From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 27 2002 - 12:54:45 MST
[nng] I'm sorry, I must take exception to this.
[Hermit] Don't apologize for disagreeing. If your opinions are worth
anything, you can support them. If you cannot support them, you really
should not be expressing them - which are the only grounds where an apology
would be necessary - but it would also be the height of bad manners to
interject them.
[Richard Ridge] On this subject, listen to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin//radio4/today/listen/audiosearch.pl?ProgID=1014743570
(Steve Jones mincemeats some creationist)
[quote]
"a small but vocal minority of religious fundamentalists misread the theory
of evolution as a challenge to their deeply held religious convictions."
[/quote]
[Richard Ridge] Misread? Where's the misreading? Evolution undermines any
notion of the inerrancy of the Bible; god has not created man. Of course,
evolution is a red herring in that respect since the Bible can be proved to
be inaccurate on any number of counts.
[nng] Religious fundamentalists do, in general, believe in the literal
interpretation of "the word of God" (the Bible). This does mean that
evolution contradicts the 7 days of creation. So, some people say "it's not
a literal day" and go on about how those are just "figurative stages" in the
creation of the world as we know it. There are quite a number of people who
put things in such a way.
[Hermit] This assertion means that the person translating it is free to
decide what is figurative and what is not. At that point, it becomes utterly
meaningless, as whatever does not suit the reader is "figurative" and
whatever does not, is not. As the babble starts off as a very nasty
meaningless bunch of drivel this doesn't improve the situation very much.
Even so, some serious issues then remain which are difficult to imagine
being justifiable even in a figurative fashion. Did "Lot" offer his
daughters to the crowd if they would give him some peace? Is that literal?
Or is it a figurative suggestion as how to behave? Did "Lot" later fuck his
daughters? Is that literal? Or a figurative suggestion? Is having an
acknowledged child with them not proof positive of the activity? Or was the
alleged offspring also figurative? Did "Jesus" say that "Lot" was a
"righteous man"? Is that literal? In that case, is it righteous to commit
incest? If not, is it figuratively sanctioned? Either way, would I be
righteous if I fucked my daughters? If not, why not? For those talking about
the "values" of the bible, this surely must be true. The fact that incest is
more prevalent in highly fundamentalist communities indicates that they
regard it as such. How about the sacrifice of Jepthath's daughter? Literal?
If so it fits in with the custom of child sacrifice demanded by the
(chronologically earlier) but "supposed replacement" for the initial Mosaic
Commandments by the Commandments of the Vow. Should we take that literally?
Or figuratively - in which case, what is the point of it being a "custom" in
Israel - and how desirable is this? Is God literally a liar? Or
figuratively. Is Jesus literally Lucifer? Or not? You choose. I don't care.
One trouble that the believers have is that the gods appear to have a very
limited imagination, as they copied so many stories of other cultures -
including the "Jesus" story - in minute details. Another problem is that
whenever the babble refers to anything which can be checked, it can be shown
to be erroneous and mythical. Indicating that the authors knew a great deal
less than even the shamen of other religions about at least geology,
biology, meteorology, cosmology, physiology, medicine, psychology, boat
building, zoology, engineering, navigation and mathematics. Perhaps all of
the above may be explained away. There is one thing which cannot be. Do you
consider the value of PI to be a figurative value? Or literal? I see no way
to force it to be equal to 3 or to "justify" the fact that the bible says
that it is so.
[nng] For every "inaccuracy" that has been "proved" to be in the Bible, I've
heard well-reasoned explanations around it. This issue is too complicated
for me to want to argue about - but know that if you want people to argue
about that with, I can hook you up.
[Hermit] This is not the place and I doubt many here have the desire.
Arguing the validity of other religions can be left to those who choose to
do so - in their own forums. As for me, I have heard this claim many times,
but in the course of participating in hundreds of debates, certainly
sufficiently to generate a valid statistical universe, with a certainty
approaching unity, the only way to "explain" around this is for the
believers to pick and choose amongst alternates, without rhyme or reason
other than their own preferences. I have not yet met a believer who could
manage to rationalize away the pages of error and contradiction without
doing so. Which indicates to me that the claim is testimony to the
weak-mindedness of those making such assertions.
[nng] My point is that the statement "Evolution undermines any notion of the
inerrancy of the Bible; god has not created man" is flawed - to many, God
used evolution to create man.
[Hermit] This is a very silly assertion. If true, please demonstrate the
mechanism. We have a long chain of DNA demonstrating how evolution occurred
and occurs. If the claim is true, why is "god" still at it? If it is not
"god" doing it now, how do we know that it was "god" doing it before? Has
man improved over time? Does this not indicate that the original concept was
flawed - and if so, the principle that "god" is perfect is evidentially
equally flawed - which undermines the entire theological basis for their
belief that god is to be trusted.
[Richard Ridge] "are Christians who believe that if God did not personally
intervene in the development of life on earth then they have no basis for
belief, morality, and the meaning of life."
[Richard Ridge] They are certainly correct that without it they have no
basis for some belief - since it undermines the basis of their beleifs.
[nng] If indeed there is a God (and I'm not trying to argue for that in this
forum) and God is as omniscient as they say, then God could set up the
initial conditions of the universe and "let it run" according to the natural
laws (of physics or whatever) and voila we have our current day existence.
[Hermit] And vast amounts of harm would have been done in the process, and
their gods would have known that this was the case - completely undermining
the assertion that God is merciful, just or good. You cannot have it both
ways.
[nng] God need "not personally intervene in the development of life on
earth" for a basis for belief - save for setting up initial conditions.
[Hermit] Why should the product of such a painful process have any gratitude
to such a hypothetical monster?
[Richard Ridge] Without that one is left with the moribund condition of
faith without mandated doctrine.
[Hermit] nods
[nng] I also take exception to the use of the word "moribund" there. Faith
has a valid role for several reasons.
[Hermit] Like what?
[nng] I'm reading "Darwinian Natural Right" by Larry Arnhart right now - in
which he argues why the "natural right" or "natural law" notion of Aristotle
is compatible - indeed, linked with - Darwin's view of evolution. He cites a
number of sources arguing for 20 universal traits of human behavior. One of
these is a natural desire to understand things through "supernatural
revelation".
[Hermit] I'm sorry, but this is farcical. By this, mechanism, anything can
be validated and takes us right back to the horrors of slaughters mandated
by the "gods".
[nng] Even if we set this natural desire aside, we can see how it can be a
logical consequence of human's natural desire for "justice as reciprocity" -
let me explain: we desire justice - we have an instinct for "an eye for an
eye" - yet we know and can observe that this doesn't happen. Primates are
one of the few creates that have an understanding of "how the world should
be" and attempt to make it so (female primates have an understanding of how
their children should be treated, and attempt to enforce this on the other
primates). I would argue that we see "justice" as something that is part of
"how the world should be" and that when we see "justice" not occur, we cope
with it by believing that it will occur in an afterlife or another lifetime.
[Hermit] For which there is no evidence. And if we wish to model ourselves
and our behavior on apes, this also justifies killing the weak, ostracizing
the ill, cannibalism, cheating and rape. Wonderful "natural law" and
"natural justice" on which to model society. Excuse me if I disagree. You
cannot pick and choose amongst the bits you like and discard the bits you
don't and claim that this is justification for "natural law". Either it is a
model - or it is not. I suggest that it is not.
[nng] I'm not saying that it does or does not happen. I am saying that it is
perfectly natural to believe that it will. This belief can help to bring our
natural desires into a mode of satisfaction, rather than of unsatisfaction -
enabling us to be more productive at pursuing other things, rather than
trying (potentially with great harm to ourselves) to satisfy them (and enact
"justice" at cost of life/limb).
[Hermit] History shows that rational people minimize harm and tolerate the
differences between themselves and others. Believers do not. The more
rational the less harm is done to others. All the improvements in the lot of
man to date has occurred through rational behavior and development. Every
time that belief dominates, we lose those developments we have succeeded in
achieving by reason. There are good reasons why the last time that a church
ran most of the Western world that the period was known as the "dark ages."
[nng] As you may have no doubt observed, I have concluded that what is best
for human nature to believe is not necessarily what is true. Please persuade
me otherwise, as I don't like such contradictions.
[Hermit] Belief leads to UTism (Us-Them-ism). UTism is the leading cause for
men to harm one another, and in a world as populous as ours, with weapons as
effective as we have, can no longer be afforded. Thus belief cannot be
afforded. Q.E.D. Belief in "what ain't necessarily so" prevents the ability
to examine "what is so", and stops the scientific process dead in its
tracks. Which also stops us from making progress. Which harms all men.
Q.E.D. Not once but twice.
[nng] If you cannot conceive of faith without mandated doctrine, I'd
tentatively suggest (tentatively because I have not yet read it
myself)[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471392162/102-8403530-2359342[/url]Essential
Spirituality : The 7 Central Practices to Awaken Heart and Mind by Roger,
Md. Walsh (The reviews suggest that this does indeed explain faith without
mandated doctrine.) (If desired, I'll post a review of it here after I've
read it.)
[Hermit] I cannot conceive of faith serving any useful purpose other than to
perpetuate UTism. I have yet to meet a believer who could rationally justify
any other reason. Please do not take this as an invitation to attempt to do
so. This is not the forum.
[nng] I'd also suggest that faith is a necessity, as various incompleteness
theorems indicate that logic (rationality) alone is insufficient for
determining all truth. You may argue that we need not determine all truth -
only relevant truth - and I would say that you won't know it's relevance
until you've determined it.
[Hermit] If you know that, you should also know that all knowledge is
provisional, and that it is only by overturning previous "truths" that we
progress. Faith, accepting what another tells you is true, and belief,
accepting something as true on insufficient evidence or in spite of
contradictory evidence, attempts to create stability and continuity, and in
so doing prevents progress. Ask Moore, Descartes, Bruno, Galileo or Darwin.
Thus your own argument mitigates against both faith and belief. Q.E.D.
again, and what I tell you three times, is true.
[Walter Watts] Welcome to my non-spiritual well and virtual office
water-cooler.
[Walter Watts] Leave all beliephs outside and kindly bring all valuable
non-common, self-discovered truths into our sanctuary and share them freely
with us.
[Walter Watts] It's all we(I) ask.
[nng] I hope my comments are not too much at odds with the above - but I
hope too that with the acclaimed "virtue of rationality" you will be able to
avoid any (and I know they'd be natural - I've been around such people
before) knee-jerk reactions of "he's a theist - discredit him". I do very
much welcome rational feedback.
[Hermit] And you shall receive it in abundance.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT