to diverse Romance languages, therefore it can have happened from PIE to x number of IE languages. Key word can ... if the timescale and the reconstruction of PIE are plausible.

You demand perfect coherence and perfect proofs for PIE, while for the Sprachbund hypothesis you’re satisfied with mere possibility. Besides, and before all, it’s not an evidence for PIE, but it’s a clear counter-argument against your approach to take the divergency in IE pronouns as an evidence for a Sprachbund. What the Romance evidence shows is that strong divergency does not at all disproof a common base, but that is what you had been trying to show.

Could it be more economic to posit a Sprachbund? The pronouns were only partly harmonised, I and II pp. Pl less than I and II pp Sg.

I don’t even see a reason why pronouns actually should be borrowed.

A very good parallel to Indo-European conjugations. […] That's beyond coincidence.

Postulating a relationship between Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European is not a new idea, and not even an absurd one. Both could derive from an earlier common ancestor, but I think it’s impossible to proof.

"Rapanui even has two correspondences with Finnish: mātou ‘we’, tātou ‘you’."

How about the sg pronouns? How about the verb endings, if any?

That was just an example to show that there are coincidences, just like Latin habēre and German haben: the same meaning, almost the same stem, but different origin; or deus and θεός — while, without PIE sound laws, you wouldn’t think that Greek ἐάφθη and English sung are closely related. But taking sound laws into account, it’s obvious.

Diverging comprehension of same words in same situations. I think French pénible and German penibel are a great example of what one is likely to get by loans rather than divergence of inherited words.

Well, in German penibel and peinlich can also be synonyms (peinlichste Sauberkeit; er hat alles peinlich geordnet etc. [examples from the Duden, das große Wörterbuch]), so I wouldn’t even say there was a misunderstanding. But that’s just a detail. As for your explanation, I don’t find it very convincing for (1) you’d need a series of diverging comprehensions of the same word in order to conventionalize a (new) meaning and (2) I can’t think of any context where someone understands the word for ‘to give’ as ‘to have’ or ‘to take’.

"and I do discuss about it."

A noble exception.

By the way, as I don’t have any particularly profound knowledge in biology, geology or history of the Near East I preferred not to discuss these things so far (and I guess I won’t start now, because, as I said, I lack the necessary notions), but still I wonder how you think about anatomic facts such as the nervus laryngeus recurrens in giraffes or the leg bones in whales? Are they “jokes” in God’s creation? So far I only know you think the evolution of language can’t be explained with the “mainstream” theories, but what about all the proofs of evolution, like the two I’ve mentioned?

As for the quiz,

We 20.III.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Science is about developing theories and subject them to falsification and criticism. Ideologies are based on some dogmatic “truths” which can’t be criticised and are only “legitimated” by power and indoctrination.”

Where did you get that definition of “ideology” from? Sounds tactically chosen to prove it’s the opposite not just of the scientific ideal, but even about basic scientific routine.

Here is a set of definitions from wikipedia, none of which coincides with your “blind faith” and dictation by power.

David W. Minar describes six different ways the word ideology has been used:[13]

As a collection of certain ideas with certain kinds of content, usually normative;
As the form or internal logical structure that ideas have within a set;
By the role ideas play in human-social interaction;
By the role ideas play in the structure of an organization;
As meaning, whose purpose is persuasion; and
As the locus of social interaction.

Let’s take senses 1 and 2, and it is obvious that scientific institutions need to have at least two ideologies, one about basics of scientific research and another one about things achieved in the own field and how research works in it.

In and of itself nothing suspect.

The problem is, the ideology may actually jar, not just with the facts in the abstract, but even with the evidences and arguments the faculty has access to. You’d be happy as a day to consider Riccioli in rejecting Heliocentrism was following ideology. I e more than arguments proferred by for instance Kepler, whose work he knew and on some items rejected.

If there is a God, any faculty that inofficially adds atheism or methodological atheism is adding an ideology which is jarring against the facts and will jar against evidences and arguments.

“I never answered with simple claims.”

No, but you have answered with a kind of superiority complex for the ideology (see above) for your faculty.

“PIE reconstruction is also embedded in a very clear (phonetic) chronology. All that only works out if you start from one common root which developed regularly in the individual languages. A Sprachbund would yield much more chaotic results.”

Not if the Sprachbund was far enough back in relation to languages derived from it. By the way, Greek being one which was involved (on my view) very soon, is also one where you do get chaotic results. You mentioned hippos, I mentioned dzygon and hepar. Unless you prefer saying it’s Sanscrit that’s chaotic on original d + y, full representation in Dyaus, rapid one in yoga.

“where the initial laryngeal is immediately proven by the Old Indian cognates (in compositis).”

Did not know.

“You demand perfect coherence and perfect proofs for PIE, while for the Sprachbund hypothesis you’re satisfied with mere possibility.”

Like I would rather jump to Phoenician loans on Sicily than in Denmark. The world history I am aware of does not place Yamnaya in 3300 BC, but the carbon date so given would correspond to after Genesis 14, after 1935 BC (since Genesis 14 involves Amorrhaeans in En Gedi and that chalcolithic occupation, followed by a gap all the way into the Iron age, is carbon dated 3500 BC).

500 years is too little for a Proto-Language to diverge like between Greek and Mitanni-Aryan.

IF you allow a spread of IE with Anatolian Neolithic Farmers, before Yamnaya, instead, perhaps there would be more time, but as said, both Biblically and archaeologically, this origin just after and just West of Babel would be prone to have lots of different languages side by side.

“What the Romance evidence shows is that strong divergency does not at all disproof a common base, but that is what you had been trying to show.”

Not really.

My proof positive against PIE is extra-linguistic, in linguistics I am basically trying to show Sprachbund possible.

“That was just an example to show that there are coincidences, just like Latin habēre and German haben: the same meaning, almost the same stem, but different origin;”

The derivation from PIE etyma beginning in respectively gh- and k- according to reconstructions, involves changes of meaning on either side. Sprachbund allows a loan with meaning preserved.

“that Greek ἐάφθη and English sung are closely related.”

Sung or sunk? Or either?

More modern studies connect it to Gothic 𐍃𐌹𐌲𐌵𐌰𐌽 (sigqan, “sink”) or Gothic 𐍃𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍅𐌰𐌽 (siggwan, “sing”).

ἑάφθη - Wiktionary, the free dictionary
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%91%CE%AC%CF%86%CE%B8%CE%B7

Does either of them throw any light on the two occurrences in the Iliad? The very new Greek-Spanish lexicon :

sent. dud., quizá caer con estruendo

ἐπὶ δ' ἀσπὶς ἑάφθη καὶ κόρυς Il.13.543, cf. 14.419.

“(2) I can’t think of any context where someone understands the word for ‘to give’ as ‘to have’ or ‘to take’.”

Perhaps a good reason against etymologies from PIE like “capere = have” or “habere = give” or “ekho = siegen”?

“still I wonder how you think about anatomic facts such as the nervus laryngeus recurrens in giraffes or the leg bones in whales?”

Giraffes, I don’t know. Leg bones, according to Kent Hovind they have a function in copulation between whales.

“So far I only know you think the evolution of language can’t be explained with the “mainstream” theories”

Can NOT ALWAYS. I do accept current explanations for Romance phonetics and dictionary, and the Alcuin observation was made before me, by a simple philologist.

But 1000 years from Flood to Abraham is too short time for divergence between Egyptian and Sumerian, and 500 years from Abraham to Exodus is too short a time for divergence between Greek, Hittite and Mitanni-Aryan.

Babel could explain the one, Sprachbund (which is a studied phenomenon) the other.

“but what about all the proofs of evolution, like the two I’ve mentioned?”

If it’s generally about homology, what about the cases of homology where Evolutionists speak of converging evolution?

Thu 21.III.2024

Josef G. Mitterer

Where did you get that definition of “ideology” from?

Well, I had rather something in mind like the Cambridge Dictionary’s definition (“a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based”), but I might have thought too much at specific ideologies such as fascism.

If there is a God, any faculty that inofficially adds atheism or methodological atheism is adding an ideology which is jarring against the facts and will jar against evidences and arguments.

Well, if there is a God. But this presupposition isn’t very useful. Take the example of Newton and Laplace. Newton plugged the holes in his explanation about the movement of the planets with God. Laplace was not satisfied with this explanation and found a better solution without assuming God. I’m not completely sure if this example is accurate, but what I substantially want to say is as follows: you approach languages with your Christian presuppositions, Trubeckoj with his ethnological presuppositions (“Eurasianism”), while the relevant protagonists of IE studies had an open-ended (ergebnisoffen in German) approach, based on the objectively present linguistic material. That’s why I say that “mainstream” PIE reconstruction is least ideological.

The world history I am aware of does not place Yamnaya in 3300 BC

Well, but that’s because you derive history from the Bible, isn’t it?

My proof positive against PIE is extra-linguistic, in linguistics I am basically trying to show Sprachbund possible.

Okay, but as for linguistics, note that (I think) I was able to refute your objections regarding kinship terms, ablaut in Sanskrit, basically also plural pronouns and the apparent ζυγόν-ἧπαρ problem.

The derivation from PIE etyma beginning in respectively gh- and k- according to reconstructions, involves changes of meaning on either side. Sprachbund allows a loan with meaning preserved.

In which sense?

Sung or sunk? Or either?

Sung. However, it should rather be written ἐάφθη, as some dictionaries also indicate as an alternative (I guess the interpretation as ἑάφθη is based on misunderstanding). The PIE form is the zero grade *sn̥gʷʰ-, which yields sung in English and the aorist stem -aph- in Greek (+ aorist and ending, i.e.: *е-sn̥ɡʷʰ-dʰē > ἐ-άφ-θη). The initial *s- is lost in intervocalic position (= after the augment, through *-h-), the -a- is the regular result of *n̥ > *an; ph is assimilated from gʷʰ, as also, for instance, Sardinian limba < LINGUA; cf. also βασιλεύς alongside Mycenaean qa-si-re-u. So it’s a perfect correspondence.

Does either of them throw any light on the two occurrences in the Iliad?

Yes, the best solution is most probably to translate it as ‘[the shield that fell to the ground when hit by the spear] sounded, was made to blade’.

Perhaps a good reason against etymologies from PIE like “capere = have” or “habere = give” or “ekho = siegen”?

I’d say ἔχω rather corresponds to besiegen, and then I don’t see any contradiction. Also capere-have is no problem at all. You just have a resultative-durative contrast, even pretty much like between vidēre and οἶδα.

As for your question on homology, I can’t answer, I’m not a biologist. I just think there are many proofs of evolution one would have to disproof. Just like the nervus laryngeus recurrens, that makes an absurd detour through the entire neck, whereas in fish that have no actual neck it only goes a short distance.

Then the quiz:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Laplace was not satisfied with this explanation and found a better solution without assuming God."

He didn't really adress the problem, which still actually is one.

Une Certaine Honnêteté chez Laplace

"But this presupposition isn’t very useful."

I am sorry, but you take it as a presupposition in deductive logic. In this context, I am pointing out a lack of circumspection in your scientific set of beliefs and principles, you are directly inviting a blind spot.

"you approach languages with your Christian presuppositions"

Indeed.

"Trubeckoj with his ethnological presuppositions (“Eurasianism”),"

Was he Eurasianist, as far back as that? Didn't know ...

"while the relevant protagonists of IE studies had an open-ended (ergebnisoffen in German) approach, based on the objectively present linguistic material."

My problem is with people who think they have succeeded in being ergebnisoffen just because that ideal is part of their scientific ideology.

I also have a problem with having even patience with people who think the Ergebnisoffenheit should reside on each individual shoulder, rather than on a very open debate. Open even to closeminded participants who are individually anything but ergebnisoffen. As it is, you can replace direct directives against certain outcomes with pretending to notice how their proponents are not (individually) ergebnisoffen.

"Well, but that’s because you derive history from the Bible, isn’t it?"

Yes, I derive history from written and oral sources by people who participated in the events, foremost the Bible.

"I was able to refute your objections regarding kinship terms, ablaut in Sanskrit, basically also plural pronouns"

So far no. You did have a point about ζυγόν-ἧπαρ.

You would have had a point, if my point had been to prove PIE impossible, on the contrary, I think it's on many (but not all, especially not I-II pp. Pl forms of pronouns) likely if there had been sufficient time.

My point is rather to show PIE insufficiently proven.

"The PIE form is the zero grade *sn̥gʷʰ-, which yields sung in English and the aorist stem -aph- in Greek"

What about *sn̥gʷ-, which yields sunk in English and -ab- in Greek? ab + the => aphthe.

"the best solution is most probably to translate it as ‘[the shield that fell to the ground when hit by the spear] sounded, was made to blade’."

I don't quite get "was made to blade" but if a shield fell to the ground, how about eaphthe meaning "fell" which is far closer to "sunk" than "habere" is to "geban"?

"Also capere-have is no problem at all."

In isolation, I'd agree. It's the easiest. But even with besiegen I find that pretty far from the usual meaning of ἔχω. And habere - geban? AND all three together?

“In which sense”

Habban and habere sound the same and mean the same. The verb as verb is not a necessity, one can instead of “I have x” state “x is to me” or sth, so the language lacking the verb may have borrowed it from the other — across the Rhine in early AD centuries (Latin to Germanic) or further North or East in times after 500 BC (either direction).

"I just think there are many proofs of evolution one would have to disproof."

Disprove. "Disproof" is not "refute" but "refutation" = noun, not verb. Like "bath" is "das Bad" and "bathe" is "baden" ...

This kind of very concrete biological example, it's not my specialty, since I am not a biologist, but the little I know of the subject, I find the replies by Creation scientists (who include lots of biologists) very convincing, much more than their ventures into the Protestant / Catholic divides and honours given to Reformers:

Recurrent laryngeal nerve
by Jonathan Sarfati
https://creation.com/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve

This one is to the specific problem, and Jonathan Sarfati is one of my favourite authors on that site.

Quiz

Quiz topic 1

Josef G. Mitterer

No, it’s completely the other way round. I’m not presupposing anything, you are presupposing God and a free will. You presuppose God a priori and then you draw all the conclusions according to this presupposition. There is no contradiction in what I said. I ask again: can you choose what you want to do? Which element in us is deciding when we decide something with “free will”? — We didn’t create our brain, our “soul”, or spirit or whatever, and we don’t create the external influences we’re exposed to. What else is there? You’re just repeating the claim that free will exists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Free will is an everyday experience. On materialistics views this experience has to be an illusion, but you cannot demonstrate it is independently of your materialistic a priori. If there is a God, on the other hand, there is a chance of validating the every day experience of free will. — "What else is there?" — Deliberation.

Josef G. Mitterer

Oh no; I’m sorry, but that’s a very weak argument. Free will is very obviously an illusion, and also a necessary illusion (of course, I also behave as if there were a free will, and I also presuppose it in the following points). I think you’re mixing up the a priori. My approach is based on two very rational observations: (1) we can’t decide what we want to do and (2) what we call “I” is the result of (a) what we were born with and (b) what came into us from outside. None of them is created by us. We’re only a machine that converts input into output. You really have to presuppose a priori the free will in order to maintain the belief in it. — Deliberation is just the process of converting input to output, like the process of calculating the result of a formula. You can’t decide on your own which thoughts come to your mind, what you do with them etc.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How about (1) we can within limits decide what we want to do and (2) what we call “I” is the result of (a) what we were born with and (b) what came into us from outside and (c) what we decide. “We’re only a machine that converts input into output.” If you considered free will a necessary illusion, how come you can’t consider this idea as one?

Josef G. Mitterer

There’s a big difference: the idea of a free will is based on a subjective impression. My objections are based on a clear reasoning, not presupposing anything. It’s a fact that we are born with a certain body, brain etc., and it’s also a fact that, from the beginning of our life, we are exposed to sensorial perceptions we elaborate with our brain. I don’t see any third player in this game.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The "subjective impression" is direct introspective observation. Usually, direct observations should precede and not cede to reasonings. You presupposed what you were trying to prove. For instance that the mind is located only in a material brain, rather than in a soul. The brain obviously having atoms interacting on deterministic principles (to some degree).

Quiz topic 2

Josef G. Mitterer

Another arbitrary assertion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

An explanation, which accounts for the paradoxes you try to find.

Josef G. Mitterer

I don’t try to find them, they are effectively there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

if you arbitrarily exclude the standard explanation of traditional theology.

Josef G. Mitterer

I don’t know which “standard explanation” you mean. If it consists in mere claims or in presupposing that the Bible is true, I can’t find it convincing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And you complain of me not being convinced for standard explanations for PIE coming from Yamnaya?

Quiz topic 3

Josef G. Mitterer

In which sense annihilation is more unfair than eternal punishment?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The damned prefer to suffer in existence over annihilation, and God punishes their will, which was bad, not their existence, which was good.

Josef G. Mitterer

That still doesn’t explain why they have to suffer forever. An infinite suffering for finite sins. In any case, I still can’t believe a “loving father” would do this to his children, even if they behave badly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“That still doesn’t explain why they have to suffer forever.” a) they still exist, b) they are still fixed in a posture cutting them off from happiness, c) the pain is giving them some (though incomplete) light this is their own fault (and this is through their obstinacy insufficient to convert them).

Josef G. Mitterer

I don’t think (a) pain can help you understanding anything and (b) anybody would remain “in a posture cutting them off from happiness” if they knew that otherwise they wouldn’t have to suffer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you feel a heat burn when putting the hand on a stove (you know, electric stoves, not gas stoves, so the hot vs turned off states are not visible), the pain does not help you realise you should take your hand away? As to the second, you are presupposing the pliability of the human decision in this life and on top of that exaggerating it, as if anyone persecuted for his (perceived) wrong automatically recanted.

Quiz topic 4

Josef G. Mitterer

No, because God implies also contradictions which have nothing to do with cosmogonic questions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You think you run into no contradictions when explaining conscience from space time plus matter and energy?

Josef G. Mitterer

No, not no contradictions, but less contradictions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I’m not sure whether you are right the contradictions of materialism are fewer than the ones you find in Theism, but they are more serious.

Josef G. Mitterer

I absolutely don’t think they are more serious. Apart from the fact we (still) can’t explain how matter came into being (and space and time, if you want), there’s hardly any severe contradiction, while I didn’t even mention the “classical” paradox of omnipotence (can God create a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it, or a mountain so high he can’t climb it [without cancelling the laws of nature]?). And also the paradox of omnipotence and omniscience can only be “solved” with arbitrary assertions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The most severe contradiction there is, is this one. Given matter, but no mind, how does matter interacting with matter produce a mind? The classical stone paradox is a quip, but not much of an argument. Self contradictory statements or postulates do not fall under omnipotence. God cannot create an invisible pink unicorn, because "invisible" and "pink" contradict. Similarily the "stone so heavy God can't lift it" cannot be created, since it involves latently the self contradiction "the omnipotent can't" ... the paradox of omnipotence and omniscience was only a clever way of stating the same bad argument in a more roundabout and therefore subtler way. "Can God will what He doesn't will" vs "can God not know what He knows" are senseless questions if taken in the sense you give them. God certainly COULD will something other than He wills in the sense that nothing external to Him is stopping Him.

Quiz topic 5

Josef G. Mitterer

Anecdotal evidence equals confounding correlation and causality. If I offer sacrifices to Aphrodite, I will also have anecdotal evidence of her help.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Indeed, but Aphrodites' help will not anecdotally involved lepers cleaned in moments.

Josef G. Mitterer

Well, that’s written in the Bible. Also Asclepios is said to have done miracles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Also Asclepios is said to have done miracles.” What if he did? When in the Renaissance it was decided ideologically (i e theologically) OK for doctors to use the original wording in the Hippocratic oath, it was (back then) on the rationale that Apollo and his children Aesculap, Salus and Panacaea were a family of saints among the gentiles, so that swearing by them was like swearing by St Gambrinus when joining the brewer’s guild. I also consider it possible Hippolytus of Athens and Cassandra were saints, rejecting idolatry.

Josef G. Mitterer

If so, why aren’t there any miracles in our time?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

There are miracles in our time. Unless you can document that people healed in Lourdes from tuberculose peritonitis (now usually treated by antibiotics) had high doses of blue cheese or other mold cheeses in Lourdes (cheese molds are of the order penicillum, and this should suggest an antibiotic to you).

Quiz topic 6

Josef G. Mitterer

So God is just as unfair as Adam i.e., as us?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Punishing an unfairness is not unfair. Punishing it collectively is not unfair if God wants some degree of collective functioning of us.

Josef G. Mitterer

The arbitrariness of the punishment is unfair. I think modern democracies established by mortals are far fairer, as I think the love of mortals is much more loving than God’s.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It’s not. In a modern democracy, a man will be thrown in prison without his family and wife is often encouraged to divorce him, and if she doesn’t, she may risk child welfare.

Josef G. Mitterer

That’s exactly what I consider fair. Concrete actions must be punishable, not kinship.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

W a i t ... you actually value a contribution that Hebraism and Christianity did to world culture?

Quiz topic 7

Josef G. Mitterer

That’s another mere speculation. I wonder if you can think of any fact or conglomeration of facts that, if they were true, would make God’s existence seem unlikely for you. I’m pretty sure you can’t, since you’re so trained in making up off-the-cuff excuses for your a-priori presupposition that aren’t falsifiable. That is, you can claim anything and its opposite, too, because it can’t be falsified, for nobody knows anything for sure, except for what is written explicitly in the Bible (but also here you can take spontaneous excuses in order to eliminate contradictions).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If we didn't exist, if conscience didn't exist, it would be likely matter and energy were the prime principles of reality. Only, if that were the case, we wouldn't be discussing it.

Josef G. Mitterer

So you’re accepting all contradictions because of the fact that we are living which, according to you, is enough of a proof to be completely sure God exists?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As we live in sentience and in intelligence, yet are not the source of our existence, the source of our existence needs to have a mind.

Josef G. Mitterer

The source of our existence does not need a mind. (Besides, if so, then also the source of God’s existence must have a mind.) I regard our mind an epiphenomenon of matter, even though I admit the question of mind and body is a complex one. However, we know very well our mind reacts to chemical and to physical effects, would a completely immaterial mind do so?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mind is not and cannot be an epiphenomenon to matter. The only "source of God's existence" is God who obviously has or rather is a mind. We know we are beings with both mind and matter, and that the mind is related to brain, as to states, as to perceptions, and as to capacity to govern the body. Our minds are neither completely non-material (since made to interact with matter through a brain) nor completely material. I solve it by stating our mind is immaterial in its own essence, but in our case strangely, and I would say miraculously, coupled to matter.

Quiz topic 8

Josef G. Mitterer

Did convert or were converted?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Both happened. Latvians were converted, as were Saxons. Bavarians did convert, as did Lithuanians (except Samogitians) and as did Kievan Rus/

Josef G. Mitterer

Okay.

Quiz topic 9 (previously 10)

Josef G. Mitterer

I do so. I’ve mentioned ten of them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

None very cogent. Least of all cogent enough to dismiss a priori an explanation model, in order to confine explanations to what mainly Atheist communities are spreading in areas like psychology or evolutionary biology (not all of it is rot, but new cell types evolving is).

Josef G. Mitterer

“None very cogent” only if you presuppose that God exists and that free will exists and if you bend everything else in order that it fits the presupposition.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“only if you presuppose ...” — isn’t that the exact thing you pretend I should run into contradictions from? — “and if you bend ...” — You are good at bending history to suit yours …

Josef G. Mitterer

Yes, that’s what I was trying to say. You also said that no contradiction could convince you that God doesn’t exist. I don’t think that’s a good starting point for consideration or discussion, as you have to be ready to resolve contradictions through arbitrary assertions. And since these assertions come from a sphere of which others can know nothing (because they are not an object of experience), contradiction is also futile.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You also said ...." Not really. More like the kind of contradictions that could convince me don't exist. A solution is an assertion? In a sense yes. Whatever you already believe, if it runs into any kind of difficulty, you need to be able to make an explanation. Thank you for admitting mine are not contradicting blatant evidence!

Post-Quiz Parts

St. Joseph's Day

Tue 19.III.2024

Josef G. Mitterer

From what I know as a Classicist, like R. R. Bolgar's The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries, this is not the case.

I don’t know the film you’re talking about (I hardly ever watch films), but Nixey’s book is well-researched and full of quotes, both from Christians and “Pagans”. Actually, already reading Augustinus (and not the pre-selected verses modern theology likes, too — but I guess there’s no risk in your case) gives some impression about the destiny of the “Pagans”.

and Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides did not get eradicated

Luckily, but you know how many palimpsests there were? And you know the case of Hypatia? Porphyry? Kelsos?

Reread Genesis 3 and Luke 1. Between them, reread the story of Jael and of Judith.

Okay.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I don’t know the film you’re talking about (I hardly ever watch films), but Nixey’s book is well-researched and full of quotes, both from Christians and “Pagans”. Actually, already reading Augustinus (and not the pre-selected verses modern theology likes, too — but I guess there’s no risk in your case) gives some impression about the destiny of the “Pagans”."

In St. Augustine's Day, Paganism was still very vital. He was not an administrative threat to Pagans, he had been a Pagan himself.

He was also far from eradicating Pagan culture, given that he seems to have approved of spectacles with animals killing each other (to some degree, like when he explains his view of carnivors before Adam sinned), given he believed the Aeneid and also the existence of Romulus and seriously discusses how the story of his being born of a god could come about and what could really have happened to Rhea Silvia in demonological terms. When Evangelicals accuse me of being Pagan, it's often because I agree with St. Augustine, sometimes because I agree with St. Thomas.

"Luckily,"

I think it was more like the Church wanted:

• training texts for young copyists, before they were entrusted with theology,
• a black book against the Pagan gods, specially Delphic Apollo
• after a certain degree of Germanic paganism had come in, a dead Roman paganism as antidote.

"but you know how many palimpsests there were?"

Many.

"And you know the case of Hypatia?"

She's the theme of Agora. Do read Tom O'Neill's comments on her.

"Porphyry?"

Survives in Scholasticism.

"Kelsos?"

Spent and undue time trying to polemise against Christians when they were persecuted (you might say that about St. Augustine too, he did wrote things after Theodosius made Paganism illegal, but the Barbarian irruptions had destroyed Caesarian administration and given Paganism a second lease when he wrote City of God. Partly survives in Origen’s polemics against him.

"Okay."

Thank you.

Josef G. Mitterer

While as for Hypatia, Porphyry and Kelsos, the fact that they survive exclusively and fragmentary in Christian opera tells a lot. If they had not been convincing, their work would not have had to be destroyed. I don’t think “Pagans” ever destroyed Christian books. They just didn’t care about Christians, as long as they could.

"Okay."

Thank you.

I’ll read it this evening.

We 20.III.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“If they had not been convincing, their work would not have had to be destroyed.”

Because Gutenberg had provided lots of copies of their works (did Hypatia even write any, except letters?) and the only way to make them inaccessible was active destruction? That was peinlich, and I don’t mean peinlich sauber (your point on that one probably accepted, by the way) … papyrus doesn’t last forever (outside Egyptian sand), their works were obviously less widely circulated than the Gospels (which we do find in Egyptian sand), copying by hand was laborious, and priorities were made.

Plus, if I were to reason like you, some people in Germany, Sweden and France are very obviously finding my blogs too convincing for their taste, so they marginalise the reading of them.

“I don’t think “Pagans” ever destroyed Christian books.”

One of the things punished as apostasy was handing over Christian books to Roman authorities. What do you think these wanted them for? Why are Roman (non-Jewish and non-Christian) authors dealing with contemporary events (mostly in Rome or empire wide), and who wrote between Velleius Paterculus in AD 30 and Tacitus starting with Agricola in AD 90 ~ 98 lost, surviving only in quotation?

Did the reading strike you as explaining Marian dogma?

Thu 21.III.2024

Josef G. Mitterer

and the only way to make them inaccessible was active destruction?

You might be right about Hypatia, but Porphyry’s books were actually burnt, on the orders of the emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III.

[…] finding my blogs too convincing for their taste, so they marginalise the reading of them.

I’m still not so sure if you aren’t marginalising yourself. At least as linguistics is concerned, I still find your Sprachbund hypothesis rather unconvincing. And I still can’t really understand why you take the Bible literally. There are way more contradictions than the ones I mentioned (you might know there are lists around, and even if some of them are indeed just apparent contradictions, surely not all are, unless you’re ready to invent artificial harmonisations).

Why are Roman (non-Jewish and non-Christian) authors dealing with contemporary events (mostly in Rome or empire wide), and who wrote between Velleius Paterculus in AD 30 and Tacitus starting with Agricola in AD 90 ~ 98 lost, surviving only in quotation?

I’m afraid I didn’t really understand these questions.

Did the reading strike you as explaining Marian dogma?

It was interesting to read, and I didn’t know that Judges 5,24—Luke 1,42 parallel. So, well, I see the connection (even though I’m not so sure about Judith’s role), but I still think there’s this longing for a kind of “mother goddess” Mary was also used for. And I don’t even think the Catholic veneration is sufficient, for it only covers small, specific parts of the femininity. I think it was not a coincidence if Klaus von Flüe and Guillaume de Digulleville saw a “celestial queen” next to God in their visions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Porphyry’s books were actually burnt, on the orders of the emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III."

OK, may explain why he only ... survives in 13 works, while 3 works are lost ...

Porphyry (philosopher) - Wikipedia

"I’m still not so sure if you aren’t marginalising yourself."

Anyone who wants to marginalise a position will be well advised to make sure the ones marginalised are said to have marginalised themselves by holding it.

"And I still can’t really understand why you take the Bible literally."

1) Because it is the genre of the books in question.
2) Because that's how the Church Fathers took it.

"There are way more contradictions than the ones I mentioned"

Sceptics Annotated Guide to the Bible?

"surely not all are, unless you’re ready to invent artificial harmonisations"

Here are two of mine on SAGB "contradictions":

1) Refuting Sceptics Annotated on Conversion of St Paul (Acts 9:7 with "contradicting passages") ; 2) Refuting Sceptics Annotated Bible : Acts 9 (v.26 with "contrary passage")

Queenship of Mary, in defense against certain Protestants:

Jeremias 7 and 44 and the Duchess of Dorchester