My head just exploded
James Angove
just expressed their admiration for creationism as a better fit for the
available facts regarding the presence of human beings upon the earth. I
have explored this territory carefully but fully, and no, they are not
having me on.
I think I'm going to cry now.
On the upside, I'm supposed to have an interview next week. Not that that
will be better.
--
James Angove
Marcus L. Rowland
<ja...@ospf.net> writes
If you're not already aware of the REALLY silly version of creationism
which argues that God created the Earth with perfect evidence of natural
evolution, so that we would have to take it on faith that he (she, it)
exists, I strongly recommend it to you as a way of winding these people
up. Get them to agree with this, then point out that the logical
extension of the argument is that God could have created the universe
ten minutes ago with perfect evidence, including everyone's memories, of
its prior existence...
Search on the word Omphalos, you'll learn more than you ever wanted to
about this spectacularly silly hypothesis.
--
Marcus L. Rowland http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
LJ:ffutures http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
"Life is chaos; Chaos is life; Control is an illusion." - Andromeda
Robert Sneddon
<forgotte...@ntlworld.com> writes
>If you're not already aware of the REALLY silly version of creationism
>which argues that God created the Earth with perfect evidence of
>natural evolution, so that we would have to take it on faith that he
>(she, it) exists, I strongly recommend it to you as a way of winding
>these people up. Get them to agree with this, then point out that the
>logical extension of the argument is that God could have created the
>universe ten minutes ago with perfect evidence, including everyone's
>memories, of its prior existence...
The magic word in that argument is logic. People who believe in Gods
don't think logic has anything to do with their belief in a God. They
have faith instead, and faith is not susceptible to a logical disproof.
You as a believer in logic can get great enjoyment in pointing out the
logical fallacies in a believer's faith to them, but it makes no
difference to their belief since they have faith. Similarly a doorstep
prosletyser gets great satisfaction from explaining how faith and belief
in $GOD(rnd) are wonderful things even if they fail to convert you.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.
Robert Sneddon
Doug Wickstrom
<zlRhlMNP...@nojay.fsnet.co.uk>
Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> excited the ether to
say:
It's possible to believe in the existence of gods without taking
them at all seriously, or ascribing any creation powers to them.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"For all I knew, Marc Rich and his wife were Republicans." --Bill Clinton
Nate Edel
> On the upside, I'm supposed to have an interview next week. Not that that
> will be better.
Good luck with the interview!
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer
Karl Johanson
news:zlRhlMNP...@nojay.fsnet.co.uk...
> In article <vwhancEh...@00.d0.59.f5.d0.2a>, Marcus L. Rowland
> <forgotte...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
> >If you're not already aware of the REALLY silly version of creationism
> >which argues that God created the Earth with perfect evidence of
> >natural evolution, so that we would have to take it on faith that he
> >(she, it) exists, I strongly recommend it to you as a way of winding
> >these people up. Get them to agree with this, then point out that the
> >logical extension of the argument is that God could have created the
> >universe ten minutes ago with perfect evidence, including everyone's
> >memories, of its prior existence...
>
> The magic word in that argument is logic. People who believe in Gods
> don't think logic has anything to do with their belief in a God. They
> have faith instead, and faith is not susceptible to a logical disproof.
Some say, "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason
themself into." Much of my action is based on the hope that that isn't
always true.
Karl Johanson
Dan Kimmel
Please be careful with your sweeping generalities. From a Jewish
perspective there is nothing in Darwin that necessarily conflicts with
Genesis. We don't take the Bible as a science text, and that is the very
traditional view.
Keith F. Lynch
> From a Jewish perspective there is nothing in Darwin that
> necessarily conflicts with Genesis.
How can that be? If you add up the years in the Torah, and line
them up with historical events whose date is know, you get a creation
around 4000 BCE. Darwinian evolution requires several orders of
magnitude more time than that.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Dave Weingart
>Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> From a Jewish perspective there is nothing in Darwin that
>> necessarily conflicts with Genesis.
>
>How can that be? If you add up the years in the Torah, and line
>them up with historical events whose date is know, you get a creation
>around 4000 BCE. Darwinian evolution requires several orders of
>magnitude more time than that.
Because, generally speaking, Jews don't take the Torah literally
and it's almost always subject to interpretation.
Thus, "and there was evening and there was morning; the first day"
is open to interpretation as the the mechanism for doing things
and how long a day is. And this is perfectly mainstream.
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK Loyalty oaths. Secret searches. No-fly
mailto:phyd...@liii.com lists. Detention without legal recourse.
http://www.weingart.net/ Who won the cold war, again?
ICQ 57055207 -- Politicklers
Karl Johanson
news:YeGdnVB1sMUJyR3cRVn-
> Please be careful with your sweeping generalities. From a Jewish
> perspective there is nothing in Darwin that necessarily conflicts with
> Genesis.
'Sweeping generalities' are easy to dispel. For one conflict, Genesis has
birds showing up before any of the 'creeping things'.
>We don't take the Bible as a science text,
Why not? I know why I don't, but I'm interested in why others might not.
>and that is the very traditional view.
Karl Johanson
Dan Goodman
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:YeGdnVB1sMUJyR3cRVn-
>
>> Please be careful with your sweeping generalities. From a Jewish
>> perspective there is nothing in Darwin that necessarily conflicts with
>> Genesis.
Not entirely true. There are Jews who take Genesis as literally as any
Christian Fundamentalist does.
In particular, they know how old the universe is. And any alleged
scientist who says there's evidence otherwise is mistaken at best.
Note: Their date for the beginning differs from Archbishop Ussher's. I
used to have (on a previous computer) a passage by Ussher which would
account for some of the discrepancy. As I recall: It is not known what
calendar Jews used before the current one. Therefore, they obviously used
to Egyptian calendar -- which was obviously the same as the Julian
calendar.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood
Predictions http://seeingfutures.blogspot.com
All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.
John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician.
Dan Kimmel
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:1vcy7lsrbgknw.1dlfasd47tq1n$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:21:33 GMT, Karl Johanson wrote:
>
> > "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > news:YeGdnVB1sMUJyR3cRVn-
> >
> >> Please be careful with your sweeping generalities. From a Jewish
> >> perspective there is nothing in Darwin that necessarily conflicts with
> >> Genesis.
>
> Not entirely true. There are Jews who take Genesis as literally as any
> Christian Fundamentalist does.
>
> In particular, they know how old the universe is. And any alleged
> scientist who says there's evidence otherwise is mistaken at best.
But they are in the minority. Even Rashi argues that it isn't a literal
scientific treatise.
Dan Kimmel
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:clpm2p$i91$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > From a Jewish perspective there is nothing in Darwin that
> > necessarily conflicts with Genesis.
>
> How can that be? If you add up the years in the Torah, and line
> them up with historical events whose date is know, you get a creation
> around 4000 BCE. Darwinian evolution requires several orders of
> magnitude more time than that.
Read the first chapters of Genesis. The sun isn't created until the fourth
day. How was time measured before that?
No less a commentator than Rashi -- the medieval rabbi who is considered the
greatest of all Torah commentators -- argued that the Bible is not a science
text, and the purpose of the creation story is to impress *WHO* is
responsible for creation, not how it was done.
Dan Kimmel
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ht_fd.43787$%k.1196@pd7tw2no...
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:YeGdnVB1sMUJyR3cRVn-
>
> > Please be careful with your sweeping generalities. From a Jewish
> > perspective there is nothing in Darwin that necessarily conflicts with
> > Genesis.
>
> 'Sweeping generalities' are easy to dispel. For one conflict, Genesis has
> birds showing up before any of the 'creeping things'.
Depends on your definitions.
>
> >We don't take the Bible as a science text,
>
> Why not? I know why I don't, but I'm interested in why others might not.
>
> >and that is the very traditional view.
Don't know about "others," but from a Jewish perspective it is about the
roots of our people, and the laws we are to live by. The creation story
isn't about how things were done -- notice the lack of detail -- but about
God being behind it.
You don't have to believe it, but please don't assume fundamental
Christianity has the main, or only, interpretation of a text that they
adopted for their own.
Daniel R. Reitman
wrote:
>. . . .
>Note: Their date for the beginning differs from Archbishop Ussher's. . . .
The primary reason being that the genealogies are insufficient for a
direct calculation.
Dan, ad nauseam
Charlton Wilbur
RS> The magic word in that argument is logic. People who believe
RS> in Gods don't think logic has anything to do with their belief
RS> in a God. They have faith instead, and faith is not
RS> susceptible to a logical disproof. You as a believer in logic
RS> can get great enjoyment in pointing out the logical fallacies
RS> in a believer's faith to them, but it makes no difference to
RS> their belief since they have faith.
Hardly. Faith and reason are not at all incompatible -- though some
kinds of know-nothingness are extremely popular with some approaches
to religion -- and it's rather an insulting generalization for you to
make about *all* believers. There are unprovable axioms at the base
of every logical argument, after all; you choose yours so that the
conclusions you reach are congruent with the evidence you see, and
I'll do likewise, and I see no profit in being condescending about the
choice of axioms.
Further, the choice between evolution and creationism isn't a choice
at all: you *can* have both. You just can't have both so long as you
insist on a stupidly dogmatic and literalist interpretation of the
Bible.
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Robert Sneddon
<cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> writes
>Hardly. Faith and reason are not at all incompatible -- though some
>kinds of know-nothingness are extremely popular with some approaches
>to religion -- and it's rather an insulting generalization for you to
>make about *all* believers.
When logic stomps all over the reason behind someone's faith then that
person tends to regard their faith as being "stronger" than logic. I
used to worry about people who just couldn't *see* how wrong that was,
and try and convince them of their error using logic. Now I don't
bother.
> There are unprovable axioms at the base
>of every logical argument, after all; you choose yours so that the
>conclusions you reach are congruent with the evidence you see, and
>I'll do likewise, and I see no profit in being condescending about the
>choice of axioms.
I'm not being condescending, I'm being realistic.
>
>Further, the choice between evolution and creationism isn't a choice
>at all: you *can* have both.
This is the fair and balanced approach that tells us that no viewpoint
totally lacks merit. I don't hold to it myself but I don't bother trying
any more to convince a believer that has faith in the idea that it lacks
merit.
> You just can't have both so long as you
>insist on a stupidly dogmatic and literalist interpretation of the
>Bible.
If you have a solid enough faith then you can interpret the Bible
literally and claim to have logic on your side; God's ineffability fills
in all the cracks and holes.
Dave Weingart
>>Further, the choice between evolution and creationism isn't a choice
>>at all: you *can* have both.
>
> This is the fair and balanced approach that tells us that no viewpoint
>totally lacks merit. I don't hold to it myself but I don't bother trying
>any more to convince a believer that has faith in the idea that it lacks
>merit.
Devil's advocate here. There's no actual conflict in having both
unless you hold that the creation acount in the Bible is word-for-word
true. There's no actual mechanism mentioned in Genesis.
Lee Ratner
On a related note, I once took a class on evolution and its
effects on human society in college. On the evolution and religion
class, the Professor mentioned that Christianity has no problem with
evolution, Islam has no problem with evolution, Buddhism has no
problem with evolution etc., but Judaism does. I challenged him on his
ascertation that Judaism has a problem with evolution and he admitted
to not having anything really to base it on. I really wish gentiles
would study a bit about Judaism before making grand or even minor
pronouncements on it.
Tim McDaniel
Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:ht_fd.43787$%k.1196@pd7tw2no...
>> Genesis has birds showing up before any of the 'creeping things'.
>
>Depends on your definitions.
WHAT?!
I append Genesis 1 (King James Version) for reference.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in
the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it
was good.
...
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth
after his kind: and it was so.
How can "every winged fowl after his kind" not be interpreted as
"birds"? (NIV has "every winged bird".) And "creeping thing" is a
direct quote.
Genesis 1 has vegetation, specifically including grasses and other
seed-bearing plants, created on day 3, the sun and moon on day 4,
acquatic and aerial creatures on day 5, land creatures on day 6. The
sequence makes no sense in reality -- and you don't even have to
consider evolution to see that, just stratigraphy.
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of
the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the
light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were
under the firmament from the waters which were above the
firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the
morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered
together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was
so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together
of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind,
whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after
his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself,
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for
signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to
give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light
upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the
light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in
the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it
was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth
after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and
over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
...
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was
very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Charlton Wilbur
LR> On the evolution and religion class, the Professor mentioned
LR> that Christianity has no problem with evolution, Islam has no
LR> problem with evolution, Buddhism has no problem with evolution
LR> etc., but Judaism does. I challenged him on his ascertation
LR> that Judaism has a problem with evolution and he admitted to
LR> not having anything really to base it on.
I can't speak to Islam or Judaism, but some branches of Christianity
most assuredly *do* have a problem with evolution.
Charlton Wilbur
RS> In article <87u0sff...@mithril.chromatico.net>, Charlton
RS> Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> writes
>> Hardly. Faith and reason are not at all incompatible -- though
>> some kinds of know-nothingness are extremely popular with some
>> approaches to religion -- and it's rather an insulting
>> generalization for you to make about *all* believers.
RS> When logic stomps all over the reason behind someone's faith
RS> then that person tends to regard their faith as being
RS> "stronger" than logic. I used to worry about people who just
RS> couldn't *see* how wrong that was, and try and convince them
RS> of their error using logic. Now I don't bother.
Or the "logic" is proceeding from different *unprovable* axioms, and
as a result is not "stomping all over the reason behind someone's
faith."
>> Further, the choice between evolution and creationism isn't a
>> choice at all: you *can* have both.
RS> This is the fair and balanced approach that tells us that no
RS> viewpoint totally lacks merit. I don't hold to it myself but I
RS> don't bother trying any more to convince a believer that has
RS> faith in the idea that it lacks merit.
No, it's not that at all. Faith says "There is a God, and He is the
creator of and prime mover behind everything that is." Science says
"Species change over time, and natural selection and accident select
which species survive." There is *no* inherent conflict between these
two statements.
>> You just can't have both so long as you insist on a stupidly
>> dogmatic and literalist interpretation of the Bible.
RS> If you have a solid enough faith then you can interpret the
RS> Bible literally and claim to have logic on your side; God's
RS> ineffability fills in all the cracks and holes.
And if you aren't being intentionally stupid, you can distinguish
between literal truth and metaphor. The fact that some people cannot
distinguish between the two, and build a shaky worldview based on that
inability, does not invalidate faith, any more than Uri Geller,
Charles Fort, and Velikovsky invalidate science.
Perhaps you ought to reexamine whether your bias is in favor of
reason, as you seem to believe, or is irrationally anti-faith, as it
certainly appears to be from your attitude in these postings? You are
easily as dogmatic as the people you are accusing.
Dan Kimmel
"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:clrdqg$alj$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us...
> In article <TPGdnYumMv6...@rcn.net>,
> Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> >news:ht_fd.43787$%k.1196@pd7tw2no...
> >> 'Sweeping generalities' are easy to dispel. For one conflict,
> >> Genesis has birds showing up before any of the 'creeping things'.
> >
> >Depends on your definitions.
>
> WHAT?!
>
> I append Genesis 1 (King James Version) for reference.
I really don't want to get into a debate on Biblical exegesis but as a Jew I
really couldn't care less what the King James Version says. It ain't *my*
Bible.
Karl Johanson
> Hardly. Faith and reason are not at all incompatible -- though some
> kinds of know-nothingness are extremely popular with some approaches
> to religion -- and it's rather an insulting generalization for you to
> make about *all* believers. There are unprovable axioms at the base
> of every logical argument, after all;
You can't prove that:)
>you choose yours so that the
> conclusions you reach are congruent with the evidence you see, and
> I'll do likewise, and I see no profit in being condescending about the
> choice of axioms.
Well, despite the suggestion of the theme some of the latest Star Trek
franchise, it wasn't "faith" that got humans into space, it was reason,
motivation, cooperation and hard work. But feel free to wish yourself to the
moon all you want.
> Further, the choice between evolution and creationism isn't a choice
> at all: you *can* have both. You just can't have both so long as you
> insist on a stupidly dogmatic and literalist interpretation of the
> Bible.
What's so stupid about a literalist approach to the Bible? It's no more (nor
less) stupid than any other religion. (I've heard it said that, "There are
unprovable axioms at the base of every logical argument, after all; ..." If
that's in fact the case, then that would suggest that there are similarly
'unprovable axioms' at the base of every religion.) God might have made the
Bible consistent, yet built flaws into our brains to make us go a bit
irrational every time we read the Bible, so that we think it's inconsistent.
That's as likely as any other religion & it's no 'stupider' than any other
religion. It's certainly no 'stupider' than the thought that an omnipotent
being would be correctly defined in an error laden and inconsistent
collection of violent and bigoted stories.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
news:clqhvh$6kp$1...@eri0.s8.isp.nyc.eggn.net...
> One day in Teletubbyland, Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> said:
> >>Further, the choice between evolution and creationism isn't a choice
> >>at all: you *can* have both.
> >
> > This is the fair and balanced approach that tells us that no viewpoint
> >totally lacks merit. I don't hold to it myself but I don't bother trying
> >any more to convince a believer that has faith in the idea that it lacks
> >merit.
>
> Devil's advocate here. There's no actual conflict in having both
> unless you hold that the creation acount in the Bible is word-for-word
> true.
In other words, there is no conflict as long as you ignore what one of them
actually says.
I guess then one could say that 5 equals 3, as long as you don't take a
'word for word' interpretation of what '3' means.
>There's no actual mechanism mentioned in Genesis.
The mechanism is mention in the Bible. 'God did it'.
As for contradiction, Genesis lists some of the order of creation twice, and
the two versions contradict each other.
Karl Johanson
Dave Weingart
>> Devil's advocate here. There's no actual conflict in having both
>> unless you hold that the creation acount in the Bible is word-for-word
>> true.
>
>In other words, there is no conflict as long as you ignore what one of them
>actually says.
Dude, it's *metaphor*
>
>>There's no actual mechanism mentioned in Genesis.
>
>The mechanism is mention in the Bible. 'God did it'.
That's not a mechanism.
"Dave made an omelette" is not the same as "Dave cracked two eggs into a
glass bowl, beat them using a wire whisk and poured them into a pan. He
flipped it once, and put on some shredded cheddar and diced tomatos
before flipping it closed and sliding it onto a plate."
>As for contradiction, Genesis lists some of the order of creation twice, and
>the two versions contradict each other.
Does it contradict itslef? Very well then, it contradicts itself.
It is large. It contains multitudes.
Karl Johanson
> And if you aren't being intentionally stupid, you can distinguish
> between literal truth and metaphor.
It's dogmatic to proclaim that someone who takes a literalist view of the
Bible is stupider than one who personally decides which bits are true and
which they can decide are metaphor. I used to work with a mentally
handicapped person who was (still is) Christian. He took the lessons he was
told from the Bible literally and didn't pick and choose which to believe in
and which to assume were allegory or metaphor. Was he being 'intentionally
stupid' for not interpreting millennia old context (from things written in
other languages) the same way you do?
I'm also curious what 'metaphorical' meaning you find in the suggestion that
one shouldn't eat rabbits because they chew their cud, or the statement that
grasshoppers have 4 legs? Was the order to slaughter Amelekite babies
metaphor? Do you think the interpreted as metaphor at the time?
> The fact that some people cannot
> distinguish between the two, and build a shaky worldview based on that
> inability,
Ah yes, 'other' religions represent a 'shakey' worldview. Yup yup yup.
>does not invalidate faith, any more than Uri Geller,
> Charles Fort, and Velikovsky invalidate science.
> Perhaps you ought to re-examine whether your bias is in favour of
> reason, as you seem to believe, or is irrationally anti-faith, as it
> certainly appears to be from your attitude in these postings? You are
> easily as dogmatic as the people you are accusing.
Perhaps you ought to re-examine whether your bias is in favour of
one form of religion (such as deciding some bits of an old book are
metaphor), over others who are literalist (including you calling them
'intentionally stupid'). You are easily as dogmatic as the person you are
accusing.
Karl Johanson
Charlton Wilbur
KJ> Well, despite the suggestion of the theme some of the latest
KJ> Star Trek franchise, it wasn't "faith" that got humans into
KJ> space, it was reason, motivation, cooperation and hard
KJ> work. But feel free to wish yourself to the moon all you want.
Why do you persist in the delusion that faith and reason are
inherently opposed? It's not like one needs to choose to employ
*either* faith *or* reason, after all. I wouldn't use faith to get me
to the moon any more than I'd use my stereo to drive me to the airport.
>> Further, the choice between evolution and creationism isn't a
>> choice at all: you *can* have both. You just can't have both
>> so long as you insist on a stupidly dogmatic and literalist
>> interpretation of the Bible.
KJ> What's so stupid about a literalist approach to the Bible?
When the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is wrong, no? It
is apparent from the evidence that the Universe was not created in
seven Earth days, so the story in Genesis is clearly not literal
truth. (It is *possible*, assuming an omnipotent God, that He created
the Universe fifteen seconds ago, complete with evidence of great
antiquity and all our memories; but as to anyone except God this would
be imperceptible, it's largely irrelevant.)
KJ> It's no more (nor less) stupid than any other religion. (I've
KJ> heard it said that, "There are unprovable axioms at the base
KJ> of every logical argument, after all; ..." If that's in fact
KJ> the case, then that would suggest that there are similarly
KJ> 'unprovable axioms' at the base of every religion.)
Yes, there are. And I'm not sure why you privilege one set of
unprovable and un-disprovable axioms over another -- that seems pretty
arbitrary and dogmatic to me. Or, in other words, it is as irrational
to assert the non-existence of God as it is to assert the existence of
God, given no evidence either way. The rational conclusion given only
verifiable evidence is that God *may* exist but that it is not
sufficiently proven that He does or does not.
KJ> It's certainly no 'stupider' than the thought that
KJ> an omnipotent being would be correctly defined in an error
KJ> laden and inconsistent collection of violent and bigoted
KJ> stories.
Yes, that is a stupid thought. It's also a straw man.
Charlton Wilbur
DW> "Dave made an omelette" is not the same as "Dave cracked two
DW> eggs into a glass bowl, beat them using a wire whisk and
DW> poured them into a pan. He flipped it once, and put on some
DW> shredded cheddar and diced tomatos before flipping it closed
DW> and sliding it onto a plate."
This is a good analogy -- especially as you forgot to turn on the
heat. Your second statement, as reassuringly detailed as it is, is
not equivalent to the first.
>> As for contradiction, Genesis lists some of the order of
>> creation twice, and the two versions contradict each other.
DW> Does it contradict itslef? Very well then, it contradicts
DW> itself. It is large. It contains multitudes.
And it was written by imperfect humans, many of whom understood it as
metaphor even when they were writing it, and transmitted orally for a
long time before it was written down. Ironically, only the atheists
in this discussion are arguing for the literal truth of the Bible,
presumably because it's a far easier straw man to attack.
Tim McDaniel
Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:clrdqg$alj$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us...
>> In article <TPGdnYumMv6...@rcn.net>,
>> Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> >news:ht_fd.43787$%k.1196@pd7tw2no...
>> >> 'Sweeping generalities' are easy to dispel. For one conflict,
>> >> Genesis has birds showing up before any of the 'creeping things'.
>> >
>> >Depends on your definitions.
>>
>> WHAT?!
>>
>> I append Genesis 1 (King James Version) for reference.
>
>I really don't want to get into a debate on Biblical exegesis
Someone pointed out (apparently correctly) that "Genesis has birds
showing up before any of the 'creeping things'". You replied "Depends
on your definitions." but now you're refusing to give any background
or explain in any way.
>but as a Jew I really couldn't care less what the King James Version
>says. It ain't *my* Bible.
Oh, fer fuck's sake, man! We're not discussing the Epistles of Paul.
Bereishith is in Torah and Genesis is in Christian Bibles. We're not
wondering what Arbeh, Sa'lam, Chargol, or Chagav might have been, or
what the heck the story of Zipporah and the foreskin means. Genesis 1
(however you name it) doesn't look like a difficult translation to me,
and if there's been a gross mistranslation, I'd like to know what's
what.
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Cally Soukup
> "Charlton Wilbur" <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote in message
>> Further, the choice between evolution and creationism isn't a choice
>> at all: you *can* have both. You just can't have both so long as you
>> insist on a stupidly dogmatic and literalist interpretation of the
>> Bible.
> What's so stupid about a literalist approach to the Bible? It's no more (nor
> less) stupid than any other religion. (I've heard it said that, "There are
What's stupid is taking a theological argument (Look, our God *created*
the light, the darkness, the Sun, the Moon, the stars, the plants, the
animals, and so on, so clearly our God is better/more powerful than the
gods of light, darkness, sun moon etc. that YOU worship) and supposing
that it's literally true and scientifically accurate. According to
what I've read of current mainstream theological thought, the seven day
Creation story was written (almost certainly after the other one, and,
if memory serves, probably during the Babylonian exile) as theological
one-upmanship. It's a kind of metaphor, and was intended to be one.
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
Dan Kimmel
Karl Johanson
Boy you sure keep hiding from this one don't you. Genesis has 'creeping
things' showing up before birds. You'll decide words might mean other than
what they mean, or go off on tangents about which version of the Bible has
god's seal of approval, but you won't see a clear contradiction.
Fascinating.
Karl Johanson
Genesis is wrong, live with it.
Karl Johanson
> One day in Teletubbyland, "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> said:
> >> Devil's advocate here. There's no actual conflict in having both
> >> unless you hold that the creation acount in the Bible is word-for-word
> >> true.
> >
> >In other words, there is no conflict as long as you ignore what one of
them
> >actually says.
>
> Dude, it's *metaphor*
Dude, some Think that it's metaphor, because the alternative is to recognize
it's quite clearly wrong.
> >>There's no actual mechanism mentioned in Genesis.
> >
> >The mechanism is mention in the Bible. 'God did it'.
>
> That's not a mechanism.
>
> "Dave made an omelette" is not the same as "Dave cracked two eggs into a
> glass bowl, beat them using a wire whisk and poured them into a pan. He
> flipped it once, and put on some shredded cheddar and diced tomatos
> before flipping it closed and sliding it onto a plate."
No, they aren't the same, but they're both mechanisms. 'Dave made it' is one
mechanism, your more wordy answer is another. 'The egg fell out of the nest,
cracked open & landed on a geothermally heated rock, which cooked it' is
another.
No parsley?
> >As for contradiction, Genesis lists some of the order of creation twice,
and
> >the two versions contradict each other.
>
> Does it contradict itslef? Very well then, it contradicts itself.
Thus, at least part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest might be as well.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
> And it was written by imperfect humans, many of whom understood it as
> metaphor even when they were writing it, and transmitted orally for a
> long time before it was written down.
Yes.
>Ironically, only the atheists
> in this discussion are arguing for the literal truth of the Bible,
> presumably because it's a far easier straw man to attack.
The point is that Genesis clearly contradicts evolution / evolutionary
theory. That some people have decided to believe parts of Genesis are
intended to be interpreted literally and other parts metaphorically, is also
clearly true. Regardless, Genesis says plants were here before the sun &
that's clearly not allegory, but rather simply wrong; not to mention a clear
sign of non-divine inspiration for the story.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
news:clrktl$tu2$2...@wheel2.two14.net...
> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in article
<80cgd.45562$nl.10951@pd7tw3no>:
> > "Charlton Wilbur" <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote in message
>
> >> Further, the choice between evolution and creationism isn't a choice
> >> at all: you *can* have both. You just can't have both so long as you
> >> insist on a stupidly dogmatic and literalist interpretation of the
> >> Bible.
>
> > What's so stupid about a literalist approach to the Bible? It's no more
(nor
> > less) stupid than any other religion. (I've heard it said that, "There
are
>
> What's stupid is taking a theological argument (Look, our God *created*
> the light, the darkness, the Sun, the Moon, the stars, the plants, the
> animals, and so on, so clearly our God is better/more powerful than the
> gods of light, darkness, sun moon etc. that YOU worship) and supposing
> that it's literally true and scientifically accurate.
I don't think it's overly smart myself, but why is that any stupider than
any other religion?
> According to
> what I've read of current mainstream theological thought, the seven day
> Creation story was written (almost certainly after the other one, and,
> if memory serves, probably during the Babylonian exile) as theological
> one-upmanship.
Interesting. Thank you.
>It's a kind of metaphor, and was intended to be one.
Some interpret it as a metaphor, as the alternative is to assume the
writer(s) didn't know what they were talking about (something I suggest is
more likely the case given what was known about the world at the time). It
might be metaphor, it might be the clear self contradictory error ridden
text it appears to be. It might be literally accurate & god (or Mooster, or
the council of 42 gods, or the Great Batman) makes it look contradictory to
our brains as a test of faith. That's as likely as any other religion & it's
no stupider to believe that, than to believe any other religion. Maybe god
punishes those who think any of the Bible is metaphor. Again, it's as likely
as any other religion.
To be clear, I'm quite glad many people don't follow lots of what the
various versions of the Bible says. I don't want people killed for working
on Saturdays, or for being raped in a city, or for being born to the wrong
people. I just wonder why some throw out some of the bathwater, while
keeping some of the bathwater.
Karl Johanson
Mark Jones
> "Dave Weingart" <phyd...@liii.com> wrote in message
> news:clqhvh$6kp$1...@eri0.s8.isp.nyc.eggn.net...
>>There's no actual mechanism mentioned in Genesis.
>
> The mechanism is mention in the Bible. 'God did it'.
But did God do it by...
...assembling the universe from Lego blocks?
...by twitching his nose like Samantha Stevens?
...by establishing the physical laws that led to stars forming, and
planets, and chemicals combining in primordial soup to create life and
yadda yadda yadda?
"God did it" covers any of those. It's a statement, not a description
of how.
David Dyer-Bennet
Huh? Birds are fifth day. Creeping things are sixth day. In the
version Tim posted, anyway. This is so blatant I can't believe you've
missed it; so what are you on about?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
David Dyer-Bennet
>>>>>> "KJ" == Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> writes:
>
> KJ> Well, despite the suggestion of the theme some of the latest
> KJ> Star Trek franchise, it wasn't "faith" that got humans into
> KJ> space, it was reason, motivation, cooperation and hard
> KJ> work. But feel free to wish yourself to the moon all you want.
>
> Why do you persist in the delusion that faith and reason are
> inherently opposed? It's not like one needs to choose to employ
> *either* faith *or* reason, after all. I wouldn't use faith to get me
> to the moon any more than I'd use my stereo to drive me to the airport.
Believing things for no reason is not reasonable.
David Dyer-Bennet
> "Charlton Wilbur" <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote in message
>
>> And if you aren't being intentionally stupid, you can distinguish
>> between literal truth and metaphor.
>
> It's dogmatic to proclaim that someone who takes a literalist view
> of the Bible is stupider than one who personally decides which bits
> are true and which they can decide are metaphor. I used to work with
> a mentally handicapped person who was (still is) Christian. He took
> the lessons he was told from the Bible literally and didn't pick and
> choose which to believe in and which to assume were allegory or
> metaphor. Was he being 'intentionally stupid' for not interpreting
> millennia old context (from things written in other languages) the
> same way you do?
No, he was naturally stupid, instead. Sorry, couldn't resist.
So far as I can see the literalist view is incoherent. The bible is
self-contradictory. Furthermore, people taking the literalist view
don't go back to the oldest sources in the original languages, which
makes their endeavor nonsensical from the start.
Chris Malme
news:vwhancEh...@00.d0.59.f5.d0.2a:
> If you're not already aware of the REALLY silly version of creationism
> which argues that God created the Earth with perfect evidence of natural
> evolution, so that we would have to take it on faith that he (she, it)
> exists
Known to Bill Hicks fans as the "God the prankster" scenario.
--
Chris
Minstrel's Hall of Filk - http://www.filklore.com/
Filklore Music Store - http://www.filklore.co.uk/
To contact me, please use form at http://www.filklore.com/contact.phtml
Karl Johanson
news:m2hdoe8...@gw.dd-b.net...
> > Boy you sure keep hiding from this one don't you. Genesis has 'creeping
> > things' showing up before birds. You'll decide words might mean other
than
> > what they mean, or go off on tangents about which version of the Bible
has
> > god's seal of approval, but you won't see a clear contradiction.
> > Fascinating.
>
> Huh? Birds are fifth day. Creeping things are sixth day. In the
> version Tim posted, anyway. This is so blatant I can't believe you've
> missed it; so what are you on about?
Typo, You are right, Genesis has birds before 'creeping things' as per my
previous post. Thank you for pointing out the error.
Karl Johanson
Charlton Wilbur
KJ> Thus, at least part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest
KJ> might be as well.
Mmmm yeah. So the next time a flaw is found in a scientific theory,
we'll throw the whole scientific apparatus out -- because if at least
part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest might be as well.
Strange how you don't apply the same arguments to your own belief
systems as you do to the belief systems of others.
Keith F. Lynch
> Or, in other words, it is as irrational to assert the non-existence
> of God as it is to assert the existence of God, given no evidence
> either way. The rational conclusion given only verifiable evidence
> is that God *may* exist but that it is not sufficiently proven that
> He does or does not.
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. The
stronger the claim, the stronger the burden of proof. The existence
of an omnipotent omniscient Being is a very very strong claim, so
it makes no sense to believe without overwhelming evidence. The
existence of an old book full of contradictions, not containing any
verifiable information that couldn't have been known at the time,
totally fails to meet the burden of proof.
Being agnostic as to the existence of God makes no more sense than
being agnostic as to whether George Bush is Elvis in disguise, or
Cthulhu caused the 9/11 attacks, or that the UN is secretly headed by
a triumvirate consisting of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the
Great Pumpkin, or the DC area snipers were time travelers who were
preventing World War III by killing evil people, or that every word
in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series is literally true.
Sure, God's existence is possible, but only in the same sense as
anything anyone has ever written, intended seriously or not, may be
true. Can you *prove* Abraham Lincoln didn't shoot JFK? Beyond all
*possible* doubt? If not, then is the only rational position to be
agnostic on the question?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
> Faith says "There is a God, and He is the creator of and prime mover
> behind everything that is." Science says "Species change over time,
> and natural selection and accident select which species survive."
> There is *no* inherent conflict between these two statements.
Science says that things should not be believed without good evidence.
There is good evidence for natural selection. There is no good
evidence for any omniscient omnipotent Being.
Faith says completely different things to different people. To some
of them it says that if they kill lots of Americans, that after
they've been smashed to peices and burned up, they'll be magically put
back together, brought back to life, and rewarded with 72 virgins.
Keith F. Lynch
> No less a commentator than Rashi -- the medieval rabbi who is
> considered the greatest of all Torah commentators -- argued that the
> Bible is not a science text,
Is "science text" really the best translation for what he said, given
that in his day (1040-1105 CE) science in the modern sense hadn't been
invented yet?
> and the purpose of the creation story is to impress *WHO* is
> responsible for creation, not how it was done.
Then why does it go into all that spurious detail?
Karl Johanson
> >>>>> "KJ" == Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> writes:
>
> KJ> Well, despite the suggestion of the theme some of the latest
> KJ> Star Trek franchise, it wasn't "faith" that got humans into
> KJ> space, it was reason, motivation, cooperation and hard
> KJ> work. But feel free to wish yourself to the moon all you want.
>
> Why do you persist in the delusion that faith and reason are
> inherently opposed?
I don't recall suggesting that. Religious faith is close to irrelevant
(except when it's one of the factors leading to wars). Reason is a tool to
try to figure things out. No conflict.
>It's not like one needs to choose to employ
>*either* faith *or* reason, after all. I wouldn't use faith to get me
> to the moon any more than I'd use my stereo to drive me to the airport.
One of my stereos has a 1987 Hyundai Pony built around it. I could have
faith that god will get me to the airport when I want (and maybe I'm missing
out in a big way by not working on that), but I tend to use my stereo's car
to get me there instead.
> >> Further, the choice between evolution and creationism isn't a
> >> choice at all: you *can* have both. You just can't have both
> >> so long as you insist on a stupidly dogmatic and literalist
> >> interpretation of the Bible.
>
> KJ> What's so stupid about a literalist approach to the Bible?
>
> When the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is wrong, no?
Religious faith isn't about evidence and theories though.
When using reason it's absurd to take a literalist view of the Bible
(evidence & all that). From a faith point of view, you can believe anything
you want, with no restrictions.
>It
> is apparent from the evidence that the Universe was not created in
> seven Earth days, so the story in Genesis is clearly not literal
> truth.
yes, but what does evidence have to do with religious faith?
You can believe the evidence was planted by the devil, or by God to test our
faith.
>(It is *possible*, assuming an omnipotent God, that He created
> the Universe fifteen seconds ago, complete with evidence of great
> antiquity and all our memories; but as to anyone except God this would
> be imperceptible, it's largely irrelevant.)
In scientific terms it's irrelevant, as it's inherently untestable. In terms
of faith, it's as likely to be right as any other religion. No one
untestable religious conjecture is anymore likely than any other.
> KJ> It's no more (nor less) stupid than any other religion. (I've
> KJ> heard it said that, "There are unprovable axioms at the base
> KJ> of every logical argument, after all; ..." If that's in fact
> KJ> the case, then that would suggest that there are similarly
> KJ> 'unprovable axioms' at the base of every religion.)
>
> Yes, there are. And I'm not sure why you privilege one set of
> unprovable and un-disprovable axioms over another -- that seems pretty
> arbitrary and dogmatic to me.
Well lets see. Religious conjecture have gotten us little but ...
conjectures (oh yeah, and the wars). Scientific conjectures and
investigations have gotten us trifles such as this here massive network of
sophisticated computers & some very skookum electricity generators to power
it and the fridge which makes my food last longer. Science also taught some
of us to say, "I might be wrong".
>Or, in other words, it is as irrational
> to assert the non-existence of God as it is to assert the existence of
> God, given no evidence either way. The rational conclusion given only
> verifiable evidence is that God *may* exist but that it is not
> sufficiently proven that He does or does not.
To assert the non-existence of the council of 47 Gods* as it is to assert
the existence of
the council of 47 Gods, given no evidence either way. The rational
conclusion given only
verifiable evidence is that the council of 47 Gods *may* exist but that it
is not
sufficiently proven that they do or do not.
(*Maynard, Cranston, Woowoo, Mooster, Batman, Grunchkin, Xyglamapix,
Zoltron, Greeger, Manacoti, Finster, Finster's pet fly, Abachromby,
Zeelyborg, Hamerstat, Zig, Dirtbag, Freeb the Bright Orange, Wubbly, Jux who
want us to sing songs about Zinc, Backwards Yokli, BBBBBBB, Amblybop Oooo Ah
Ah, Ninananana, Gyx, Blymar and Sowbert. Okay, that's not 47, but '47' is
meant to be taken allegorically.)
A further rational conclusion is that there is an infinite number of
different possible gods, or that there are any number of gods, of through
infinity. Your chances of choosing correctly are around 1 in infinity.
Believers in any of the numerous versions of god, have rejected all of them,
except one, and have chosen to not believe in a number of gods 2, or 3, or
1,000,006 through infinity.
I don't believe there is no god. I think there is no god, but am willing to
look at (what did you call it?) evidence. I'll also look at evidence that
Batman, the Tooth Feary, or Mott the Hoople created the Universe, if there
is any. I make mistakes, the exact god you refer to might exist, but so
might any of the infinite number of other possible ones. One in infinity is
a bit week for me to base my life on, or to excuse killing Amelekite babies
or such.
I acknowledge also that the world around me may not be as it seems. The
internet may be an illusion, I may be a complex Eliza program, and the
potatoes I ate yesterday might be delusions put in my head by god's Egyptian
killing 'destroyer'. I might be an effect of a butterfly dreaming I'm an SF
fan. But again, there's an infinite number of such possible conjectures,
none of which seem to get anything done, such as helping build devices
capable of blasting the #$%& out of cancerous tumours or melting cheese onto
potatoes. But believe away, just why jump on those who also believe, but who
believe one of the other infinite number of possible religions? Religious
'Literal'ists aren't any 'stupider' than religious 'that bit doesn't make
sense to me bit so I'll declare it a metaphor'ists.
Karl Johanson
Keith F. Lynch
> Mmmm yeah. So the next time a flaw is found in a scientific theory,
> we'll throw the whole scientific apparatus out -- because if at
> least part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest might be as well.
Science isn't a fixed body of knowledge, it's a system for gaining
new knowledge.
Scientific theories are always subject to change, based on new
evidence. As we gain new evidence, the theories get better and
better, as proven by the existence of things such as the Internet,
probes to Saturn and beyond, the abolition of smallpox, and the
accurate prediction of last night's lunar eclipse.
On the other hand, people have been arguing about which parts the
Bible should be taken literally and which shouldn't, for thousands of
years, with no recognized mechanism for resolving disputes, and hence
absolutely no progress.
Science has improved the quality and duration of human life. Faith
has brought us the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Thirty Years War,
witch hunts, pogroms, and 9/11.
Karl Johanson
> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> writes:
>
> > "Charlton Wilbur" <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote in message
> >
> >> And if you aren't being intentionally stupid, you can distinguish
> >> between literal truth and metaphor.
> >
> > It's dogmatic to proclaim that someone who takes a literalist view
> > of the Bible is stupider than one who personally decides which bits
> > are true and which they can decide are metaphor. I used to work with
> > a mentally handicapped person who was (still is) Christian. He took
> > the lessons he was told from the Bible literally and didn't pick and
> > choose which to believe in and which to assume were allegory or
> > metaphor. Was he being 'intentionally stupid' for not interpreting
> > millennia old context (from things written in other languages) the
> > same way you do?
>
> No, he was naturally stupid, instead. Sorry, couldn't resist.
>
> So far as I can see the literalist view is incoherent.
I agree. I just disagree with the notion that it's anymore incoherant than
any other religion.
>The bible is self-contradictory.
Very much so.
>Furthermore, people taking the literalist view
> don't go back to the oldest sources in the original languages, which
> makes their endeavor nonsensical from the start.
well said. Rather like astrologers using charts which are out of date. Even
if they were up to date, it'd still be a waste of time.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
news:10o2reo...@corp.supernews.com...
I dunno. You can go into greater and greater details if you want, but I
suggest it's still a mechanism. 'How did the world get the story 'Romeo and
Juliet'? One can answer William Shakespeare did it, without needing to
explain what a quill pen is, how it was written on paper, which muscles were
used to move the pen, which neurons sent the signals to those muscles, etc.
A complex semantic question. I'll think on it & your points more.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
> >>>>> "KJ" == Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> writes:
>
> KJ> Thus, at least part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest
> KJ> might be as well.
>
> Mmmm yeah. So the next time a flaw is found in a scientific theory,
> we'll throw the whole scientific apparatus out -- because if at least
> part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest might be as well.
You got it. When we find out a problem in a scientific idea, we should use
that to remind ourselves that the rest of it might be wrong as well. Science
never has proof, it has evidence. It can produce useful practical results,
in part because of the acknowledgment of the possibility of error.
> Strange how you don't apply the same arguments to your own belief
> systems as you do to the belief systems of others.
See above. Part of science is admitting the possibility of being wrong.
Karl Johanson
Tina Hall
>>> Devil's advocate here. There's no actual conflict in having
>>> both unless you hold that the creation acount in the Bible is
>>> word-for-word true.
>>
>> In other words, there is no conflict as long as you ignore what
>> one of them actually says.
> Dude, it's *metaphor*
Then 'god' is metaphor, too. You can't pick and chose what suits
you, either you take it as it is, or you interpret it as you feel
like. In the case of the latter, it all becomes meaningless.
Besides, there was no mention of 'god' or that it was only one in
the original text, that's one of three errors in the translated
version of: 'At the start, god made the beyond and the dirt[*].".
With so much wrong in a single sentence at the beginning of it, I
fail to see how anyone could believe any of it.
What I find most astonishing is that people actually believe what
some other people - whose characters they don't know, and neither
their intentions[+] - wrote down ages ago. If someone you knew well
came to you and told you he's seen a green, tentacled alien, you
should believe him more than some old text, but I doubt you would.
Common sense, anyone?
[*] If that translation from German to English isn't the one you are
familiar with, then it only demonstrates what crap translations are,
and how silly believing any of it is.
[+] Though the intentions become obvious from the text; bully
gullible people into doing what they want, and give their personal
idea of what's 'right and proper', or just themselves, power,
including stuff that makes no sense to anyone with brains. Look at
the world with open eyes to see that such urges are rather common
among humans. You think that was invented recently? Technology and
knowledge might change, people don't really. (As proven by people
still believing these long-dead power hungry whackos despite knowing
about evolution.)
ObSF: If there are aliens somewhere in this universe, and they ever
have the misfortune of running into us, and they have a concept of
'insult', "human" is going to be the top one by a long shot.
--
Tina - What context?
Elyvilon says: Go forth and aid the weak!"
Trog says: Kill them all! (Dungeon Crawl)
CrossPoint/FreeXP v3.40 RC3. Usenet/Fidonet gateway, no internet access.
Del Cotter
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> said:
>>>>>> "KJ" == Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> writes:
> KJ> Thus, at least part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest
> KJ> might be as well.
>
>Mmmm yeah. So the next time a flaw is found in a scientific theory,
>we'll throw the whole scientific apparatus out -- because if at least
>part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest might be as well.
Your analogy fails because science and the particular faith system Karl
is describing work in diametrically opposite ways.
Science works by assuming that anything you believe could be wrong, and
could be proved wrong at any moment. Faith (that particular faith which
is Karl's target) works by assuming that everything you believe must be
right, and can never be proved wrong in any way.
Science interprets error as minor damage and routes around it, while
faith (see caveat above) must recognise even the smallest error as a
flaw that shatters the entire structure.
I've been putting those caveats in because of course there are actual
Jews and Christians whose faith is entirely capable of surviving the
knowledge that Genesis was a mix of Hebrew and Babylonian creation myths
written up centuries after they were collected, and not only not an
accurate account of real events, but not even self-consistent. Big
whoop, they say.
I think the faiths Karl is talking about are those shared by the
minority communities composed of those peculiarly brittle types who
can't handle that sort of thing. The problem is that the actual person
Karl is addressing, Dave Weingart, isn't one of them.
--
Del Cotter http://del_c.livejournal.com/
Send email to del2 at branta dot demon dot co dot uk
Dan Kimmel
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:cls2j5$r2r$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > No less a commentator than Rashi -- the medieval rabbi who is
> > considered the greatest of all Torah commentators -- argued that the
> > Bible is not a science text,
>
> Is "science text" really the best translation for what he said, given
> that in his day (1040-1105 CE) science in the modern sense hadn't been
> invented yet?
No, it isn't. :)
His point, as I understand it, is that Genesis is not to be taken as a study
of *how* creation worked.
>
> > and the purpose of the creation story is to impress *WHO* is
> > responsible for creation, not how it was done.
>
> Then why does it go into all that spurious detail?
One of the things they teach in Torah study is that there is no such thing
as "spurious detail" in the text. If it's not obvious, the rabbis of old
dig deeper. For example in this week's reading God comes to visit Abraham
just before the three angels arrive to tell him he and Sarah are going to
become parents. It's one line. It's not connected to the story that begins
with the very next verse. Why is it there? Is it a "spurious detail?"
In fact, rabbinical commentators derive the obligation to visit the sick
from this sentence because at the end of the previous chapter Abraham, at
age 99, has had himself circumcised. So they now read into the text that
Abraham is sitting there in pain and God appears to comfort him.
If you're not Jewish and are not used to reading the text in this way (and,
please, I'm not passing myself off as any kind of an authority here) it's
not going to make much sense. A number of years ago Bill Moyers did a
series on Genesis and I got to interview him. He was a minister earlier in
his life and he told me he was fascinated by the Jewish concept of Midrash,
the stories and legends that are used to explain and elaborate meanings and
details not readily apparent in the text.
So, at one level, all that "detail" in the creation story demonstrates that
no detail is too small or trivial to escape God's attention.
I'll conclude with a button I saw at Arisia, no doubt from Nancy Lebowitiz:
"God is who; Evolution is how."
Dan Kimmel
I know you think you've just made a brilliant argument against some
rightwing fundamentalist. I'm not and you haven't.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Then why does it go into all that spurious detail?
> One of the things they teach in Torah study is that there is no such
> thing as "spurious detail" in the text. If it's not obvious, the
> rabbis of old dig deeper. For example in this week's reading God
> comes to visit Abraham just before the three angels arrive to tell
> him he and Sarah are going to become parents. It's one line. It's
> not connected to the story that begins with the very next verse.
> Why is it there? Is it a "spurious detail?"
By "spurious" I meant "factually wrong," not "extraneous". If the
point of Genesis is simply that God created everything, why all the
factually wrong detail about how long it took, and in what order it
was done?
SAMK
>> The magic word in that argument is logic. People who believe in Gods
>>don't think logic has anything to do with their belief in a God. They
>>have faith instead, and faith is not susceptible to a logical disproof.
>>You as a believer in logic can get great enjoyment in pointing out the
>>logical fallacies in a believer's faith to them, but it makes no
>>difference to their belief since they have faith. Similarly a doorstep
>>prosletyser gets great satisfaction from explaining how faith and belief
>>in $GOD(rnd) are wonderful things even if they fail to convert you.
>
>
> Please be careful with your sweeping generalities. From a Jewish
> perspective there is nothing in Darwin that necessarily conflicts with
> Genesis. We don't take the Bible as a science text, and that is the very
> traditional view.
>
>
Even Catholicism teaches that certain books are "mythological", not
absolutely, positively the way it was. I know, because I'm a teacher,
and we're working on the books in the bible...
SAMK
Karl Johanson
I don't think you're a fundamentalists. I think you're a metaphoricalist.
Genesis is still wrong.
Karl Johanson
Tim McDaniel
Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Regardless, Genesis says plants were here before the sun & that's
>clearly not allegory, but rather simply wrong; not to mention a clear
>sign of non-divine inspiration for the story.
I don't know about relative dates of solar ignition versus Earthly
accretion, so I don't know if any life could have existed on Earth
before the Sun.
More specifically than "plants", Genesis 1 has
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind,
whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after
his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself,
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for
signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Don't know much about biology, but "fruit, whose seed was in itself"
sounds like angiosperms to me, and we have no evidence of that before
the mid-Cretaceous (_The Book of Life_, Stephen Jay Gould, ed.,
p. 152), and berries not before the late Cretaceous (p. 156).
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Tim McDaniel
More precisely, Genesis 1 read literally
>clearly contradicts evolution / evolutionary theory.
I don't think you need to believe in evolution to disprove Genesis 1;
I think you just need stratigraphy, or even just strata with abundant
varieties of fossils without signs of birds and/or fruit.
Doug Wickstrom
<cls0ui$8ke$1...@panix1.panix.com>
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> excited the ether to say:
>Being agnostic as to the existence of God makes no more sense than
>being agnostic as to whether George Bush is Elvis in disguise, or
>Cthulhu caused the 9/11 attacks, or that the UN is secretly headed by
>a triumvirate consisting of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the
>Great Pumpkin,
I don't know about the Easter Bunny or the Great Pumpkin
(frankly, I don't think the Great Pumpkin has ever actually risen
out of his patch), but I will state categorically that I have
nothing to do with running the UN.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives."
--Admiral William Leahy
Doug Wickstrom
<7gggd.47037$%k.44542@pd7tw2no>
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> excited the ether to say:
>One of my stereos has a 1987 Hyundai Pony built around it. I could have
>faith that god will get me to the airport when I want (and maybe I'm missing
>out in a big way by not working on that), but I tend to use my stereo's car
>to get me there instead.
Which takes a lot of faith in and of itself. I've ridden in a
few Ponys. They were the favorite car of Korean taxi drivers, as
they were cheap and disposable.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."
--Groucho Marx
David Dyer-Bennet
> Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> No less a commentator than Rashi -- the medieval rabbi who is
>> considered the greatest of all Torah commentators -- argued that the
>> Bible is not a science text,
>
> Is "science text" really the best translation for what he said, given
> that in his day (1040-1105 CE) science in the modern sense hadn't been
> invented yet?
>
>> and the purpose of the creation story is to impress *WHO* is
>> responsible for creation, not how it was done.
>
> Then why does it go into all that spurious detail?
To lend verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing
narrative, of course.
David Dyer-Bennet
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
> news:m2d5z28...@gw.dd-b.net...
>> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> writes:
>>
>> > "Charlton Wilbur" <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> And if you aren't being intentionally stupid, you can distinguish
>> >> between literal truth and metaphor.
>> >
>> > It's dogmatic to proclaim that someone who takes a literalist view
>> > of the Bible is stupider than one who personally decides which bits
>> > are true and which they can decide are metaphor. I used to work with
>> > a mentally handicapped person who was (still is) Christian. He took
>> > the lessons he was told from the Bible literally and didn't pick and
>> > choose which to believe in and which to assume were allegory or
>> > metaphor. Was he being 'intentionally stupid' for not interpreting
>> > millennia old context (from things written in other languages) the
>> > same way you do?
>>
>> No, he was naturally stupid, instead. Sorry, couldn't resist.
>>
>> So far as I can see the literalist view is incoherent.
>
> I agree. I just disagree with the notion that it's anymore incoherant than
> any other religion.
I tend to agree -- but not living in a country permeated by varieties
of other religions to quite the same extent, I'm not as well versed in
others, and don't find them nearly so much of a personal threat.
Dave Weingart
>This is a good analogy -- especially as you forgot to turn on the
>heat. Your second statement, as reassuringly detailed as it is, is
>not equivalent to the first.
You mean EVERYONE doesn't eat omelettes raw?
> DW> Does it contradict itslef? Very well then, it contradicts
> DW> itself. It is large. It contains multitudes.
>
>And it was written by imperfect humans, many of whom understood it as
>metaphor even when they were writing it, and transmitted orally for a
>long time before it was written down. Ironically, only the atheists
>in this discussion are arguing for the literal truth of the Bible,
>presumably because it's a far easier straw man to attack.
I'm not actually much of a Jew when it comes to belief in God; I'm
much more agnostic than that. I tend to consider it essentially
unknowable and get on with my life.
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK Loyalty oaths. Secret searches. No-fly
mailto:phyd...@liii.com lists. Detention without legal recourse.
http://www.weingart.net/ Who won the cold war, again?
ICQ 57055207 -- Politicklers
Dave Weingart
>Dude, some Think that it's metaphor, because the alternative is to recognize
>it's quite clearly wrong.
So?
>No, they aren't the same, but they're both mechanisms. 'Dave made it' is one
>mechanism, your more wordy answer is another. 'The egg fell out of the nest,
>cracked open & landed on a geothermally heated rock, which cooked it' is
>another.
>
>No parsley?
Not in an omelette, generally.
>> >As for contradiction, Genesis lists some of the order of creation twice,
>and
>> >the two versions contradict each other.
>>
>> Does it contradict itslef? Very well then, it contradicts itself.
>
>Thus, at least part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest might be as well.
Probably large parts of it are wrong; I don't demand that the entire
body be the literal Word. Nor, for that matter, do I expect it.
Christopher K Davis
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>> and the purpose of the creation story is to impress *WHO* is
>>> responsible for creation, not how it was done.
>>
>> Then why does it go into all that spurious detail?
> To lend verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing
> narrative, of course.
I thought the original market was paying by the word (for the Word).
--
"[G]rant us, in our direst need, the smallest gifts: the nail of the
horseshoe, the pin of the axle, the feather at the pivot point, the
pebble at the mountain's peak, the kiss in despair, the one right
word. In darkness, understanding." -- Learned Chivar dy Cabon
Dave Weingart
>Then 'god' is metaphor, too. You can't pick and chose what suits
Quite possibly.
>you, either you take it as it is, or you interpret it as you feel
>like. In the case of the latter, it all becomes meaningless.
Not necesarily so. You should read Talmud if you think THIS is
convoluted. ;)
>Besides, there was no mention of 'god' or that it was only one in
>the original text, that's one of three errors in the translated
>version of: 'At the start, god made the beyond and the dirt[*].".
>With so much wrong in a single sentence at the beginning of it, I
>fail to see how anyone could believe any of it.
B'reshit bara elohim et ha-shamayim v'et ha-aretz.
"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth." This
is clearly a metaphor, since the next line is "And the Earth was
unformed and void." which is not particularly a good description
of something that's been created as a planet.
>their intentions[+] - wrote down ages ago. If someone you knew well
>came to you and told you he's seen a green, tentacled alien, you
>should believe him more than some old text, but I doubt you would.
>Common sense, anyone?
If someone I knew well came and told me that, my first reaction would
be "Pull the other one. It's got bells on."
Dave Weingart
>Believing things for no reason is not reasonable.
What's your reason for believing that?
Tim McDaniel
Dave Weingart <phyd...@liii.com> wrote:
>One day in Teletubbyland, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>>Believing things for no reason is not reasonable.
>
>What's your reason for believing that?
My head just exploded.
--
Tim (Norman, co-ordinate) McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
David Goldfarb
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>of them it says that if they kill lots of Americans, that after
>they've been smashed to peices and burned up, they'll be magically put
>back together, brought back to life, and rewarded with 72 virgins.
Don't forget the thousand-year-long orgasms.
--
David Goldfarb |"For some reason, most of my clearest memories
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |from my youth are of various traumas."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- James Nicoll
David Dyer-Bennet
> One day in Teletubbyland, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>>Believing things for no reason is not reasonable.
>
> What's your reason for believing that?
Definition of reasonable.
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>
>In fact, rabbinical commentators derive the obligation to visit the sick
>from this sentence because at the end of the previous chapter Abraham, at
>age 99, has had himself circumcised. So they now read into the text that
>Abraham is sitting there in pain and God appears to comfort him.
>
>If you're not Jewish and are not used to reading the text in this way (and,
>please, I'm not passing myself off as any kind of an authority here) it's
>not going to make much sense. A number of years ago Bill Moyers did a
>series on Genesis and I got to interview him. He was a minister earlier in
>his life and he told me he was fascinated by the Jewish concept of Midrash,
>the stories and legends that are used to explain and elaborate meanings and
>details not readily apparent in the text.
So is Midrash fanfic for the Torah?
-- Alan
Charlton Wilbur
KFL> Science has improved the quality and duration of human life.
KFL> Faith has brought us the Crusades, the Inquisition, the
KFL> Thirty Years War, witch hunts, pogroms, and 9/11.
No, religion -- which frequently has little to do with faith -- mixed
with politics brought us all of the above.
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Charlton Wilbur
DC> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Charlton Wilbur
DC> <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> said:
>>>>>>> "KJ" == Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> writes:
KJ> Thus, at least part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest
KJ> might be as well.
>> Mmmm yeah. So the next time a flaw is found in a scientific
>> theory, we'll throw the whole scientific apparatus out --
>> because if at least part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest
>> might be as well.
DC> Your analogy fails because science and the particular faith
DC> system Karl is describing work in diametrically opposite ways.
Yes, and my point is that Karl's straw man of a faith system is not
universal. Convenient, because there are so many people who think
that way; easy to attack, because it is, after all, a straw man in
this argument; but certainly not universal.
It also has to do with his approach to Biblical literalism. He
assumes that faith and a belief in the literal truth of the Bible are
the same thing, and then by pointing out that the two creation stories
in Genesis contradit each other, claims that the Bible is not
literally true -- and thus anyone who has any sort of faith is wrong.
It is darkly amusing that someone who puts such faith in reason to
come up with the right answer should have so many holes in his logic.
First, faith is *not* equivalent with believing in the literal truth
of the Bible, as has been stated here repeatedly. There are some who
hold that it is, but they are not the sum total of everyone who
believes in something unprovable.
Second, when you find a contradiction in a scientific theory, you do
not throw out the *entire* scientific apparatus. But that is exactly
what Karl is asking us to do -- because there is a contradiction in
the first two chapters of Genesis, we should throw out the *entire*
Bible, and anything derived from it.
DC> I think the faiths Karl is talking about are those shared by
DC> the minority communities composed of those peculiarly brittle
DC> types who can't handle that sort of thing. The problem is
DC> that the actual person Karl is addressing, Dave Weingart,
DC> isn't one of them.
Right. If I wanted to demolish science in the way that Karl is
attempting to demolish faith, I'd choose phrenology, or spiritualism,
or some other fringe science, and show that its practitioners behaved
in a foolish manner; then I would rant about all the horrible things
science has done, such as eugenics. Any actual scientist would
rightfully object.
The issue here, as you note, is that Karl is attempting to use a
particular approach to faith, one that privileges faith over reason,
as a demonstration that faith and reason are incompatible. As a
result, he assumes the conclusion -- is it any surprise that he then
proves it? My objection is not that he has a problem with this -- *I*
have a problem with that approach to faith -- but that he seems to
believe that *all* faith works that way, and attacks it on that ground.
Again, I also find it darkly amusing that someone who puts such stock
in reason should have such evident flaws in his logic.
Charlton Wilbur
KFL> If the point of Genesis is simply that God created
KFL> everything, why all the factually wrong detail about how long
KFL> it took, and in what order it was done?
Because even if it was dictated in a perfectly accurate form by an
angel to someone, it was told by fallible human beings to each other
for hundreds (thousands?) of years before being written down, and the
story changed in the telling.
Because the people who initially told the story to each other had no
concept of planets, or atoms, or millennia, or evolution.
Marcus L. Rowland
<see_si...@filklore.co.uk> writes
>"Marcus L. Rowland" <forgotte...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
>news:vwhancEh...@00.d0.59.f5.d0.2a:
>
>> If you're not already aware of the REALLY silly version of creationism
>> which argues that God created the Earth with perfect evidence of natural
>> evolution, so that we would have to take it on faith that he (she, it)
>> exists
>
>Known to Bill Hicks fans as the "God the prankster" scenario.
>
See also Terry Pratchett's "Strata".
--
Marcus L. Rowland http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
LJ:ffutures http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
"Life is chaos; Chaos is life; Control is an illusion." - Andromeda
Marcus L. Rowland
<tm...@panix.com> writes
>I don't think you need to believe in evolution to disprove Genesis 1; I
>think you just need stratigraphy, or even just strata with abundant
>varieties of fossils without signs of birds and/or fruit.
I think you're underestimating the anti-evolutionists. They can find
geological freaks (e.g. places where the strata have been disturbed by
later geological events) to support any argument they like. As for
fruit, what do you think those so-called dinosaur eggs were that were
found in the Gobi desert?
[no, I don't believe that, but it's an argument I could come up with
easily enough if I was an anti-evolutionist]
Charlton Wilbur
TH> What I find most astonishing is that people actually believe
TH> what some other people - whose characters they don't know, and
TH> neither their intentions[+] - wrote down ages ago. If someone
TH> you knew well came to you and told you he's seen a green,
TH> tentacled alien, you should believe him more than some old
TH> text, but I doubt you would. Common sense, anyone?
Well, the camera was invented around 1830, and sound recording was
invented around what, 1890? Before then, the *only* evidence we have
of anyone or anything existing is what some other people -- whose
characters we don't know, and neither their intentions, except what we
can figure out from what they wrote -- wrote down ages ago.
What evidence do we have for the existence of Julius Caesar? We don't
know if Homer is a historical person, or a group of poets and
storytellers working in the same style, and we don't know if Socrates
is a historical person or merely a rhetorical and pedagogical device.
And now, sound recordings and pictures are easy to fake. I've seen
actual film footage of hobbits and elves, starships that travel faster
than the speed of lightand aliens with acid for blood -- as near as I
can tell from some of the documentary evidence, Aragorn is as real a
person as George W. Bush or Franklin Roosevelt.
Every claim needs to be evaluated in the context of its source and how
it fits in with the rest of what you know of the world. This is true
whether it's a trusted friend telling you that he saw a green,
tentacled alien or a letter from 2000 years ago discussing whether or
not the Christians should be suppressed as a cult contrary to the
interests of Rome.
Lee Ratner
> "Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:clrdqg$alj$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us...
> > In article <TPGdnYumMv6...@rcn.net>,
> > Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > >news:ht_fd.43787$%k.1196@pd7tw2no...
> > >> 'Sweeping generalities' are easy to dispel. For one conflict,
> > >> Genesis has birds showing up before any of the 'creeping things'.
> > >
> > >Depends on your definitions.
> >
> > WHAT?!
> >
> > I append Genesis 1 (King James Version) for reference.
>
> I really don't want to get into a debate on Biblical exegesis but as a Jew I
> really couldn't care less what the King James Version says. It ain't *my*
> Bible.
The correct tranlation of the Tanakh into English is the Jewish
Publication Society translation, has all the Christian changes
removed.
Lee Ratner
> >>>>> "KJ" == Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> writes:
>
> KJ> Thus, at least part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest
> KJ> might be as well.
>
> Mmmm yeah. So the next time a flaw is found in a scientific theory,
> we'll throw the whole scientific apparatus out -- because if at least
> part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest might be as well.
>
> systems as you do to the belief systems of others.
>
Its the way of the militant athiest, which really is not that
different from the way of the religious fundamentalist. Militant
athiests believe that universal atheism will lead to such good, since
"religion killed more people than anything else", that it must be
completely destroyed even if it provides meaning to people. Militant
athiests can't seem to distinguish between different religions either
just like religious fundamentalists can't seem to distinguish between
religions that are not their own. I have contempt for both groups.
David G. Bell
gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU "David Goldfarb" wrote:
> In article <cls1j8$e4a$1...@panix1.panix.com>,
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >Faith says completely different things to different people. To some
> >of them it says that if they kill lots of Americans, that after
> >they've been smashed to peices and burned up, they'll be magically put
> >back together, brought back to life, and rewarded with 72 virgins.
>
> Don't forget the thousand-year-long orgasms.
No wonder they need 72 virgins.
I take it one of them will be on beard-trimming duty. And mind those
toenails.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Dan Kimmel
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:cls8h0$pj4$1...@panix1.panix.com...
>
> > thing as "spurious detail" in the text. If it's not obvious, the
> > rabbis of old dig deeper. For example in this week's reading God
> > comes to visit Abraham just before the three angels arrive to tell
> > him he and Sarah are going to become parents. It's one line. It's
> > not connected to the story that begins with the very next verse.
> > Why is it there? Is it a "spurious detail?"
>
> By "spurious" I meant "factually wrong," not "extraneous". If the
> point of Genesis is simply that God created everything, why all the
> factually wrong detail about how long it took, and in what order it
> was done?
There is no factually wrong detail about how long it took unless you take a
"day" literally. But since the solar measured day is impossible until the
fourth "day," when the sun is created, I leave such nonsense to the fundies.
It is *not* the way most Jews read the text.
As for the ordering, again, you're focusing on the wrong things. This is
not a biology lesson. If you're not interested in the theology, then
there's no reason to read it at all.
Dan Kimmel
"Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing" <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
wrote in message news:00A3A0D1...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU...
I might agree, but that would be a very UNtraditional interpretation. :)
Nancy Lebovitz
Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
>news:cls2j5$r2r$1...@panix1.panix.com...
>>
>> > and the purpose of the creation story is to impress *WHO* is
>> > responsible for creation, not how it was done.
>>
>
>One of the things they teach in Torah study is that there is no such thing
>as "spurious detail" in the text. If it's not obvious, the rabbis of old
>dig deeper. For example in this week's reading God comes to visit Abraham
>just before the three angels arrive to tell him he and Sarah are going to
>become parents. It's one line. It's not connected to the story that begins
>with the very next verse. Why is it there? Is it a "spurious detail?"
>In fact, rabbinical commentators derive the obligation to visit the sick
>from this sentence because at the end of the previous chapter Abraham, at
>age 99, has had himself circumcised. So they now read into the text that
>Abraham is sitting there in pain and God appears to comfort him.
It gets a lot weirder with gematria (sp?), which has the assumption
that there's a numerical code hidden in the words.
>
>If you're not Jewish and are not used to reading the text in this way (and,
>please, I'm not passing myself off as any kind of an authority here) it's
>not going to make much sense. A number of years ago Bill Moyers did a
>series on Genesis and I got to interview him. He was a minister earlier in
>his life and he told me he was fascinated by the Jewish concept of Midrash,
>the stories and legends that are used to explain and elaborate meanings and
>details not readily apparent in the text.
>
>So, at one level, all that "detail" in the creation story demonstrates that
>no detail is too small or trivial to escape God's attention.
>
>I'll conclude with a button I saw at Arisia, no doubt from Nancy Lebowitiz:
>"God is who; Evolution is how."
>
I sell it, Priscilla Ballou came up with the slogan.
--
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
"We've tamed the lightning and taught sand to give error messages."
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov
Nancy Lebovitz
Tina Hall <Tina...@kruemel.org> wrote:
>
>ObSF: If there are aliens somewhere in this universe, and they ever
>have the misfortune of running into us, and they have a concept of
>'insult', "human" is going to be the top one by a long shot.
Why do you expect aliens to have more sense than people?
Dave Weingart
>>his life and he told me he was fascinated by the Jewish concept of Midrash,
>>the stories and legends that are used to explain and elaborate meanings and
>>details not readily apparent in the text.
>
>So is Midrash fanfic for the Torah?
There is undoubtedly David/Jonathan slash out there.
J?rg Raddatz
> >>>>> "KJ" == Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> writes:
>
> KJ> Thus, at least part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest
> KJ> might be as well.
>
> Mmmm yeah. So the next time a flaw is found in a scientific theory,
> we'll throw the whole scientific apparatus out -- because if at least
> part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest might be as well.
I hope you *do* know better. It is essential to the scientific method
that theories are stated and efforts are made to disprove them.
To create new theories to replace obsolete ones is the core of it.
OTOH, it is the nature of (most) religions to believe in some eternal
thruth(s), and for those commonly called creationists the literal
truth of their holy writ is essential. So when one detailed statement
(about the relative occurrence of species) can be disproved, yes, it
disproves that that holy writ is the only true and inspired word of an
omniscient deity.
And when the bible is not "god´s word", then it is just another
religious/mythological text with its own literary, cultural and
historical merits, but as a base for a *scientific opinion it is as
valuable as the Enuma Elish or the Popol Vuh.
>
> Strange how you don't apply the same arguments to your own belief
> systems as you do to the belief systems of others.
Again, this is a completely silly straw man. Inside one science they
might be concepts that might be rightly dubbed "belief system", like
phlogiston, Lysenko´s genetics or the luminiferous ether - and yes,
when here core elements are disproved, the whole concept is
discredited.
Elements of it might be kept if they can be proved, but, you see, most
sane scientists do not claim to be divinely inspired and infallible in
even the smallest point.
Which founders of religions usually do, so their whole corpus of lore
better has to be provable correct in every aspect.
Jörg
>
> Charlton
Lots42 The Library Avenger
>So. Two of my co-workers (or, more precisely, one co-worker and my boss)
>just expressed their admiration for creationism as a better fit for the
>available facts regarding the presence of human beings upon the earth.
Easy to believe in pretty much anything when you believe in a diety that can do
pretty much anything.
Del Cotter
Lee Ratner <czar...@aol.com> said:
>Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote
>> Mmmm yeah. So the next time a flaw is found in a scientific theory,
>> we'll throw the whole scientific apparatus out -- because if at least
>> part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest might be as well.
>Its the way of the militant athiest, which really is not that different
>from the way of the religious fundamentalist. Militant athiests believe
>that universal atheism will lead to such good, since "religion killed
>more people than anything else", that it must be completely destroyed
>even if it provides meaning to people. Militant athiests can't seem to
>distinguish between different religions either just like religious
>fundamentalists can't seem to distinguish between religions that are
>not their own. I have contempt for both groups.
I hate those militant athiests, too; they're so athier-than-thou.
--
Del Cotter http://del_c.livejournal.com/
Send email to del2 at branta dot demon dot co dot uk
Tim McDaniel
Dave Weingart <phyd...@liii.com> wrote:
>One day in Teletubbyland, win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU said:
>>>his life and he told me he was fascinated by the Jewish concept of Midrash,
>>>the stories and legends that are used to explain and elaborate meanings and
>>>details not readily apparent in the text.
>>
>>So is Midrash fanfic for the Torah?
>
>There is undoubtedly David/Jonathan slash out there.
My mind just jumped to
From: David
Subject: MAKE FORESKINS FAST!!
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Tim McDaniel
Lots42 The Library Avenger <lot...@aol.comaol.com> wrote:
>Easy to believe in pretty much anything when you believe in a diety
"Deity", God damn it!
Tim McDaniel
Lee Ratner <czar...@aol.com> wrote:
> The correct tranlation of the Tanakh into English is the Jewish
>Publication Society translation, has all the Christian changes
>removed.
Thank you very much for the citation. It made it easy to Google for.
I've bookmarked <http://www.breslov.com/bible/> (Though, as a goy, I
suspect that "the correct" is too strong a statement for anything
concerning Jewish religious belief!)
It still supports the original point (5 articles up): regardless of
whether Genesis is allegory, must be read as merely a story, or
whatever, "Genesis [1] has birds showing up before any of the
'creeping things'."
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
hielan' laddie
(in article <x4ydnc6USIK...@rcn.net>):
>
> "Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:clrmg2$beu$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us...
>> In article <mrKdnbtNUuP...@rcn.net>,
>> Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>> news:clrdqg$alj$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us...
>>>> In article <TPGdnYumMv6...@rcn.net>,
>>>> Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ht_fd.43787$%k.1196@pd7tw2no...
>>>>>> 'Sweeping generalities' are easy to dispel. For one conflict,
>>>>>> Genesis has birds showing up before any of the 'creeping things'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on your definitions.
>>>>
>>>> WHAT?!
>>>>
>>>> I append Genesis 1 (King James Version) for reference.
>>>
>>> I really don't want to get into a debate on Biblical exegesis
>>
>> Someone pointed out (apparently correctly) that "Genesis has birds
>> showing up before any of the 'creeping things'". You replied "Depends
>> on your definitions." but now you're refusing to give any background
>> or explain in any way.
>>
>>> but as a Jew I really couldn't care less what the King James Version
>>> says. It ain't *my* Bible.
>>
>> Oh, fer fuck's sake, man! We're not discussing the Epistles of Paul.
>> Bereishith is in Torah and Genesis is in Christian Bibles. We're not
>> wondering what Arbeh, Sa'lam, Chargol, or Chagav might have been, or
>> what the heck the story of Zipporah and the foreskin means. Genesis 1
>> (however you name it) doesn't look like a difficult translation to me,
>> and if there's been a gross mistranslation, I'd like to know what's
>> what.
>
> *plonk*
>
>
<up periscope>
Interesting. He seemed to ask a perfectly reasonable question. Is it that
Genesis in the KJV is so radically different from the equivalent in the
Torah, or what? If it _is_ so different, what are the changes and where? If
it _isn't_ so different, then the fact that the KJV isn't _your_ Bible
doesn't seem to be relevant. Could you explain why this question is
irrelevant, or are you going to plonk me, too?
<down periscope>
hielan' laddie
(in article <59117524.0410...@posting.google.com>):
1 where can I get a copy?
2 which changes are those? Could you list them?
David Dyer-Bennet
>>>>>> "TH" == Tina Hall <Tina...@kruemel.org> writes:
>
> TH> What I find most astonishing is that people actually believe
> TH> what some other people - whose characters they don't know, and
> TH> neither their intentions[+] - wrote down ages ago. If someone
> TH> you knew well came to you and told you he's seen a green,
> TH> tentacled alien, you should believe him more than some old
> TH> text, but I doubt you would. Common sense, anyone?
>
> Well, the camera was invented around 1830, and sound recording was
> invented around what, 1890? Before then, the *only* evidence we have
> of anyone or anything existing is what some other people -- whose
> characters we don't know, and neither their intentions, except what we
> can figure out from what they wrote -- wrote down ages ago.
Not true -- people wrote down things about *themselves*, it wasn't all
done by other people. Of course being sure which is which at a
distance is another problem; but if a work is widely discussed in
writing by others as being in fact the work of a particular person, we
generally accept that.
And the camera and sound recording aren't any better; they show us and
let us hear *someone*, but provide no authoritative evidence of who
exactly it is.
David Dyer-Bennet
All religions, by defintion, consist of belief by faith rather than
evidence. That's what distinguishes a religion from science. Since
that's the part I find bad, yes, I'm opposed to *all* religions. I'm
more strongly opposed to the dominant one in my environment, since I
see first-hand the evil it does more clearly, but in principle I'm
against 'em all.
Karl Johanson
> >>>>> "DC" == Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> DC> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Charlton Wilbur
> DC> <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> said:
>
> >>>>>>> "KJ" == Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> writes:
> KJ> Thus, at least part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest
> KJ> might be as well.
>
> >> Mmmm yeah. So the next time a flaw is found in a scientific
> >> theory, we'll throw the whole scientific apparatus out --
> >> because if at least part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest
> >> might be as well.
>
> DC> Your analogy fails because science and the particular faith
> DC> system Karl is describing work in diametrically opposite ways.
>
> Yes, and my point is that Karl's straw man of a faith system is not
> universal. Convenient, because there are so many people who think
> that way; easy to attack, because it is, after all, a straw man in
> this argument; but certainly not universal.
>
> It also has to do with his approach to Biblical literalism. He
> assumes that faith and a belief in the literal truth of the Bible are
> the same thing,
I put so many words in my own mouth, it isn't necessary to put others there
for me. Some are fundamentalist. Some see the errors, then work out complex
'metaphorical' interpretations, to 'justify' the errors. I don't think
either form of 'faith' is any sillier. But some metephoricalists sure like
to call the fundamentalists bad names.
> and then by pointing out that the two creation stories
> in Genesis contradit each other, claims that the Bible is not
> literally true -- and thus anyone who has any sort of faith is wrong.
You can have faith in any of an infinite number of ideas. Thus, your chances
of being correct about something using faith, is about one in infinity. On
the other hand, one can test ideas, observe and admit the possibility of
error, one has at least a chance of getting to the truth onf a matter. No
guarantees, just a chance.
> It is darkly amusing that someone who puts such faith in reason to
> come up with the right answer should have so many holes in his logic.
>
> First, faith is *not* equivalent with believing in the literal truth
> of the Bible, as has been stated here repeatedly.
You're mis-reading. Perhaps a result of an attempt to distance yourself from
literalists.
>There are some who
> hold that it is, but they are not the sum total of everyone who
> believes in something unprovable.
>
> Second, when you find a contradiction in a scientific theory, you do
> not throw out the *entire* scientific apparatus. But that is exactly
> what Karl is asking us to do -- because there is a contradiction in
> the first two chapters of Genesis, we should throw out the *entire*
> Bible, and anything derived from it.
No, if you find a contradiction in science, you do more science to try to
understand the issues more. You use the contradiction to remind yourself
that you (or any other scientist) might make mistakes. Unless you admit the
possibility of error, you're likely stuck with that one in infinity chance
of being right. If that makes you comfortable, go for it though.
> DC> I think the faiths Karl is talking about are those shared by
> DC> the minority communities composed of those peculiarly brittle
> DC> types who can't handle that sort of thing. The problem is
> DC> that the actual person Karl is addressing, Dave Weingart,
> DC> isn't one of them.
>
> Right. If I wanted to demolish science in the way that Karl is
> attempting to demolish faith, I'd choose phrenology, or spiritualism,
> or some other fringe science, and show that its practitioners behaved
> in a foolish manner; then I would rant about all the horrible things
> science has done, such as eugenics. Any actual scientist would
> rightfully object.
Science is a method (or collection of methods) of attempting to learn
things. It can be done wrong, mistakes can be made, fraud can be committed,
and the results of science can be used to commit bad acts. Faith has no
system for correcting for possible errors, so it's stuck down in the one in
infinity chance of getting something right. Science has no 100% system of
getting things right, but it does produce useful results, and if you're
reading this message, you're reading it on one of those results.
> The issue here, as you note, is that Karl is attempting to use a
> particular approach to faith, one that privileges faith over reason,
> as a demonstration that faith and reason are incompatible.
Faith is irrelevant to reason. It isn't a matter of incompatibility. You can
have faith in anything you want, regardless of reason.
> As a
> result, he assumes the conclusion -- is it any surprise that he then
> proves it?
I used the word 'prove'?
> My objection is not that he has a problem with this -- *I*
> have a problem with that approach to faith -- but that he seems to
> believe that *all* faith works that way, and attacks it on that ground.
No, I don't think all faith works that way. I've admitted over & over that
some have literal faith & some have metaphorical faith. What I've objected
to is a few Metaphoricalists here calling the Fundamentalists "stupid". No
one superstition is any stupider' than any other.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
news:59117524.04102...@posting.google.com...
> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote in message
news:<87ekjie...@mithril.chromatico.net>...
> > >>>>> "KJ" == Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> writes:
> >
> > KJ> Thus, at least part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest
> > KJ> might be as well.
> >
> > Mmmm yeah. So the next time a flaw is found in a scientific theory,
> > we'll throw the whole scientific apparatus out -- because if at least
> > part of it is demonstrably wrong, the rest might be as well.
> >
> > Strange how you don't apply the same arguments to your own belief
> > systems as you do to the belief systems of others.
See my other post in reply to this error.
> Its the way of the militant athiest, which really is not that
> different from the way of the religious fundamentalist. Militant
> athiests believe that universal atheism will lead to such good, since
> "religion killed more people than anything else", that it must be
> completely destroyed even if it provides meaning to people.
And I advocated 'destroying' religion where?
Atheism won't lead to peace, as there are many causes for war, but it might
remove one cause of war. Similarly, using nuclear energy instead of oil
might reduce wars fought over access to energy supplies (as there's plenty
of Uranium & Thorium for every country for hundreds of thousands, or
millions of years), but it wouldn't eliminate wars, as people fight for so
many reasons. Teaching people to get along might help. Teaching people to
admit that they might be wrong could help as well.
>Militant
> athiests can't seem to distinguish between different religions either
If you'll read what I've written, I've mentioned that I'm glad that many
religious people don't take the Bible literally (as some others do),
especially bits about killing women raped in cities & such. Some religious
people happen to believe good things, some not so much so. some atheists are
good, some not so much so. Atheists do lack the 'my evil is justified as god
ordered it', shtick, which I suggest is one of many factors in conflicts
involving religion. Again, that doesn't make atheists perfect, they're just
lacking one of the many things which can lead to bad behaviour.
I think deciding to be good is more important than deciding to be religious
or not. There's been some very bad atheists (Stalin was one, according to
some), and I've met some very good religious people (mostly Jews or
Christians, few of whom who've read the whole of their version of the Bible;
but some others as well). I prefer the latter.
> just like religious fundamentalists can't seem to distinguish between
> religions that are not their own. I have contempt for both groups.
I've been told by many that the Bible is a good book for learning how people
should get along. I've read it cover to cover 6 times, and parts of it
several times. The book isn't about getting along, it's about being very
nasty to people who are different, or who transgress some 'laws', many of
which make little sense (kill your neighbours who work on Saturdays, for
example). Atheists have little in common other than a lack of belief in the
God described in that Book(s), or any other possible gods or religious
systems. Religious people are very similar to Atheists, as they have
similarly rejected only one less religious system than the atheists have.
Infinity and infinity minus one are pretty close. So we're all pretty
similar and can use that as a basis to not be mean to each other.
I read the following recently:
"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 (1933 - ), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
While there's wisdom in the above quote, it don't think it's entirely true.
Some people good will commit evil acts, if they have been lied to that the
acts are to stop a greater evil.
Karl Johanson
"Hey hey hey. Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean cuz... no matter where
you go, there you are."
--Buckaroo Banzai
Karl Johanson
> >>>>> "KFL" == Keith F Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
> KFL> If the point of Genesis is simply that God created
> KFL> everything, why all the factually wrong detail about how long
> KFL> it took, and in what order it was done?
>
> Because even if it was dictated in a perfectly accurate form by an
> angel to someone, it was told by fallible human beings to each other
> for hundreds (thousands?) of years before being written down, and the
> story changed in the telling.
It's a pretty week form of omnipotence which keeps a god from being able to
tell a story to an Angel, in a way that he can pass it on to humans in a way
which will be accurately passed on. Maybe we're talking about 'god the
moderately competent', rather than 'god the omnipotent'.
> Because the people who initially told the story to each other had no
> concept of planets, or atoms, or millennia, or evolution.
Yeah, well they could count to six, yet the Bible says grasshoppers have 4
legs. That's an error, it isn't allegory, or a metaphor, it's an error.
Karl Johanson
"What if we chose the wrong religion? We're just making God madder and
madder every Sunday."
Homer J. Simpson.