Author
|
Topic: virus: Fred Reed on Religion... (Read 3873 times) |
|
JD
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
 |
virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
« on: 2003-09-01 08:13:17 » |
 |
Believing, Disbelieving, And Suspecting - Disordered Thoughts On
Religion (August 25, 2003 )
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Faith.shtml
We live in a wantonly irreligious age-at least at the level of public
discourse. In America the courts, the schools, and the government seek
to cleanse the country of religion. More accurately, they seek to
cleanse it of Christianity. We are told, never directly but by
relentless implication, that religious faith is something one in decency
ought to do behind closed doors-an embarrassment, worse than public
bowling though not quite as bad as having a venereal disease.
Which is odd.
I do not offer myself as one intimate with the gods, and on grounds of
reason would be hard pressed to choose between the views of Hindus and
those of Buddhists. I note however that over millennia people of
extraordinary intellect and thoughtfulness have taken religion
seriously. A quite remarkable arrogance is needed feel oneself mentally
superior to Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis. I'm not up
to it.
Of course arrogance comes in forms both personal and temporal. People
tend to regard their own time as wiser and more knowing than all
preceding times, and the people of earlier ages as quaint and vaguely
primitive. Thus many who do not know how a television works will feel
superior to Newton, because he didn't know how a television works. (Here
is a fascinating concept: Arrogance by proximity to a television.)
It will be said that we have learned much since the time of Newton, and
that this knowledge renders us wiser on matters spiritual. We do have
better plastics. Yet still we die, and have no idea what it means. We do
not know where we came from, and no amount of pious mummery about Big
Bangs and black holes changes that at all. We do not know why we are
here. We have intimations of what we should do, but no assurance. These
are the questions that religion addresses and that science pretends do
not exist. For all our transistors we know no more about these matters
than did Heraclitus, and think about them less.
Many today assuredly do know of the questions, and do think about them.
One merely doesn't bring them up at a cocktail party, as they are held
to be disreputable.
Yet I often meet a, to me, curious sort of fellow who simply cannot
comprehend what religion might be about. He is puzzled as distinct from
contemptuous or haughty. He genuinely sees no different between
religious faith and believing that the earth is flat. He is like a
congenitally deaf man watching a symphony orchestra: With all the good
will in the world he doesn't see the profit in all that sawing with bows
and blowing into things.
This fellow is very different from the common atheist, who is bitter,
proud of his advanced thinking, and inclined toward a (somewhat
adolescent) hostility to a world that isn't up to his standard. This is
tiresome and predictable, but doesn't offend me. Less forgivably, he
often wants to run on about logical positivism. (I'm reminded of
Orwell's comment about "the sort of atheist who doesn't so much
disbelieve in God as personally dislike him." Quote approximate.)
Critics of religion say, correctly, that horrible crimes are committed
in the name of religion. So are they in the name of communism,
anti-communism, Manifest Destiny, Zionism, nationalism, and national
security. Horrible crimes are what people do. They are not the heart of
the thing.
The following seems to me to be true regarding religion and the
sciences: Either one believes that there is an afterlife, or one
believes that there is not an afterlife, or one isn't sure-which means
that one believes that there may be an afterlife. If there is an
afterlife, then there is an aspect of existence about which we know
nothing and which may, or may not, influence this world. In this case
the sciences, while interesting and useful, are merely a partial
explanation of things. Thus to believe in the absolute explanatory power
of the sciences one must be an atheist-to exclude competition. Note that
atheists as much as the faithful believe what they cannot establish.
Here is the chief defect of scientists (I mean those who take the
sciences as an ideology rather than as a discipline): an unwillingness
to admit that there is anything outside their realm. But there is. You
cannot squeeze consciousness, beauty, affection, or Good and Evil from
physics any more than you can derive momentum from the postulates of
geometry: No mass, no momentum. A moral scientist is thus a
contradiction in terms. (Logically speaking: in practice they
compartmentalize and are perfectly good people.)
Thus we have the spectacle of the scientist who is horrified by the
latest hatchet murder but can give no scientific reason why. A murder
after all is merely the dislocation of certain physical masses (the
victim's head, for example) followed by elaborate chemical reactions.
Horror cannot be derived from physics. It comes from somewhere else.
Similarly, those who believe in religions often do not really quite
believe. Interesting to me is the extent to which those who think
themselves Christians have subordinated God to physics. For example, I
have often read some timid theologian saying that manna was actually a
sticky secretion deriving from certain insects, and that the crossing of
the Red Sea was really done in a shallow place when the wind blew the
water out.
Perhaps so; I wasn't there. Yet these arguments amount to saying that
God is all-powerful, provided that he behaves consistently with physical
principles and the prevailing weather. The sciences take precedence.
Now, people who seek (and therefore find) an overarching explanation of
everything always avoid looking at the logical warts and lacunae in
their systems. This is equally true of Christians, liberals,
conservatives, Marxists, evolutionists, and believers in the universal
explanatory power of the sciences. Any ideology can probably be
described as a systematic way of misunderstanding the world.
That being said, at worst the religions of the earth are gropings toward
something people feel but cannot put a finger on, toward something more
at the heart of life than the hoped-for raise, trendy restaurants, and
the next and grander automobile. And few things are as stultifying and
superficial as the man not so much agnostic (this I can understand) as
simply inattentive, whose life is focused on getting into a better
country club. Good questions are better than bad answers. And the
sciences, though not intended to be, have become the opiate of the
masses.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Faith.shtml
---------------
Regards
Limbic
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
« Reply #1 on: 2003-09-01 11:45:25 » |
|
[Hermit] Summary, a quasi apologist screed. Dissection follows.
[Fred] We live in a wantonly irreligious age-at least at the level of public discourse.
[Hermit] To be irreligious is not to be "wanton", it is to be rational. To introduce religion into public discourse would be wanton, as any such introduction offends anyone who disagrees with the speaker. Given that this is an irreligious age, and growing more so (hooray), each time somebody attemps to do so, they offend more people (boo). Unfortunately, the religious tend to have rather thick skins about preaching, until somebody preaches something they find offensive back to them.
[Fred] In America the courts, the schools, and the government seek to cleanse the country of religion.
[Hermit] The American Founders said, for excellent reason, having more to do with stopping religious wars than supporting atheism, that government could have nothing to do with religion - and vice versa. As government has intruded into more and more areas, so these areas have had to divest themselves of religion, to remain constitutionally supportable.
[Fred] More accurately, they seek to cleanse it of Christianity.
[Hermit] I'm not sure where Fred obtained his data, but if it is accurate, perhaps it has something to do with the particularly virulent proselytizing engaged in by the tens-of thousands of religions in America which identify themselves with Christianity, but not with each other.
[Fred] We are told, never directly but by relentless implication, that religious faith is something one in decency ought to do behind closed doors-an embarrassment, worse than public bowling though not quite as bad as having a venereal disease.
[Hermit] Far worse than an STD, as it tends to infect all aspects of the lives of those infected with it.
[Fred] Which is odd.
[Hermit] Why?
[Fred] I do not offer myself as one intimate with the gods, and on grounds of reason would be hard pressed to choose between the views of Hindus and those of Buddhists. I note however that over millennia people of extraordinary intellect and thoughtfulness have taken religion seriously. A quite remarkable arrogance is needed feel oneself mentally superior to Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis. I'm not up to it.
[Hermit] And there is nothing to say that over the millennia, hundreds of millions of fools have not been wrong. Given that we do not believe as the ancients did, and class their religions as myth, the question Fred should be asking himself as why we see our myths as being different? Is it not "remarkably arrogant" to assume that "Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis" were wiser in matters of religion than Salon, Plato, Socrates, Hippocrates, Democrites, Diogenes, Epicurus, Zenon, Archimedes and many hundreds of others recognised for founding schools of science and philosophy? Or as Mark Twain, a far better author - and perhaps wiser man, than CS Lewis put it, "The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive ... but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years [Hermit: I would say 800 as the Christian religion was only established in the Fouth Century) before Christian religion was born."
[Hermit] And again, how about current scientists and philosophers? Some 90% of the senior scientists in the world today are undoubtedly "up to it", as almost all people with a scientific education reject the idea of Deism. If Fred actually had to defend the words of those he cites as wise, I suspect that he might recognise the weakness of his arguments. Surely it doesn't take genius to reject religion, only common sense. Could he defend Augustine:
- Slavery is not penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance.
- The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of hell.
- Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should, in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men.
- It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word.
Or Aquinas:
- Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches.
- If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy.
- As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.
- That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell.
Does he imagine that Newton, a mostly sane, though nasty, person, argued as an orthodox Christian or imagined that he knew all there was to know about the world through Genesis?:
- If the ancient churches, in debating and deciding the greatest mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts[Hermit: "Old" & "New testaments"], I understand not why we should be so fond of them now the debate is over.
- I know not how I seem to others, but to myself I am but a small child wandering upon the vast shores of knowledge, every now and then finding a small bright pebble to content myself with while the vast ocean of undiscovered truth lay before me.
CS Lewis too, wrote a few good books - and a whole lot of nonsense. In which category does Fred place the following?
- Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C. S. Lewis, in "God in the Dock"
But seeing as Fred appears to respect authority, for an opposite view, consider Einstein:
- I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
- I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
- A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
- It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Or perhaps Sigmund Freud:
- Neither in my private life nor in my writings, have I ever made a secret of being an out-and-out unbeliever.
- Our knowledge of the historical worth of certain religious doctrines increases our respect for them, but does not invalidate our proposal that they should cease to be put forward as the reasons for the precepts of civilization. On the contrary! Those historical residues have helped us to view religious teachings, as it were, as neurotic relics, and we may now argue that the time has probably come, as it does in an analytic treatment, for replacing the effects of repression by the results of the rational operation of the intellect.
- Religion is an illusion ... it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires. [Religion is] "the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity," arising, "like the obsessional neuroses of children ... out of the Oedipus complex," Our knowledge of the historical worth of certain religious doctrines increases our respect for them, but does not invalidate our proposal that they should cease to be put forward as the reasons for the precepts of civilization. On the contrary! Those historical residues have helped us to view religious teachings, as it were, as neurotic relics, and we may now argue that the time has probably come, as it does in an analytic treatment, for replacing the effects of repression by the results of the rational operation of the intellect.
(All quotations bar Augustine on Mathematicians [which is from "De genesi ad litteram, Book II"] are courtesy of Positive Atheism)
[Fred] Of course arrogance comes in forms both personal and temporal. People tend to regard their own time as wiser and more knowing than all preceding times, and the people of earlier ages as quaint and vaguely primitive. Thus many who do not know how a television works will feel superior to Newton, because he didn't know how a television works. (Here is a fascinating concept: Arrogance by proximity to a television.)
[Hermit] Science tells us that it is through disproving of old fallacious ideas that we progress. And we have disproved an awful lot of fallacious ideas in the last few hundred years. So yes. We are wiser and more knowing. Is Fred really arguing that ages when sick people went to see priests and then died, who believed women inferior, and considered slavery natural were somehow wiser and more knowing than secular societies today?
[Fred] It will be said that we have learned much since the time of Newton, and that this knowledge renders us wiser on matters spiritual. We do have better plastics. Yet still we die, and have no idea what it means.
[Hermit] Fred is, as usual it seems, wrong. Death simply means that the illusion that we are intelligent self-conscious creatures, produced by our neurons, is over.
[Fred] We do not know where we came from, and no amount of pious mummery about Big Bangs and black holes changes that at all.
[Hermit] More proximally, my mother and father fucked. This lead to a long sequence of events, which culminated in my presence. Using genetic analysis, we are able to trace back the fact that our parents, and their parents, and their grandparents and so on, did the same for hundreds of thousands of generations. And before that, with other simpler creatures - from the chimpanzee, with whom we share 99% of our DNA, to the cabbage, with whom we share 28% of our DNA the path is clear. And yes, we can go back to the Big Bang, one small step at a time. The fact that Fred seems to have missed out on some essential education, perhaps because he didn't pay attention in class, or possibly because his schooling was deficient, is no reason for him to assert that others don't know things.
[Fred] We do not know why we are here.
[Hermit] As above. Unless Fred imagines that he was left under a gooseberry bush by the fairies, I'd suggest that he is here because his parents fucked one another.
[Fred] We have intimations of what we should do, but no assurance.
[Hermit] I wonder if Fred knew what he meant here? Unless he is talking about "morality" - in which case we know exactly where it originates:
[1] In the first stage, starting at about age ten, people avoid breaking moral rules to avoid punishment.
[2] In the second stage, people follow moral rules only when it is to their advantage.
[3] In the third stage, starting about age 17, people try to live up to what is expected of them in small social groups, such as families.
[4] In the fourth stage, people fulfill the expectations of larger social groups, such as obeying laws that keep society together.
[5] In the fifth and sixth stages, starting at about age 24, people are guided by both absolute and relative moral principles; they follow these for altruistic reasons, though, and not because of what they might gain individually (the final two stages are differentiated in that the fifth is based on adherence to democractic processes and rule of law, the sixth allows for the possibility of civil disobedience in the interests of changing laws).
(From http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/KohlbergLawrence). If Fred meant, but omitted to say, that we know what we "ought" to do because of the gods, then he misses the point that we had to know what we "ought to do" in order to judge whether the gods were worth following. (Refer Virian Ethics: The End of God Referenced Ethics).
[Fred] These are the questions that religion addresses and that science pretends do not exist.
[Hermit] We know that conventional, irrational religion has made assertions about origins. All of which have been proven wrong by science. We know that conventional, irrational Religion has made assertions about morality. All of which have been proven wrong by reason and research. We know which areas of the brain are active when people have "religious experiences", and we know how to invoke these artifacts of brain mechanics and how to prevent them and so, in some instances can already cure religious neurosis and hallucination. What is it that Fred imagines that religion addresses - and science says does not exist? We need more details.
[Fred] For all our transistors we know no more about these matters than did Heraclitus, and think about them less.
[Hermit] While Fred seems to be lamentably ignorant, why does he imagine that the rest of the world suffers from his disablities? Surely he can speak authoritatively only for himself? And is Fred unaware of the fact that Heraclitus would call him an infidel and an atheist? Would Fred agree with this assessment? If not, where does Fred get the arrogance to make assertions about his beliefs being superior to those of Heraclitus?
[Fred] Many today assuredly do know of the questions, and do think about them. One merely doesn't bring them up at a cocktail party, as they are held to be disreputable.
[Hermit] Perhaps the people who frequent cocktail parties are not the right teachers? After all, "Like other parties of the kind, it was first silent, then talky, then argumentative, then disputatious, then unintelligible, then altogether, then inarticulate, and then drunk. When we had reached the last step of this glorious ladder, it was difficult to get down again without stumbling." Lord Byron
[Fred] Yet I often meet a, to me, curious sort of fellow who simply cannot comprehend what religion might be about. He is puzzled as distinct from contemptuous or haughty.
[Hermit] A rare creature, I'm sure. As Twain put it, "Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand." I think it can safely be said that this goes for most atheists.
[Fred] He genuinely sees no different between religious faith and believing that the earth is flat. He is like a congenitally deaf man watching a symphony orchestra: With all the good will in the world he doesn't see the profit in all that sawing with bows and blowing into things.
[Hermit] Perhaps Fred borrowed his diatribe from somebody else? Or perhaps, having missed out on a modern education, Fred is not very different from the average person of Twain's day. Certainly, I cannot think of a better response than another Twain quotation. "One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They have also believed the world was flat."
[Fred] This fellow is very different from the common atheist, who is bitter,proud of his advanced thinking, and inclined toward a (somewhat adolescent) hostility to a world that isn't up to his standard. This is tiresome and predictable, but doesn't offend me.
[Hermit] I wonder where Fred gets his idea of atheists as "bitter" people? No source is cited. Perhaps he met one at a cocktail party and started preaching to her. And she, very sensibly, turned him down. No, surely most atheists are sufficiently sensible not to bother with cocktail parties. Certainly all the humorists I have met, with whom I have discussed religion, have been atheists. Perhaps Fred suspects that humorists are "bitter" people too.
[Fred] Less forgivably, he often wants to run on about logical positivism. (I'm reminded of Orwell's comment about "the sort of atheist who doesn't so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike him." Quote approximate.)
[Hermit] And given the character of the Judeo-Christian's gods and their followers, with whom many atheists in America have had more than sufficient experience, perhaps the dislike is readily understood by one less bigoted than Fred. After all, who having a modern ethical understanding, could appreciate the call for sacrifice of the newborn or the idea that slaughtering one's own child is required to forgive the percived flaws in orthers? Personal dislike of the ethics of insanity is sensible, not grounds for criticism.
[Fred] Critics of religion say, correctly, that horrible crimes are committed in the name of religion. So are they in the name of communism, anti-communism, Manifest Destiny, Zionism, nationalism, and national security. Horrible crimes are what people do. They are not the heart of the thing.
[Hermit] Agreed. Then again, science (nor even "logical positivism") does not claim to make people "better than they ought to be". Religion does, and manifestly fails.
[Fred] The following seems to me to be true regarding religion and the sciences: Either one believes that there is an afterlife, or one believes that there is not an afterlife, or one isn't sure-which means that one believes that there may be an afterlife.
[Hermit] Fred seems to have fallen into a logical mire, without canoe, never mind oars, and with the wrong end of the rope wrapped around his neck. The underlying question is not ao much about belief, but whether there is any truth in the idea that there is an afterlife. And to determine whether there is any truth in any idea, one requires a means of judging its validity. Having seen a fair number of deaths, I can assure Fred that after brain activity ceases, there is no life. So on the one hand we have some evidence that dead-is-dead. I can accept that. On the other hand, we have Fred. Fred appears to think that he should disregard this evidence and "believe" that there is an "afterlife" or perhaps that we should disregard the evidence on the one hand, and the lack of any evidence on the other, and say we can't determine the matter. That may be fine and well for Fred. But he really should not try to argue that he is being rational - or that the person who prefers evidence over belief - is somehow a "believer", simply because Fred has the arrogance to assert that this is the case.
[Fred] If there is an afterlife, then there is an aspect of existence about which we know nothing and which may, or may not, influence this world. In this case the sciences, while interesting and useful, are merely a partial explanation of things. Thus to believe in the absolute explanatory power of the sciences one must be an atheist-to exclude competition. Note that atheists as much as the faithful believe what they cannot establish.
[Hermit] This is a poor restatement of Pascal's Wager, and begs the question by ignoring the evidence that there is no afterlife (and as we have seen, this takes belief in the face of the evidence against it in order to make this assumption) and can be simply disproved by showing that if there is a "rational afterlife" which influences this world in such a way as to make this world purely rational, then the atheists are right, and the faithful wrong and Fred's if-then fails. And if there is no afterlife, then of course religion, uninteresting and totally unuseful, providing no explanation for anything, is wrong. And all the evidence points to the latter. I would suggest that it is only Fred's lack of logical competence, bigotted perspective and assertive arrogance which can lead him to make such statements about atheists as he does here.
[Fred] Here is the chief defect of scientists (I mean those who take the sciences as an ideology rather than as a discipline): an unwillingness to admit that there is anything outside their realm. But there is. You cannot squeeze consciousness, beauty, affection, or Good and Evil from physics any more than you can derive momentum from the postulates of geometry: No mass, no momentum. A moral scientist is thus a contradiction in terms. (Logically speaking: in practice they compartmentalize and are perfectly good people.)
[Hermit] Having asserted that scientists are "perfectly good people", I wonder what it is about Fred's strawman that is the "chief defect of scientists." Certainly, speaking as a scientist, I've never suggested that a "moral scientist" would be a sensible animal. A scientist, any scientist, merely applies the only process, the scientific method, known to result in progress. To speak of a kind of scientist as if they were different from any other is a contradiction in terms. Rather like saying that "Christian Science" or "Creation Science" actually are some kind of science simply because they name themselves as such. Speaking from a rational perspective, the problem with the faithful is that are not generally competent to compartamentalize - and thus are not perfectly good people. Certainly, when your neighbor tells you that you are going to burn in hell forever because you actually use your senses to gather evidence and your brain to reject the irrational, there is a tendency to think that as the hell is your neighbor's invention, that you want no part of it.
[Fred] Thus we have the spectacle of the scientist who is horrified by the latest hatchet murder but can give no scientific reason why. A murder after all is merely the dislocation of certain physical masses (the victim's head, for example) followed by elaborate chemical reactions. Horror cannot be derived from physics. It comes from somewhere else.
[Hermit] Really? Who appointed Fred to speak for "scientists"? Or did he take a survey? I think he should provide the evidence for this assertion. I'd suggest that science is not limited to "physics"; that I don't think that just because Fred seems to imagine that this is the case, is any reason to do so; and that I'd suggest that evolutionary psychology readily provides all of the explanation needed to explain "horror" at a rather gruesome murder. Far more to the point, the question in my mind is whether Fred is suggesting that there is any explanation for this phenomena outside of evolutionary psychology. After all, he makes an assertion, presumably intending for it to support whatever it is he is attempting to say, but his failure to address "compared to what" simply leaves this paragraph dangling without visible means of support.
[Fred] Similarly, those who believe in religions often do not really quite believe. Interesting to me is the extent to which those who think themselves Christians have subordinated God to physics. For example, I have often read some timid theologian saying that manna was actually a sticky secretion deriving from certain insects, and that the crossing of the Red Sea was really done in a shallow place when the wind blew the water out.
[Hermit] And there are archeologists who take the consensus position that Moses was purely a mythical invention and that the bronze age Jews and their rather unpleasant hill gods were not particularly significant on a regional basis until far later - and thus there is no more need to attempt to "explain away" these writings than there is to explain the legends about Perseus.
[Hermit] Against this, there are bible sometime-literalists* who assert that rabbits chew the cud, bats are birds and grasshoppers walk around on four legs. I recommend The Skeptic's Annotated Bible and "Faith and truth in science " to Fred's attention.
[Fred] That being said, at worst the religions of the earth are gropings toward something people feel but cannot put a finger on, toward something more at the heart of life than the hoped-for raise, trendy restaurants, and the next and grander automobile. And few things are as stultifying and superficial as the man not so much agnostic (this I can understand) as simply inattentive, whose life is focused on getting into a better country club. Good questions are better than bad answers. And the sciences, though not intended to be, have become the opiate of the masses.
[Hermit] Was Fred under the impression that this was a conclusion? While I can understand that he is suffering some confusion of "hoped-for raise, trendy restaurants, and the next and grander automobile" with "the sciences", I can't understand how he gets from there to "bad answers." Indeed, rather like religion, Fred doesn't appear to provide any answers at all - and thinking on it, while he made a lot of stumbling assertions, I'm not sure he asked any questions either. Perhaps Fred is on another kind of opiate altogether?
[Hermit] But why, oh why, did Jonathan Davis see fit to post this lacunic frothing here?
Hermit
*Sometime, because despite Job being "the only just man" and thus, his actions presumably considered ethical by the judeo-Christian gods, most bible literalists don't offer their virgin daughters to those who bang on their doors, and we assume, don't engage in incest with them either - although the latter assumption may be unwise. Like divorce, the demographic prevalence of incest appears to correlate remarkably well with biblical fundmentalism.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
« Reply #2 on: 2003-09-01 13:39:14 » |
|
An amusing essay - it rather confirms my observation that, these days, a
Xtian would almost rather set fire to his own bible than offer a
definition of the god of which he is so fond of asserting the existence.
This for the simple reason that either such a definition is instantly
falsifiable or is so trite as to not be worth offering at all. They have
been painted into a tiny corner which seems to consist of the assertion
that there is in existence something unknowable called god. Their
explanations of how it is that they know something unknowable are
likewise feeble and they have to resort to other tactics like trying to
shift the burden of proof onto the unbeliever.
Of course everybody here probably broadly agrees with me about this
already and it would hardly be worth mentioning on its own, but
something that did strike me as being worth comment is that Fred Reeds
dismissal of logical positivism is more cavalier than even the
conversational tone of his essay can properly justify.
This led me to remember one of my favorite quotes "We think in
generalities, we live in details" - Alfred North Whitehead; (one of the
seminal figures of logical positivism). These musings led in turn to
The parable of Eeyore, the honey-pot and the balloon.
I recall the story from Winnie the Pooh in which Eeyore received, after
a series of misadventures and good-intentions gone awry, two birthday
presents; an empty honey-pot and a deflated balloon. Instead of being
disappointed with these gifts, Eeyore was delighted. The balloon could
be placed inside the honey-pot and removed again. The process was
infinitely repeatable. And the fact that he had received these two items
on his birthday made it perfectly clear to Eeyore that this was the
proper relationship of the two items; that the one belonged inside the
other.
And so it is, the thought struck me, with the theist. Because it is
possible, in linguistic terms, to make the statement "there is a god"
the theist goes on to assume that the statement must therefore also
contain a meaning which goes beyond the merely linguistic. It is
possible to put the balloon into the honey-pot.
This metaphor led me to wonder whether there was in fact any very real
difference between "good language" and "good science"? It also seems to
me that whilst we are in the business of putting balloons inside
honey-pots, we should try to make sure that they match as closely as
possible in as many dimensions as possible before we assert that a
particular balloon 'belongs' in a particular honey-pot.
This, I humbly submit, is the difference between science and
superstition.
(Very likely my amateur philosophizing is a bit dodgy - I look forward
to some constructive criticism from the congregation !)
Fond Regards
Blunderov.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf
Of Jonathan Davis
Sent: 01 September 2003 02:13 PM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
Believing, Disbelieving, And Suspecting - Disordered Thoughts On
Religion (August 25, 2003 )
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Faith.shtml
We live in a wantonly irreligious age-at least at the level of public
discourse. In America the courts, the schools, and the government seek
to cleanse the country of religion. More accurately, they seek to
cleanse it of Christianity. We are told, never directly but by
relentless implication, that religious faith is something one in decency
ought to do behind closed doors-an embarrassment, worse than public
bowling though not quite as bad as having a venereal disease.
Which is odd.
I do not offer myself as one intimate with the gods, and on grounds of
reason would be hard pressed to choose between the views of Hindus and
those of Buddhists. I note however that over millennia people of
extraordinary intellect and thoughtfulness have taken religion
seriously. A quite remarkable arrogance is needed feel oneself mentally
superior to Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis. I'm not up
to it.
Of course arrogance comes in forms both personal and temporal. People
tend to regard their own time as wiser and more knowing than all
preceding times, and the people of earlier ages as quaint and vaguely
primitive. Thus many who do not know how a television works will feel
superior to Newton, because he didn't know how a television works. (Here
is a fascinating concept: Arrogance by proximity to a television.)
It will be said that we have learned much since the time of Newton, and
that this knowledge renders us wiser on matters spiritual. We do have
better plastics. Yet still we die, and have no idea what it means. We do
not know where we came from, and no amount of pious mummery about Big
Bangs and black holes changes that at all. We do not know why we are
here. We have intimations of what we should do, but no assurance. These
are the questions that religion addresses and that science pretends do
not exist. For all our transistors we know no more about these matters
than did Heraclitus, and think about them less.
Many today assuredly do know of the questions, and do think about them.
One merely doesn't bring them up at a cocktail party, as they are held
to be disreputable.
Yet I often meet a, to me, curious sort of fellow who simply cannot
comprehend what religion might be about. He is puzzled as distinct from
contemptuous or haughty. He genuinely sees no different between
religious faith and believing that the earth is flat. He is like a
congenitally deaf man watching a symphony orchestra: With all the good
will in the world he doesn't see the profit in all that sawing with bows
and blowing into things.
This fellow is very different from the common atheist, who is bitter,
proud of his advanced thinking, and inclined toward a (somewhat
adolescent) hostility to a world that isn't up to his standard. This is
tiresome and predictable, but doesn't offend me. Less forgivably, he
often wants to run on about logical positivism. (I'm reminded of
Orwell's comment about "the sort of atheist who doesn't so much
disbelieve in God as personally dislike him." Quote approximate.)
Critics of religion say, correctly, that horrible crimes are committed
in the name of religion. So are they in the name of communism,
anti-communism, Manifest Destiny, Zionism, nationalism, and national
security. Horrible crimes are what people do. They are not the heart of
the thing.
The following seems to me to be true regarding religion and the
sciences: Either one believes that there is an afterlife, or one
believes that there is not an afterlife, or one isn't sure-which means
that one believes that there may be an afterlife. If there is an
afterlife, then there is an aspect of existence about which we know
nothing and which may, or may not, influence this world. In this case
the sciences, while interesting and useful, are merely a partial
explanation of things. Thus to believe in the absolute explanatory power
of the sciences one must be an atheist-to exclude competition. Note that
atheists as much as the faithful believe what they cannot establish.
Here is the chief defect of scientists (I mean those who take the
sciences as an ideology rather than as a discipline): an unwillingness
to admit that there is anything outside their realm. But there is. You
cannot squeeze consciousness, beauty, affection, or Good and Evil from
physics any more than you can derive momentum from the postulates of
geometry: No mass, no momentum. A moral scientist is thus a
contradiction in terms. (Logically speaking: in practice they
compartmentalize and are perfectly good people.)
Thus we have the spectacle of the scientist who is horrified by the
latest hatchet murder but can give no scientific reason why. A murder
after all is merely the dislocation of certain physical masses (the
victim's head, for example) followed by elaborate chemical reactions.
Horror cannot be derived from physics. It comes from somewhere else.
Similarly, those who believe in religions often do not really quite
believe. Interesting to me is the extent to which those who think
themselves Christians have subordinated God to physics. For example, I
have often read some timid theologian saying that manna was actually a
sticky secretion deriving from certain insects, and that the crossing of
the Red Sea was really done in a shallow place when the wind blew the
water out.
Perhaps so; I wasn't there. Yet these arguments amount to saying that
God is all-powerful, provided that he behaves consistently with physical
principles and the prevailing weather. The sciences take precedence.
Now, people who seek (and therefore find) an overarching explanation of
everything always avoid looking at the logical warts and lacunae in
their systems. This is equally true of Christians, liberals,
conservatives, Marxists, evolutionists, and believers in the universal
explanatory power of the sciences. Any ideology can probably be
described as a systematic way of misunderstanding the world.
That being said, at worst the religions of the earth are gropings toward
something people feel but cannot put a finger on, toward something more
at the heart of life than the hoped-for raise, trendy restaurants, and
the next and grander automobile. And few things are as stultifying and
superficial as the man not so much agnostic (this I can understand) as
simply inattentive, whose life is focused on getting into a better
country club. Good questions are better than bad answers. And the
sciences, though not intended to be, have become the opiate of the
masses.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Faith.shtml
---------------
Regards
Limbic
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
DrSebby
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 456
Reputation: 8.07
Rate DrSebby
...Oh, you smell of lambs!
     
|
|
Re: virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
« Reply #3 on: 2003-09-01 16:02:39 » |
|
...jonathan, was this posted as if to say you somewhat agree with Fred's
essay? i cant tell. if this is the case, i couldnt disagree more. his
essay was outright full of horribly weak links, assumptions and other
unstable 'house of cards' considerations. this essay and the points therein
can be hacked to peices on so many points, it's not even worth mention.
DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Jonathan Davis" <jonathan@limbicnutrition.com>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 13:13:17 +0100
Believing, Disbelieving, And Suspecting - Disordered Thoughts On
Religion (August 25, 2003 )
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Faith.shtml
We live in a wantonly irreligious age-at least at the level of public
discourse. In America the courts, the schools, and the government seek
to cleanse the country of religion. More accurately, they seek to
cleanse it of Christianity. We are told, never directly but by
relentless implication, that religious faith is something one in decency
ought to do behind closed doors-an embarrassment, worse than public
bowling though not quite as bad as having a venereal disease.
Which is odd.
I do not offer myself as one intimate with the gods, and on grounds of
reason would be hard pressed to choose between the views of Hindus and
those of Buddhists. I note however that over millennia people of
extraordinary intellect and thoughtfulness have taken religion
seriously. A quite remarkable arrogance is needed feel oneself mentally
superior to Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis. I'm not up
to it.
Of course arrogance comes in forms both personal and temporal. People
tend to regard their own time as wiser and more knowing than all
preceding times, and the people of earlier ages as quaint and vaguely
primitive. Thus many who do not know how a television works will feel
superior to Newton, because he didn't know how a television works. (Here
is a fascinating concept: Arrogance by proximity to a television.)
It will be said that we have learned much since the time of Newton, and
that this knowledge renders us wiser on matters spiritual. We do have
better plastics. Yet still we die, and have no idea what it means. We do
not know where we came from, and no amount of pious mummery about Big
Bangs and black holes changes that at all. We do not know why we are
here. We have intimations of what we should do, but no assurance. These
are the questions that religion addresses and that science pretends do
not exist. For all our transistors we know no more about these matters
than did Heraclitus, and think about them less.
Many today assuredly do know of the questions, and do think about them.
One merely doesn't bring them up at a cocktail party, as they are held
to be disreputable.
Yet I often meet a, to me, curious sort of fellow who simply cannot
comprehend what religion might be about. He is puzzled as distinct from
contemptuous or haughty. He genuinely sees no different between
religious faith and believing that the earth is flat. He is like a
congenitally deaf man watching a symphony orchestra: With all the good
will in the world he doesn't see the profit in all that sawing with bows
and blowing into things.
This fellow is very different from the common atheist, who is bitter,
proud of his advanced thinking, and inclined toward a (somewhat
adolescent) hostility to a world that isn't up to his standard. This is
tiresome and predictable, but doesn't offend me. Less forgivably, he
often wants to run on about logical positivism. (I'm reminded of
Orwell's comment about "the sort of atheist who doesn't so much
disbelieve in God as personally dislike him." Quote approximate.)
Critics of religion say, correctly, that horrible crimes are committed
in the name of religion. So are they in the name of communism,
anti-communism, Manifest Destiny, Zionism, nationalism, and national
security. Horrible crimes are what people do. They are not the heart of
the thing.
The following seems to me to be true regarding religion and the
sciences: Either one believes that there is an afterlife, or one
believes that there is not an afterlife, or one isn't sure-which means
that one believes that there may be an afterlife. If there is an
afterlife, then there is an aspect of existence about which we know
nothing and which may, or may not, influence this world. In this case
the sciences, while interesting and useful, are merely a partial
explanation of things. Thus to believe in the absolute explanatory power
of the sciences one must be an atheist-to exclude competition. Note that
atheists as much as the faithful believe what they cannot establish.
Here is the chief defect of scientists (I mean those who take the
sciences as an ideology rather than as a discipline): an unwillingness
to admit that there is anything outside their realm. But there is. You
cannot squeeze consciousness, beauty, affection, or Good and Evil from
physics any more than you can derive momentum from the postulates of
geometry: No mass, no momentum. A moral scientist is thus a
contradiction in terms. (Logically speaking: in practice they
compartmentalize and are perfectly good people.)
Thus we have the spectacle of the scientist who is horrified by the
latest hatchet murder but can give no scientific reason why. A murder
after all is merely the dislocation of certain physical masses (the
victim's head, for example) followed by elaborate chemical reactions.
Horror cannot be derived from physics. It comes from somewhere else.
Similarly, those who believe in religions often do not really quite
believe. Interesting to me is the extent to which those who think
themselves Christians have subordinated God to physics. For example, I
have often read some timid theologian saying that manna was actually a
sticky secretion deriving from certain insects, and that the crossing of
the Red Sea was really done in a shallow place when the wind blew the
water out.
Perhaps so; I wasn't there. Yet these arguments amount to saying that
God is all-powerful, provided that he behaves consistently with physical
principles and the prevailing weather. The sciences take precedence.
Now, people who seek (and therefore find) an overarching explanation of
everything always avoid looking at the logical warts and lacunae in
their systems. This is equally true of Christians, liberals,
conservatives, Marxists, evolutionists, and believers in the universal
explanatory power of the sciences. Any ideology can probably be
described as a systematic way of misunderstanding the world.
That being said, at worst the religions of the earth are gropings toward
something people feel but cannot put a finger on, toward something more
at the heart of life than the hoped-for raise, trendy restaurants, and
the next and grander automobile. And few things are as stultifying and
superficial as the man not so much agnostic (this I can understand) as
simply inattentive, whose life is focused on getting into a better
country club. Good questions are better than bad answers. And the
sciences, though not intended to be, have become the opiate of the
masses.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Faith.shtml
---------------
Regards
Limbic
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
"courage and shuffle the cards..."
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
« Reply #4 on: 2003-09-01 19:38:08 » |
|
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Hermit
Sent: 01 September 2003 16:46
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
[Hermit] But why, oh why, did Jonathan Davis see fit to post this lacunic
frothing here?
I posted it because this 1,000 word essay it is sufficiently interesting to
elicit 3,500 word response from you.
Regards
Jonathan
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
« Reply #5 on: 2003-09-01 19:43:04 » |
|
Hi Sebby,
I posted it without comment for a reason. I like Fred generally and I think
he writes very well. That said, his arguments in this piece are flawed, but
then again he is not really trying - it is a dispatch to his loyal readers
and consequently conversational and assumptive, not a tightly argued
treatise.
We need to be challenged. We need to guard against hubris. We need people
like Fred to call us out occasionally.
I am just stirring it up a bit.
Kind regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Dr Sebby
Sent: 01 September 2003 21:03
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
...jonathan, was this posted as if to say you somewhat agree with Fred's
essay? i cant tell. if this is the case, i couldnt disagree more. his
essay was outright full of horribly weak links, assumptions and other
unstable 'house of cards' considerations. this essay and the points therein
can be hacked to peices on so many points, it's not even worth mention.
DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Jonathan Davis" <jonathan@limbicnutrition.com>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 13:13:17 +0100
Believing, Disbelieving, And Suspecting - Disordered Thoughts On Religion
(August 25, 2003 )
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Faith.shtml
We live in a wantonly irreligious age-at least at the level of public
discourse. In America the courts, the schools, and the government seek to
cleanse the country of religion. More accurately, they seek to cleanse it of
Christianity. We are told, never directly but by relentless implication,
that religious faith is something one in decency ought to do behind closed
doors-an embarrassment, worse than public bowling though not quite as bad as
having a venereal disease.
Which is odd.
I do not offer myself as one intimate with the gods, and on grounds of
reason would be hard pressed to choose between the views of Hindus and those
of Buddhists. I note however that over millennia people of extraordinary
intellect and thoughtfulness have taken religion seriously. A quite
remarkable arrogance is needed feel oneself mentally superior to Augustine,
Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis. I'm not up to it.
Of course arrogance comes in forms both personal and temporal. People tend
to regard their own time as wiser and more knowing than all preceding times,
and the people of earlier ages as quaint and vaguely primitive. Thus many
who do not know how a television works will feel superior to Newton, because
he didn't know how a television works. (Here is a fascinating concept:
Arrogance by proximity to a television.)
It will be said that we have learned much since the time of Newton, and that
this knowledge renders us wiser on matters spiritual. We do have better
plastics. Yet still we die, and have no idea what it means. We do not know
where we came from, and no amount of pious mummery about Big Bangs and black
holes changes that at all. We do not know why we are here. We have
intimations of what we should do, but no assurance. These are the questions
that religion addresses and that science pretends do not exist. For all our
transistors we know no more about these matters than did Heraclitus, and
think about them less.
Many today assuredly do know of the questions, and do think about them.
One merely doesn't bring them up at a cocktail party, as they are held to be
disreputable.
Yet I often meet a, to me, curious sort of fellow who simply cannot
comprehend what religion might be about. He is puzzled as distinct from
contemptuous or haughty. He genuinely sees no different between religious
faith and believing that the earth is flat. He is like a congenitally deaf
man watching a symphony orchestra: With all the good will in the world he
doesn't see the profit in all that sawing with bows and blowing into things.
This fellow is very different from the common atheist, who is bitter, proud
of his advanced thinking, and inclined toward a (somewhat
adolescent) hostility to a world that isn't up to his standard. This is
tiresome and predictable, but doesn't offend me. Less forgivably, he often
wants to run on about logical positivism. (I'm reminded of Orwell's comment
about "the sort of atheist who doesn't so much disbelieve in God as
personally dislike him." Quote approximate.)
Critics of religion say, correctly, that horrible crimes are committed in
the name of religion. So are they in the name of communism, anti-communism,
Manifest Destiny, Zionism, nationalism, and national security. Horrible
crimes are what people do. They are not the heart of the thing.
The following seems to me to be true regarding religion and the
sciences: Either one believes that there is an afterlife, or one believes
that there is not an afterlife, or one isn't sure-which means that one
believes that there may be an afterlife. If there is an afterlife, then
there is an aspect of existence about which we know nothing and which may,
or may not, influence this world. In this case the sciences, while
interesting and useful, are merely a partial explanation of things. Thus to
believe in the absolute explanatory power of the sciences one must be an
atheist-to exclude competition. Note that atheists as much as the faithful
believe what they cannot establish.
Here is the chief defect of scientists (I mean those who take the sciences
as an ideology rather than as a discipline): an unwillingness to admit that
there is anything outside their realm. But there is. You cannot squeeze
consciousness, beauty, affection, or Good and Evil from physics any more
than you can derive momentum from the postulates of
geometry: No mass, no momentum. A moral scientist is thus a contradiction in
terms. (Logically speaking: in practice they compartmentalize and are
perfectly good people.)
Thus we have the spectacle of the scientist who is horrified by the latest
hatchet murder but can give no scientific reason why. A murder after all is
merely the dislocation of certain physical masses (the victim's head, for
example) followed by elaborate chemical reactions.
Horror cannot be derived from physics. It comes from somewhere else.
Similarly, those who believe in religions often do not really quite believe.
Interesting to me is the extent to which those who think themselves
Christians have subordinated God to physics. For example, I have often read
some timid theologian saying that manna was actually a sticky secretion
deriving from certain insects, and that the crossing of the Red Sea was
really done in a shallow place when the wind blew the water out.
Perhaps so; I wasn't there. Yet these arguments amount to saying that God is
all-powerful, provided that he behaves consistently with physical principles
and the prevailing weather. The sciences take precedence.
Now, people who seek (and therefore find) an overarching explanation of
everything always avoid looking at the logical warts and lacunae in their
systems. This is equally true of Christians, liberals, conservatives,
Marxists, evolutionists, and believers in the universal explanatory power of
the sciences. Any ideology can probably be described as a systematic way of
misunderstanding the world.
That being said, at worst the religions of the earth are gropings toward
something people feel but cannot put a finger on, toward something more at
the heart of life than the hoped-for raise, trendy restaurants, and the next
and grander automobile. And few things are as stultifying and superficial as
the man not so much agnostic (this I can understand) as simply inattentive,
whose life is focused on getting into a better country club. Good questions
are better than bad answers. And the sciences, though not intended to be,
have become the opiate of the masses.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Faith.shtml
---------------
Regards
Limbic
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.61
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
« Reply #6 on: 2003-09-01 19:53:40 » |
|
Thanks for this, Jonathan. Very nice piece.
Walter
Jonathan Davis wrote:
> Believing, Disbelieving, And Suspecting - Disordered Thoughts On
> Religion (August 25, 2003 )
>
> http://www.fredoneverything.net/Faith.shtml
>
> We live in a wantonly irreligious age-at least at the level of public
> discourse. In America the courts, the schools, and the government seek
> to cleanse the country of religion. More accurately, they seek to
> cleanse it of Christianity. We are told, never directly but by
> relentless implication, that religious faith is something one in decency
> ought to do behind closed doors-an embarrassment, worse than public
> bowling though not quite as bad as having a venereal disease.
>
> Which is odd.
>
> I do not offer myself as one intimate with the gods, and on grounds of
> reason would be hard pressed to choose between the views of Hindus and
> those of Buddhists. I note however that over millennia people of
> extraordinary intellect and thoughtfulness have taken religion
> seriously. A quite remarkable arrogance is needed feel oneself mentally
> superior to Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis. I'm not up
> to it.
>
> Of course arrogance comes in forms both personal and temporal. People
> tend to regard their own time as wiser and more knowing than all
> preceding times, and the people of earlier ages as quaint and vaguely
> primitive. Thus many who do not know how a television works will feel
> superior to Newton, because he didn't know how a television works. (Here
> is a fascinating concept: Arrogance by proximity to a television.)
>
> It will be said that we have learned much since the time of Newton, and
> that this knowledge renders us wiser on matters spiritual. We do have
> better plastics. Yet still we die, and have no idea what it means. We do
> not know where we came from, and no amount of pious mummery about Big
> Bangs and black holes changes that at all. We do not know why we are
> here. We have intimations of what we should do, but no assurance. These
> are the questions that religion addresses and that science pretends do
> not exist. For all our transistors we know no more about these matters
> than did Heraclitus, and think about them less.
>
> Many today assuredly do know of the questions, and do think about them.
> One merely doesn't bring them up at a cocktail party, as they are held
> to be disreputable.
>
> Yet I often meet a, to me, curious sort of fellow who simply cannot
> comprehend what religion might be about. He is puzzled as distinct from
> contemptuous or haughty. He genuinely sees no different between
> religious faith and believing that the earth is flat. He is like a
> congenitally deaf man watching a symphony orchestra: With all the good
> will in the world he doesn't see the profit in all that sawing with bows
> and blowing into things.
>
> This fellow is very different from the common atheist, who is bitter,
> proud of his advanced thinking, and inclined toward a (somewhat
> adolescent) hostility to a world that isn't up to his standard. This is
> tiresome and predictable, but doesn't offend me. Less forgivably, he
> often wants to run on about logical positivism. (I'm reminded of
> Orwell's comment about "the sort of atheist who doesn't so much
> disbelieve in God as personally dislike him." Quote approximate.)
>
> Critics of religion say, correctly, that horrible crimes are committed
> in the name of religion. So are they in the name of communism,
> anti-communism, Manifest Destiny, Zionism, nationalism, and national
> security. Horrible crimes are what people do. They are not the heart of
> the thing.
>
> The following seems to me to be true regarding religion and the
> sciences: Either one believes that there is an afterlife, or one
> believes that there is not an afterlife, or one isn't sure-which means
> that one believes that there may be an afterlife. If there is an
> afterlife, then there is an aspect of existence about which we know
> nothing and which may, or may not, influence this world. In this case
> the sciences, while interesting and useful, are merely a partial
> explanation of things. Thus to believe in the absolute explanatory power
> of the sciences one must be an atheist-to exclude competition. Note that
> atheists as much as the faithful believe what they cannot establish.
>
> Here is the chief defect of scientists (I mean those who take the
> sciences as an ideology rather than as a discipline): an unwillingness
> to admit that there is anything outside their realm. But there is. You
> cannot squeeze consciousness, beauty, affection, or Good and Evil from
> physics any more than you can derive momentum from the postulates of
> geometry: No mass, no momentum. A moral scientist is thus a
> contradiction in terms. (Logically speaking: in practice they
> compartmentalize and are perfectly good people.)
>
> Thus we have the spectacle of the scientist who is horrified by the
> latest hatchet murder but can give no scientific reason why. A murder
> after all is merely the dislocation of certain physical masses (the
> victim's head, for example) followed by elaborate chemical reactions.
> Horror cannot be derived from physics. It comes from somewhere else.
>
> Similarly, those who believe in religions often do not really quite
> believe. Interesting to me is the extent to which those who think
> themselves Christians have subordinated God to physics. For example, I
> have often read some timid theologian saying that manna was actually a
> sticky secretion deriving from certain insects, and that the crossing of
> the Red Sea was really done in a shallow place when the wind blew the
> water out.
>
> Perhaps so; I wasn't there. Yet these arguments amount to saying that
> God is all-powerful, provided that he behaves consistently with physical
> principles and the prevailing weather. The sciences take precedence.
>
> Now, people who seek (and therefore find) an overarching explanation of
> everything always avoid looking at the logical warts and lacunae in
> their systems. This is equally true of Christians, liberals,
> conservatives, Marxists, evolutionists, and believers in the universal
> explanatory power of the sciences. Any ideology can probably be
> described as a systematic way of misunderstanding the world.
>
> That being said, at worst the religions of the earth are gropings toward
> something people feel but cannot put a finger on, toward something more
> at the heart of life than the hoped-for raise, trendy restaurants, and
> the next and grander automobile. And few things are as stultifying and
> superficial as the man not so much agnostic (this I can understand) as
> simply inattentive, whose life is focused on getting into a better
> country club. Good questions are better than bad answers. And the
> sciences, though not intended to be, have become the opiate of the
> masses.
>
> http://www.fredoneverything.net/Faith.shtml
>
> ---------------
>
> Regards
>
> Limbic
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed
or neutered."
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
RE: virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
« Reply #7 on: 2003-09-01 20:31:03 » |
|
[Hermit 2] But why, oh why, did Jonathan Davis see fit to post this lacunic
frothing here?
[Jonathan 3] I posted it because this 1,000 word essay it is sufficiently interesting to
elicit 3,500 word response from you.
[Hermit 4] Please note that there is a slightly updated version on the BBS if you choose to cite it.
[Hermit 4] Notice that I responded, not because I saw it as "interesting", but rather because it captured so many common fallacies in a single basket that I thought it worth creating a "prototypical response." But please don't do it again anytime soon. Our archives are replete with similar responses.
Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
DrSebby
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 456
Reputation: 8.07
Rate DrSebby
...Oh, you smell of lambs!
|
|
RE: virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
« Reply #8 on: 2003-09-02 02:26:24 » |
|
...actually i thought hermits reply very worthwhile. it serves as a
response template for many similar essays. i've heard many such
speeches...and the only thing one can do is shake ones head in frustration.
now i can whip out hermits very thorough reply and have the other guy spend
his time grokking his falacies, not me. thanks for the tool herr hermit.
DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Hermit" <virus@hermit.net>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 18:31:03 -0600
[Hermit 2] But why, oh why, did Jonathan Davis see fit to post this lacunic
frothing here?
[Jonathan 3] I posted it because this 1,000 word essay it is sufficiently
interesting to
elicit 3,500 word response from you.
[Hermit 4] Please note that there is a slightly updated version on the BBS
if you choose to cite it.
[Hermit 4] Notice that I responded, not because I saw it as "interesting",
but rather because it captured so many common fallacies in a single basket
that I thought it worth creating a "prototypical response." But please don't
do it again anytime soon. Our archives are replete with similar responses.
Regards
Hermit
----
This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus
BBS.
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29183>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
"courage and shuffle the cards..."
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
« Reply #9 on: 2003-09-02 03:11:22 » |
|
Look at Blunderov's rather good and much less aggressive response too. Being based on Winnie the Pooh, it may be more appropriate for the apparent mental age of many of the authors of such screeds.
Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.61
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
« Reply #10 on: 2003-09-02 04:34:10 » |
|
Blunderov wrote:
> An amusing essay - it rather confirms my observation that, these days, a
> Xtian would almost rather set fire to his own bible than offer a
> definition of the god of which he is so fond of asserting the existence.
> This for the simple reason that either such a definition is instantly
> falsifiable or is so trite as to not be worth offering at all. They have
> been painted into a tiny corner which seems to consist of the assertion
> that there is in existence something unknowable called god. Their
> explanations of how it is that they know something unknowable are
> likewise feeble and they have to resort to other tactics like trying to
> shift the burden of proof onto the unbeliever.
<snip>
I proffer one of my old, dog-eared retorts to the "babble" believers (quite trite in
its own right):
"I liken religion to a long running blockbuster movie (blockbuster because parents
will bust their childrens' blocks if they don't attend every chance they get) that
has turned the usual short-term suspension of disbelief common at theatrical
productions into a permanent suspension of disbelief. A suspension extended over the
whole of a child's formative years. As the hymn says, "Will the circle be unbroken?"
In the name of everything that is true and reasonable I sure hope so!!! When the
final credits are finally run at this "blockbuster", and the masses see it was
written, produced, directed and acted by man and man alone, there will indeed be some
gnashing of teeth, and it won't be over the money they spent on popcorn."
--
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed
or neutered."
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.61
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
« Reply #11 on: 2003-09-02 04:54:40 » |
|
Hermit wrote:
<snip>
> [Hermit] But why, oh why, did Jonathan Davis see fit to post this lacunic frothing here?
>
Couldn't we just call it a "layman's view" as opposed to "lacunic frothing", and occasionally suffer its non-nutritive bulk to remind ourselves of and contrast with our own group cleverness? A quick review never hurts.
Like a free, quick little afternoon buzz-me-up. For that superior pick-me-up.
So refreshing!!!
Gunga galunga...gunga -- gunga galunga.
Walter
--
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed or neutered."
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
« Reply #12 on: 2003-09-02 06:51:42 » |
|
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Hermit
Sent: 01 September 2003 16:46
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
[Hermit] Summary, a quasi apologist screed. Dissection follows.
[Fred] We live in a wantonly irreligious age-at least at the level of public
discourse.
[Hermit] To be irreligious is not "wanton" it is rational. To introduce
religion into public discourse is wanton, as any such introduction offends
anyone who disagrees with the speaker. Given that this is an irreligious
age, and growing more so (hooray) the offense is growing.
[Jonathan] He did not say being irreligious is being "wanton", he said we
live in a "wantonly irreligious age-at least at the level of public
discourse". In short he says we are irreligious and we don't seem to care
(wanton).
[Fred] In America the courts, the schools, and the government seek to
cleanse the country of religion.
[Hermit] The American Founders said, for excellent reason, having more to do
with stopping religious wars than supporting atheism, that government could
have nothing to do with religion - and vice versa. As government has
intruded into more and more areas, so these areas have had to divest
themselves of religion, to remain constitutionally supportable.
[Jonathan] I agree. But Fred Has a point, there appears to be concerted
effort attack religion wherever it may be found, regardless of the wider
preferences of the communities involved. Whilst we may support one side of
this battle, there is no doubt that a battle is underway.
[Fred] More accurately, they seek to cleanse it of Christianity.
[Hermit] I'm not sure where Fred obtained his data, but if it is accurate,
perhaps it has something to do with the particularly virulent proselytizing
engaged in by the tens-of thousands of religions in America which identify
themselves with Christianity, but not with each other.
[Jonathan] I think Fred is alluding to public kow towing to Islamic and
Jewish interest groups
[Fred] We are told, never directly but by relentless implication, that
religious faith is something one in decency ought to do behind closed
doors-an embarrassment, worse than public bowling though not quite as bad as
having a venereal disease.
[Hermit] Far worse than an STD, as it tends to infect all aspects of the
lives of those infected with it.
[Jonathan] We know this is true of all ideologies and risks being true of
CoVism.
[Fred] Which is odd.
[Hermit] Why?
[Jonathan] Read on...
[Fred] I do not offer myself as one intimate with the gods, and on grounds
of reason would be hard pressed to choose between the views of Hindus and
those of Buddhists. I note however that over millennia people of
extraordinary intellect and thoughtfulness have taken religion seriously. A
quite remarkable arrogance is needed feel oneself mentally superior to
Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis. I'm not up to it.
[Hermit] And there is nothing to say that over the millenia, hundreds of
millions of fools have been wrong. Given that we do not believe as the
ancients did, and class their religions as myth, the question Fred should be
asking himself as why we see our myths as being different? Is it not
"remarkably arrogant" to assume that "Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and
C.S. Lewis" were wiser in matters of religion than Salon, Plato, Socrates,
Hippocrates, Democrites, Diogenes, Epicurus, Zenon, Archimedes and many
hundreds of others recognised for founding schools of science and
philosophy? Or as Mark Twain, a far better author - and perhaps wiser man,
than CS Lewis put it, "The so-called Christian nations are the most
enlightened and progressive ... but in spite of their religion, not because
of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of
Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was
regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against
Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by
bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in
architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born."
[Jonathan] It is difficult to be arrogant about one set of thinkers over
another. Fred's is a personal measure against a set of greats, not a set of
greats versus another set of greats. He simply, humbly states that he - Fred
Reed - considers it arrogant to dismiss as morons such thinkers as
Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis. I agree with him. I am not
vehemently against religion, I simply don't believe it. Fred's point is
simple: Some brilliant men have made religion central to their lives so
perhaps there is something to it.
[Hermit] And again, how about current scientists and philosophers? Some 90%
of the senior scientists in the world today are undoubtedly "up to it", as
almost all people with a scientific education reject the idea of Deism. If
Fred actually had to defend the words of those he cites as wise, that I
suspect that he might recognise the weakness of his arguments. Surely it
doesn't take genius to reject religion, only common sense.
[Jonathan] Fred rejects Deism too. None of this removes the fact that
religion in it's various guises has and does command enormous respect from
billions and the brilliant. They may be wrong, but then again so may we.
Could he defend Augustine:
SNIP
(All quotations bar Augustine on Mathematicians [which is from "De genesi ad
litteram, Book II"] are courtesy of Positive Atheism
(http://www.positiveatheism.org/))
[Jonathan] You are examining Augustine nearly 2000 years out of context.
There a clangers in the works of almost every thinker over a certain age. As
Democritus points out "Our sins are more easily remembered than our good
deeds". So it is with our words. Plato, Socrates, Hippocrates, Democrites,
Diogenes, Epicurus, Zenon and Archimedes are all pre-monotheistic thinkers
several of whom probably gave serious credence to the idea that a troop of
gods ruled a flat earth from a mountain top.
[Fred] Of course arrogance comes in forms both personal and temporal. People
tend to regard their own time as wiser and more knowing than all preceding
times, and the people of earlier ages as quaint and vaguely primitive. Thus
many who do not know how a television works will feel superior to Newton,
because he didn't know how a television works. (Here is a fascinating
concept: Arrogance by proximity to a television.)
[Hermit] Science tells us that it is through disproving of old fallacious
ideas that we progress. And we have disporoved an awful lot of fallacious
ideas in the last few hundred years. So yes. We are wiser and more knowing.
Is Fred really arguing that ages when sick people went to see priests and
then died, who believed women inferior, and considered slavery natural was
somehow wiser and more knowing than today?
[Jonathan] No, he is suggesting that in our turn we may be judged harshly.
The whole essay is an appeal to constraint and humility over hubris and
chauvinism.
[Fred] It will be said that we have learned much since the time of Newton,
and that this knowledge renders us wiser on matters spiritual. We do have
better plastics. Yet still we die, and have no idea what it means.
[Hermit] Fred is, as usual, wrong. Death simply means that the illusion that
we are intelligent self-conscious creatures, produced by our neurons, is
over.
[Jonathan] You may be wrong Hermit. The evidence is with you now, but, maybe
- just maybe - you are utterly wrong. Once upon a time the evidence was with
Ptolemy too.
[Fred] We do not know where we came from, and no amount of pious mummery
about Big Bangs and black holes changes that at all.
[Hermit] More proximally, my mother and father fucked. This lead to a long
sequence of events, which culminated in my presence. Using genetic analysis,
we are able to trace back the fact that our parents, and their parents, and
their grandparents and so on, did the same for hundreds of thousands of
generations. And before that, with other simpler creatures - drom the
chimpanzee, with whom we share 99% of our DNA, to the cabbage, with whom we
share 28% of our DNA the path is clear. And yes, we can go back to the Big
Bang, one small step at a time. The fact that Fred seems to have missed out
on some essential education is no reason for him to assert that others don't
know things, because he didn't pay attention in class, or that his schooling
was deficient.
[Jonathan] You seem to have completely missed his point. We are pretty
certain we know how humanity evolved on Earth, and the human reproductive
system. Where Earth and the rest of the universe came from, we do not know.
Ultimately Fred is completely right.
[Fred] We do not know why we are here.
[Hermit] As above. Unless Fred imagines that he was left under a gooseberry
bush by the fairies, I'd suggest that he is here because his parents fucked
one another.
[Jonathan] Your insults cannot evade a central truth in his claim - we have
no sound idea what underlies existence itself. "But where did that come
from" echoes off into infinity.
[Fred] We have intimations of what we should do, but no assurance.
[Hermit] I wonder if Fred knew what he meant here? Unless he is talking
about "morality" - in which case we know exactly where it originates -
1. In the first stage, starting at about age ten, people avoid breaking
moral rules to avoid punishment.
2. In the second stage, people follow moral rules only when it is to
their advantage.
3. In the third stage, starting about age 17, people try to live up to
what is expected of them in small social groups, such as families.
4. In the fourth stage, people fulfill the expectations of larger social
groups, such as obeying laws that keep society together.
5. In the fifth and sixth stages, starting at about age 24, people are
guided by both absolute and relative moral principles; they follow these for
altruistic reasons, though, and not because of what they might gain
individually (the final two stages are differentiated in that the fifth is
based on adherence to democractic processes and rule of law, the sixth
allows for the possibility of civil disobedience in the interests of
changing laws). (From http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/KohlbergLawrence).
[Jonathan] A brilliant and illuminating digression. Bye the way, what Wiki
did you use for the Virian wiki? It is superb. And whilst I am at it, thanks
for all the content you have been inputting. I have thoroughly enjoyed
reading the Wiki.
[Fred] These are the questions that religion addresses and that science
pretends do not exist.
[Hermit] We know that Religion has made assertions about origins. All of
which have been proven wrong by science. We know that Religion has made
assertions about morality. All of which have been proven wrong by reason and
research. We know which areas of the brain are active when people have
"religious experiences", and we know how to invoke these artifacts of brain
mechanics and how to prevent them and so, in some instances cure religious
neurosis and hallucination. What is it that Fred imagines that religion
addresses - and science says does not exist? We need more details.
[Jonathan] Indeed, it would be great to get a more in-depth answer.
[Fred] For all our transistors we know no more about these matters than did
Heraclitus, and think about them less.
[Hermit] While Fred seems to be lamentably ignorant, why does he imagine
that the rest of the world suffers from his disablities? Surely he can speak
authoritatively only for himself? And is Fred unaware of the fact that
Heraclitus would call him an infidel and an atheist? Would Fred agree with
this assessment? If not, where does Fred get the arrogance to make
assertions about his beliefs being superior to those of Heraclitus?
[Jonathan] Fred is manifestly not ignorant, neither is he disabled.
Furthermore, he is obviously speaking for himself. His point is simple -
despite enormous progress in the sciences, fundamental questions remain
unanswered. He sees this area of uncertainty as religions niche. I don't
think he would give a damn about Heraclitus' opinion of him high or low.
Bye the way, are you are co-opting Fred's rhetoric to use against him
("arrogance")?
[Fred] Many today assuredly do know of the questions, and do think about
them. One merely doesn't bring them up at a cocktail party, as they are held
to be disreputable.
[Hermit] Perhaps the people who frequent cocktail parties are not the right
teachers? After all, "Like other parties of the kind, it was first silent,
then talky, then argumentative, then disputatious, then unintelligible, then
altogether, then inarticulate, and then drunk. When we had reached the last
step of this glorious ladder, it was difficult to get down again without
stumbling." Lord Byron
[Jonathan] Fred's aside is furiously battered by an earnest Hermit! My only
complaint about your posts is that they are very long (too long for a
dullard like me). Excising passages like the one above would pare down your
prose and condense your brilliance.
[Fred] Yet I often meet a, to me, curious sort of fellow who simply cannot
comprehend what religion might be about. He is puzzled as distinct from
contemptuous or haughty.
[Hermit] A rare creature, I'm sure. As Twain put it, "Most people are
bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the
passages that bother me are those I do understand." I think it can safely be
said that this goes for most atheists.
[Jonathan] I am just such a creature.
[Fred] He genuinely sees no different between religious faith and believing
that the earth is flat. He is like a congenitally deaf man watching a
symphony orchestra: With all the good will in the world he doesn't see the
profit in all that sawing with bows and blowing into things.
[Hermit] Perhaps Fred borrowed his diatribe from somebody else? Or perhaps
he is not very different from those of Twain's day. Certainly, I cannot
think of a better response than another Twain quotation. "One of the proofs
of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They
have also believed the world was flat."
[Jonathan] It is slightly unfortunate that Fred seems to be hinting that it
is the atheist observer who is somehow disabled, rather than the orchestra.
If I were to have written that I would have reversed the disability. It is
the incomprehension of a man with sound ears watching people dance to music
in their heads.
[Fred] This fellow is very different from the common atheist, who is
bitter,proud of his advanced thinking, and inclined toward a (somewhat
adolescent) hostility to a world that isn't up to his standard. This is
tiresome and predictable, but doesn't offend me.
[Hermit] I wonder where Fred gets his idea of atheists as "bitter" people?
No source is cited.
[Jonathan] Oddly, not every opinion is cited elsewhere. You have
consistently treated this opinion piece as though it were an academic
treatise. This is of course unfair. I think this violates the principle of
charity ( http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/usenet_evidence/argument.html#5)
. There is a spiteful sort of atheist who is sneering and hostile. I have
met such people here. I find that attitude unhelpful and ultimately
self-defeating. I disagree that such people are common atheists though. I
find they are the extremists - those wounded by religion - rather than those
who have arrived at their beliefs through patient thought or sound instinct.
[Hermit] Perhaps he met one at a cocktail party and started preaching to
her. No, surely most atheists are sufficiently sensible not to bother with
cocktail parties. Certainly all the humorists I have met with whom I have
discussed religion, have been atheists. Perhaps Fred suspects that humorists
are "bitter" people too.
[Jonathan] This atheist attends cocktail parties. Can I have a citation
please to confirm that most atheists are sufficiently sensible not to bother
with cocktail parties. Do you speak for all atheists suddenly? [Recognise
this line of attack?]
[Fred] Less forgivably, he often wants to run on about logical positivism.
(I'm reminded of Orwell's comment about "the sort of atheist who doesn't so
much disbelieve in God as personally dislike him." Quote approximate.)
[Hermit] And given the character of the Judeo-Christian's gods and their
followers, with whom most in America have the most experience, perhaps the
dislike is readily understood by one less bigoted than Fred.
[Jonathan] Fred is not bigoted. Why are you defaming him? Are you defaming
him? I find these personal attack spoil your work and I sincerely wish you
would leave them out.
[Fred] Critics of religion say, correctly, that horrible crimes are
committed in the name of religion. So are they in the name of communism,
anti-communism, Manifest Destiny, Zionism, nationalism, and national
security. Horrible crimes are what people do. They are not the heart of the
thing.
[Hermit] Agreed. Then again, science (nor even "logical positivism") does
not claim to make people and "better than they ought to be.
[Jonathan] He does not claim that they do.
[Fred] The following seems to me to be true regarding religion and the
sciences: Either one believes that there is an afterlife, or one believes
that there is not an afterlife, or one isn't sure-which means that one
believes that there may be an afterlife.
[Hermit] Fred has the wrong end of the rope. The question is whether there
is any truth in the idea that there is an afterlife. And to determine
whether there is any truth, one requires a means of judging it. Having seen
a fair number of deaths, I can assure Fred that after brain activity ceases,
there is no life. So on the one hand we have some evidence that
dead-is-dead. I can accept that. On the other hand, we have Fred. Fred
appears to think that he should disregard this evidence and "believe" that
there is an "afterlife" or perhaps that we should disregard the evidence on
the one hand, and the lack of any evidence on the other, and say we can't
determine the matter. That may be fine and well for Fred. But he really
should not try to argue that he is being rational - or that the person who
prefers evidence over belief - is somehow a believer because Fred has the
arrogance to assert that this is the case.
[Jonathan] You a mashing up a straw man. Fred said "The following seems to
me to be true regarding religion and the sciences: Either *one* believes
that there is an afterlife, or one believes that there is not an afterlife,
or one isn't sure-which means that one believes that there may be an
afterlife". He is right, one believe, does not believe or is not sure. That
is simply true.
You then set about writing a long paragraph imputing motives and beliefs
whilst paraphrasing liberally - all without basis. Fred sated a simple
fact. Do you think the following is false:
"Either one believes that there is an afterlife, or one believes that there
is not an afterlife, or one isn't sure-which means that one believes that
there may be an afterlife"
Yes or no?
[Fred] If there is an afterlife, then there is an aspect of existence about
which we know nothing and which may, or may not, influence this world. In
this case the sciences, while interesting and useful, are merely a partial
explanation of things. Thus to believe in the absolute explanatory power of
the sciences one must be an atheist-to exclude competition. Note that
atheists as much as the faithful believe what they cannot establish.
[Hermit] This is a poor restatement of Pascal's Wager, begs the question by
ignorting the evidence that there is no afterlife (and that it takes belief
in the face of the evidence against it to make this assumption) and is
simply disproved by showing that if there is a "rational afterlife" which
influences this world in such a way as to make this world purely rational,
then the atheists are right, and the faithful wrong and Fred's if-then
fails. And if there is no afterlife, then of course religion, uninteresting
and totally unuseful, providing no explanation for anything is wrong. And it
is only Fred's lack of logical competence, bigotted perspective and
assertive arrogance which can lead him to make such statements about
atheists as he does here.
[Jonathan] All I see here is more straw man bashing and personal attacks. He
wrote "Note that atheists as much as the faithful believe what they cannot
establish." This is axiomatically true.
[Fred] Here is the chief defect of scientists (I mean those who take the
sciences as an ideology rather than as a discipline): an unwillingness to
admit that there is anything outside their realm. But there is. You cannot
squeeze consciousness, beauty, affection, or Good and Evil from physics any
more than you can derive momentum from the postulates of geometry: No mass,
no momentum. A moral scientist is thus a contradiction in terms. (Logically
speaking: in practice they compartmentalize and are perfectly good people.)
[Hermit] Having asserted that scientists are "perfectly good people", I
wonder what it is about Fred's strawman that is the "chief defect of
scientists."
[Jonathan] He says so right there.
[Hermit] Certainly, speaking as a scientist, I've never suggested that a
"moral scientist" would be a sensible animal.
[Jonathan] Who are you to speak for all scientists? Did you take a survey?
[Recognise this line or "argument"?]
[Hermit] A scientist, any scientist, merely applies the only process known
to result in progress. To speak of a kind of scientist as if they were
different from any other is a contradiction in terms. Rather like saying
that "Christian Science" or "Creation Science" actually are some kind of
science simply because they name themselves as such. Speaking from a
rational perspective, the problem with the faithful is that are not
generally competent to compartamentalize - and thus are not perfectly good
people.
[Jonathan] Can you support this assertion with some research, argument or
authority? Did you take a survey?
[Hermit] Certainly, when your neighbor tells you that you are going to burn
in hell forever because you actually use your senses to gather evidence and
your brain to reject the irrational, there is a tendency to think that as
the hell is your neighbor's invention, that you want no part of it.
[Jonathan] For what it is worth, I have never ever met a Christian who has
claimed I would burn in hell. Some Muslims in Hyde Park have observed that I
have some dire things to suffer in the afterlife, but never Christians. What
are we, the CoV, turning our guns on our strongest enemies and competitors -
Islam and Consumerism - rather than "beating the stain where the dead horse
[of Christianity] used to be"?
[Fred] Thus we have the spectacle of the scientist who is horrified by the
latest hatchet murder but can give no scientific reason why. A murder after
all is merely the dislocation of certain physical masses (the victim's head,
for example) followed by elaborate chemical reactions. Horror cannot be
derived from physics. It comes from somewhere else.
[Hermit] Really? Who appointed Fred to speak for "scientists"?
[Jonathan] Ha! Who appointed you to speak for scientists earlier? He makes
no claim to speak for scientists, he simply illustrates his point with the
help of a fictional scientists.
[Hermit] Or did he take a survey? I think he should provide the evidence for
this assertion.
[Jonathan] Whereas we are discussing one of Fred's columns without his
knowledge, it is hard for him to grant this request. You on the other had
are participating in this discussion so can happily furnish us with your
evidence for your assertion on behalf of classes of people made above.
[Hermit] I'd suggest that science is not limited to "physics", that I don't
think that just because Fred seems to imagine that it is is any reason to do
so
[Jonathan] This is another dollop of bunk. The ma has never even
approaching claimed anything of the sort. You appear to be resorting to
abuse in the absence of substantial argument against the man's claims.
[Hermit] and that I'd suggest that evolutionary psychology readily provides
all of the explanation needed to explain "horror" at a rather gruesome
murder. Far more to the point, the question in my mind is whether Fred is
suggesting that there is any explanation for this phenomena outside of
evolutionary psychology. After all, he makes an assertion, presumably
intending for it to support whatever it is he is attempting to say, but his
failure to address "compared to what" simply leaves this paragraph dangling
without visible means of support.
[Jonathan] The paragraph does draw comparisons, it makes a claim.
[Fred] Similarly, those who believe in religions often do not really quite
believe. Interesting to me is the extent to which those who think themselves
Christians have subordinated God to physics. For example, I have often read
some timid theologian saying that manna was actually a sticky secretion
deriving from certain insects, and that the crossing of the Red Sea was
really done in a shallow place when the wind blew the water out.
[Hermit] And there are archeologists who take the consensus position that
Moses was purely a mythical invention and that the bronze age Jews and their
rather unpleasant hill gods were not particularly significant on a regional
basis until far later - and thus there is no more need to attempt to
"explain away" these writings than there is to explain the legends about
Perseus.
[Jonathan] So you agree, good.
[Hermit] Against this, there are bible sometime-literalists who assert that
rabbits eat the cud, bats are birds and grasshoppers walk around on four
legs. I recommend The Skeptic's Annotated Bible as a source of more
fascinating information about this rather putrid collection of rather poorly
written nonsense. I'd go so far as to suggest that the reason that the
babble is respected at all is because so few of those advocating it have
actually read it.
[Jonathan] Indeed.
[Fred] Perhaps so; I wasn't there. Yet these arguments amount to saying that
God is all-powerful, provided that he behaves consistently with physical
principles and the prevailing weather. The sciences take precedence.
[Hermit] Yes, well. If Fred wishes to take a non-scientific perspective and
assert that back when the bible was written that the Sun did rotate around
the flat stationary Earth, and that it could be shifted around in the sky to
suit Jewish convenience, by a god who was defeated by something as trivial
as iron wheels, then I'm sure that no amount of argument is going to make
Fred change his mind. But I do have a bridge to sell him. (Joshua, Kings,
Chronicles, Job, Psalms, Isaiah etc).
[Jonathan] I think Fred's last sentence was not meant ironically.
[Fred] Now, people who seek (and therefore find) an overarching explanation
of everything always avoid looking at the logical warts and lacunae in their
systems. This is equally true of Christians, liberals, conservatives,
Marxists, evolutionists, and believers in the universal explanatory power of
the sciences. Any ideology can probably be described as a systematic way of
misunderstanding the world.
[Hermit] It seems fairly evident that Fred believes (in the face of the
evidence) that science is an ideology, rather than an evolving methodology.
[Jonathan] It seems fairly evident that Fred is cautioning that science
degraded to dogma does become ideology. Science
[Hermit] But then, it seems that Fred may believe rather a lot of strange
things, for which we should likely blame his society or his parents. Not
least that it is apparently important to him to repeatedly assert that
following the sciences requires belief. I recommend our FAQ,
[url=http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=31;action=display;threadid
=11535]"Faith and truth in science "
([url]http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/) to his attention.
[Jonathan] Fred is superb writer and there is no evidence that he believes
in strange things at all. I liked this essay and I am slightly alarmed that
he is castigated - despite apparently being one of us - for having
insufficient zeal in his condemnation of all things religious.
[Fred] That being said, at worst the religions of the earth are gropings
toward something people feel but cannot put a finger on, toward something
more at the heart of life than the hoped-for raise, trendy restaurants, and
the next and grander automobile. And few things are as stultifying and
superficial as the man not so much agnostic (this I can understand) as
simply inattentive, whose life is focused on getting into a better country
club. Good questions are better than bad answers. And the sciences, though
not intended to be, have become the opiate of the masses.
[Hermit] Was Fred under the impression that this was a conclusion?
[Jonathan] Err...it was the conclusion.
[Hermit] While I can understand that his confusion of "hoped-for raise,
trendy restaurants, and the next and grander automobile" with "the
sciences",
[Jonathan] I am not sure why as there is no such confusion.
[Hermit] I can't understand how he gets from there to "bad answers."
[Jonathan] I do. Keep trying.
[Hermit] Indeed, rather like religion, Fred doesn't appear to provide any
answers at all - and thinking on it, while he made a lot of stumbling
assertions, I'm not sure he asked any questions at all. Perhaps he is on
another kind of opiate altogether?
[Jonathan] From which opiatic teat do you suck, Hermit? In the essay Fred
asked tough, insightful questions with humility. You have given verbose
answers soiled with abuse and scorn. It is almost as if Fred were addressing
you with his essay. I think you know it, hence the response.
[Hermit] But why, oh why, did Jonathan Davis see fit to post this lacunic
frothing here?
[Jonathan] See above. Expect more.
Final note: I am grateful for your - as always - superb response. But I do
not think this short essay is worth any more of our time. Feel free to
respond, but please note that I will almost certainly not have time to
respect you with a decent response myself.
People like Fred Reed - highly intelligent, articulate, down to earth - are
exactly the sort of people I want to attract to our Church. After all, we,
like Fred Reed respect religion - we are one! We understand the limbic
impulses, the yearning for order, the love of wonder and the need for
belonging. We have answers. We have explanations. We meet and satisfy those
human needs. For those people "groping[] toward something [they] feel but
cannot put a finger on", we can guide fingers to the truth
Let us not confuse friend and foe and let us not adopt the certainties and
arrogance of our competitors - however we might feel we deserve them.
Kind regards
Jonathan
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:virus: Fred Reed on Religion...
« Reply #14 on: 2003-09-02 08:29:48 » |
|
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. 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.
As for your specific attempted responses, they fail. In very brief:
- 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. 1. Untrained; undisciplined; unrestrained; hence, loose; free; luxuriant; roving; sportive.2. Wandering from moral rectitude; perverse; dissolute. 3. Specifically: Deviating from the rules of chastity; lewd; lustful; lascivious; libidinous; lecherous. Reckless; heedless; as, wanton mischief. "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)".
- The fight is for the freedom from religion by an oppressed minority demanding their constitutional protections from an increasingly non-representative, overbearing religious government.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 and in particular the supporting references at the bottom of the page.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- Science is a method, not an ideology. Anyone not applying the method is, by definition, not a scientist.
- Anybody who cites appeals to authority cannot refute the citation of justified authorities in return.
- Those who rely on appeals to popularity cannot avoid being lampooned for it.
- There is a qualitative difference between believing that something is so in the face of the evidence and refusing to accept something without necessity.
- Grep for question marks in Fred's original essay.
- 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.
Regards
Hermit
PS, As you should be able to figure from the reply above (and, I would argue, from my original response, the answer to your demand that I answer "Yes or no? " to the question, "Either one believes that there is an afterlife, or one believes that there is not an afterlife, or one isn't sure-which means that one believes that there may be an afterlife" is I cannot answer in those terms. The overwhelming evidence against, and lack of evidence for, any form of "afterlife" leaves us no rational conclusion other than the probability (which must exist) is that the likelyhood is infestismally small. This is not a belief. It is a well supported lack of belief in an unsupported idea. And attempting to force a discussion into terms indistinguishable from "Have you stopped beating your wife" is reprehensible. No matter who attempts it.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
