From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Tue Sep 02 2003 - 10:21:32 MDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Hermit
Sent: 02 September 2003 13:30
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
[Hermit] The tone is easily explained. When people assert that others
believe, are arrogant and bigoted - which is how I read Fred's work
describing atheists - then they should expect to receive the same in
abundance.
[Jonathan] That is not what he said at all. He simply said that perhaps we
ought not to be too fierce in dismissing religion and what it offers
considering the calibre of some of the people one might describe as
religious. I think this is a reasonable caution.
[Hermit] Fred received it. Indeed, I returned and added to the scorn when I
reread portions of the essay which didn't previously sufficiently identify
the flaws he accused atheists of laboring under. All of your nitpicking does
not overcome this basic and fundamental flaw in his essay. Given the fact
that neither of us considers it worthwhile, I won't go into much detail or
cite references for the latter half of this discussion.
[Jonathan] For the record, I clearly think it is worthwhile reading, but not
arguing over at length.
As for your specific attempted responses, they fail. In very brief:
[Hermit] If "we" are not "irreligious" then the society is not irreligious.
Yet Fred's plaintive assertion is that society is irreligious, thus we are
irreligious, thus he asserts we are wanton. Wanton is not as you coyly
stated, "we don't seem to care", it is a term of moral condemnation and thus
an epithet.
[Jonathan] This is simply wrong. He wrote, "We live in a wantonly
irreligious age-at least at the level of public discourse." "Wantonly"
modifies "irreligious" which could mean, amongst other things: "We are
playfully irreligious" or "Unrestrainedly excessive in our irreligiousness"
or "We live in an undisciplined irreligious age". [
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wanton ].
SNIP
[Hermit] The fight is for the freedom from religion by an oppressed minority
demanding their constitutional protections from an increasingly
non-representative, overbearing religious government.
[Jonathan] Adopting the language of Marxism will not help. We are not
oppressed and the constitutional protections remain firm.
[Hermit] Not advocating "belief" in any form, but rather continuous
panrational criticism, neither the CoV nor its members are in any danger of
developing a faith based disease.
[Jonathan] So the CoV is belief less? I have beliefs, supported by reasons,
but beliefs none the less. We are a church, organised around certain shared
beliefs. We are as jeopardised by dogma and extremism as any church.
[Hermit] Fred selected a group of religious maniacs in an attempt to make a
point. If we select a random assortment of "great" men, I doubt that we will
find Christianity mattered to nearly 100% of them. And I have no hesitation
in saying that by definition Fred's supposed "Great men" were not "great
men" by my definition when they advocated insane and immoral gods and their
policies despite the fact that this is proven by history and their own words
to have caused misery for other men. So it takes no arrogance on my part to
disagree. Fred would have a great deal of difficulty reversing that
argument.
[Jonathan] He simply offered some examples. You ought to know better than to
attack an example. His point still holds - many brilliant, great men have
been religious. This is simply true.
[Hermit] All of the thinkers I mentioned appear from the little we know
about them, but principally from the beliefs of their era, most likely vague
Platonic theists rather than deists. For some reason, as Christianities
history demonstrates, deism and great thinking seldom seem to go hand in
hand.
[Jonathan] I cannot think of a single Renaissance master who was not
avowedly religious. Even St Darwin is alleged to have seen the light at the
very end :-)
[Hermit] I disagree on the "translation" of the tone of this document.
Perhaps it feels beter to somebody more accomodating of belief, and familiar
with Fred's style. I answered it as it reads to me. For example, I feel
myself arguably superior to any of Fred's putative great thinkers. Yet Fred
says, "A quite remarkable arrogance is needed feel oneself mentally superior
to Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis." So Fred asserts I have
remarkable arrogance. I think it takes remarkable arrogance on Fred's part
to make such an assertion. This is of course the answer to your question,
"Bye the way, are you are co-opting Fred's rhetoric to use against him
("arrogance")?". The answer is, I had thought quite patently, yes.
[Jonathan] Fair enough.
[Hermit] While I may be "wrong" (about an afterlife), as you assert, and
Fred claims I "believe", I am quite correct in holding the opinion I do, as
to hold any other opinion clearly means the rejection of strong evidence and
the presumption that "theoretically possible" means "probable". It is also
"theoretically possible" that there are fairies in the bottom of Fred's
garden - and indeed, it is more likely that there are fairies there than
there is an afterlife - as there is no evidence against the fairies. Yet I
don't see Fred (or you for that matter) arguing that we should kowtow to
these potential fairies, or even that we should accept the possibility of
their existence.
[Jonathan] Your see presumptions where there are none. Yes, there may be
fairies too.
[Hermit] When you said, "Where Earth and the rest of the universe came from,
we do not know." and argued that this meant, "Ultimately Fred is completely
right." you are grieviously wrong. Rather than not knowing where the Earth
and the Universe come from, there is better evidence for the Big Bang theory
(in the form of it having made astoundingly accurate predictions) than there
is for Darwinian Evolution. Yet you assert that you accept Darwinian
Evolution. See the FAQ: TimeLine
(http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=31;action=display;threadid=287
93) and in particular the supporting references at the bottom of the page.
[Jonathan] I do not deny Big Bang, it simply does not answer all the
questions (nor is it expected to).
[Hermit] In contrast to Jonathan's assertion, "we have no sound idea what
underlies existence itself. "But where did that come from" echoes off into
infinity.", we are fairly certain that we now understand exactly where our
Baryonic Universe originated, and the forces that rule it. Certainly we know
enough to be able to state that the question, "But where did that come from"
is an illusion caused by our nature, not an attribute of the Universe.
Questions about "what came bfore the big bang" are invalid as there was no
"before". See my earlier discussions with Flag on this topic under Why God
cannot exist by Joe Dees & Hermit
(http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;threadid=284
97;start=0)
[Hermit] This is the same argument used by Theists! It is not that God does
not exist, but our nature is too limited to comprehend him/it/her. I am not
satisfied with the evasion "Your too limited to understand the concept of
pre-Big Bang", either the answer exists within our conceptual abilities or
it is..dare I say it...in the realm of the religious and otherworldly (or
othermindly).
[Hermit] When you say, "Fred is manifestly not ignorant, neither is he
disabled." right under Fred's, " For all our transistors we know no more
about these matters than did Heraclitus, and think about them less." then
you are missing the point. Fred is speaking for "us" - all mankind. And he
is quite patently wrong, stupid or both.
[Jonathan] I disagree.
[Hermit] Any assertion about "science" and "scientists" (i.e. holding true
for all science and scientists) can be refuted by any scientist. I did this.
The same of course goes for atheists. I did this too. Both are valid.
[Jonathan] He did not make a universal assertion. I am a scientist too and I
confirm Fred's thesis.
[Hermit] Science is a method, not an ideology. Anyone not applying the
method is, by definition, not a scientist.
[Jonathan] There are those who are nominally scientists who do not apply the
method or apply is incorrectly.
[Hermit] Anybody who cites appeals to authority cannot refute the citation
of justified authorities in return.
[Jonathan] Unless they never appealed to authority in the first place.
[Hermit] Those who rely on appeals to popularity cannot avoid being
lampooned for it.
[Jonathan] Indeed those that do, Fred Reed not being such, may suffer such
lampooning.
[Hermit] There is a qualitative difference between believing that something
is so in the face of the evidence and refusing to accept something without
necessity.
[Jonathan] Indeed. So?
[Hermit] Grep for question marks in Fred's original essay.
[Jonathan] He asks no direct questions.
[Hermit] When one makes an entire series of negative sounding statements
(however vague), as Fred did, about atheists and scientists, and leaves them
hanging in mid air without using them in the closing, then there is no
conclusion. Your asserting that there was one does not repair this error.
[Jonathan] He did not make negative statements about scientists, he simply
pointed out scientists are limited. This is not an insult, but a fact. He
warns against smugness and overconfidence. He argues for humility and
respect. I agree with these sentiments.
I found it ironic that today at lunch I was reading a passage form "Battling
the Inner Dummy" by David L Weiner, in which he recount how a born again
Hindu, Risik, does not reject neurobiology, but rather contends that a "soul
force" operates through and within the brain and that this soul force enters
at birth and leaves at death. When challenged about this "soul force" Risik
simply ends the discussion by claiming that our brains are ill equipped to
understand these thing which are beyond it - it simply is he contends, and
we cannot understand it with the equipment we have but that does not change
reality. After reading you state that "we know enough to be able to state
that the question, "But where did that come from" is an illusion caused by
our nature, not an attribute of the Universe", I think you ought to consider
a name change to Hermit Risik :-)
Kind regards
Jonathan
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 10:21:41 MDT