North African Apologetics

Author(s):  
D. H. Williams
Keyword(s):  

This chapter considers the work of Arnobius, who presents the most mysteries of all the figures discussed in this book, both in terms of himself and in terms of what he was precisely attempting to achieve with his only known work, Against the Pagans (Adversus nations). There is almost no externally verifiable information on Arnobius except his authorship of this work, penned about fifty years after Cyprian’s death, likely during or just after the “great persecution” that the emperor Diocletian inaugurated from 303 until it was unexpectedly halted in 311 by Galerius—one week before his death. Against the Pagans provides a window into the intellectual debate of the time, through its engagement with the religious and philosophical standpoints that underpinned the outburst of anti-Christian feeling of the Diocletianic persecution. Just as Lactantius’s Divine Institutes and Eusebius’s Preparation of the Gospel will do, so Arnobius is rebutting the pagan attempts to justify the gods’ perceived anger toward Christianity. This chapter is also concerned with Lactantius

1983 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 431-441
Author(s):  
Gavin White

‘As for the good things of this life and its ills, God has willed that these should be common to both’ the righteous and the unrighteous. So wrote a well-known north African theologian of the fall of Rome in AD 410, an event which many observers attributed to the abandonment of ancient religious practices and beliefs in favour of Christianity. That they should do so was perhaps natural; it is always easier to claim betrayal than to admit defeat in the field of battle. Even Gibbon, who was judicious enough in assessing the causes of the fall of Rome, held that the main cause was ‘the domestic hostilities of the Romans themselves’, and implied that the city might not have fallen had it not been that, ‘At the hour of midnight, the Salarian gate was silently opened . . . ’ And what was said of the fall of Rome was also said of the fall of France.


Perhaps I should give my view of why this meeting on Theories of biological pattern formation is being held now. By the mid-1970s mathematical biology or modelling (or whatever it should be called) was a well established area of research, welcomed or not. This was particularly so in North America, continental Europe and Japan. I sympathize with the lack of grateful acceptance of this panacea for biology since much of the work had (and still has) little relevance to the real biological problems that it purported to study. At several ‘interdisciplinary’ meetings it was clear that communication between the various groups was non-existant and, after some of the answers to questions, perhaps it was not even wanted. A reply such as, ‘It’s probably a secondary Hopf bifurcation in the p.d.e. parameter space’ does not have biologists on the edge of their seats - unless to leave. Genuine interdisciplinary research and the use of models in general can often produce spectacular and exciting results: regeneration models and positional information theories are just two dramatic model examples. It seems that the increasing use of models in biology is inevitable. It is now less common to hear a bioscientist dismiss their use, although they may still privately do so. For those souls who are promoting the field in the face of vocal preprejudiced opposition and criticism there is the apt north African proverb: ‘The dogs may bark but the camel train goes on’


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duane T. Wegener ◽  
Leandre R. Fabrigar

AbstractReplications can make theoretical contributions, but are unlikely to do so if their findings are open to multiple interpretations (especially violations of psychometric invariance). Thus, just as studies demonstrating novel effects are often expected to empirically evaluate competing explanations, replications should be held to similar standards. Unfortunately, this is rarely done, thereby undermining the value of replication research.


Author(s):  
Keyvan Nazerian

A herpes-like virus has been isolated from duck embryo fibroblast (DEF) cultures inoculated with blood from Marek's disease (MD) infected birds. Cultures which contained this virus produced MD in susceptible chickens while virus negative cultures and control cultures failed to do so. This and other circumstantial evidence including similarities in properties of the virus and the MD agent implicate this virus in the etiology of MD.Histochemical studies demonstrated the presence of DNA-staining intranuclear inclusion bodies in polykarocytes in infected cultures. Distinct nucleo-plasmic aggregates were also seen in sections of similar multinucleated cells examined with the electron microscope. These aggregates are probably the same as the inclusion bodies seen with the light microscope. Naked viral particles were observed in the nucleus of infected cells within or on the edges of the nucleoplasmic aggregates. These particles measured 95-100mμ, in diameter and rarely escaped into the cytoplasm or nuclear vesicles by budding through the nuclear membrane (Fig. 1). The enveloped particles (Fig. 2) formed in this manner measured 150-170mμ in diameter and always had a densely stained nucleoid. The virus in supernatant fluids consisted of naked capsids with 162 hollow, cylindrical capsomeres (Fig. 3). Enveloped particles were not seen in such preparations.


1999 ◽  
Vol 249 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-461
Author(s):  
El Hassan El Mouden ◽  
Mohammed Znari ◽  
Richard P. Brown

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.


Author(s):  
Alicia A. Stachowski ◽  
John T. Kulas

Abstract. The current paper explores whether self and observer reports of personality are properly viewed through a contrasting lens (as opposed to a more consonant framework). Specifically, we challenge the assumption that self-reports are more susceptible to certain forms of response bias than are informant reports. We do so by examining whether selves and observers are similarly or differently drawn to socially desirable and/or normative influences in personality assessment. Targets rated their own personalities and recommended another person to also do so along shared sets of items diversely contaminated with socially desirable content. The recommended informant then invited a third individual to additionally make ratings of the original target. Profile correlations, analysis of variances (ANOVAs), and simple patterns of agreement/disagreement consistently converged on a strong normative effect paralleling item desirability, with all three rater types exhibiting a tendency to reject socially undesirable descriptors while also endorsing desirable indicators. These tendencies were, in fact, more prominent for informants than they were for self-raters. In their entirety, our results provide a note of caution regarding the strategy of using non-self informants as a comforting comparative benchmark within psychological measurement applications.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document