# Side Comments on Progress after the Royal Society Conference

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Comments\
**Created:** [January 18, 2026, 8:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641 "2026-01-18T20:01:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/5 "2026-01-18T20:15:59Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > How does this not address your challenges and questions?
> 
> That’s like asking how lime jello is not limestone. You just can’t list all the ways.

That was not my question, I wasn’t asking you to list all possible wrong answers, you were claiming my answer does not address your challenges and questions, I need you now to defend your claim.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > Certainly, gifts are not earned, rewards are.
> 
> But “rewards” was your word. If not heaven, then what were you saying was the reward for endurance of suffering or for overcoming adversity? And it must be something other than “refining”, because that was a separate reason.

Well, lots of various rewards are listed for those who overcome, in Revelation 2-3, for example! Privileges, authority, and so on, too many to list here.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > I could reply the same!
> 
> You could. But there we stop, still with none of my questions answered.

But you missed my question, somehow: How have I contradicted myself, for starters?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> Are you really in favor of torture? How is the rich man being refined?

No, torture is really pejorative, but the rich man was in torment, specifically because in his life, he received his good things. Presumably now he is getting what he should have been getting by denying himself.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > more like what Lewis described
> 
> Which is idiosyncratic and without scriptural support, wouldn’t you agree?

[Here](http://lee-notes.org/2021/02/28/purgatory/) are my thoughts on purgatory, if you are interested, lots of Scripture, by the way! I agree that that my view is unusual, though.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > Because it’s healthy to acknowledge that we need help, that we are not omnipotent, that we are not God. That’s one reason.
> 
> This is like a guy who trips you because it’s good for you to ask him for help in getting up.

Your example is quite different than my reasons, it is not a good analogy for what I said. “We are not omnipotent, we are not God” explains “we need help.”

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > Actually, he’s pointing to reasoning we all do subscribe to, we reject reasoning when we see it comes from nonreasoning causes, and this is not circular.
> 
> You keep repeating this even though nobody has ever agreed with you and in most cases have pointed out to you why it isn’t true

I repeat this because it’s true! I even point out people applying this principle to what I say, in this thread. And nobody has demonstrated how what I say is untrue, instead they keep repeating their view, and I then try and address their view. But nobody actually has refuted my view, instead they give a flat denial, and then give a substitute.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> And Lewis is out to lunch. there is no such tacit request.

Well, there is, people are being asked to treat the materialist’s argument as an argument like what people normally think they are doing themselves, where people consider that they are originating their argument, and they are not being moved around like a puppet.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> A cause doesn’t have to share the same properties as its effect.

Certainly, Henry Ford was not a car, I remarked to someone accusing me of being an essentialist.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> If arguments are caused by reasoning processes, what causes the reasoning processes?

A self-existent reason, is the answer that is the response that has been given by many. Which prevents an infinite regress.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > Just (as I have mentioned) they dismiss other statements that they see come from nonreasoning causes, just as you all do here, when you claim my statements are due to some non-reason, such as being sheer speculation, or due to some unthinking commitment to intelligent design, etc.
> 
> No, still backwards. I claim your statements are due to non-reason because they aren’t reasonable statements. And sheer speculation isn’t a cause, it’s a description of the statement.

Well, as I just mentioned in another reply, saying I’m speculating means I have a motive to speculate, such as wish-fulfillment, which someone accused me of here just recently. That would be pointing to a nonreasoning cause, as would saying I have an unthinking commitment to intelligent design, or that I’m stupid (someone did say that), and so on, I could present many examples of people dismissing what I say by pointing to an unreasoning cause.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> But we have to distinguish questions of observable facts from questions of unsupported opinion.

Sure, we have to pick authorities to believe, with care.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> Caesar’s authorship is a claim made in his book, and other contemporary sources agree that he was the author, as well as agreeing that he existed.

How can you know Caesar wrote the book which he claimed to write, though? On authority, someone told you he wrote it, and it’s not pseudopigraphy. How do you know contemporary sources were not lying, and that he existed? You trust them as reliable authorities. I can do this with almost every claim of you examining evidence, I can get eventually to some appeal to authority.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> You have to learn to distinguish unsupported opinion from claims of fact.

I do distinguish them, I look for evidence that the person making a statement is reliable, and has training in the area of interest, and so on.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> Note that your various quotes are not claims of fact and are not evidence that the opinions expressed are correct, just evidence that some people held those opinions.

Really? When I quote people, I intend that to be evidence that their statements should be given serious consideration, for the reasons such as those mentioned above.

I’m tempted to apply your standard to your own statements, and call them just evidence that you hold this or that opinion.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > And indeed I know what an ad hominem fallacy is, people use this all the time on me, for example, saying I don’t understand words, or that I just obfuscate, contradict myself, and wander around at random! Oops, I think you just did all that.
> 
> If you don’t know what “ad hominem fallacy” means, just say so and then go look it up. I’ll wait here. But it’s clear from that reply that you don’t know.

Well, let’s go [to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem): “_ **Ad hominem** _ ([Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language "Latin language") for ‘to the person’), short for _ **argumentum ad hominem** _, refers to several types of arguments where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.”

“Obfuscation” would be attacking my character, people usually have an intent to obscure an issue when they do that, “contradicting myself” would be saying I am an oblivious person, who can’t see what he is doing, attacking a supposed attribute I have, and “wandering around at random” would be saying I am aimless, bereft of any good purpose, attacking my motives. And none of these statements address any actual arguments I have made.

I could point to many such examples directed at me in this forum…

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > But a want does not imply a need.
> 
> Very well. Why does he want us to depend on him?

Because it’s healthy for us to acknowledge we are not omniscient, and so on, we are not God, it’s sanity.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/151):
> >
> > It’s the statements of the delirious person that are illogical, contrary to Chesterton.
> 
> So you are saying the causes of delirium are somehow logical?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> No. I’m saying nothing even slightly like that. At this point, do you even know what you’re trying to say?

Your statement directly implies that the view that the causes of the delirious thoughts are illogical, is mistaken. And if they are not illogical, then they are logical.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > My view is that natural selection could possibly produce a brain that has valid reasoning, just like a tornado could assemble my laptop! I think I used that example.
> 
> You did, and I pointed out the important difference, which you continually ignore.

I try and respond to your points, actually, and I don’t recall your response here. There is a lot of water under the bridge, here! And I can’t keep all the responses in my head.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > A rational creator might have more purposes than just making perfect machinery.
> 
> Of course, the appeal to mysterious ways is a get-out-of-problems-free card. But what purposes?

A perfect machine might be unnecessarily complex, for example, in many applications, a three-wheel vehicle will do, or even a two-wheeler, four wheels may be more than is needed. But if you can afford it, buy a four-wheel ATM! So there may be tradeoffs we are unaware of in, say, making a particular flagellum or a cilium. Of which, may it be said, there are many types!

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > And it’s good if we need help, as I have argued.
> 
> Because it keeps us humble, not uppity?

That’s a good reason, I hadn’t thought of that one!

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> And yet that training and correction apparently results in a lot of people going to long-lasting, perhaps eternal torment.

Well, my view on that is a little different, I see three threads in scripture, eternal punishment, destruction of the wicked, and God “all in all”. Now how all these can be true, I don’t know, but there does seem to be good warrant in scripture for all three, and I don’t want to do what most people do, and pick one, and erase the others. I will additionally mention what I heard of one professor saying, “The people in Jesus’ day thought they had the first coming all figured out, and they were all wrong!” And they were.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> For one thing, if he could create the best possible world, it wouldn’t need training and correction. No reason for this temporary imperfect world when he could go straight to the goal.

One verse in reply, “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” (Rom.11:32) That’s one reason.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > In a puppet show, the puppets aren’t initiating anything in and of themselves, so I think the analogy is apt.
> 
> Sure, until you ask yourself what’s initiating the actions of the puppetmaster, and we’re back to the homunculus theory, and infinite regress.

But I was applying that to the materialist view! So it applies to your view, not mine.

I could mention in passing Dawkins, in a debate with Lennox, presenting his prime objection to a Creator, asking “Who created your creator?” Lennox, in addition to replying that Christians believe in a self-existent, eternal God, turned the tables, and mentioned that Dawkins believed that the universe created him. So, Lennox asked, who created your creator? Still waiting for a response on that one…

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > I am saying I am the author of my thoughts. That is actually what people think, they don’t think this is a delusion.
> 
> But do they think about what that actually means? What is “I”?

They consider themselves real agents, though there is disagreement about metaphysics, such as a soul, or a mind outside the brain, and so on.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > Not to mention that people who think their thoughts are being controlled, get steered to an asylum.
> 
> You still have this caricature view of consciousness that prevents you from thinking about it at all. Ironic, really.

Are you saying now your thoughts are not generated ultimately just by the motions of atoms in your brain? Causes imply control. And I believe I mentioned to you to try telling a judge “my brain atoms did it!” and seeing how far that gets you.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > And the man in delirium is reasoning quite soundly,
> 
> I see no indication of that in your little stories.

He quite logically concludes there are snakes in the room, because he sees them. It’s logical to generally trust your perceptions. And the paranoid man is quite logical in not calling the police to help him, because of course, they are out to get him, too. Quite logical!

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > But you just did that with me! You say I am confused, for instance, and thus you imply that you can reject what I say, you point to the cause of my incorrect reasoning and conclusions.
> 
> That’s not at all what I do. Again, I reject what you say because it makes no sense, and on a case by case basis. I do hypothesize about the causes of your incorrect statements, but I reject them because they’re incorrect, not because you’re an irrational person.

But you’re not pointing to my reasoning, or examining it at all! You’re pointing to the cause, I’m starting out confused, and because of that you dismiss what I say.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > There is data if I have medical records, which I do.
> 
> Still just one case.

But as I mentioned, one arguably supernatural event undoes the whole materialist view.

“… if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel.” (Chesterton)

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > But one really supernatural answer is all that is required here, to prove there is something supernatural going on.
> 
> True. But how do you know it’s really supernatural? This is why quantity has a quality all its own. Perhaps you were initially misdiagnosed. Perhaps there are rare, spontaneous recoveries that your doctor didn’t know about.

Well, they did a bunch of tests, one of which was a treadmill test, where the doctor kept saying “Save that!” Evidently something unusual was being observed. So I think it unlikely that I was misdiagnosed, as mentioned, any time I wanted, I could check my pulse and detect extra beats. Now I can’t, and the doctor firmly announced “You do not have mitral valve prolapse.” And an appeal to unknown recovery paths is dubious at best. I agree that any miracle can be dismissed as a confluence of extraordinary, or even unknown, natural causes. But it seems you are willing to take any escape route, no matter how improbable. So restoring limbs can be explained in the same sort of way, “Salamanders do it!” for example.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > I have had a number of such dramatic healings!
> 
> This makes you less credible, if anything. Why are you so special? Most people who pray for miracles don’t get them, yet you do repeatedly.

That’s a weird kind of refutation, especially after saying more miracles would be more convincing. But in Jesus’ day, people got healed a lot! And they weren’t some kind of special people. I know I’m not, so I recommend asking, I do know God can heal.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > I believe I recommended a prayer to start with, “God, if you’re real, would you reveal yourself to me?”
> 
> Sure. Which god should I start with? And why?

Well, [Richard Lorenzo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBypK3LRyAE) just prayed for the higher power to reveal himself! He didn’t put an address on the envelope. [Keith Green](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY8x-jrOHj0) pointed out that in his examination of different religions, everyone seemed to say Jesus was a way, and Jesus said he was _the_ way. So he said, I think I’ll go with trying Jesus first. Just a couple of pointers…

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641)._