Did Darwin Kill God - BBC
Dakota
waste of time as there were several informative segments but there was what
seemed to me considerable historical revisionism as support for the
program's premise. The claim was made that in Darwin's lifetime, mainstream
Christians no longer believed in biblical literalism. Such literalism only
took root as a result of the Scopes trial in the US State of Tennessee in
1926. The Scopes trial sparked the creationist movement and a return to the
literal interpretation of the bible. The creationist movement also caused
the creation of a counter-movement led by extreme evolutionists who then
claimed that evolution proved that God did not exist.
Several strawmen were constructed and destroyed during the presentation
leaving only the presenter's viewpoint to survive. Cherry picking of
supportive statements from religious, scientific, and historical sources
was also evident.
That being said, I do recommend that those who have an interest in the
evolution vs. creation argument watch the program.
I am an atheist in that I don't believe that any god exists. I am also an
agnostic in that I don't believe that the non-existance of a god or gods
can be proven. I accept evolution as factual but subject to revision using
the scientific method.
Ron O
> I've just watched the presentation and come away unimpressed. It was not a
> waste of time as there were several informative segments but there was what
> seemed to me considerable historical revisionism as support for the
> program's premise. The claim was made that in Darwin's lifetime, mainstream
> Christians no longer believed in biblical literalism. Such literalism only
> took root as a result of the Scopes trial in the US State of Tennessee in
> 1926. The Scopes trial sparked the creationist movement and a return to the
> literal interpretation of the bible. The creationist movement also caused
> the creation of a counter-movement led by extreme evolutionists who then
> claimed that evolution proved that God did not exist.
Literalism took root before the Scopes trial, but was probably
building momentum in the early 20th century. It is likely that most
of the Christians in Darwin's day were not Biblical literalists like
we have today.
>
> Several strawmen were constructed and destroyed during the presentation
> leaving only the presenter's viewpoint to survive. Cherry picking of
> supportive statements from religious, scientific, and historical sources
> was also evident.
>
> That being said, I do recommend that those who have an interest in the
> evolution vs. creation argument watch the program.
>
> I am an atheist in that I don't believe that any god exists. I am also an
> agnostic in that I don't believe that the non-existance of a god or gods
> can be proven. I accept evolution as factual but subject to revision using
> the scientific method.
Claiming that Darwin killed God is pretty short sighted. You'd have
to discount Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton, that demonstrated that we
were not the center of the universe and that there were natural
explanations for things that were attributed to some diety.
Darwin represents only the last big hit religion has taken, and it
wasn't even important enough to burn anyone at the stake to try to
cover it up.
Ron Okimoto
Steven L.
> I've just watched the presentation and come away unimpressed. It was not a
> waste of time as there were several informative segments but there was what
> seemed to me considerable historical revisionism as support for the
> program's premise. The claim was made that in Darwin's lifetime, mainstream
> Christians no longer believed in biblical literalism.
Biblical literalism has flourished in the so-called "Bible Belt," a
region of the U.S. south of the Mason-Dixon Line, since the 18th century.
> Such literalism only
> took root as a result of the Scopes trial in the US State of Tennessee in
> 1926.
That's false.
Over the years, Biblical literalism has waxed and waned in America, as
social and economic changes either helped it or hurt it.
The Scopes trial sparked the creationist movement and a return to the
> literal interpretation of the bible. The creationist movement also caused
> the creation of a counter-movement led by extreme evolutionists who then
> claimed that evolution proved that God did not exist.
>
> Several strawmen were constructed and destroyed during the presentation
> leaving only the presenter's viewpoint to survive.
Which was what?
What was the final answer to the question posed in the title?
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Eric Root
> On Nov 28, 10:20 am, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've just watched the presentation and come away unimpressed. It was not a
> > waste of time as there were several informative segments but there was what
> > seemed to me considerable historical revisionism as support for the
> > program's premise. The claim was made that in Darwin's lifetime, mainstream
> > Christians no longer believed in biblical literalism. Such literalism only
> > took root as a result of the Scopes trial in the US State of Tennessee in
> > 1926. The Scopes trial sparked the creationist movement and a return to the
> > literal interpretation of the bible. The creationist movement also caused
> > the creation of a counter-movement led by extreme evolutionists who then
> > claimed that evolution proved that God did not exist.
>
> Literalism took root before the Scopes trial, but was probably
> building momentum in the early 20th century. It is likely that most
> of the Christians in Darwin's day were not Biblical literalists like
> we have today.
>
My understanding is that militant lteralism arose as a reaction
against scholars using modern textual analysis on the Bible they way
they did with other ancient texts. The literalists could not stand to
see moses demoted as the author of the early books of the Old
testament, or the derivation of many of the stories and concepts in
the bible from older semitic texts. Evolution was just one more
thing.
>
>
> > Several strawmen were constructed and destroyed during the presentation
> > leaving only the presenter's viewpoint to survive. Cherry picking of
> > supportive statements from religious, scientific, and historical sources
> > was also evident.
>
> > That being said, I do recommend that those who have an interest in the
> > evolution vs. creation argument watch the program.
>
> > I am an atheist in that I don't believe that any god exists. I am also an
> > agnostic in that I don't believe that the non-existance of a god or gods
> > can be proven. I accept evolution as factual but subject to revision using
> > the scientific method.
>
> Claiming that Darwin killed God is pretty short sighted. You'd have
> to discount Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton, that demonstrated that we
> were not the center of the universe and that there were natural
> explanations for things that were attributed to some diety.
>
> Darwin represents only the last big hit religion has taken, and it
> wasn't even important enough to burn anyone at the stake to try to
> cover it up.
>
> Ron Okimoto
Eric Root
Ron O
It isn't just one factor. Once they were no longer able to remove
analyses that they didn't like, the field was left open for a lot of
things to be examined.
Creationist flat earthers had a resurgence after the Origin of Species
was published. That was attributed to a backlash of people that
started to refuse to take any passage of the Bible metaphorically.
Ron Okimoto
Paul J Gans
>I've just watched the presentation and come away unimpressed. It was not a
>waste of time as there were several informative segments but there was what
>seemed to me considerable historical revisionism as support for the
>program's premise. The claim was made that in Darwin's lifetime, mainstream
>Christians no longer believed in biblical literalism. Such literalism only
>took root as a result of the Scopes trial in the US State of Tennessee in
>1926. The Scopes trial sparked the creationist movement and a return to the
>literal interpretation of the bible. The creationist movement also caused
>the creation of a counter-movement led by extreme evolutionists who then
>claimed that evolution proved that God did not exist.
As far as I know, Catholics put biblical literalism behind them
a thousand years BEFORE Darwin. I daresay that educated Europeans
in Darwin's day were almost never literalists.
That's a totally different question than God having created the
universe, the earth, and life over a long period of time.
>Several strawmen were constructed and destroyed during the presentation
>leaving only the presenter's viewpoint to survive. Cherry picking of
>supportive statements from religious, scientific, and historical sources
>was also evident.
>That being said, I do recommend that those who have an interest in the
>evolution vs. creation argument watch the program.
>I am an atheist in that I don't believe that any god exists. I am also an
>agnostic in that I don't believe that the non-existance of a god or gods
>can be proven. I accept evolution as factual but subject to revision using
>the scientific method.
There is no need to do a recitation of faith. From my point of view,
science does not admit of gods (or magic or whatever). This does
NOT preclude gods from existing nor ban them from any activities
regarding creation. It just isn't included in science.
It is like chess. There's no moving pawns backwards in chess.
You can do it if you wish, but then, you are not playing chess
any more.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
spintronic
.
.
> I've just watched the presentation and come away unimpressed.
No wonder.
> The claim was made that in Darwin's lifetime, mainstream
> Christians no longer believed in biblical literalism.
So were talking 1800's?
> Such literalism only took root as a result of the Scopes trial in the US State of Tennessee in
> 1926.
Weird tha?
I wonder which gimboid on T.O can work that one out?
heekster
wrote:
>I've just watched the presentation and come away unimpressed. It was not a
>waste of time as there were several informative segments but there was what
>seemed to me considerable historical revisionism as support for the
>program's premise. The claim was made that in Darwin's lifetime, mainstream
>Christians no longer believed in biblical literalism. Such literalism only
>took root as a result of the Scopes trial in the US State of Tennessee in
>1926.
Oh, it was there long before 1926.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/amprophesy.html
>The Scopes trial sparked the creationist movement and a return to the
>literal interpretation of the bible.
Not really.
Burkhard
I think that was definitely a major issue. Theology, unlike science, is
hardly ever linear, and you get a cyclical renewal of opposing ideas
_within_ Christianity. Outside developments may contribute as a trigger,
but it is really more a cyclical internal shift of powers (think
republican v democrats)
Evangelical movements within Christianity are a prime example, and you
get them in the 18th (John Wesley, George Whitefield) 19th (Scofield)
and 20th century, whenever the main Church becomes overly intellectualised.
Literal vs non-literal is just one aspect of this, rational vs mystical
another (and they are not necessarily aligned), confessional vs
non-confessional etc. The 19th century had definitely seen an emphasis
on both rational and text-critical approaches, fuelled also by the
emerging scientific approach to texts in general - modern linguistics
and philologies. At least with some (like my favourite theologian,
Schleiermacher) you eventually lost much of the idea of an organised
religion.
You then get the inevitable counter movement, the neo-orthodox like
Barth (though he hated the term) But you also get at the same time other
developments - away from Aquina's inspired natural theology to an
emphasis of direct personal revelation (Barth) again. The latest
instalment of the evangelical strand as far as I know had its "founding
moment" at the Azusa Street Revival long before Stokes.
rmacfarl
"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:hesa8f$dlf$1...@news.albasani.net...
I think creationism is a logical outgrowth of scientific
rationalism that also leads to Darwin and atheism (2 trends not
necessarily linked).
If you make it axionatic that every idea can be tested in the
form of a binary hypothesis, such that an idea either is or is
not disproved, you then force some conclusions to be drawn which
will for some people be unacceptable. Some of them will then
react by concocting binary hypotheses and drawing on whatever
they deem to be evidence to support an otherwise insupportable
conclusion.And because most people do not have either the time or
the ability to even try to come to grips with the facts of the
dispute, they are forced to choose which version of the truth
they will follow.
The Internet has only fed this trend because there is a heavy
imbalance between the ease with which spurious claims can be
promoted, and the difficulty with which they can be refuted. I've
seen the same thing in disputes over aquatic apes, chariots of
the gods, vaccination and autism, HIV and AIDS - you name it. In
fact, the argument over creationism is in and of itself
relatively harmless. On a larger scale though, it isn't, when it
adds to a trend of anti-intellectualism aka ignorance, especially
in the United States, or when it feeds Millennialist paranoia.
But some of these arguments, and most especially global warming
denialism, are nothing short of dangerously irresponsible.
I would like to add a voice of caution for the participants in
this debate who are convinced you have right on your side, but
especially to those who I'm convinced have right on your side.
This binary thinking has its place in the laboratory, but it is
counter-productive in the process of discourse and debate.
I recall as a teenager getting caught up in the boys-own British
TV coverage of their re-invasion of the Falkland Islands. I
thought it was exciting, but my Dad reacted against it, and
especially at the way British tabloids automatically coined the
epithet "Argies" to describe the Argentinian forces. He taught me
that names like this are ways to differentiate and divide us from
our "enemies", and create fear of the other.
When I read references to "fundies" and "nutjobs", and
"birthers", and "teabaggers", I feel a vague but growing sense of
disquiet and apprehension...
Ross Macfarlane
Dakota
The presenter concluded that Darwin did not kill God. Sorry I ommitted the
answer in the original post,
John McKendry
> Dakota wrote:
>> I've just watched the presentation and come away unimpressed. It was
>> not a waste of time as there were several informative segments but
>> there was what seemed to me considerable historical revisionism as
>> support for the program's premise. The claim was made that in Darwin's
>> lifetime, mainstream Christians no longer believed in biblical
>> literalism.
>
> Biblical literalism has flourished in the so-called "Bible Belt," a
> region of the U.S. south of the Mason-Dixon Line, since the 18th
> century.
>
You really need to back that up with some evidence, probably
beginning with an explanation of what you mean by "Biblical
literalism". The standard account of "Biblical literalism" is
that the doctrine arose in late nineteenth-century America in
response to the German "Higher Criticism" school of Biblical
interpretation championed by Julius Wellhausen and others. "Higher
Criticism" meant reading the Bible in its historical and social
contexts, taking into account the time in which a book was written,
its intended audience, its literary precursors, and so forth.
One of Wellhausen's significant contributions is his promotion
of the Documentary Hypothesis, the now-familiar account of the
Pentateuch that identifies four written sources (Jahwist, Elohist,
Deuteronomist, and Priestly) as well as several Redactors.
The origin of the idea of "Biblical literalism" as a formal
doctrine of Christian belief is generally attributed to Charles
Hodge and B.B. Warfield, American Presbyterian theologians at
Princeton Theological Seminary (not the college) in the late
1800s. Hodge and Warfield were motivated by concern for the
encroachments of a way of thinking loosely called "Modernism".
Modernism was a catch-all term for influences like the Higher
Criticism that appeared to undercut the authority of the Bible.
It's interesting to note that both men had doubts about the
adequacy of evolutionary theory to account for the origin of
life and the human soul, but neither one was a Creationist.
So the present doctrine of Biblical literalism arose in about
1880. The older understanding is that the Bible can be understood
on four different levels, the literal, allegorical, moral, and
anagogical (prophetic/eschatological), and in particular that the
literal sense of the text need not be taken as fact. This fourfold
schema originated in earliest Christianity, and has its roots even
earlier in Jewish interpretation; you can see it clearly in the
commentaries of Philo, for instance. As a principle of Biblical
interpretation this fourfold approach was commonly accepted
until the late nineteenth century, and is still recognized as
the orthodox treatment by most denominations. Hodge and Warfield
and their followers claimed that their interpretation was the
actual traditional and orthodox Christian teaching, but history
doesn't support that claim.
(People who actually know something about this stuff will likely
jump in at this point and point out the literalist school of
interpretation that had a brief flowering at Antioch in the
fourth century. Yes, that's true. We can discuss that later.)
So what do you mean by "literalism"?
>
>> Such literalism only
>> took root as a result of the Scopes trial in the US State of Tennessee
>> in 1926.
>
> That's false.
>
> Over the years, Biblical literalism has waxed and waned in America, as
> social and economic changes either helped it or hurt it.
>
The literalism of Hodge and Warfield was advanced by the publication of
a series of twelve books called "The Fundamentals" in 1910. The Scopes
trial probably advanced the cause of Fundamentalism as a national
movement. That "literalism only took root" is an oversimplified story,
but that's what television does, and I'm not sure that your account is
more accurate.
<snip rest>
John
Burkhard
Excellent post! Just one quick comment on Warfiled: As far as I
recall, he was quite open minded as far as the ToE is concerned, more
a theistic evolutionist than anything else.
One thing I do have some trouble figuring out (partly because my
geographical distance to the US) is that the present bunch of
literalists/creos seems to combine their literalism with an anti-
intellectual, spiritualist/mythical approach. For Warfield, that was
just as problematic as the literary criticism approach of the German
school, and I think he had a couple of run ins with the Pentecostal
and revivalist movement in particular.
VoiceOfReason
I find the idea a little bit silly, since there are millions
(billions?) of theists who accept evolution.
Burkhard
I think Antioch is another on point example - they were a church
internal reaction to the Alexandria school that had pushed i(and
dominated) n the opposite direction. Basic dialectics, really :o) And
Antioch _also_ emphasised historical context and the importance of the
original language, which you could argue made them even more
important for 19th century textual criticism than Alexandria -
Theodore's commentaries looked much more like modern critical
commentaries than anything before (or between).
>
> John
John Wilkins
<1862748b-86f3-45e4...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 3:23�ｿｽam, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:09:42 -0500, Steven L. wrote:
> > > Dakota wrote:
> > >> I've just watched the presentation and come away unimpressed. It was
> > >> not a waste of time as there were several informative segments but
> > >> there was what seemed to me considerable historical revisionism as
> > >> support for the program's premise. The claim was made that in Darwin's
> > >> lifetime, mainstream Christians no longer believed in biblical
> > >> literalism.
> >
> > > Biblical literalism has flourished in the so-called "Bible Belt," a
> > > region of the U.S. south of the Mason-Dixon Line, since the 18th
> > > century.
> >
> > �ｿｽYou really need to back that up with some evidence, probably
> > beginning with an explanation of what you mean by "Biblical
> > literalism". The standard account of "Biblical literalism" is
> > that the doctrine arose in late nineteenth-century America in
> > response to the German "Higher Criticism" school of Biblical
> > interpretation championed by Julius Wellhausen and others. "Higher
> > Criticism" meant reading the Bible in its historical and social
> > contexts, taking into account the time in which a book was written,
> > its intended audience, its literary precursors, and so forth.
> > One of Wellhausen's significant contributions is his promotion
> > of the Documentary Hypothesis, the now-familiar account of the
> > Pentateuch that identifies four written sources (Jahwist, Elohist,
> > Deuteronomist, and Priestly) as well as several Redactors.
> >
> > �ｿｽThe origin of the idea of "Biblical literalism" as a formal
> > doctrine of Christian belief is generally attributed to Charles
> > Hodge and B.B. Warfield, American Presbyterian theologians at
> > Princeton Theological Seminary (not the college) in the late
> > 1800s. Hodge and Warfield were motivated by concern for the
> > encroachments of a way of thinking loosely called "Modernism".
> > Modernism was a catch-all term for influences like the Higher
> > Criticism that appeared to undercut the authority of the Bible.
> > It's interesting to note that both men had doubts about the
> > adequacy of evolutionary theory to account for the origin of
> > life and the human soul, but neither one was a Creationist.
> >
> > �ｿｽSo the present doctrine of Biblical literalism arose in about
> > 1880. The older understanding is that the Bible can be understood
> > on four different levels, the literal, allegorical, moral, and
> > anagogical (prophetic/eschatological), and in particular that the
> > literal sense of the text need not be taken as fact. This fourfold
> > schema originated in earliest Christianity, and has its roots even
> > earlier in Jewish interpretation; you can see it clearly in the
> > commentaries of Philo, for instance. As a principle of Biblical
> > interpretation this fourfold approach was commonly accepted
> > until the late nineteenth century, and is still recognized as
> > the orthodox treatment by most denominations. Hodge and Warfield
> > and their followers claimed that their interpretation was the
> > actual traditional and orthodox Christian teaching, but history
> > doesn't support that claim.
> >
> > �ｿｽ(People who actually know something about this stuff will likely
> > jump in at this point and point out the literalist school of
> > interpretation that had a brief flowering at Antioch in the
> > fourth century. Yes, that's true. We can discuss that later.)
> >
>
> I think Antioch is another on point example - they were a church
> internal reaction to the Alexandria school that had pushed i(and
> dominated) n the opposite direction. Basic dialectics, really :o) And
> Antioch _also_ emphasised historical context and the importance of the
> original language, which you could argue made them even more
> important for 19th century textual criticism than Alexandria -
> Theodore's commentaries looked much more like modern critical
> commentaries than anything before (or between).
Were there no literalist traditions in between the Antiochan and the
later Reformation based view of the 19thC?
Burkhard
> In article
> <1862748b-86f3-45e4-8dc7-600e8e931...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 3:23 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:09:42 -0500, Steven L. wrote:
> > > > Dakota wrote:
> > > >> I've just watched the presentation and come away unimpressed. It was
> > > >> not a waste of time as there were several informative segments but
> > > >> there was what seemed to me considerable historical revisionism as
> > > >> support for the program's premise. The claim was made that in Darwin's
> > > >> lifetime, mainstream Christians no longer believed in biblical
> > > >> literalism.
>
> > > > Biblical literalism has flourished in the so-called "Bible Belt," a
> > > > region of the U.S. south of the Mason-Dixon Line, since the 18th
> > > > century.
>
> > > beginning with an explanation of what you mean by "Biblical
> > > literalism". The standard account of "Biblical literalism" is
> > > that the doctrine arose in late nineteenth-century America in
> > > response to the German "Higher Criticism" school of Biblical
> > > interpretation championed by Julius Wellhausen and others. "Higher
> > > Criticism" meant reading the Bible in its historical and social
> > > contexts, taking into account the time in which a book was written,
> > > its intended audience, its literary precursors, and so forth.
> > > One of Wellhausen's significant contributions is his promotion
> > > of the Documentary Hypothesis, the now-familiar account of the
> > > Pentateuch that identifies four written sources (Jahwist, Elohist,
> > > Deuteronomist, and Priestly) as well as several Redactors.
>
> > > doctrine of Christian belief is generally attributed to Charles
> > > Hodge and B.B. Warfield, American Presbyterian theologians at
> > > Princeton Theological Seminary (not the college) in the late
> > > 1800s. Hodge and Warfield were motivated by concern for the
> > > encroachments of a way of thinking loosely called "Modernism".
> > > Modernism was a catch-all term for influences like the Higher
> > > Criticism that appeared to undercut the authority of the Bible.
> > > It's interesting to note that both men had doubts about the
> > > adequacy of evolutionary theory to account for the origin of
> > > life and the human soul, but neither one was a Creationist.
>
> > > 1880. The older understanding is that the Bible can be understood
> > > on four different levels, the literal, allegorical, moral, and
> > > anagogical (prophetic/eschatological), and in particular that the
> > > literal sense of the text need not be taken as fact. This fourfold
> > > schema originated in earliest Christianity, and has its roots even
> > > earlier in Jewish interpretation; you can see it clearly in the
> > > commentaries of Philo, for instance. As a principle of Biblical
> > > interpretation this fourfold approach was commonly accepted
> > > until the late nineteenth century, and is still recognized as
> > > the orthodox treatment by most denominations. Hodge and Warfield
> > > and their followers claimed that their interpretation was the
> > > actual traditional and orthodox Christian teaching, but history
> > > doesn't support that claim.
>
> > > jump in at this point and point out the literalist school of
> > > interpretation that had a brief flowering at Antioch in the
> > > fourth century. Yes, that's true. We can discuss that later.)
>
> > I think Antioch is another on point example - they were a church
> > internal reaction to the Alexandria school that had pushed i(and
> > dominated) n the opposite direction. Basic dialectics, really :o) And
> > Antioch _also_ emphasised historical context and the importance of the
> > original language, which you could argue made them even more
> > important for 19th century textual criticism than Alexandria -
> > Theodore's commentaries looked much more like modern critical
> > commentaries than anything before (or between).
>
> Were there no literalist traditions in between the Antiochan and the
> later Reformation based view of the 19thC?
Arguably, but they did not come up with the type of commentary the
Antiochians produced, I'd say. That was the point I tried to make; the
one famous ancient school of interpretation that is always quoted to
give legitimacy to modern literalists developed tools that became of
paramount importance for the historical-critical movement, the
opposite of literalism. So I doubt that Antioch is really that good an
example of literalism as understood today.
Desertphile
wrote:
> The presenter concluded that Darwin did not kill god. Sorry I ommitted the
> answer in the original post
Nobody believes anyone killed any gods, let alone Charles Darwin
doing so. Darwin explained, in part, the major mechanisms behind
evolution.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Burkhard
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:56:46 -0600, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The presenter concluded that Darwin did not kill god. Sorry I ommitted the
>> answer in the original post
>
> Nobody believes anyone killed any gods, let alone Charles Darwin
> doing so. Darwin explained, in part, the major mechanisms behind
> evolution.
>
>
Paul J Gans
It is hard for everybody to figure out. It is almost as if
they *know* what will happen if folks pay any attention to
scholars.
Here in the US this sort of fundamentalism is linked to a desire
to return to "old time morality", biblically defined sexual roles,
and sure and certain punishment for deviations from societal
norms (by which they mean biblically inspired societal norms.)
And they are certainly NOT losing popularity.
Desertphile
wrote:
Fenris Wolf got a piece of one.
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Here in the US this sort of fundamentalism is linked to a desire
> to return to "old time morality", biblically defined sexual roles,
Polygamy?? Don't sell your daughter unless you get a good price?
> and sure and certain punishment for deviations from societal
> norms (by which they mean biblically inspired societal norms.)
For some waka waka interpretation of the Bible.
>
> And they are certainly NOT losing popularity.
>
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Davej
> [...]
> The creationist movement also caused the creation of a counter-
> movement led by extreme evolutionists who then claimed that
> evolution proved that God did not exist.
More like the Wizard of Oz and the man behind the curtain.
John Wilkins
it was an accident. You see, I was aiming at a particularly nice Bird
of Paradise when God said to me 'Charles!' and I turned around without
thinking and my finger pulled the trigger. It was over in a second.
Full in the face; I mean, His own Mother couldn't have identified him.
So, I buried him in a nearby cave, rolled a stone over the entrance,
and went to leave the country, hoping that by the time the body was
found, I'd be well away. If not for Inspector Dembski of the Yard, I
would have made it, too."
Desertphile
<gal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 10:20�am, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > The creationist movement also caused the creation of a counter-
> > movement led by extreme evolutionists (sic) who then claimed that
> > evolution proved that god did not exist.
I have never heard anyone except Creationists claim that evolution
has proven gods do not exist.
> More like the Wizard of Oz and the man behind the curtain.
Desertphile
You mean Charles Darwin was really Dick Cheney?!
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Actually God killed Darwin and will do us all in.
Paul J Gans
>In article <heuqm7$e94$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Here in the US this sort of fundamentalism is linked to a desire
>> to return to "old time morality", biblically defined sexual roles,
>Polygamy?? Don't sell your daughter unless you get a good price?
You got *that* right.
>> and sure and certain punishment for deviations from societal
>> norms (by which they mean biblically inspired societal norms.)
>For some waka waka interpretation of the Bible.
Of course. There are more interpretations of the Bible than
there are interpreters.
Michael Siemon
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <heuqm7$e94$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Here in the US this sort of fundamentalism is linked to a desire
> >> to return to "old time morality", biblically defined sexual roles,
>
> >Polygamy?? Don't sell your daughter unless you get a good price?
>
> You got *that* right.
>
> >> and sure and certain punishment for deviations from societal
> >> norms (by which they mean biblically inspired societal norms.)
>
> >For some waka waka interpretation of the Bible.
>
> Of course. There are more interpretations of the Bible than
> there are interpreters.
That's mostly because of the Jews, for whom there are approximately
2.75 interpretations of Tanakh per adherent; whereas Christianity
at its best (???) only rises to about 0.95 on average (admittedly,
the various Protestant sects get to about 1.5...)
John Wilkins
<mlsiemon-FF8C2E...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
So we measure these in what, Herms?
Paul J Gans
Well, yes. ;-)
There's an old, old story of the two very observant Jews who, in
a shipwreck, were cast away on a desert island. The first thing
they did was to build three synogogues. One for the first guy,
the second for the second guy who did not agree with the first
guy on several interpretations, and the third was the synogogue
which they both vowed they'd never set foot in.
Paul J Gans
Not in the US. We don't allow such things here.
el cid
> Dakota <ma...@nospammail.com> wrote:
> >I've just watched the presentation and come away unimpressed. It was not a
> >waste of time as there were several informative segments but there was what
> >seemed to me considerable historical revisionism as support for the
> >program's premise. The claim was made that in Darwin's lifetime, mainstream
> >took root as a result of the Scopes trial in the US State of Tennessee in
> >literal interpretation of the bible. The creationist movement also caused
> >claimed that evolution proved that God did not exist.
>
> As far as I know, Catholics put biblical literalism behind them
> a thousand years BEFORE Darwin. �I daresay that educated Europeans
> in Darwin's day were almost never literalists.
>
> That's a totally different question than God having created the
> universe, the earth, and life over a long period of time.
As a chemist, you should understand that being educated, catholic
or European are metastable conditions, what with this whole
reproduction thing and its consequences. However, the search
for meaning and various surrogate parental authority memes are
seemingly dynamically stable. This provides fresh material
to fall into the low free energy state of uneducated literalism
of many flavours, biblical literalism being the one under discussion.
The only catalyst required here is some preacher to shunt
people into believing they can have secure answers without
having to confront the hard work of educating themselves
through a world where nice reliable data is often corrupted
by environmental noise that requires thinking an analysis
(and work and intelligence) to properly sort through the noise
and get to the signal. You can have science preachers too,
who use the prefiltered signal arrayed in science textbooks
as an alternative literalism and then you get something in
the engineering meme. I leave it to my betters to tie this
into the Salem hypothesis.
Paul J Gans
All of which is mainly true. But something else has happened.
The Catholics discouraged (they did not forbid) laymen from
reading the Bible directly *because* it is susceptable to
misinterpretation.
Catholics have been unfairly blamed for a lot because of that.
And no, I'm not a catholic, but the notion that any man can read
the Bible and get Truth from it has led to some benefit and a
large amount of difficulty.
We should be thankful that Gilgamesh was not a sacred text in
Europe.
el cid
> el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 28, 1:18锟絧m, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Dakota <ma...@nospammail.com> wrote:
> >> >I've just watched the presentation and come away unimpressed. It was not a
> >> >waste of time as there were several informative segments but there was what
> >> >seemed to me considerable historical revisionism as support for the
> >> >program's premise. The claim was made that in Darwin's lifetime, mainstream
> >> >Christians no longer believed in biblical literalism. Such literalism only
> >> >took root as a result of the Scopes trial in the US State of Tennessee in
> >> >1926. The Scopes trial sparked the creationist movement and a return to the
> >> >literal interpretation of the bible. The creationist movement also caused
> >> >the creation of a counter-movement led by extreme evolutionists who then
> >> >claimed that evolution proved that God did not exist.
>
> >> As far as I know, Catholics put biblical literalism behind them
> >> in Darwin's day were almost never literalists.
>
> >> That's a totally different question than God having created the
> >> universe, the earth, and life over a long period of time.
> >As a chemist, you should understand that being educated, catholic
> >or European are metastable conditions, what with this whole
> >reproduction thing and its consequences. However, the search
> >for meaning and various surrogate parental authority memes are
> >seemingly dynamically stable. This provides fresh material
> >to fall into the low free energy state of uneducated literalism
> >of many flavours, biblical literalism being the one under discussion.
> >The only catalyst required here is some preacher to shunt
> >people into believing they can have secure answers without
> >having to confront the hard work of educating themselves
> >through a world where nice reliable data is often corrupted
> >by environmental noise that requires thinking an analysis
> >(and work and intelligence) to properly sort through the noise
> >and get to the signal. You can have science preachers too,
> >who use the prefiltered signal arrayed in science textbooks
> >as an alternative literalism and then you get something in
> >the engineering meme. I leave it to my betters to tie this
> >into the Salem hypothesis.
>
> The Catholics discouraged (they did not forbid) laymen from
> reading the Bible directly *because* it is susceptable to
> misinterpretation.
Oh my, how shall I respond?
On the one hand, and in a generous tone, this discouragement
you speak of is insightful. But then there's the question of
the roots of it. Some might say they discouraged it because
they were worried the flock might get confused and others
might say it's because the flock might figure out they were
ultimately in for a fleecing.
However, in its implementation this attitude resulted in a
"trust us, we know better" meme that teenagers rebel
against when used by their parents (rightly and wrongly)
and by many people in an analogous response to religious
authorities, effectively renewing and refiring various reformist
movements. Moreover, this further fuels the whole anti-intellectual
aspect of the fundamentalist movements. It's all connected
in a perverse web of positive and negative feedback.
> Catholics have been unfairly blamed for a lot because of that.
> And no, I'm not a catholic, but the notion that any man can read
> the Bible and get Truth from it has led to some benefit and a
> large amount of difficulty.
>
> We should be thankful that Gilgamesh was not a sacred text in
> Europe.
Any body of answers to question provides a local minimum
trap. Or maybe it has mass and warps time-space. People
will fall toward a systematic set of answers that can be
fed to them to help them make sense of the world. This has
probably been an evolved tendency in us.
A further evolved tendency is to rebel and reject what we
are being told. Yes these conflict which is part of the fun
of being human.
It makes sense for populations to adhere together with
similar beliefs, follow some leader -- strength in numbers
etc. It also makes sense to spin off new groups now and
then.
I think trying to understand various religious movements
outside of these more general animal tendencies is bound
to fail. I also expect thinking one can break us out of these
patterns that are foundational to our make-up are unlikely
to succeed.
Paul J Gans
>> >> Dakota <ma...@nospammail.com> wrote:
>> >> >I've just watched the presentation and come away unimpressed. It was not a
>> >> >waste of time as there were several informative segments but there was what
>> >> >seemed to me considerable historical revisionism as support for the
>> >> >program's premise. The claim was made that in Darwin's lifetime, mainstream
>> >> >Christians no longer believed in biblical literalism. Such literalism only
>> >> >took root as a result of the Scopes trial in the US State of Tennessee in
>> >> >1926. The Scopes trial sparked the creationist movement and a return to the
>> >> >literal interpretation of the bible. The creationist movement also caused
>> >> >the creation of a counter-movement led by extreme evolutionists who then
>> >> >claimed that evolution proved that God did not exist.
>>
>> >> As far as I know, Catholics put biblical literalism behind them
>> >> in Darwin's day were almost never literalists.
>>
>> >> That's a totally different question than God having created the
>> >> universe, the earth, and life over a long period of time.
>> >As a chemist, you should understand that being educated, catholic
>> >or European are metastable conditions, what with this whole
>> >reproduction thing and its consequences. However, the search
>> >for meaning and various surrogate parental authority memes are
>> >seemingly dynamically stable. This provides fresh material
>> >to fall into the low free energy state of uneducated literalism
>> >of many flavours, biblical literalism being the one under discussion.
>> >The only catalyst required here is some preacher to shunt
>> >people into believing they can have secure answers without
>> >having to confront the hard work of educating themselves
>> >through a world where nice reliable data is often corrupted
>> >by environmental noise that requires thinking an analysis
>> >(and work and intelligence) to properly sort through the noise
>> >and get to the signal. You can have science preachers too,
>> >who use the prefiltered signal arrayed in science textbooks
>> >as an alternative literalism and then you get something in
>> >the engineering meme. I leave it to my betters to tie this
>> >into the Salem hypothesis.
>>
>> The Catholics discouraged (they did not forbid) laymen from
>> reading the Bible directly *because* it is susceptable to
>> misinterpretation.
>Oh my, how shall I respond?
>On the one hand, and in a generous tone, this discouragement
>you speak of is insightful. But then there's the question of
>the roots of it. Some might say they discouraged it because
>they were worried the flock might get confused and others
>might say it's because the flock might figure out they were
>ultimately in for a fleecing.
Well, hmmm. The idea is not mine, but is a common meme
(if you will) used by medieval historians when discussing
the role of the church.
I'd not oversimplify the situation. This was the early
equipment of letting folks with no training operate the
controls of a nuclear reactor. Some might say that they
were told NOT to operate the reactor simply because an
elite wanted to keep control to themselves. Others might
think it an honest attempt to avoid disasters.
>However, in its implementation this attitude resulted in a
>"trust us, we know better" meme that teenagers rebel
>against when used by their parents (rightly and wrongly)
>and by many people in an analogous response to religious
>authorities, effectively renewing and refiring various reformist
>movements. Moreover, this further fuels the whole anti-intellectual
>aspect of the fundamentalist movements. It's all connected
>in a perverse web of positive and negative feedback.
Until rather recently in human history, trust us has been
the common operating mode. One trusted priests on religion,
mathematicians on mathematics, and surgeons on surgery. But
today both the left and the right often feel that the experts
are taking them for a ride.
What is the cure for this? This is a highly complex world,
even in religion. Most religions have had hundreds of years
in which to accumulate complexity -- complexity that can't be
learned or appreciated by a layman who has done no studying.
>> Catholics have been unfairly blamed for a lot because of that.
>> And no, I'm not a catholic, but the notion that any man can read
>> the Bible and get Truth from it has led to some benefit and a
>> large amount of difficulty.
>>
>> We should be thankful that Gilgamesh was not a sacred text in
>> Europe.
>Any body of answers to question provides a local minimum
>trap. Or maybe it has mass and warps time-space. People
>will fall toward a systematic set of answers that can be
>fed to them to help them make sense of the world. This has
>probably been an evolved tendency in us.
Yes. And it is a necessity. We can't all recreate and reprove
every old idea we hear about. We have to take many things on,
dare I say it, faith.
The crucial thing to know is that humans have been around for
hundreds of thousands of years. Yet it is only recently that
they have gained enough knowlege to make the progress we have
in the last 500 years. Individuals can not reproduce all that
out of their own heads. They *have* to take some things on
faith.
>A further evolved tendency is to rebel and reject what we
>are being told. Yes these conflict which is part of the fun
>of being human.
>It makes sense for populations to adhere together with
>similar beliefs, follow some leader -- strength in numbers
>etc. It also makes sense to spin off new groups now and
>then.
Yes an no. We are social animals that now band together
in groups the size of which is beyond our inhereted ability
to cope with. We can't go off into our own small *separate*
groups. We have to stay linked somehow to the mass.
>I think trying to understand various religious movements
>outside of these more general animal tendencies is bound
>to fail. I also expect thinking one can break us out of these
>patterns that are foundational to our make-up are unlikely
>to succeed.
I agree. And yet what is foundational? Certainly altruism, as
one example, must exist in social animals in some way. But must
democracy? Kingship? Religion?
I don't know.
el cid
I have no idea how cynical to be about the actual faith
of those who were in charge of the flocks. We do know
however, that many had at least their own proper
measure of human failings, and many abused their
roles as teachers and guides. Of this we seem to
have good institutional memory which roots the
skepticism we have with institutional authorities.
> >However, in its implementation this attitude resulted in a
> >"trust us, we know better" meme that teenagers rebel
> >against when used by their parents (rightly and wrongly)
> >and by many people in an analogous response to religious
> >authorities, effectively renewing and refiring various reformist
> >movements. Moreover, this further fuels the whole anti-intellectual
> >aspect of the fundamentalist movements. It's all connected
> >in a perverse web of positive and negative feedback.
> Until rather recently in human history, trust us has been
> the common operating mode. �One trusted priests on religion,
> mathematicians on mathematics, and surgeons on surgery. �But
> today both the left and the right often feel that the experts
> are taking them for a ride.
You would have a better sense of how much authentic
skepticism of leaders existed in the past. I'm thinking
the meme of mutiny and rebellion against corrupt leaders
predates our loss of a tail.
> What is the cure for this? �This is a highly complex world,
> even in religion. �Most religions have had hundreds of years
> in which to accumulate complexity -- complexity that can't be
> learned or appreciated by a layman who has done no studying.
There may be an ultimate limit on specialization. The logic
here is that with specialization comes "trust us", with "trust
us" comes power, power ==> corruption, corruption ==>
distrust. And you don't even need authentic corruption
in each instance as long as the pattern holds often
enough for people to recognize it and prejudge the
initial "trust us" part. Again, I'd say that's a driving
force behind US anti-intellectualism.
> >> Catholics have been unfairly blamed for a lot because of that.
> >> And no, I'm not a catholic, but the notion that any man can read
> >> the Bible and get Truth from it has led to some benefit and a
> >> large amount of difficulty.
>
> >> We should be thankful that Gilgamesh was not a sacred text in
> >> Europe.
> >Any body of answers to question provides a local minimum
> >trap. Or maybe it has mass and warps time-space. People
> >will fall toward a systematic set of answers that can be
> >fed to them to help them make sense of the world. This has
> >probably been an evolved tendency in us.
>
> Yes. �And it is a necessity. �We can't all recreate and reprove
> every old idea we hear about. �We have to take many things on,
> dare I say it, faith.
>
> The crucial thing to know is that humans have been around for
> hundreds of thousands of years. �Yet it is only recently that
> they have gained enough knowlege to make the progress we have
> in the last 500 years. �Individuals can not reproduce all that
> out of their own heads. �They *have* to take some things on
> faith.
Of course I'm asserting there are limits to how far this can
go in human society. As you say, the opportunity for
specialized learning and advances is unprecedented.
But while that foundation may have changed, it's not
clear that people have (and it's unlikely they have) so
that a group that is trusted/empowered will behave
in a trustworthy way.
For true cooperative advancement, perhaps we should
get out of the way and allow for the further evolution
of our rightful ant overlords.
> >A further evolved tendency is to rebel and reject what we
> >are being told. Yes these conflict which is part of the fun
> >of being human.
> >It makes sense for populations to adhere together with
> >similar beliefs, follow some leader -- strength in numbers
> >etc. It also makes sense to spin off new groups now and
> >then.
> Yes an no. �We are social animals that now band together
> in groups the size of which is beyond our inhereted ability
> to cope with. �We can't go off into our own small *separate*
> groups. �We have to stay linked somehow to the mass.
No, we don't have to. You might say "we have to if we are
going to continue to make progress" but that condition is
not a necessity. And I think it's socially unstable.
And the drive to break from the mass is ingrained. Not in
everyone but such that some will. And it makes evolutionary
sense to shed part of your population in case the group
you are in all fall victim to the same threat --- disease
or environmental catastrophe --- this is innate in our
make up. I'm not calling it good or bad, just innate.
> >I think trying to understand various religious movements
> >outside of these more general animal tendencies is bound
> >to fail. I also expect thinking one can break us out of these
> >patterns that are foundational to our make-up are unlikely
> >to succeed.
>
> I agree. �And yet what is foundational? �Certainly altruism, as
> one example, must exist in social animals in some way. �But must
> democracy? Kingship? �Religion?
>
> I don't know.
I'd say kingship and religion are reflections of innate human
tendencies. Various cultural forces can provide substitutes
and/or partially supplant such innate tendencies. We
could probably engineer a society to do so more effectively
but that approaches Orwellian in my mind and I'd worry
about the fixed class type structures such societies
would likely entail.
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> We should be thankful that Gilgamesh was not a sacred text in
> Europe.
What in Gilgamesh is wurst than what is in the Bible? It's polytheistic
and so less harmful in general than straight theism, where the tendency
is first to reject every one with another deity and then to reject every
one who worships the same deity in another fashion, leading to much
bloodshed.
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Until rather recently in human history, trust us has been
> the common operating mode. One trusted priests on religion,
> mathematicians on mathematics, and surgeons on surgery. But
> today both the left and the right often feel that the experts
> are taking them for a ride.
>
> What is the cure for this? This is a highly complex world,
> even in religion. Most religions have had hundreds of years
> in which to accumulate complexity -- complexity that can't be
> learned or appreciated by a layman who has done no studying.
And those that have done no studying are the most sure of their opinions
are the absolute TRUTH.
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> The crucial thing to know is that humans have been around for
> hundreds of thousands of years. Yet it is only recently that
> they have gained enough knowlege to make the progress we have
> in the last 500 years. Individuals can not reproduce all that
> out of their own heads. They *have* to take some things on
> faith.
That's been true since the Renaissance, where a few men were conversant
with all the fields of knowledge. And in general, I see progress as more
linear. It takes a long time to domesticate animals and plants, for
example. One of the reasons that the New World was technologically
behind the old was, a scarcity of domesticable animals and plant. Corn
was hard to make into a useful crop.
Walter Bushell
<e7a702a8-f357-453f...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
el cid <elcid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There may be an ultimate limit on specialization. The logic
> here is that with specialization comes "trust us", with "trust
> us" comes power, power ==> corruption, corruption ==>
> distrust. And you don't even need authentic corruption
> in each instance as long as the pattern holds often
> enough for people to recognize it and prejudge the
> initial "trust us" part. Again, I'd say that's a driving
> force behind US anti-intellectualism.
Favorite example, I could not convince my parents to use butter rather
than margarine, which was made with transfats and unsaturated but omega
6 fats. The nutritionists and doctors were all advising against me.
I still think the nutritionist are recommending canola, soy, corn and
safflower oils, high in omega 6 though they be. Necessary as they are
they seem to be in great abundance in American cuisine.
John Wilkins
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
Even in the Renaissance, nobody could know everything. There was guild
knowledge used for the fabrication of everything from, err, fabric to
swords to herbal infusions to glazes to making the chemical potions on
which, for example, gunpowders depended. The "Renaissance men" knew
only some of these things. And that's not even taking into account
tacit (non-propositional) knowledge (like, hold the chisel *this* way
or you'll end up digging into the grain).
Tim Norfolk
> In article <proto-C39FCD.21371802122...@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell
>
>
>
>
>
> <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article <hf6lc3$m3...@reader1.panix.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am writing some notes for a book on geeks throughout history. I am
convinced that they must go way back. Even making flint arrowheads is
an artform - I tried, and it's very hard. I think that groups had
specialists like arrowmakers long ago.
Tim Norfolk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Democracy - some slight form exists in many apes. Woe to the lead male
who abuses a baby, the females won't back him up.
Kingship - follow the silverback.
Religion - elephants appear to have some form.
Michael Siemon
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
I suspect you are blinded by an intellectual's notion of "all fields
of knowledge". If you truly attend to the the foundations of human
society, in agricultural technology, pottery, metal-working, harness
and other transport technology, and all the other stuff that was in
fact _extremely_ well developed in the middle of the 2nd millenium
CE, the bits of "theoretical" knowledge are an incredibly tiny part
of the mix. And I know of _no_ one who could be considered a master
of all of it, or even a major fraction. And most of the famous
Renaissance polymaths were, as it happens, seriously devoid of any
competence in politics. :-)
Tim Norfolk
> In article <proto-C39FCD.21371802122...@news.panix.com>,
> �Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <hf6lc3$m3...@reader1.panix.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
There's a reason for that. Technically competent people (especially in
mathematics) very often have a mild form of Aspberger's syndrome.
There is a piece out, or soon to come out, in 'Human Nature' on the
subject.
Paul J Gans
Yes. The dictatorship of the ignorant.
Paul J Gans
>In article <hf66m9$nni$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> We should be thankful that Gilgamesh was not a sacred text in
>> Europe.
>What in Gilgamesh is wurst than what is in the Bible? It's polytheistic
>and so less harmful in general than straight theism, where the tendency
>is first to reject every one with another deity and then to reject every
>one who worships the same deity in another fashion, leading to much
>bloodshed.
I wasn't thinking in terms of better or sausage. I was thinking
about what the ideals of such a religion might have been and who
its heros would be.
After all, it is just another book, come down to us in incomplete
bits and pieces, with many disagreements among the pieces. But
it seems to predate the Bible and thus, according to some here,
should be more "authentic".
And it has a flood story. What could be wrong with that?
Paul J Gans
Nutrition, like biochemistry and medicine, are areas in which
we *think* we know about. In reality we know bupkis.
el cid
> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Until rather recently in human history, trust us has been
> >> the common operating mode. �One trusted priests on religion,
> >> mathematicians on mathematics, and surgeons on surgery. �But
> >> today both the left and the right often feel that the experts
> >> are taking them for a ride.
>
> >> What is the cure for this? �This is a highly complex world,
> >> even in religion. �Most religions have had hundreds of years
> >> in which to accumulate complexity -- complexity that can't be
> >> learned or appreciated by a layman who has done no studying.
> >And those that have done no studying are the most sure of their opinions
> >are the absolute TRUTH.
>
> Yes. �The dictatorship of the ignorant.
Are you sure?
Walter Bushell
<mlsiemon-F36435...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
Didn't you mean 2 century BCE? Yes, I was thinking about intellectual
knowledge and for the general case; I concede the point.
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
Somethings we know, like fructose is a poison. And sucrose is half
fructose, effectively. I suppose some people lack the enzyme that splits
the sucrose molecule. I was reading a post from a woman who apparently
lacked the ability to change beta carotene into vitamin A.
Robert Grumbine
> On Dec 2, 9:53?pm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> In article <proto-C39FCD.21371802122...@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell
>>
>> <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > In article <hf6lc3$m3...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>
>> > > The crucial thing to know is that humans have been around for
>> > > they have gained enough knowlege to make the progress we have
>> > > out of their own heads. ?They *have* to take some things on
>> > > faith.
>>
>> > That's been true since the Renaissance, where a few men were conversant
>> > with all the fields of knowledge. And in general, I see progress as more
>> > linear. It takes a long time to domesticate animals and plants, for
>> > example. One of the reasons that the New World was technologically
>> > behind the old was, a scarcity of domesticable animals and plant. Corn
>> > was hard to make into a useful crop.
>>
>> Even in the Renaissance, nobody could know everything. There was guild
>> knowledge used for the fabrication of everything from, err, fabric to
>> swords to herbal infusions to glazes to making the chemical potions on
>> which, for example, gunpowders depended. The "Renaissance men" knew
>> only some of these things. And that's not even taking into account
>> tacit (non-propositional) knowledge (like, hold the chisel *this* way
>> or you'll end up digging into the grain).- Hide quoted text -
>
> convinced that they must go way back. Even making flint arrowheads is
> an artform - I tried, and it's very hard. I think that groups had
> specialists like arrowmakers long ago.
There's some evidence, according to my flint knapping book, that in
paleolithic through neolithic (at least early neolithic) communities,
knapping was not a specialized art. The extent of chips in finds
(US Southwest, I believe, was the proximal locale for the study that
took up the question) was too great to be derived from a small group
of specialists. It was extensive enough to suggest that pretty much
the whole community was knapping. I expect that same as with other
things that everybody does, when you wanted a particularly good one,
you went to the best folks. But it's best vs. eveyrone doing it
fairly routinely, rather than the best few being the only ones.
That's specific to knapping, though. The general point holds,
I think. There was quite a lot more to living 8000 ya than moderns
tend to think. Enough more that probably one one person in a tribe
knew it all.
Then add in agriculture.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Tim Norfolk
> Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
> evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for the info.