Sorry for the delay. I’ll blog something more substantial sometime. However, a comment I just left announces a change in my policy on allowed comments so I thought I’d be best to post it on the main page. It refers to the previous post to this one, A Research Paper on Hume’s Argument Against Belief in Miracles

Honestly, I’ve struggled with whether or not to post this. It’s a bit late but it’s taken me a long time to come to my conclusion, thus the delay. Please understand from what I’ve just written that I struggled mightily coming to my decision to write.

First, I don’t know that I understand Hume well enough to say whether or not Chase has understood him well enough to offer a valid critique. I share Cheryl’s concern that failing to trust our senses seems like dangerous waters. I tend more to the Scottish Common Sense school and thus I think our [God given] faculties are reliable on the whole to understand and asses phenomena in this world.

What I can say after reading the paper is that it most certainly is not “unimaginative, pseudo-intellectual, pedantic [nor] boring.” I have some theories as to why that comment was left. One, if one doesn’t understand a subject or it’s inherent vocabulary and syntax then it can appear pedantic, pseudo-intellectual, or boring. However, the fault isn’t with the author but rather the reader. My other theory is that this is left over venom from a previous post which offended radical egalitarianism in regards to what is ministry and who is a minister.

I could be wrong. I invite a refutation to my suspicions. It would be accomplished very simply. Here’s how: post a substantial critique of the ideas of the article rather than throwing foundation-less insults around.

In the future I believe the policy on this blog will be to edit and/or delete comments according to those criteria. If comments focus (even critically, criticism is an aspect of blogging that I enjoy most) on the subject under discussion they will be allowed. However, if they toss around criticism without interacting with the text then they will be deleted. Pretty simple. That’s not a threat, it’s an effort to encourage meaningful discussion and criticism while limiting childish name calling.

Again, that’s the new tweak on commenting. I’ve also been clear about how to avoid being censored: interact with the material being presented.