From: No name given (vampier@mac.com)
Date: Wed Feb 27 2002 - 14:44:50 MST
On Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 02:54 PM, L' Ermit wrote:
> [nng] Religious fundamentalists do, in general, believe in the literal
> interpretation of "the word of God" (the Bible). This does mean that
> evolution contradicts the 7 days of creation. So, some people say "it's
> not a literal day" and go on about how those are just "figurative
> stages" in the creation of the world as we know it. There are quite a
> number of people who put things in such a way.
>
> [Hermit] This assertion means that the person translating it is free to
> decide what is figurative and what is not. At that point, it becomes
> utterly meaningless, as whatever does not suit the reader is
> "figurative" and whatever does not, is not. As the babble starts off as
> a very nasty meaningless bunch of drivel this doesn't improve the
> situation very much. Even so, some serious issues then remain which are
> difficult to imagine being justifiable even in a figurative fashion.
[snip]
I concur that choosing what to take literally versus figuratively is
indeed rather inconsistent and that many problems result no matter how
one picks it. But they aren't problems to those who choose to be blind
to them. (Ignorance is bliss.)
> [nng] For every "inaccuracy" that has been "proved" to be in the Bible,
> I've heard well-reasoned explanations around it. This issue is too
> complicated for me to want to argue about - but know that if you want
> people to argue about that with, I can hook you up.
>
> [Hermit] This is not the place and I doubt many here have the desire.
And neither do I.
[snip]
> [nng] My point is that the statement "Evolution undermines any notion
> of the inerrancy of the Bible; god has not created man" is flawed - to
> many, God used evolution to create man.
>
> [Hermit] This is a very silly assertion.
That is not an assertion - it is a suggestion, and not to be construed
as mine.
> If true, please demonstrate the mechanism. We have a long chain of DNA
> demonstrating how evolution occurred and occurs. If the claim is true,
> why is "god" still at it?
Why not?
> If it is not "god" doing it now, how do we know that it was "god" doing
> it before?
If I have a stack of dominoes and I knock one over, and it starts the
chain reaction that knocks all the rest over, is it I who knocked the
others over or not?
> Has man improved over time?
Yes.
> Does this not indicate that the original concept was flawed - and if
> so, the principle that "god" is perfect is evidentially equally
> flawed - which undermines the entire theological basis for their belief
> that god is to be trusted.
No - not by some conceptions of that concept.
I never meant for it to be construed that "god" was perfect - by
whatever (undefined) definition of perfection you meant.
I'm not saying that god is to be trusted either. The argument for or
against that one is an entirely separate issue - one best left out of
this forum.
> [nng] If indeed there is a God (and I'm not trying to argue for that in
> this forum) and God is as omniscient as they say, then God could set up
> the initial conditions of the universe and "let it run" according to
> the natural laws (of physics or whatever) and voila we have our current
> day existence.
>
> [Hermit] And vast amounts of harm would have been done in the process,
> and their gods would have known that this was the case - completely
> undermining the assertion that God is merciful, just or good. You
> cannot have it both ways.
In no way was I trying to assert that God was merciful, just or good -
especially by human understandings of those words.
> [nng] God need "not personally intervene in the development of life on
> earth" for a basis for belief - save for setting up initial conditions.
>
> [Hermit] Why should the product of such a painful process have any
> gratitude to such a hypothetical monster?
The answer to that question is not relevant to this discussion.
> [Richard Ridge] Without that one is left with the moribund condition of
> faith without mandated doctrine.
>
> [Hermit] nods
>
> [nng] I also take exception to the use of the word "moribund" there.
> Faith has a valid role for several reasons.
>
> [Hermit] Like what?
>
> [nng] I'm reading "Darwinian Natural Right" by Larry Arnhart right
> now - in which he argues why the "natural right" or "natural law"
> notion of Aristotle is compatible - indeed, linked with - Darwin's view
> of evolution. He cites a number of sources arguing for 20 universal
> traits of human behavior. One of these is a natural desire to
> understand things through "supernatural revelation".
>
> [Hermit] I'm sorry, but this is farcical. By this, mechanism, anything
> can be validated and takes us right back to the horrors of slaughters
> mandated by the "gods".
Read the book before you knock it. As mentioned in my reply to Mr.
Ridge, there are plenty of sources that attempt to back this up -
investigate those before you decide to call something farcical.
> [nng] Even if we set this natural desire aside, we can see how it can
> be a logical consequence of human's natural desire for "justice as
> reciprocity" - let me explain: we desire justice - we have an instinct
> for "an eye for an eye" - yet we know and can observe that this doesn't
> happen. Primates are one of the few creates that have an understanding
> of "how the world should be" and attempt to make it so (female primates
> have an understanding of how their children should be treated, and
> attempt to enforce this on the other primates). I would argue that we
> see "justice" as something that is part of "how the world should be"
> and that when we see "justice" not occur, we cope with it by believing
> that it will occur in an afterlife or another lifetime.
>
> [Hermit] For which there is no evidence.
And to what extent is evidence relevant to what is "best" for human
behavior?
> And if we wish to model ourselves and our behavior on apes, this also
> justifies killing the weak, ostracizing the ill, cannibalism, cheating
> and rape. Wonderful "natural law" and "natural justice" on which to
> model society. Excuse me if I disagree. You cannot pick and choose
> amongst the bits you like and discard the bits you don't and claim that
> this is justification for "natural law". Either it is a model - or it
> is not. I suggest that it is not.
I would like to see further support - a nice, logical argument, for why
it is not. I would prefer to believe that it is not, but only because of
memes that have already "taken root" in my head.
> [nng] I'm not saying that it does or does not happen. I am saying that
> it is perfectly natural to believe that it will. This belief can help
> to bring our natural desires into a mode of satisfaction, rather than
> of unsatisfaction - enabling us to be more productive at pursuing other
> things, rather than trying (potentially with great harm to ourselves)
> to satisfy them (and enact "justice" at cost of life/limb).
>
> [Hermit] History shows that rational people minimize harm and tolerate
> the differences between themselves and others. Believers do not. The
> more rational the less harm is done to others. All the improvements in
> the lot of man to date has occurred through rational behavior and
> development. Every time that belief dominates, we lose those
> developments we have succeeded in achieving by reason. There are good
> reasons why the last time that a church ran most of the Western world
> that the period was known as the "dark ages."
This appeals to a rational person's ability to remain rational - to
avoid excessive emotional responses, as ben remarked. Here is where I
would suggest we pick up the thread of conversation over there -
regarding what memes best enable a rational person to remain rational.
> [nng] As you may have no doubt observed, I have concluded that what is
> best for human nature to believe is not necessarily what is true.
> Please persuade me otherwise, as I don't like such contradictions.
>
> [Hermit] Belief leads to UTism (Us-Them-ism). UTism is the leading
> cause for men to harm one another, and in a world as populous as ours,
> with weapons as effective as we have, can no longer be afforded. Thus
> belief cannot be afforded. Q.E.D. Belief in "what ain't necessarily so"
> prevents the ability to examine "what is so", and stops the scientific
> process dead in its tracks. Which also stops us from making progress.
> Which harms all men. Q.E.D. Not once but twice.
Belief need not lead to UTism. Consider the extremely pacifist varieties
of Buddhism, or the Quakers, or other such groups. Maybe they have a
slight bit of UTism, but certainly wouldn't harm one another.
Stopping us from "making progress" does not necessarily harm all men.
In fact, if we hadn't "made progress" to create "weapons as effective as
we have", we'd be doing a lot less harm.
Belief in "what ain't necessarily so" is precisely the beginnings of
science - the ability to have the "vision" to imagine an untested
hypothesis is the beginnings of progress in science.
I'll concur that unquestioning belief is bad, but belief tempered with
doubt is what drives the person on a quest for truth.
> [nng] If you cannot conceive of faith without mandated doctrine, I'd
> tentatively suggest (tentatively because I have not yet read it
> myself)[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471392162/102-8403530-2359342[
> /url]Essential Spirituality : The 7 Central Practices to Awaken Heart
> and Mind by Roger, Md. Walsh (The reviews suggest that this does indeed
> explain faith without mandated doctrine.) (If desired, I'll post a
> review of it here after I've read it.)
>
> [Hermit] I cannot conceive of faith serving any useful purpose other
> than to perpetuate UTism. I have yet to meet a believer who could
> rationally justify any other reason. Please do not take this as an
> invitation to attempt to do so. This is not the forum.
We are having a semantic communication problem here. I mean faith as
belief is something unknown (and potentially unknowable). You appear to
mean it as religion.
I see faith as where the CoV virtue of "vision" is allowed to extend
beyond the virtue of "rationality".
> [nng] I'd also suggest that faith is a necessity, as various
> incompleteness theorems indicate that logic (rationality) alone is
> insufficient for determining all truth. You may argue that we need not
> determine all truth - only relevant truth - and I would say that you
> won't know it's relevance until you've determined it.
>
> [Hermit] If you know that, you should also know that all knowledge is
> provisional, and that it is only by overturning previous "truths" that
> we progress.
If by provisional you mean contingent upon some underlying axioms, I
concur. (If you mean something else, please explain.)
If you are saying that science advances tentative knowledge of axioms, I
concur. (If you mean something else, please explain.)
> Faith, accepting what another tells you is true, and belief, accepting
> something as true on insufficient evidence or in spite of contradictory
> evidence, attempts to create stability and continuity, and in so doing
> prevents progress.
Belief in something as true based on insufficient evidence is sometimes
all that people can come up with.
I see the CoV's virtue of "empathy" as something that was adopted as a
"virtue" with "insufficient evidence". On the surface, the definition
that is offered on the website seems rational enough - but if you dig
deeper, you see a multitude of assumptions regarding the beneficial-ness
of society, concepts of mutual advantage, inherent beliefs about the
ability to trust and be trusted amongst other humans, and so on.
> Ask Moore, Descartes, Bruno, Galileo or Darwin. Thus your own argument
> mitigates against both faith and belief. Q.E.D. again, and what I tell
> you three times, is true.
The only reason people make progress in science is because they believe
something might be true and they want to do what it takes to answer the
question for themselves. Thus, belief is necessary for scientific
progress.
> [Walter Watts] Welcome to my non-spiritual well and virtual office
> water-cooler.
>
> [Walter Watts] Leave all beliephs outside and kindly bring all valuable
> non-common, self-discovered truths into our sanctuary and share them
> freely with us.
>
> [Walter Watts] It's all we(I) ask.
>
> [nng] I hope my comments are not too much at odds with the above - but
> I hope too that with the acclaimed "virtue of rationality" you will be
> able to avoid any (and I know they'd be natural - I've been around such
> people before) knee-jerk reactions of "he's a theist - discredit him".
> I do very much welcome rational feedback.
>
> [Hermit] And you shall receive it in abundance.
Thank you. I'm glad to receive it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT