Posted                         

quote:

---

My straightforward, atheist view is that there is no such thing as 'sin', since it has a religious connotation.

---

Well, you would, wouldn't you? Doesn't matter what you call it - sin, being naughty, doing bad things (though 'sin' is much easier to type) people still do it. And most of it still hurts other people.

What is punished, i.e. what is actually thought of as 'sin' (see bracketed remark above) depends on culture and/or religion.

Personally, I have enough problems keeping the Ten Commandments - the first four giving me the most trouble (never having wanted an ox, let alone my neighbours'), so I think they make a fairly good definition of 'sin', particularly when unravelled in terms of today.

But I am sure there will be Shippies here who can either disagree, or put the whole thing in much more theological and definitive terms.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
To (slightly) modify Kant - "To treat a living creature as if they were no more than a means to your ends".


{edit: even in one sentence there's a typo}

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
A system of justice does its best to ensure punishment of those whose actions are bad. No God/god/s, no afterlife, no punishment after death.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
To (slightly) modify Kant - "To treat a living creature as if they were no more than a means to your ends".


{edit: even in one sentence there's a typo}

---

I'll go with that, QSJ. And for practical application, see tessaB above

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kater Murr:
.. I think it's hard, so I'm really interested in hearing your ideas of what or if something should be declared as a sin before god.
Murr

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Susan Doris said

quote:

---

My straightforward, atheist view is that there is no such thing as 'sin', since it has a religious connotation.

---

Well, you would, wouldn't you? Doesn't matter what you call it - sin, being naughty, doing bad things (though 'sin' is much easier to type) people still do it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
I'd define it as doing something deliberately that you know to be wrong, not for a good reason, but for selfish reasons or to disadvantage others in some way. Especially if the thought of their unhappiness as a result of your actions gives you pleasure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
A system of justice does its best to ensure punishment of those whose actions are bad. No God/god/s, no afterlife, no punishment after death.

---

No reprisals, so do what you please if you can get away with it?

---

quote:

---

The justice system misses quite a lot of things on a day to day basis. There can be ordinary interactions between people which are technically not illegal but may be morally questionable, or may be manipulative behaviour or power games designed to disadvantage one person, sap their motivation, etc etc.

---

quote:

---

I would say "sin" is a useful shorthand word for describing this kind of action.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Bloody Hell, ES, according to that guy not only am I for the eternal fryer, but heaven's going to be virtually deserted.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Susan Doris said

quote:

---

My straightforward, atheist view is that there is no such thing as 'sin', since it has a religious connotation.

---

Well, you would, wouldn't you? Doesn't matter what you call it - sin, being naughty, doing bad things (though 'sin' is much easier to type) people still do it. And most of it still hurts other people.

What is punished, i.e. what is actually thought of as 'sin' (see bracketed remark above) depends on culture and/or religion.

---

quote:

---

Personally, I have enough problems keeping the Ten Commandments - the first four giving me the most trouble (never having wanted an ox, let alone my neighbours'), so I think they make a fairly good definition of 'sin', particularly when unravelled in terms of today.

---

The first commandment didn't make much sense to me even when I believed there was God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
I think you may have missed Susan's point. Sin is only a meaningful concept for people who believe in God. Sin isn't really the same as what we would describe as "people doing bad things" as it suggests causing the displeasure and creating a separation from God.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Agreement here, too, but would you agree that the word 'sin' has too many religious overtones?

---

It does and it doesn't. There are mainstream uses of the word which tend to be connected with food - I've heard people from Weight Watchers (?) using it to refer specifically to things they know they shouldn't eat ("how many sins are you allowed on this diet?") and you might remember the Magnum Seven Deadly Sins range of ice cream. Not surprisingly, there are cocktails with "sin" in the name as well. You might also get a sin-bin on the sports field and there are probably other non-religious uses I haven't thought of. (Please don't mention sin, cos and tan, thanks )

Whether this kind of use trivializes it, or makes it more mainstream, depends on your perspective.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
As I'm sure many folks know, "sin" was a term in archery at the time of the NT. Missing the target was a sin. When Paul wrote that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," he was pretty clearly indicating what sin means in a Christian context, both literally and figuratively

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
(Please don't mention sin, cos and tan, thanks )

Whether this kind of use trivializes it, or makes it more mainstream, depends on your perspective.

---

Ah! I love your post! It gives the word just the right balance.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
If free will is an illusion then sin is simply doing, or not doing, what we have to and upsetting someone/something (state/person/deity etc.) whilst so doing or not doing.

This is not an argument that actions/omissions are never wrong, nor that society should not protect itself against harm: it may, perhaps, give rise to a better understanding as to how we gain that protection.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

Problem is that there seems to be an awful lot of experimental evidence to show that we have no choice. Our actions are dictated by our genes and our experiences.

If free will is an illusion then sin is simply doing, or not doing, what we have to and upsetting someone/something (state/person/deity etc.) whilst so doing or not doing.

This is not an argument that actions/omissions are never wrong, nor that society should not protect itself against harm: it may, perhaps, give rise to a better understanding as to how we gain that protection.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
I don't have the free will to not believe in free will, if you see what I mean.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
I don't believe in free will at a philosophical level though at a psychological level I seem to have no choice but to believe. I don't have the free will to not believe in free will, if you see what I mean.

However I can't see that any consequence follows from having no free will. The prisoner says it's not their fault because they had no free will, the judge says she's sorry but she isn't free to take that into account (because she doesn't have free will either) and gives the same sentence she would have anyway.

Free will or not, it's the same world. I had to say that. Or did I?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Experiments fail as they don't take all factors into account, including the observation of real life.

---

quote:

---

Someone born into a family of thieves doesn't necessarily become a thief. There's a 'black sheep' in every family. An addict can stop being an addict. We can repent, ie change our ways.

---

quote:

---

What I do and say today and how I express it will be coloured by my genetic makeup, the culture I live in, and the influences of learning throughout my life, ie what I've absorbed and what I haven't. I understand that. Was I compelled to write this? Yes, by my desire to, but not to the extent that I might easily have changed my mind half way through, or decided not to bother.

---

quote:

---

There is such a thing as human will. And there is such a thing as God's will, which meets the highest ideal of human attitude and behaviour, i.e. that attitude and behaviour which would harm no-one and benefit everyone. When we become conscious of the difference between God's will and our own, we're ready to face up to our own sin imv.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

That's right. It would be impossible to imagine operating as if there were actually no free will.

---

quote:

---

Would it ever even be worth saying anything? .

---

quote:

---

So when it comes to sin we have no choice but to consider certain actions to be undesirable and to try to limit them. We have no choice but to assume that this is not impossible. .

---

quote:

---

The only question, then, is what determines what is a sin and how much of a sin it is.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:

What is punished, i.e. what is actually thought of as 'sin' (see bracketed remark above) depends on culture and/or religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Society has to determine what behaviour is unacceptable...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
These experiments are designed to observe real life – they record activity (using fMRI, sweat detection etc.) If you think these experiments fail for a particular reason please explain your reason – if you have no explanation your assertion is not valid.

---

quote:

---

There is such a thing as human will. And there is such a thing as God's will, which meets the highest ideal of human attitude and behaviour, i.e. that attitude and behaviour which would harm no-one and benefit everyone. When we become conscious of the difference between God's will and our own, we're ready to face up to our own sin imv.

Do you have any evidence to support the first seventeen words above? I assume imv is an acknowledgement that these are opinions which you cannot demonstrate to be true. You have the right to prefer opinion over experimental evidence. I trust that you will resist the temptation (presumably failure would constitute a sin?) to present opinion as fact.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kater Murr:
Good morning everybody!

It's not an easy topic to talk about, I think... But I'm curious how people here think about it.
I was wondering what exactly is a "sin" for you?

---

quote:

---

I find it hard sometimes to say... one might think about typical stuff from the ten commandments, hurting somebody physical and on purpose, or something more complicated, environmental degradation, greed ... I think it's hard, so I'm really interested in hearing your ideas of what or if something should be declared as a sin before god.

Greetings,
Murr

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Problem is that there seems to be an awful lot of experimental evidence to show that we have no choice. Our actions are dictated by our genes and our experiences.

<snip>

If free will is an illusion then sin is simply doing, or not doing, what we have to and upsetting someone/something (state/person/deity etc.) whilst so doing or not doing.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Agreement here, too, but would you agree that the word 'sin' has too many religious overtones?

---

It does and it doesn't. There are mainstream uses of the word which tend to be connected with food - I've heard people from Weight Watchers (?) using it to refer specifically to things they know they shouldn't eat ("how many sins are you allowed on this diet?") and you might remember the Magnum Seven Deadly Sins range of ice cream. Not surprisingly, there are cocktails with "sin" in the name as well. You might also get a sin-bin on the sports field and there are probably other non-religious uses I haven't thought of. (Please don't mention sin, cos and tan, thanks )

Whether this kind of use trivializes it, or makes it more mainstream, depends on your perspective.

---

The diet thing is Slimming World and they're 'syns' (I guess to avoid religious connotations?), but interestingly they're more like extra calories - you have your unlimited or 'free' food eg fruit, veg and then food which has 'syn values' eg a biscuit. How many you're allowed depends on your start weight. 'Syn' and 'Free' gives interesting connotations

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
[qb] I'd define it as doing something deliberately that you know to be wrong, not for a good reason, but for selfish reasons or to disadvantage others in some way. Especially if the thought of their unhappiness as a result of your actions gives you pleasure.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SusanDoris:
A system of justice does its best to ensure punishment of those whose actions are bad. No God/god/s, no afterlife, no punishment after death.

---

No reprisals, so do what you please if you can get away with it?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable
Surely evolution would mean a more 'every man for himself' attitude? Co-operation means missing out as individuals.

---

quote:

---

You could say that sin is acting in your own best interest at the expense of God and/or others, since God wants us to be in community with him and others (which is what church in the Biblical sense means).

---

quote:

---

I don't self-identify as a Calvinist anymore, but I do have a hard time believing that people are inherently good - I would say that anything people do for the good of others/community is from God, even if the person doesn't believe in God. Experience of the world in general, watching the news etc would suggest that people are inherently sinful/do bad things because they instinctively want to do bad things.

---

Yes, I agree it is very difficult to think of people as inherently good, but the understanding of genetic make-up, nature/nurture, etc has helped us to understand very much better what makes us tick. Why does it make a difference to introduce God (and of course there are very many to choose from )into the mix? I disagree strongly that people are inherently 'sinful', a word which has, mostly, too many religious overtones, since we all behave in a range of ways from the worst to the best. I suppose instinct has a part to play, but that too would be genetic I think and such tendencies, if not spotted and dealt with in childhood, are far more likely to result in unpleasant consequences.

Interesting; thank you.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Susan Doris said

quote:

---

My straightforward, atheist view is that there is no such thing as 'sin', since it has a religious connotation.

---

Well, you would, wouldn't you? Doesn't matter what you call it - sin, being naughty, doing bad things (though 'sin' is much easier to type) people still do it.

---

I think you may have missed Susan's point. Sin is only a meaningful concept for people who believe in God. Sin isn't really the same as what we would describe as "people doing bad things" as it suggests causing the displeasure and creating a separation from God.

---

For once, I agree with both Susan Doris and George Spigot.

The Law, the Ten Commandments and the 'Summary of the Law' all define Sin as offending against God's Holy Laws. So yes, for an atheist the whole concept of Sin is meaningless, except for those who define themselves as "atheists" yet acknowledge the possibility of a God. I say this because people such as Richard Dawkins keep changing the definition of "atheist" and "agnostic" so that it seems only they know what they really mean by the terms.

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
As I'm sure many folks know, "sin" was a term in archery at the time of the NT. Missing the target was a sin. When Paul wrote that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," he was pretty clearly indicating what sin means in a Christian context, both literally and figuratively.

--Tom Clune

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
For once, I agree with both Susan Doris and George Spigot.

---

Sounds good to me!!

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So yes, for an atheist the whole concept of Sin is meaningless, except for those who define themselves as "atheists" yet acknowledge the possibility of a God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Problem is that there seems to be an awful lot of experimental evidence to show that we have no choice. Our actions are dictated by our genes and our experiences.

<snip>

If free will is an illusion then sin is simply doing, or not doing, what we have to and upsetting someone/something (state/person/deity etc.) whilst so doing or not doing

---

There is quite a distance between experimental evidence and an abstract concept like choice, let alone an even more abstract concept like free will. I'd be interested to know how you bridge that gap (assuming you're interested in resuming an old discussion).

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
As I'm sure many folks know, "sin" was a term in archery at the time of the NT. Missing the target was a sin. When Paul wrote that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," he was pretty clearly indicating what sin means in a Christian context, both literally and figuratively.

--Tom Clune

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Problem is that there seems to be an awful lot of experimental evidence to show that we have no choice. Our actions are dictated by our genes and our experiences.

<snip>

If free will is an illusion then sin is simply doing, or not doing, what we have to and upsetting someone/something (state/person/deity etc.) whilst so doing or not doing

---

There is quite a distance between experimental evidence and an abstract concept like choice, let alone an even more abstract concept like free will. I'd be interested to know how you bridge that gap (assuming you're interested in resuming an old discussion).

---

I don't think one can bridge the gap - either one accepts the experimental evidence and denies real (as opposed to illusory) choice and therefore free will or one denies the evidence and clings to the much more comfortable ideas of choice and free will despite the experimental evidence.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I figure you and I must be thinking of very different concepts when we use the terms "choice" and "free will."

The way I think of free will and choice is that they allow us to observe our own actions and internal stories, form judgments about them, and choose to try to change them if we judge them as undesirable or immoral, with more or less resistance depending on how ingrained our subconscious habits and patterns are.

---

quote:

---

To me, free will and choice are far from being in control of even a signifcant fraction of our actions and decisions (let alone all of them) because they are like a person who takes charge of an established, large organization. As long as such a person makes no decision to change anything, the organization will function as it normally does by habit. But that person is in a position to single out various aspects of the organization and attempt to change them, with more or less resistance from the members of that organization depending on their habits and attitudes.

---

quote:

---

Experimental evidence, by its nature, consists of observations of very specific behavior in very specific, controlled situations, while choice and free will are very abstract and general concepts. So connecting the evidence to choice and free will in order to draw conclusions from the former about the latter requires a lot of interpretation and generalization. I'd be interested in any details you're willing to offer about the interpretation and generalizations you're using to reach the conclusions you have because that will give me some idea of how you are thinking about the concepts of choice and free will.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken
What's punished by society is crime, not sin. Crimes are socially defined. Sins are defined by God. Not all crimes are sins, not all sins are crimes.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:
What you say does make a lot of sense to me and I pretty much agree with everything except your conclusion about free will / choice. I think our subconscious is pretty much in continuous conflict with itself from competing urges and intentions, and I believe that our free will consists in being able to choose between the conflicting elements of our subconscious. Not because we consciously make a decision which element to follow so much as because we are constantly "amending the recipe" by reflecting on our actions, thoughts, and intentions and forming opinions and judgments about them. It's true that those opinions and judgments are themselves based on our subconscious, but I don't believe that they are always completely determined by it.

As you say, we cannot ever demonstrate that it's possible to override the subconscious, but neither can we ever demonstrate that it's impossible in all situations. For me, it's part of my faith that God keeps us all in balance between the competing good and bad parts of our subconscious so that we are free to make continuous choices between them, to embrace some and resist others, and so gradually choose our own character (even if our resistance often meets with apparent failure). Not that we're completely free to choose the results, just that we're completely free to choose what results we're going to try for.

I see the whole process as being much the same as a leader of a large organization attempting to make incremental changes that eventually accumulate into an organizational direction that is unique to that leader compared to what any other leader would have chosen. Most of what such a leader does is make decisions rather than implementing the change itself because there is far too much activity for one person to be intimately involved in a significant fraction of it.

Similarly, I think our conscious mind can incrementally affect our whole character even though it cannot directly implement very much actual change by itself because there is far too much going on that we can't be conscious of. However, I acknowledge that it is probably impossible to determine experimentally that such a view is more accurate than the view you present.

Which I guess leaves me with my main point being that I think it's still a matter of interpretation as to whether the evidence does or does not rule out free will, depending on one's definition of free will, even if I completely accept the validity of the evidence. Would you agree, or not?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I think that the available evidence and rational thought supports the absence of free will without absolutely disproving it, just as I think the available evidence and rational thought supports the absence of supernature without absolutely disproving it.

---

quote:

---

It is possible to believe in free will (and/or the abrahmic god) despite the lack of supporting evidence – but I can’t do so.

---

quote:

---

... either one accepts the experimental evidence and denies real (as opposed to illusory) choice and therefore free will or one denies the evidence and clings to the much more comfortable ideas of choice and free will despite the experimental evidence.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps the key to our differing interpretation is when you say “It's true that those opinions and judgments are themselves based on our subconscious, but I don't believe that they are always completely determined by it.” (my embolding).

You are content to introduce belief as a factor in your thinking – I can’t do so. It is inevitable that we disagree.

---

quote:

---

Assuming that you would equate “freedom of choice” with “free will” ISTM that you have a powerful impulsion to concur with free will’s existence, whilst, as an atheist, I have nothing to lose whether my interpretation of the evidence is right or wrong. Would you agree?

---

quote:

---

Is it possible that you are, as once I would have done, accepting someone else's position before considering the evidence rather than letting the evidence lead you where it will?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

I could go along with saying that the evidence suggests the absence of free will as some people conceive of it, but I am not aware of any evidence that would support anything stronger. And the evidence I'm aware of actually fits in quite well with free will as I a conceive of it.

---

If your conception of free will involves deliberate, conscious application of thought to over-ride the unconscious mind I think that the experimental evidence is against you. (see Free Will by Sam Harris and Incognito by David Eagleman)

quote:

---

It is possible to believe in free will (and/or the abrahmic god) despite the lack of supporting evidence – but I can’t do so. I can understand that, but can I get you to reconsider your earlier statement and acknowledge that your two alternatives are somewhat more absolute than they should be:

---

It’s a matter of degree but I see no reason to change my wording.

quote:

---

... either one accepts the experimental evidence and denies real (as opposed to illusory) choice and therefore free will or one denies the evidence and clings to the much more comfortable ideas of choice and free will despite the experimental evidence.I don't think I'm denying the evidence, just using a different definition of choice and free will than you are.

You are content to introduce belief as a factor in your thinking – I can’t do so. It is inevitable that we disagree. Yes, I am content to introduce belief in my thinking, but assuming that you hold the view that the subconscious always completely determines our opinions and judgments, aren't you also introducing belief since the evidence only covers a few narrowly defined situations? I don't think anyone can get very far if they never introduce belief into their thinking. I think the important thing is for us to reconsider our beliefs when the evidence starts to contradict it.

---

I hold the view that the evidence (such as it is) appears to be consistently against the ability to override our unconscious by exercise of the conscious. If you know of evidence which counters that view I’d like to have the detail. As to introducing belief, surely it would be more rational to believe that the evidence is probably correct rather than indulge in unsupported belief which opposes the evidence? I know from experience that rain falls from the sky to the ground rather than from the ground to the sky. In all honesty I only know that is true in much of Great Britain, a bit of the USA and parts of France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Ireland and Holland but it would be irrational (although not technically impossible) to believe that rain falls upward in Bryn Athyn.

quote:

---

Assuming that you would equate “freedom of choice” with “free will” ISTM that you have a powerful impulsion to concur with free will’s existence, whilst, as an atheist, I have nothing to lose whether my interpretation of the evidence is right or wrong. Would you agree? Yes, although I'm not entirely sure you have nothing to lose. Wouldn't free will present some sort of challenge to your atheism? Or at least mean you would lose one of your arguments against Christian theism?

---

Until recently I had assumed the existence of free will – I imagine most people do – it seems that I was probably wrong. My initial reaction was to reject the idea, can’t say it enthuses me now. I’d like to think that I am in charge of all my decisions, that I deserve the credit for the things I get “right” (I’ll take the brickbats on the chin as well). I don’t however see the existence of free will (if indeed it does exist) as threatening the lack of evidence for supernature/deity. I was a confirmed atheist for a variety of reasons before I recently encountered the likelihood that free will is an illusion and I expect that I would still be so if it were demonstrated to be real. If free will is an illusion I’m sure that Christian apologists will adapt to encompass the facts (although experience says that most believers will either deny the reality or just ignore it/be sheltered from it) and the gravy train will roll on largely undisturbed by reality.

quote:

---

Is it possible that you are, as once I would have done, accepting someone else's position before considering the evidence rather than letting the evidence lead you where it will? Accepting someone else's position? Yes. Before considering the evidence? No.

---

But surely, if you have considered the evidence it is your position (which someone else agrees with) rather than someone elses’s position which you accept? Acceptance implies, to me, that the concept is a gift from another rather than the product of your own original investigation.

quote:

---

Letting the evidence lead me where it will? I think that's the essential question of our discussion. I think I am accepting the consequences of the evidence (at least the evidence that I'm aware of) and finding that it fits quite well with what I already believe to be reality. Is it possible that you are going beyond the evidence to let it lead you to where you already believe reality lies?

---

Yes, of course it’s possible, but I reckon it to be very unlikely. Both aforementioned books come complete with many publication references – I confess that I haven’t read the publications to which they refer. To that extent I could be the victim of a hoax but, as with all conspiracy theories, we face the questions of why should such a hoax be manufactured, why should so much evidence be offered in support of it and why have those whose beliefs it would damage (destroy?) not launched a massive counterattack supported by their own experimental evidence? As I say this is pretty much the equivalent, for me, of thinking aloud, I keep expecting some knowledgeable shippie to come in with counter-evidence and I'm a little surprised that it hasn't happened yet.

---