Hobbes again, and 400 ppm CO2

I haven't been nice to Hobbes for a bit, so:

When God speaketh to man, it must be either immediately or by mediation of another man, to whom He had formerly spoken by Himself immediately. How God speaketh to a man immediately may be understood by those well enough to whom He hath so spoken; but how the same should be understood by another is hard, if not impossible, to know. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it.

There. Isn't that wonderful? It so beautifully turns around the "You say God told you that but I think you're a fraud" into "I really can't see how you could convince me of that". There is more, of course. [[Leviathan (book)]] provides an intro, and as it happens I wrote it (or almost all of it) and it has survived remarkably well. The section Of a Christian Common-wealth is good fun: here Hobbes tries to make a case for which books of the Bible you can reliably believe in, but (much like Popper on rationalism) is eventually obliged (oh dear, he really didn't want to go that way :-) to provide an external authority to decide which books can be trusted: the Civil Power in his case, of course.

Ah, and now of course I've remembered what I actually intended to write about: Atmoz's 400 ppm CO2 challenge! Off you go; I haven't made my mind up yet.

More like this

Via HT I find Kerry Emanuel saying: I think debate is good but we should be debating points that are actually debatable and who could disagree with that? But the problem is who gets to say what is debatable. You and I know, of course. But the wackoes don't [What is the Plural of "wacko"? Is it -…
There is a remark somewhere in Popper - but of course I forget where, and since I'm only struggling to remember this as an intro or lead-in I may even have made it up - to the effect that deep inquiry into the meaning of words is largely fruitless. And this is in the context of his attack on Plato…
There is, of course, a theory of law. As soon as you ponder the question, you realise there must be. But it had never occurred to me (in my faint defence I find, now I look, that whilst wiki has a category for theories of law, it doesn't seem to have an overall article on the concept of theory of…
Preceded by Boris "the clown" Johnson, SA wins his coveted slightly damp biscuit1 for The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science. TL;DR: it's a pile of dingoes kidneys. But before we get down to the insightful analysis, here's a barely relevant cartoon. Notice the use of the words "weasel"…

While Rome burns, Atmoz fiddles. Please allow me to invite you, William, and all others who see the necessity of energy transformation - and I include John Mashey, David B. Benson, Dano, Hank Roberts and Eli Rabbet in this group - to participate in Replacing Fossil Fuel. Enough dancing. It's time to act. Individually we tilt at windmills. People together can accomplish great things.

By Paul Kelly (not verified) on 30 Mar 2010 #permalink

>"Off you go; I haven't made my mind up yet."

Why not? as I wrote over there:
There is probably only about 15 reasonable guesses so if the prize goes to the first to guess the correct month it looks like for this competition it may be best to get your guess in quick.