…and this is a 
Once upon a time, four blind men were walking in the forest, and they bumped into an elephant.
Moe was in front, and found himself holding the trunk. "It has a tentacle," he said. "I think we have found a giant squid!"
Larry bumped into the side of the elephant. "It's a wall," he said, "A big, bristly wall."
Curly, at the back, touched the tail. "It's nothing to worry about, nothing but a piece of rope dangling in the trail."
Eagletosh saw the interruption as an opportunity to sit in the shade beneath a tree and relax. "It is my considered opinion," he said, "that whatever it is has feathers. Beautiful iridescent feathers of many hues."
The first three, being of a scientifical bent, quickly collaborated and changed places, and confirmed each other's observations; they agreed that each had been correct in the results of their investigations, except that there wasn't a hint of feathers anywhere about, but clearly their interpretations required correction and more data. So they explored further, reporting to each other what they were finding, in order to establish a more complete picture of the obstacle in the path.
"Tracing the tentacle back, I find that it is attached to a large head with eyes, fan-shaped ears, and a mouth bearing tusks. It is not a squid, alas, but seems to be a large mammal of some sort," said Moe.
"Quite right, Moe — I have found four thick limbs. Definitely a large tetrapod," said Larry.
Curly seems distressed. "It's a bit complicated and delicate back here, guys, but I have probed an interesting orifice. Since this is a children's story, I will defer on reporting the details."
Eagletosh yawns and stretches in the shade of a tree. "It has wings, large wings, that it may ascend into the heavens and inspire humanity. There could be no purpose to such an animal without an ability to loft a metaphor and give us something to which we might aspire."
The other three ignore the idling philosopher, because exciting things are happening with their elephant!
"I can feel its trunk grasping the vegetation, uprooting it, and stuffing it into its mouth! It's prehensile! Amazing!", said Moe.
Larry presses his ear against the animal's flank. "I can hear rumbling noises as its digestive system processes the food! It's very loud and large."
There is a squishy plop from the back end. "Oh, no," says Curly, "I can smell that, and I think I should go take a bath."
"You are all completely missing the beauty of its unfurled wings," sneers Eagletosh, "While you tinker with pedestrian trivialities and muck about in earthy debasement, I contemplate the transcendant qualities of this noble creature. 'Tis an angel made manifest, a symbol of the deeper meaning of life."
"No wings, knucklehead, and no feathers, either," says Moe.
"Philistine," says Eagletosh. "Perhaps they are invisible, or tucked inside clever hidden pockets on the flank of the elephant, or better yet, I suspect they are quantum. You can't prove they aren't quantum."
The investigations continue, in meticulous detail by the three, and in ever broader strokes of metaphorical speculation by the one. Many years later, they have accomplished much.
Moe has studied the elephant and its behavior for years, figuring out how to communicate with it and other members of the herd, working out their diet, their diseases and health, and how to get them to work alongside people. He has profited, using elephants as heavy labor in construction work, and he has also used them, unfortunately, in war. He has not figured out how to use them as an air force, however…but he is a master of elephant biology and industry.
Larry studied the elephant, but has also used his knowledge of the animal to study the other beasts in the region: giraffes and hippos and lions and even people. He is an expert in comparative anatomy and physiology, and also has come up with an interesting theory to explain the similarities and differences between these animals. He is a famous scholar of the living world.
Curly's experiences lead him to explore the environment of the elephant, from the dung beetles that scurry after them to the leafy branches they strip from the trees. He learns how the elephant is dependent on its surroundings, and how its actions change the forest and the plains. He becomes an ecologist and conservationist, and works to protect the herds and the other elements of the biome.
Eagletosh writes books. Very influential books. Soon, many of the people who have never encountered an elephant are convinced that they all have wings. Those who have seen photos are at least persuaded that elephants have quantum wings, which just happened to be vibrating invisibly when the picture was snapped. He convinces many people that the true virtue of the elephant lies in its splendid wings — to the point that anyone who disagrees and claims that they are only terrestrial animals is betraying the beauty of the elephant.
Exasperated, Larry takes a break from writing technical treatises about mammalian anatomy, and writes a book for the lay public, The Elephant Has No Wings. While quite popular, the Eagletoshians are outraged. How dare he denigrate the volant proboscidian? Does he think it a mere mechanical mammal, mired in mud, never soaring among the stars? Has he no appreciation for the scholarship of the experts in elephant wings? Doesn't he realize that he can't possibly disprove the existence of wings on elephants, especially when they can be tucked so neatly into the quantum? (The question of how the original prophets of wingedness came by their information never seems to come up, or is never considered very deeply.) It was offensive to cripple the poor elephants, rendering them earthbound.
When that book was quickly followed by Moe's The Elephant Walks and Curly's Land of the Elephant, the elephant wing scholars were in a panic — they were being attacked by experts in elephants, who seemed to know far more about elephants than they did! Fortunately, the scientists knew little about elephant's wings — surprising, that — and the public was steeped in favorable certainty that elephants, far away, were flapping gallantly through the sky. They also had the benefit of vast sums of money. Wealth was rarely associated with competence in matters elephantine, and tycoons were pouring cash into efforts to reconcile the virtuous wingedness of elephants with the uncomfortable reality of anatomy. Even a few scientists who ought to know better were swayed over to the side of the winged; to their credit, it was rarely because of profit, but more because they were sentimentally attached to the idea of wings. They couldn't deny the evidence, however, and were usually observed to squirm as they invoked the mystic power of the quantum, or of fleeting, invisible wings that only appeared when no one was looking.
And there the battle stands, an ongoing argument between the blind who struggle to explore the world as it is around them, and the blind who prefer to conjure phantoms in the spaces within their skulls. I have to disappoint you, because I have no ending and no resolution, only a question.
Where do you find meaning and joy and richness and beauty, O Reader? In elephants, or elephants' wings?
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 10, 2009 2:37 PM
Oh ye of little faith. Soon evolution will produce the Duckophant.
Posted by: DeafAtheist | May 10, 2009 2:39 PM
I know this is unrelated to your post here, but here's a poll for ya:
http://aim2pleaz.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/10/2799065-does-ghostsspirits-really-exists
Posted by: Bronze Dog
|
May 10, 2009 2:39 PM
Excellently written, PZ.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 10, 2009 2:40 PM
This is one o' them "metaphors," ain't it?
Posted by: Lynna | May 10, 2009 2:40 PM
There's richness at Curly's end of the elephant.
"tucked so neatly into the quantum" LOL worthy.
Posted by: robhoofd | May 10, 2009 2:42 PM
We are all blind men and women discovering elephants on our trails, and it's those that get covered with the droppings who are the lucky ones.
Your best tale yet, PZ! I'm sending this one around.
Still, you can't disprove the wings if they're quantum.
Posted by: bunnycatch3r
|
May 10, 2009 2:45 PM
Although I appreciate Moe, Larry, Curley, and Eagletosh's perspectives I'd much rather learn about the elephant from Degas, Renoir, Monet, and Cassatt.
Posted by: Chris Davis
|
May 10, 2009 2:46 PM
Hmm. When I heard this tale, Curly, who was beneath the elephant, said scornfully, 'You're both wrong - it's a large, pendulous, leathery bag.'
Musta been three other philosophers.
Posted by: Madrigalia
|
May 10, 2009 2:46 PM
My first thought went to Stephen Colbert's interview with Bart Ehrman, in which Colbert dismisses various contradictions with "Jesus is an elephant." Am I right that this essay was in part inspired by that interview?
Posted by: blf
|
May 10, 2009 2:48 PM
I'm rather interested in what the elephant wrote up about its encounter with, and subsequent experiments on, four blind apes.
Posted by: shamar
|
May 10, 2009 2:49 PM
Thank you PZ :-)
I love the story...I will definitely be saving this one.
Posted by: Pierre | May 10, 2009 2:49 PM
I just love how you write, PZ. This is such a great little fable. [Little things can be great!]
Someone ought to make a short movie from this piece, you know. Animated, maybe?
Posted by: Charles Vaughn | May 10, 2009 2:50 PM
Worldnet Daily Exclusive:
Popular Evolutionist calls scientists stooges
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 10, 2009 2:52 PM
And Dembski said, how could a thing with wings not be designed? After all, planes have wings, and they're designed.
Then he said, if you believe in intelligent design of elephants, you can ride flying elephants. If you don't believe in intelligent design of elephants, you don't get to fly them.
And that is the theology of intelligent design in a nutshell.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Blue Powder Monkey | May 10, 2009 2:52 PM
I love the title of Larry's book: The Elephant Has No Wings. That feels like it could become a serious meme. Can I use it? Or are you claiming copyright?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 10, 2009 2:52 PM
Really beautiful story.
(Just why did you spell Feagletosh "Eagletosh"?)
LOLcat grammar fail.
Posted by: Jdhuey | May 10, 2009 2:53 PM
Nice allegory but where does Dumbo fit in?
Posted by: JD | May 10, 2009 2:54 PM
Sounds like a Templetosh won't be able to give out award money for wingaphants.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 2:56 PM
Had Moe been more intimate with the prophets of quantum, or even chosen to pursue a non-adversarial relationship with Eagletosh, he would have soon had his elephant air force. It's only Moe's stubbornly religious reliance upon the tenets of Metaphysical Naturalism that prevent Moe from obtaining a Magic Feather, and seeing an elephant fly.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 10, 2009 2:57 PM
WTF. So blockquotes are still indented instead of edented, except the first paragraph?
Can someone whack the ScienceBorg webdesigners upside the head already?
Pretty please?
Thread, meet winner.
Posted by: Kawa | May 10, 2009 2:59 PM
I love this story so much. I needed a good laugh, and it's so true.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | May 10, 2009 2:59 PM
it seems Chris Davis was told this tale by someone who really hadn't ever seen an elephant. ;-)
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | May 10, 2009 3:00 PM
I find meaning in both accounts, if only because the prospect of aerodynamic probocidians is so charming. I like it when you spin parables. The one about the wall would make a good children's book. And, by the way, where is Shemp?
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | May 10, 2009 3:02 PM
Is PZ eligible for the OM?
Posted by: puseaus | May 10, 2009 3:02 PM
Tempelton Prize approaching from above.
Posted by: Fiziker
|
May 10, 2009 3:02 PM
PZ should write a children's book. If only Dawkins's children's book turns out this good.
Posted by: Brian English | May 10, 2009 3:03 PM
I presume that that evil bastard, Russell Blackford, has asserted copyright over Eaglefish and so you had to coin Eagletosh?
Nice story btw. A further question. How do Elephant wings taste when battered and deep fried?
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 3:03 PM
That would be an ironic knee-slapper, wouldn't it, FP?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 10, 2009 3:04 PM
In making a mockery of Feagletosh, and in reality being stranger than fiction: his wings are simply the ears, they are not quantum, and they are not on his flanks.
Posted by: Marc Abian | May 10, 2009 3:05 PM
Did PZ actually write that?
Posted by: Newfie
|
May 10, 2009 3:05 PM
He's demigod, not part of the trinity.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 10, 2009 3:05 PM
Pachydermaliscious.
* yes i know they aren't considered pachyderms still.
Posted by: mandrake | May 10, 2009 3:05 PM
Eagletosh saw the interruption as an opportunity to sit in the shade beneath a tree and relax. "It is my considered opinion," he said, "that whatever it is has feathers. Beautiful iridescent feathers of many hues."
"What are you smoking?" asked the other three. "Any why didn't we get any?"
Posted by: owlbear1 | May 10, 2009 3:09 PM
I have an invisible superman on my shoulder. Not impressed, eh? He has a really big schlong too so you better be impressed!
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 3:11 PM
Sorry DMOM, but Dumbo flaps his ears in sympathetic rhythm with his quantum wingspan. Ears can only act as ailerons, and are obviously incapable of lifting an elephant, which would require powerful invisible wings. And, of course, the feathers are all magic.
Posted by: Patrick | May 10, 2009 3:11 PM
Excellently done. I still use your "courtier's reply" metaphor in arguments with creationists.
Posted by: Always-a-Student | May 10, 2009 3:20 PM
I just loved this story. Usually, when I realize I'm reading a metaphor on this subject, my stomach knots up. I know the ending will glorify the religious nut and give the proper comeuppance to the smug scientist. (Think: pencil dropping prof and soldier who punches prof for god.)
Thank you for a lovely read!
Posted by: MissPrism | May 10, 2009 3:22 PM
My life will be slightly incomplete until I find an excuse to use the words "I suspect they are quantum. You can't prove they're not quantum."
Posted by: Kevin Schreck | May 10, 2009 3:23 PM
This is one of the best things I've read in a while. Thank you so much, PZ. I'll definitely be sharing this with my friends.
Posted by: Max | May 10, 2009 3:23 PM
Man... this is going to be a classic someday.
Posted by: Don | May 10, 2009 3:24 PM
One sympathizes with the poor elephant who has been mercilessly poked, prodded and - according to Curly - probed.
Posted by: dave | May 10, 2009 3:26 PM
You forget to mention that elephant (they call 'im "Gop" for some reason), is very ill and not very popular among his jungle mates anymore. He may have had wings once, but they're long, long gone.
Posted by: GMacs | May 10, 2009 3:29 PM
The elephant could totally have quantum wings. But the intangible, invisible wings probably flow through the air without making wind or displacing a single molecule.
Magical, but effectively nonexistent. I guess I find the elephant more inspiring.
By the way, is Eagletosh your answer to Ditchkins? If so: niiiice.
I still want winged, flying elephants, for the purposes of that would be fricking awesome.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2009 3:29 PM
The end result: Add religion and shit and you get bullshit.
Posted by: Falene | May 10, 2009 3:35 PM
Happy Elephant!
Posted by: Elwood Herring | May 10, 2009 3:35 PM
Not quite sure what you're getting at, PZ. Hit me over the head some more!
Seriously, excellent analogy.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
May 10, 2009 3:36 PM
Excellent parable. And less opaque than any of Jeebus'.
I have seen elephants that fly (assisted, though not by a magic feather): the so-called Southbound pachyderm
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 10, 2009 3:37 PM
Curly hasn't had his stroke yet, so there's no need for Shemp.
Posted by: Greg F. | May 10, 2009 3:38 PM
For once, I'm at a loss for words.
All I can say is that this is one of the best summations of the creationism/evolution debacle I've read so far.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 10, 2009 3:39 PM
The ears are easily big enough to carry Dumbo (at least in gliding), and... your classical education leaves much to desire. The very point of the story is that the feather is completely unnecessary.
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 3:40 PM
How in the world is this even sensible? Can you name a single properly scientific conclusion that someone who agrees with Eagleton's theology would be required, on pain of contradiction, to reject? Can you name a single aesthetic aspect of the scientific enterprise he couldn't appreciate? This is even worse than the now rampant idiotic use of the Courtier's Reply: *originally*, it was at least quite sensible; this one is nonsense from the get-go.
Posted by: tmaxPA | May 10, 2009 3:41 PM
Wow.
Quite an ending.
That is nominally devastating, PZ. A future classic of atheist literature (short form).
Posted by: DuckPhup | May 10, 2009 3:46 PM
Slightly off-topic... but this looks like a good place to reprise my personal definition of Metaphysics: "The blind leading the stupid into the unknown, on a quest for the unfathomable."
Whenever I proffer that definition, I am inevitably confronted by someone who takes metaphysics way too seriously, and (very huffily) asks something like: "So... what does that make you, then... blind or stupid?"
I've got a stock answer for that: Well... since I consider myself to be a teacher and a student... honesty compels me to admit that I am both... blind and stupid. The difference, though, is that I know that I am both blind and stupid, whereas you are oblivious to both. Since I am conscious of my blindness and stupidity, I am able to take them into account... which leaves me with something of an advantage.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 10, 2009 3:47 PM
Actually we should be glad that elephants don't fly. Like most herbivores, elephants produce large amounts of manure. It would be unpleasant to be underneath a pachyderm while it was dumping ballast.
Posted by: C. M. Baxter
|
May 10, 2009 3:47 PM
PZ, you forgot to mention Stan and Ollie who firmly accepted the no wings theory, yet also believed elephants had wings. They wrote books and went on lecture tours explaining why the two positions on elephant wings were not necessarily incompatible. Both Stan and Ollie admonished Larry not to publish Elephants Have No Wings, claiming that militant “No Wingers” were making it more difficult to bring proponents from both sides of the controversy to some form of enlightened agreement.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 3:49 PM
There you go again, DMOM, interpreting the tale in a rigidly materialistic secular humanist manner. What about the mystic pink elephants? Even if you do analyze the story in a way that ignores the necessity for quantum feathered wings, where is the structural support in those flappy stretched out membranes? Cartilage alone wouldn't do it, nor are elephant ears sufficiently prehensile.
Clearly, the point of the tale of Dumbo is about the imperative for belief. Without faith in the feather there can be no flight. Even if the feather is unnecessary, it's the belief in the feather that is important--even in a Straussian sense, it is better that Dumbo believes in his capacity to fly than that he surrender to mere skepticism and doubt.
Posted by: bluescat48
|
May 10, 2009 3:50 PM
It appears that Eagletosh got his info from a mythological source, Disney's classic "DUMBO"
Posted by: Benjamin | May 10, 2009 3:50 PM
This is great writing! Good job PZ!
Posted by: Klimatyzacja LG | May 10, 2009 3:50 PM
Good Post
Posted by: Dr Jim | May 10, 2009 3:51 PM
Oh frabjous day, callooh, callay!
Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2009 3:51 PM
Once upon a time, four blind men were walking in the forest, and they bumped into an elephant.
I hope that the elephant was sufficiently discerning to leave Moe, Larry & Curly alone, & give a feckin' good stomping to Eagletosh.
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 10, 2009 3:54 PM
bunnycatch3r @ 7
I'm Impressed by those four!
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
May 10, 2009 3:55 PM
heh... You clearly must be the only one here with a brain, as it's clear, no one else gets it... Or, doesn't get it.
You feel lonely?
Posted by: sam | May 10, 2009 3:56 PM
As a physicist I'd like to say: "leave us out of it".
Unless you can pass me elephant wings in a nice piece of Dirac notation we don't want 'em. Even if we did have your elephant wings they'd only be about for
Anyway we can only really model perfectly spherical winged elephants in a vacuum....
Posted by: abelianjeff | May 10, 2009 3:59 PM
Bravo!
Posted by: Brian | May 10, 2009 4:00 PM
"Quantum wings" ...
BWAH HAH HAH
Posted by: jeff | May 10, 2009 4:05 PM
Thank you, PZ, so much for posting this valuable information.
As a child I was sunburned on several occasions and could really have benefited from the shade of the elephant's glorious (and quantum) wings. But, alas, my education was entirely one-sided.
In fact, this is the very first time I've even heard about the Elephant Controversy. But I'm darned sure gonna let my local school board know that I want my kids taught the TRUTH about elephants.
Posted by: Rudy | May 10, 2009 4:05 PM
It would be a more devastating critique of Eagleton if it actually had the remotest connection to his views. Is PZ mixing up Frank Tipler with Terry Eagleton? Where on Earth does TE every mention "quantum" anything?
Bring us more cephalopods please.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 10, 2009 4:08 PM
Who said anything about Terry Eagleton?
Posted by: Richard Harris
|
May 10, 2009 4:13 PM
Rudy, PZ's diatribe was prompted by Stanley Fish's review of a book by Terry Eagleton. It was a stinking crock of shit, by a religious apologist.
Posted by: Orson Zedd
|
May 10, 2009 4:20 PM
In The Science of Discworld, Terry Pratchett uses quantum as the Discworld equivalent of magic. Makes me wonder if Eagleton is from the Stolat Plains or Ankh-Morpork.
Posted by: Patrick Q. | May 10, 2009 4:26 PM
You're missing a blind "agnostic" who will attack Larry as a "humorless" man who has made a-wingism his religion. This despite the fact that Larry's book was filled with humor and that a careful reading shows that he holds the exact same philosophical position as the agnostic.
Here, Matt Taibbi has provided an example to help you out.
Have fun.
Posted by: BeccaTheCyborg | May 10, 2009 4:39 PM
Excellent post, PZ. Clever, yet has poop jokes. A fine balance. :)
Posted by: Blue Suede Schubert | May 10, 2009 4:42 PM
Eric @ 51: not sure about that Eagleton guy, but in
PZ's parable, Fiedelbaum's theology is constructed so
as to require no one who subscribes to it to reject any
'proper scientific conclusion'. & anyone may appreciate
science on an aesthetic basis, even if he is a devout
follower of Fiedelbaumism.
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 4:47 PM
Blue Suede Schubert, reread the last two paragraphs:
"And there the battle stands, an *ongoing argument* between *the blind who struggle to explore the world as it is around them*, and *the blind who prefer to conjure phantoms in the spaces within their skulls*. I have to disappoint you, because I have no ending and no resolution, only a question.
Where do you find meaning and joy and richness and beauty, O Reader? In elephants, *or* elephants' wings?"
That doesn't strike me as an instance of the inclusive 'or'...
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | May 10, 2009 4:48 PM
Methinks you spelled Eagletoosh incorrectly.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 10, 2009 4:49 PM
Yeah, you strike me as an elephants' wings kind of guy, Eric.
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | May 10, 2009 4:52 PM
Perhaps you should write childrens books.
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 5:00 PM
"Yeah, you strike me as an elephants' wings kind of guy, Eric."
Only in the sense that Ken Miller, John Polkinghorne, Freeman Dyson, Owen Gingerich, Arno Penzias, etc. are 'elephants' wings' guys. Which is to say, in a sense that defies the logic of your parable.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 10, 2009 5:00 PM
You've completely missed the point: we really cannot prove that elephants don't have wings that are Discworld-quantum or otherwise ineffable.
We can't even prove (so far) that Russell's Teapot doesn't exist.
(insert indistinct waffling about fibrocartilage, elastin, and calcified cartilage, as well as curiously hypertrophied muscles...)
You probably also believed the moral of The Incredibles was "if everyone is special, nobody is special".
No. An important scene in Dumbo is when Dumbo loses the feather and starts plummeting, Generic American Rodent tells him "you don't need the feather, you can fly just so", and Dumbo decides to test that hypothesis.
Science and skepticism make another appearance, too: right in the beginning, when Generic American Rodent looks at Dumbo, compares his knowledge of anatomy to his knowledge of aerodynamics, concludes that Dumbo must be able to fly, and sets out to test that hypothesis by hook or by crook. Everyone but Dumbo knows that the "magic feather" was plucked from the nearest available random bird's tail.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | May 10, 2009 5:00 PM
This metaphor with people feeling up an elephant was used a lot when I was a wee lad, and people tried to use it to fight the cognitive dissonance between "knowing" your religion is true, and knowing that a thousand other people also "knowing" their respective religions are true.
The roles of the scientists in this story were casted as people of other faiths, trying to describe their gods, which were really all just aspects of the one true god which was the god of the person telling the story of course.
Posted by: Max Fagin | May 10, 2009 5:01 PM
Hmm, I sense another deity worthy to join the ranks of the FSM and the IPU. The EWIW. (Elephant With Invisible Wings)
Posted by: Nusubito | May 10, 2009 5:03 PM
Whenever I hear theists make an argument for God from quantum effects, I practically vomit. I don't know of any word that's misused more.
That said, Eric, the point of this whole exercise was simply to mock Eagleton's view that there is something more to the world (elephants wings/god/a soul/etc.) that is unobservable and unnecessary.
The fact that quantum arguments aren't Eagleton's thing is also part of the joke. When you've changed your opponent to Eagletosh, instead of a real person, who needs to keep it consistent with real views? This is exactly what Eagleton did with Ditchkins, and is what PZ is mocking here.
I'm really not sure how you could misunderstand this, unless you haven't read the post on Eagleton.
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 5:03 PM
"You've completely missed the point: we really cannot prove that elephants don't have wings that are Discworld-quantum or otherwise ineffable."
No, I think you've missed mine. The point is that the 'or' the story ends with doesn't follow from the story itself.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 10, 2009 5:09 PM
You're still missing the point. :-) The point is the principle of parsimony: We don't need to assume that elephants have ineffable wings. We have no reason whatsoever to assume that elephants have ineffable wings. So why assume that elephants have ineffable wings?
Sire, je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 5:20 PM
Everyone but Dumbo knows that the "magic feather" was plucked from the nearest available random bird's tail.
Well of course it was plucked from a random bird's tail, the interpretation to go for if you're willing to settle for the obvious and exoteric reading... You need to find the original story of Dumbo, by HP Blavatsky and illustrated by PDQ Ouspensky, to learn about the secret teachings concealed within the fable. As it is, the Disney version isn't even the Disney version, as the animators, having just broken Walt's spirit by striking and unionizing, cranked out the movie Dumbo in his absence, after getting Walt even more drunk than usual and sending him to South America to work on Saludos Amigos, so it has little to do with the original story. If you can't be bothered to read the Blavatsky/Ouspensky classic, in the original Enochian, mind you, I can't blamed for your secular reading that ignores the sacred flapping of the quantum winged elephant.
Posted by: REBoho
|
May 10, 2009 5:25 PM
Nice job framing PZ. I think you have a talent for this type of thing. Perhaps you could instruct others on communicating science and skepticism.
Posted by: Dust | May 10, 2009 5:26 PM
Elephant Poop
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 5:28 PM
"You're still missing the point. :-) The point is the principle of parsimony: We don't need to assume that elephants have ineffable wings. We have no reason whatsoever to assume that elephants have ineffable wings. So why assume that elephants have ineffable wings?"
Again, I must disagree. The point, it seems to me, is that some find life rich and meaningful by looking at the world as it is, while others have to 'make things up' out of whole-cloth to find meaning. The principle of parsimony is epistemic, not evaluative.
That aside, I think the Eagletons of the world would argue that while me may not have any scientific reasons to believe X, it doesn't follow that we therefore have no reasons as such to believe X. This is another problem with the parable: The Eagletons of the world don't simply make things up arbitrarily, and to even suggest that they do is intellectually dishonest.
Finally, whether one needs a particular hypothesis (or explanation, etc.) depends on what you're trying to do or understand. I agree, you don't explicitly need any of Eagleton's theology to conduct scientific research, but that's not at all relevant. You don't need to understand biology to read Shakespeare, or to understand QM to raise a child. Note, this doesn't in any sense impugn the worth of Shakespeare, child rearing, or biology.
Posted by: Ineffable | May 10, 2009 5:32 PM
Huh???
This story is odd. Does is have to do with Deepak Chopra and his "quantum consciousness" new agey woo?
The "quantum wings" thing was a dead giveaway then.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 10, 2009 5:33 PM
Eric, you may need your imaginary deity, but we don't. Your philosophical approaches fail every time. Just like now. If you were as smart as you think you are, you would just give up on the idea of us accepting a deity, and quit bothering us with you inane logic.
Posted by: Dust | May 10, 2009 5:35 PM
http://tiny.cc/onoMl
sigh
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 5:37 PM
Of course it doesn't, especially if you have a morbid need to believe in things for which there is no evidence.
No, the Eagletons of the world lack the originality and wit to do so. They simply steal and embellish and polish the tropes most readily marketable to the credulous marks, a grift that works because "there's a seeker born every minute" here in the newage.
So, therefore, we must conclude that "Ditchkens" is real! QED!
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 10, 2009 5:38 PM
I've admired Eagleton's work - his thought is rooted in Marxism - but this new book sounds like a totally misguided effort.
Another one bites the dust.
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 5:39 PM
"If you were as smart as you think you are, you would just give up on the idea of us accepting a deity, and quit bothering us with you inane logic."
Nerd of Redhead, if you were as smart as you think you are, you would (1) acknowledge the possibility that I may not be merely attempting to persuade you but may also enjoy discussing issues with people who disagree with me, and from whom I may learn something, and would (2) at least attempt to point out exactly where my logical errors are, as opposed to merely suggesting that they're there.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 10, 2009 5:40 PM
The Eagletons of the world don't simply make things up arbitrarily, and to even suggest that they do is intellectually dishonest.
Ah, good point. Most of the things that were made up arbitrarily were imagined by people who died many centuries ago, and what people like Eagleton are doing is simply apologizing for the persistent tradition of believing in such fairy tales by the unimaginative of today. Of course, being that apologetic does take some degree of imagination, so I think the parable still holds, and quite well, too.
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 5:42 PM
"Of course it doesn't, especially if you have a morbid need to believe in things for which there is no evidence."
Ken Cope, let's approach this obliquely: Can you provide evidence for every belief you hold?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 10, 2009 5:45 PM
Eric, your error is no physical evidence for your god. Philosophy with evidence is sophistry. You are a sophist. That has been explained to you several times. You would do well to remember that.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 10, 2009 5:45 PM
it does however help to know that fairies aren't real, and that Shakespeare wrote stories, not The Truth(TM). And the day that idiots start wars over interpretations of Shakespeare, or insist on Teaching the Controversy that fairies are real, we WILL have to point out that there's no such thing as fairies!!! and we'll use science for it.
way to compare apples and oranges.
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | May 10, 2009 5:50 PM
...and of course some people believe in The Wrong Kind Of Wings, and others that the sacred Okapi has wings (but not the elephant), and still others that a sacred herd of bulls and cows have wings...
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 5:50 PM
"Eric, your error is no physical evidence for your god. Philosophy with[out] evidence is sophistry."
NOF, have you ever heard of a category error? Asking for physical evidence for god (as classically conceived) is akin to asking what the mandelbrot set tastes like.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 5:52 PM
I don't have to. Among my most avid pursuits is learning where and why it was appropriate to have held any particular belief provisionally, because new evidence compels me to abandon or revise it.From this thread alone, Eric, I have evidence for your being an obtuse ass who has had the point of the parable explained to you in detail and in multiple ways, and you lack the gonads to revise your position in light of new evidence. Please, avail yourself of the opportunity show me that my belief about you is, in this case anyway, unfounded.
Posted by: Paper Hand | May 10, 2009 5:54 PM
Great story!
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 10, 2009 5:56 PM
And besides, who said anything about Eagleton?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 10, 2009 5:56 PM
thank you for finally admitting that god doesn't have any noticeable effect on the universe at all
Posted by: Lotharloo | May 10, 2009 5:59 PM
@Eric
There is a little detail that you are missing: we have turned the light of scientific method to the question of why people believe in X despite a lack of evidence for it. Thus, now we know, 1) there is no evidence for X 2) as a human, under certain conditions, you are biased to believe in X and finally 3) X is a vague, ambiguous and unnecessary assumption.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 6:00 PM
How was that, by invisibly raping a virgin and leaving such an impression that she didn't even know she'd had sex? In the form of a bull? A swan? So many gods, so many classic trysts...
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 6:03 PM
The point is the principle of parsimony
not exactly.
the point of the or statement is to make clear that there are those who find happiness in exploring the world as it is, and then there are those that find happiness in making shit up as they go along.
The problem, as usual, only comes when those who make shit up insist that it's real.
the problem with Eagletosh wasn't that he made shit up, it was that "He convinces many people that the true virtue of the elephant lies in its splendid wings."
and thus convinces many that do indeed have wings, which they most obviously do not.
I shouldn't even have to say this, but since you're arguing with fucking ERIC, of all things, it's quite obvious that the story is a warning of the dangers of trying to convince people your made up shit is real.
The danger being that anyone who becomes convinced of such will be in a perpetual vacuum of knowledge.
Such is the danger of creationism. the more people who become convinced that its fantasies are reality, the more people who will never even begin to be able to contribute positively to our understanding of the real world.
Instead, look at the contributions OTHER than what an elephant actually is, to our knowledge that the further investigations of Larry, Moe and Curly lead to. What did the imaginings of Eagletosh lead to?
who knows what child, upon succumbing to the lies of Eagletosh, might instead have grown up to be a Larry, Moe, or even Curly?
What would happen if you convinced your kids that Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, and the Flintstones were all real, and that they could do exactly the same things as those characters?
oh, nevermind, that's pretty much Kent Hovind's experiment.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 10, 2009 6:03 PM
Asking for physical evidence for elephant wings is akin to asking what the mandelbrot set tastes like.
Posted by: DDeden | May 10, 2009 6:08 PM
a) elephant landing strips in jungles are hard to maintain.
b) elephant proboscis can jet water, so obviously it can fly.
c) if elephants can't fly, why do they have landing gear?
d) forest elephants are related to forest fruit bats.
e) nanofeathers are invisible but very strong in tension.
f) elephants can't jump or sprint, but can fly underwater.
g) elephants don't need wings, winged scarabs taxi them.
h) noah amputated their vast wings to save space aboardship.
i) always hide one's wings from stooges. always.
j) the truth is in the tale ... and under the tail.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 6:08 PM
Sorry, how could I have so rudely misinterpreted your remark, when you were obviously referring to Eric Clapton?Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 6:10 PM
NOF, have you ever heard of a category error? Asking for physical evidence for god (as classically conceived) is akin to asking what the mandelbrot set tastes like.
one, it's not even close to being a category error, and two, your analogy is meaningless.
just like all other god-bothering tub-thumpers, your mind has been so warped you are only able to make shit up and claim it as fact.
utterly useless, and self-defeating.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 6:13 PM
I think we have a breakfast cereal for a marketing tie-in!
"It's fractally delicious!"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 10, 2009 6:16 PM
Eric, we get that you are a theist. Fine, we can live with that. But you need to stop trying to convince us of your belief. That is what we object too, since it sounds like you are proselytizing. So we would appreciate it if you kept your belief to yourself, like Scott Hatfield, OM. That is our point.
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 10, 2009 6:20 PM
This reminds me of something I think that scientists perhaps could emphasize more. It's so obvious that scientists tend to miss that it even needs stating ... but those who don't know the science are so confused that they don't realize that it is a necessary correlate of how science works:
A scientific theory needs to be both consistent and cumulative. That is, it needs to explain all the evidence in a non-contradictory way, and it must take into account all of the previous observations that have been made.
The modern Neo-Darwinian synthesis might have certain components changed or modified by new evidence, like some new explanation involving epigenetic factors, or a certain degree of horizontal genome transfer. But the vast amount of evidence that we have in favor of the evolutionary process is not going to go away, and it will never be the case that some new evidence will come in and force science to say "Well, we have to throw all of evolution out." Even though Newtonian mechanics was falsified by General Relativity, Relativity still explains Newtonian kinetics by having Newtonian mechanics as a special case where velocities are very small. In the same way, anything that comes along and "falsifies" evolution will still need to explain as a special case all of the evidence that the current theory of evolution explains -- and it needs to do so in an evidence-based, parsimonious, and falsifiable way, just as Relativity does for Newtonian mechanics.
------
I was also reminded of another notion that I've had recently.
We often say that atheism just means not believing in God. But it occurs to me that there's more than one way to not believe.
Infants are sometimes claimed as atheists, because they don't believe. But it seems a bit facile to do so, because they don't believe because they don't know anything outside of their limited nonverbal experience. They're also not English-speakers, or voters, or mathematicians, or good people, or evil people. It seems unfair to claim them for anything, when all they might know or do exists only in potential.
Another type of atheism is the atheism of rebellion; of simply rejecting one's parents religion, or the religion of one's society. I suspect that this is what most religious people mean when they say "I used to be an atheist". Because it's more of an emotional response than an intellectual one, this type of atheism may indeed lead back to religion, inasmuch as some religion might bring with it a more positive emotional experience. I suspect that more than a few religions and religious schisms got their start from a similar sort of rejecting the current religious faith; certainly, all proselytizing religions include an implicit demand that one reject one's previous religion, whatever it might be.
But the final form of atheism is a specifically intellectual one. It is a reasoned conclusion, rather than an emotional response, although it may well start with an emotional rejection. Yet it tries to avoid emotion-based arguments themselves, seeking to specifically analyze religious claims, and rejecting them for for their inconsistency, incoherence, and inherent contradiction.
Why should it be believed that a non-physical entity exists? Why should it be believed that this entity has attributes like knowledge, power, and goodness, when the entity never demonstrates these attributes? Why should it be believed that special exceptions should be made for this entity not demonstrating these attributes, when the only way that we do know of these attributes in the first place is from real, physical entities -- people -- demonstrating them?
And after thinking of all that, it also occurred to me that there are multiple ways of believing in God.
Young children do seem to have an instinct for animism, teleology, magical thinking, and superstition. They think that their own thoughts and emotions might affect the world around them, and the idea that there is a big bodiless thing out there somewhere whose thoughts might affect the world doesn't seem wrong or unnatural. They don't yet have a good grasp on what natural even means. And this tendency towards magical thinking usually persists into adulthood, especially if it is not countered with an education or upbringing that includes skepticism, analysis, critical thinking, and elimination of bias and egocentric thinking.
On top of this already existing tendency towards magical thinking all too often comes religious indoctrination. Children, and often young adults and full adults as well, repeat and learn that which comes from those all around them. This works best in small, tight-knit communities, and it can be so thoroughly combined with general socialization and cultural conditioning that it never really occurs to them that things could be different, or that religious belief can be separated from things like morality, ethics, and social politeness.
Something that should not be ignored for its importance to those who experience them is some vivid personal event. What skeptics would classify as being lucid dreams or mild seizures or waking hallucinations might seem, to those who have them, to be so real, immediate, and fraught with personal emotional import that it feels like a communication from outside of their own heads; a genuine revelation about the true nature of reality. They are firmly committed to thinking that they have received a message, and that the message directly implies a real message-sender.
And then there are the mystics. Mysticism might be described as being the child's habit of magical thinking all grown up and carefully nurtured and mentally defended against critical thinking. It is the idea that somehow there is more out there than can be found by reason, logic, and evidence. There is something outside of our universe with its physical logic and consistency, and they, the mystics, are the ones who know the real truth. Plato, of course, was the first to argue comprehensively for this type of thinking, and neo-Platonism was absorbed into much of Christian theology and philosophy.
The mystics of the world are thus certain that if the logic of evidence-based empirical skepticism reaches the reasoned conclusion that God, as defined by religions, does not exist, then there is something wrong with the reason and logic of evidence-based empirical skepticism. They don't know what it is, but they will often castigate those they disagree with for not being open-minded enough.
Finally, I don't think we can leave out general mental confusion. Believers may well argue that since they are not children, their belief is not childish -- even though it is the same sort of magical thinking at its root. Or they may argue that their personal experience is valid, even if everyone else is just deluded or lying to themselves. The very idea that they should actually try to eliminate personal bias from the conclusion that the experience was real just does not occur to them. Critical thinking is something that has to be carefully worked at. Humans have a strong tendency towards egocentrism, and that very trait tends to cause them to not realize that egocentrism is something that should be reduced or eliminated before reaching conclusions.
Anyway, I think it's worth keeping the above ideas in mind when arguing with believers, and with non-believers.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 6:20 PM
I like to start my morning with a nice, warm, ever-unfolding bowl full of Sierpinski Gaskets. There's a set of invisible elephant wings in every box!
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 6:21 PM
I think the Eagletons of the world would argue that while me[sic] may not have any scientific reasons to believe X, it does follow that we therefore have no [useful] reasons as such to believe X
fixed.
imagination is fine, so long as you don't confuse it with reality, or try to convince others to do so as well.
then it becomes a weapon of mass ignorance, causing everything it touches to stagnate.
Miller and Dyson would never substitute imagination for reality, and never have. Not once has Miller claimed his imaginations of God trump his direct observations of reality. Instead, his imagination of god has retreated further and further away in the face of what he himself has seen. IOW, he is to the point where he leaves the possibility open that elephants may, at some time and place that cannot be defined, have had wings, but he is certainly convinced they don't NOW, and that it would be not only silly and ineffectual, but downright interfering to claim otherwise.
YOU, OTOH, seem bound and determined to do otherwise, and convince others that it's a legitimate and right course of action.
IOW, you are not only being silly and ineffectual, but downright interfering.
so, fuck off already, and let the rest of us actually work with and teach knowledge that has practical use.
Posted by: Ray S. | May 10, 2009 6:27 PM
Eric, what sort of evidence do you have for your god if it is not physical evidence? If your god leaves no physical traces in this universe whatsoever, how can it be said to interact with the universe?
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 6:29 PM
Ken Cope: "From this thread alone, Eric, I have evidence for your being an obtuse ass who has had the point of the parable explained to you in detail and in multiple ways, and you lack the gonads to revise your position in light of new evidence. Please, avail yourself of the opportunity show me that my belief about you is, in this case anyway, unfounded."
Eric: "The point, it seems to me, is that some find life rich and meaningful by looking at the world as it is, while others have to 'make things up' out of whole-cloth to find meaning."
Ichthyic: "the point of the or statement is to make clear that there are those who find happiness in exploring the world as it is, and then there are those that find happiness in making shit up as they go along."
Ken Cope, is Ichthyic obtuse too?
"Asking for physical evidence for elephant wings is akin to asking what the Mandelbrot set tastes like."
I agree. But that brings us to my other problem with your story (which I mentioned earlier): can you honestly say that the reasons philosophers and theologians tend to adduce for belief in god are in any sense analogous to the reasoning of 'Eagletosh' with respect to quantum elephant wings?
"one, it's not even close to being a category error, and two, your analogy is meaningless."
It's not a category error to ask for physical evidence for the classical conception of god -- a conception that is broader than the concept of 'existence' itself? That said, it is a category mistake to ask what the Mandelbrot tastes like.
"I think we have a breakfast cereal for a marketing tie-in!
"It's fractally delicious!"
That's hilarious!
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 6:30 PM
Owlmirror and Ichthyic, could you at least tag each other so only one of you at a time leaves a big wet stain on the mat where Eric used to be? It's starting to look like a Gallagher concert here outside the ring.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 6:33 PM
can you honestly say that the reasons philosophers and theologians tend to adduce for belief in god are in any sense analogous to the reasoning of 'Eagletosh' with respect to quantum elephant wings?
yup.
as evidence in support I give you the greek pantheon.
try again?
Posted by: Kel | May 10, 2009 6:34 PM
As Nerd of Redhead says: "philosophy without evidence is sophistry". Eric, if there is no evidence for X, then to claim X is indistinguishable from making shit up. Which is fine of course, you are well within your right to do so. But to then take X and claim that it is a part of reality is nothing more than projecting your beliefs onto the world. X is a construct of your mind, and no matter how well you dress X up it'll still be the case.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 6:35 PM
It's not a category error to ask for physical evidence for the classical conception of god -- a conception that is broader than the concept of 'existence' itself?
perhaps you should actually look up what the definition of a category error is first.
you seem more confused than usual today.
Posted by: Kel | May 10, 2009 6:38 PM
Yep, I can honestly say that. Just read Genesis, then read up on modern scientific thought. Then tell me which one has been carefully crafted through observation and reason, and which one was pulled out of someone's arse.Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 6:40 PM
That said, it is a category mistake to ask what the Mandelbrot tastes like.
correct, but applying that as an analogy to asking for empirical evidence to support the definition of the abrahamic god as defined by scrying the scribblings of ancient middle-eastern goatherders is completely inane, and of course does NOT make the thing you incorrectly analogized to also a category error by personal fiat.
IOW, it's a fail, you moron.
if you can't do better, you won't keep anyone's interest.
Posted by: JohnO | May 10, 2009 6:43 PM
Love it, love it, love it.
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 10, 2009 6:44 PM
Ken Cope: When I started typing my comment, there were no comments yet on this post. It took me that long to get my thoughts in order and expressed in words, with breaks to eat and do other stuff.
Yes, I'm slow.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 6:46 PM
When you broke the seal on your box of Sierpinski Gasket cereal, you implicitly acknowledged that the elephant wings* included in every box are invisible, which does not, in any way, compel us to provide any sort of evidence whatsoever for their existence.
*The RDA value for invisible elephant wings has not yet been formally established, beyond rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty tacitly assented to by Vroomfondle and Majikthise, and thus cannot yet be counted as comprising any of the six impossible things Alice eats apart from a complete breakfast, although nobody can prove that it isn't.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | May 10, 2009 6:49 PM
Eric: It's not a category error to ask for physical evidence for the classical conception of god -- a conception that is broader than the concept of 'existence' itself?
What I find hilarious is the act of simply defining something in such a way that you claim that it is beyond the scope of "physical evidence." Therefore you can get away with the bait-and-switch of considering yourself justified (or at least reasonable) to believe in the existence of this thing, and never be under the requirement to produce evidence that this thing is actually real in any meaningful sense of the word. A nice trick.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 6:51 PM
Owlmirror,
When I started typing my comment, there were no comments yet on this post.
See, that's what you get for thinking before you type. You miss out on all the fun, and then when you weigh in, the rest of us down in front are all glad we brought clear plastic tarps along.
Posted by: Randomfactor | May 10, 2009 6:57 PM
Asking for physical evidence for elephant wings is akin to asking what the mandelbrot set tastes like.
I have trouble describing the taste, but I like 'em grilled with a bit of spicy mustard, if that helps.
And speaking as devil's advocate here, it *IS* possible to get down off both a duck and an elephant...
Quack erat demonstradum...
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 7:06 PM
Yes, I'm slow.
but thorough.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 10, 2009 7:11 PM
I like to get in a couple of quick nips, then don the goggles and rain coat, and sip a libation while waiting for Owlmirror to work his magic.
Posted by: AdamK | May 10, 2009 7:15 PM
The mandelbrot set tastes exactly like bacon.
Around here we call it mandelbrotwurst.
Posted by: GMacs | May 10, 2009 7:16 PM
Where do you find meaning and joy and richness and beauty, O Reader? In elephants, *or* elephants' wings?"
That doesn't strike me as an instance of the inclusive 'or'...
What do you mean, he's asking if people put childish assumed notions of a large proverbial mammal before the pursuit of the knowledge of the animal and the proverbial Serengeti around it.
As to my personal thoughts on that question: I find beauty in the elephant that is, and humor in the wings that are not. I find beauty in the fact that I find that beautiful, and the fact that if I couldn't find beauty, well, I'd probably go insane. Thus it is to my advantage to see beauty.
I find the fact that beauty has a function without a purpose to be one of the most beautiful things about the univ- I mean Serengeti.
Or, who knows, I'm still young. Maybe I spewed out bullshit, and as I continue to search for knowledge, I'll realize "well that was a stupid fuckin thing to say. Junior fuckin Plato over here..."
Just because a winged elephant would epicly kick ass does not mean that an earthbound one isn't pretty frickin neat.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 7:18 PM
I like to get in a couple of quick nips, then don the goggles and rain coat, and sip a libation while waiting for Owlmirror to work his magic.
[passes flask back] There's good company and some fine close-ups to be seen from the cheap seats here in the peanut gallery. Incoming!
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | May 10, 2009 7:20 PM
"Asking for physical evidence for god (as classically conceived) is akin to asking what the mandelbrot set tastes like."
Exactly. But you act like this means the exercise is useless. It's not.
If you don't know anything about mandelbrot sets and set out to learn about them first by trying to determine their flavor, you'll quickly learn something about mandelbrot sets. They don't have a flavor, the very question of their flavor is nonsensical, and anyone asserting that they DO have a flavor is experiencing an characteristic not of mandelbrot sets but rather of a peculiarity of their own mind's interpretation of them.
Same way searching for evidence of a god will teach you that the question of the existence a god is nonsensical and a person's experience of a god is a processing error.
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 10, 2009 7:24 PM
Eric:
If you had no head, how would you know there is a god?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 7:26 PM
Just because a winged elephant would epicly kick ass
bah.
I prefers dragons meself.
Posted by: miohippus | May 10, 2009 7:29 PM
I'm off topic, but I thought you might be interested in another poll at Theos;
http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/mainnav/the-current-debate.aspx?PageID=11&RefPageID=5
Does the Labour Party need to re-discover faith?
59% Yes
41% No
0% Don't know
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 7:29 PM
Ichthyic, let's look at two standard sources and see what they have to say about category mistakes.
The Oxford Guide to Philosophy:
"The error of ascribing to something of one category a feature attributable only to another, or otherwise misrepresenting the category to which something belongs."
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy:
"The placing of an entity in the wrong category. A second use of 'category mistake' is to refer to the attribution to an entity of a property which that entity cannot have... Both involve misunderstandings of the natures of the things being talked about."
Now, my claim is that to ask for physical evidence for an immaterial entity is to place 'immaterial entities' in the category of 'entities for with there could be physical evidence.' To make this point clearer, imagine reversing it and asking for immaterial evidence for the existence of physical entities like elephants. Absurd, eh?
Posted by: GMacs | May 10, 2009 7:32 PM
I prefers dragons meself.
I would like to see this elephant (which sounds like an Aztec or Mayan monster with the description of colorful wings) fight a dragon.
The mandelbrot set tastes exactly like bacon.
No, it tastes like anti-bacon. I wonder if Rev remembers that conversation.
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 7:33 PM
Yeah, make that 'evidence for *which* there could be physical evidence...'
Posted by: Josh
|
May 10, 2009 7:34 PM
Red? Green? Blue? What kind?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 10, 2009 7:39 PM
Looks like Eric needs reminding that, for the greater proportion of Christanity's history the vast majority of Christians believed - as many still believe - their god would (or will) be shown to exist via physical evidence.
It is only because the more intellectually dishonest Christians realised that, while science was discovering how everything else in the universe worked, it wasn't coming any closer to finding any more physical evidence for their god than they'd been able to discern in the previous thousand (or so) years of hoping.
Christians just decided to change the rules and declare that their god - who, incidentally, they worship based (in part at least) on a book full of examples of his physical interaction with the universe - was always so nebulous and intangible that it would be outside the reach of science.
Posted by: GMacs | May 10, 2009 7:39 PM
Now, my claim is that to ask for physical evidence for an immaterial entity is to place 'immaterial entities' in the category of 'entities for with there could be physical evidence.'
So is saying that said immaterial entities have any effect, whatsoever, on the material world. I think that is the whole point of PZ's parable.
Hell, there could be invisible, immaterial, quantum wings on an elephant or such shit like that. But since they have no effect on the material, they don't matter.
In other words, an elephant's invisible wings or something else along those lines is effectively nonexistent.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 10, 2009 7:41 PM
Eric, if your god is philosophical it you, he is non-existent nonsense to us. So quit trying to pretend you have an argument. You don't. Believe in your god, but quit trying to push it upon us.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 10, 2009 7:42 PM
Owlmirror,
But the final form of atheism is a specifically intellectual one. It is a reasoned conclusion, rather than an emotional response, although it may well start with an emotional rejection. Yet it tries to avoid emotion-based arguments themselves, seeking to specifically analyze religious claims, and rejecting them for for their inconsistency, incoherence, and inherent contradiction.
I would yet add a slightly altered form of atheism. It is in the same camp as the intellectual atheist (they draw water from the same nearby creek), but it’s a heady mix of emotional and intellectual realization that isn’t necessarily arrived at by logic per se. It is the atheist—who perhaps grows up with superstition—who looks at the rituals/beliefs/trappings/icons/emotional involvement of religion and says, “Wait a minute, this is all bullshit!” It’s an “Aha!” moment arrived at by clearly perceiving the mechanics of the very human mental process in which people try to find psychological security in constructs created solely by thought. It’s the ability to tell when people are doing this, when they are less interested in getting to the truth and more interested in believing things.
This perception is, of course, reinforced by solid reasoning based on the continuing lack of evidence for said bullshit beliefs, but I would say it is a perception that is, initially, more intuitive than well-reasoned. Or something like that.
What I mean is, science supports the intuitive conclusion that the deities are imaginary, but the original epiphany comes about when one is perceptive enough to realize that “Hey, you’re making shit up and living in a made-up world!”
Posted by: Edward Lark
|
May 10, 2009 7:44 PM
Let me second (third, fifth, eleventieth?) the idea that something like this would make an excellent children's book. I think you have a talent for these whimsical "morality tales."
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 7:45 PM
"but quit trying to push it upon us."
Where have I ever done that? Believe what you want. I only take issue with misrepresentations of theism and atheism, not with your atheism.
Posted by: David L | May 10, 2009 7:45 PM
"Where do you find meaning and joy and richness and beauty . . .?"
In the immensity of geologic time, the vastness of the cosmos, the mystery of existence without the need to posit a creator, the awareness that the cosmos examines itself through its human primate minds . . .
Meaning, joy, richness, beauty and awe.
Posted by: 2 cents | May 10, 2009 7:46 PM
Mandelbrot sets taste like almond bread, of course! That's what mandelbrot is in German. A good accompaniment with bacon too.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 7:47 PM
Where have I ever done that?
ROFLMAO!
man, that is one serious case of denial you got there.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 10, 2009 7:48 PM
eric, are you willing to specify that your "god" has _nothing in common_ with the entity described as "God" in the Bible? I ask because that entity is supposed to have left a smoking trail of physical evidence across the world, and thus clearly can't be the immaterial imaginary friend you claim is really "god".
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 10, 2009 7:50 PM
No, you use every perceived opportunity to push your invisible vacuous deity. Your idea of philosophy fails again and again for everybody except you. Lose the attitude that you know more than us. Quit pushing your idea of god upon us. Then we won't complain.Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 7:54 PM
"man, that is one serious case of denial you got there."
Let's see if your commitment to evidence is mere lip service: quote a single line from me, from any thread, which could be characterized as my trying to push theistic belief on anyone. I guarantee you'll do as poorly here as you did with your failed attempt to criticize my attribution of a category mistake to NoR's question.
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 10, 2009 7:56 PM
Eric @ 143
Your lack of a physical head would be evidence enough that there is no imaginary god, since that is where the idea is born and germinated into the insanity it is now.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 7:56 PM
In other words, an elephant's invisible wings or something else along those lines is effectively nonexistent.
An elephant's invisible wings are as effectively nonexistent as any evidence of intellectual dishonesty on PZ's part, despite Eric's ill-founded allegations. Eric tried to claim that PZ putting words about the quantum in the mouth of a character named Eagletosh was wrong, because some non-fictional character named Feebletoad, or Feetlebaum, or Eagleton, had not really appeared to have anything much to say one way or another about the quantum. It has already been pointed out that an imaginary character named Ditchkins created by the non-fictional Feebleload character, whom Eric seems to so admire, can be safely made an object of ridicule by Beatlestones, even though the positions "Ditchkens" is used to embody holds no positions that any actual person we're meant to be reminded of is actually on record as espousing. Is one strawbeing less honest than another?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 7:56 PM
Red? Green? Blue? What kind?
Are you restricting it to the world of DnD, or all mythology?
if DnD, I have to go with the obsidian dragon
over all mythology, I tend towards liking the oriental dragons more; history is much more rich and complex.
typically also like the pictoral depictions more, too:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=oriental+dragon+pictures&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=SGkHSsXRIqH4tgP5uuX7AQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title
much more interesting than flying elephants.
Posted by: Reinis I. | May 10, 2009 7:56 PM
Congo rats, this is a good one.
Posted by: TheBiologista | May 10, 2009 7:57 PM
I like it. A nice adaptation of the old Jainist story. Christianity never came up with philosophy like that. Hell, they didn't even do the Golden Rule first.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 10, 2009 7:57 PM
How can one 'misrepresent' theism? It's like trying to argue that someone is 'misrepresenting' unicorns by claiming they have green eyes. When you believe in something entirely unsupported by evidence you don't have any ground to stand on when attempting to define what it is or isn't.
You claim belief in a god for which there exists no known quantities - only presumed, assumed and speculated ones. Until you can provide some evidence for why you believe what you believe you have no right to say that someone else's definition is wrong.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 10, 2009 8:00 PM
Eric, there is no reason to posit god for anything, especially only a philosophical one. Vaporware in the extreme. If it is just personal, you would shut up about our logic. So you set my BS detector off since you won't shut up about it. Why must you continue to push the idea of your vacuous philosophical god? Especially, since this is a site devoted to science, and science requires physical evidence?
Posted by: Dust | May 10, 2009 8:03 PM
The Mandelbrot Set tastes like............bacon!
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 8:03 PM
"Lose the attitude that you know more than us."
'We're all ignorant, only in different areas.' You know more than I do about many things, no doubt; isn't it possible that I know more than you do about some things? How many philosophy courses have you taken? How many books and journal articles have you read in the area of philosophy of religion? I don't come in here and debate scientific issues because most of you know far more than I do in those areas. Not only that, but I doubt there's much, if anything, we disagree about scientifically.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 8:04 PM
Eric asked for evidence that he is pushing a specific theistic viewpoint:
a conception that is broader than the concept of 'existence' itself?
done.
shall we continue?
Posted by: IvanM | May 10, 2009 8:05 PM
You've never had Mandelbr-Os for breakfast?!? You're missing out-- they're fractally delicious!
(Ken Cope beat me to it, but I had to add a name for the cereal.)
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 8:06 PM
isn't it possible that I know more than you do about some things?
still waiting for any evidence of that.
how long you been posting here now?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 10, 2009 8:07 PM
Yeah, Nerd - how can you say that angels don't exist when you haven't even bothered to read up on what colour tap shoes they wear while they're dancing away on the head of that pin?
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 8:07 PM
Vaporware in the extreme. Ah, but vaporware at least exists in potential. Eric's god-and-phony show is, at best, epistemological hand-waving.
Posted by: zpmorgan | May 10, 2009 8:07 PM
This doesn't explain how octocats can fly without wings.
Posted by: illustrator | May 10, 2009 8:08 PM
And when will the fully illustrated children's book be coming out?
Good story.
Posted by: IvanM | May 10, 2009 8:08 PM
Oh, and Math is Delicious!
Posted by: GMacs | May 10, 2009 8:10 PM
Red? Green? Blue? What kind?
Dusky brown with tinges of dark green. Scales that are hard but light, like carbon fiber. Hooked, sinewous claws. The size of a midsized SUV with a 70 ft wingspan. A powerful jaw with a wicked curve toward the front. And horns! Sharp, nasty horns.
Oh, yeah. Watch out, Dumbo! Quantum Dragon has your name down.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 8:10 PM
Not only that, but I doubt there's much, if anything, we disagree about scientifically.
Then answer me this:
How is the concept of the abrahamic god useful in scientific endeavor?
see, this is where we differ from you. This is where science differs from you. It's not even at the specifics level, it's far, far deeper than that.
It's like you're thinking somehow we differ on the description of trees, when actually you are missing the whole fucking forest.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 10, 2009 8:11 PM
Now, my claim is that to ask for physical evidence for an immaterial entity is to place 'immaterial entities' in the category of 'entities for with there could be physical evidence.' - Eric
Your claim is a bunch of crap, and very obviously so. Emotions, minds, numbers, social norms are all immaterial entities for which there is abundant physical evidence.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 10, 2009 8:12 PM
Eric's arguments always make me think of that guy in Mystery Men who can turn himself invisible - but only when no-one's looking...
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 10, 2009 8:13 PM
Eric @ 165
Why would you agree or disagree about scientific matters when your imaginary god directs all that there is to know for you? Your god should be ruling your life, not science matters that oppose your beliefs.
Posted by: maddogdelta | May 10, 2009 8:13 PM
bah!
I'm more in favor of Buffalo wings...
Posted by: exiled
|
May 10, 2009 8:13 PM
I find beauty in the simple replicating molecule that has built a giant elephant body and brain in order to more effectively replicate itself.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 10, 2009 8:14 PM
What do you mean by "evaluative"? And what do you mean by "meaning"?
What else, personal experience?
Fine, but from that it does not follow that every hypothesis is needed to explain something.
I can provide either evidence or parsimony or both for every belief I hold.
(Maybe you'll find I hold shockingly few beliefs, but that's neither certain nor necessary.)
Not really. Much more with the recent Eagleton and Fish threads.
What other kind of evidence is there? Personal experience (which is difficult to distinguish from hallucination and stuff; see also comment 115)? Logic (Gaunilo's Island)?
See, we want you to explain how we can distinguish God from the dragon in Sagan's garage and from the Discworld-quantum wings of an elephant.
As to what the Mandelbrot set tastes like – er, like almond bread of course, whatever that is. After all, that's what its name means! (Only bacon tastes like bacon, heretics.)
Yes, I think they're all analogous, except for those that are arguments from ignorance (I've read a recent book by Hans Küng on science and religion that is majorly disappointing in that latter respect). Are there any reasons you think I have overlooked?
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 10, 2009 8:14 PM
Clarification: it is the claim that it is a "category mistake" to ask for physical; evidence of an immaterial entity is a bunch of crap, and very obviously so.
I enjoy discussions with those I disagree with from whom I can learn something too. Unfortunately, you don't appear to belong to that category.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 10, 2009 8:14 PM
Eric, without physical evidence, your god doesn't exist for a majority of us. What part of that statement don't you understand? If necessary, I can teach in words of one syllable or less. Don't like my attitude? Lose yours. You are no smarter than the rest of us here, as we show you time an time again. You have tried repeatedly and failed to convince us you are right. Just give it up.
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 8:17 PM
"How is the concept of the abrahamic god useful in scientific endeavor?"
You've lost all credibility with me at post #166 (not that you had much before that), but... See post #89 where I wrote, "I agree, you don't explicitly need any of Eagleton's theology to conduct scientific research, but that's not at all relevant. You don't need to understand biology to read Shakespeare, or to understand QM to raise a child. Note, this doesn't in any sense impugn the worth of Shakespeare, child rearing, or biology."
"Eric tried to claim that PZ putting words about the quantum in the mouth of a character named Eagletosh was wrong, because some non-fictional character named Feebletoad, or Feetlebaum, or Eagleton, had not really appeared to have anything much to say one way or another about the quantum."
I said no such thing.
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 10, 2009 8:17 PM
Eric;
I don't think you would want to be dead. There's no future in it. No imaginary god waiting for you; nothing. And you will never know.
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 8:23 PM
"Emotions, minds, numbers, social norms are all immaterial entities for which there is abundant physical evidence."
Let's stick to a specific entity. In what sense are you claiming that numbers are immaterial? After you clarify that, provide me with *physical evidence* for a realist position about numbers.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
May 10, 2009 8:23 PM
Too many liberal blogs: I read this the first time as "... side of the wingtarded."
Ironically, largely in religiously-inspired classical music. (And not just the Bach cantata where the pope is called the demon from Rome.)
Or vodka.
And bacon.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 8:24 PM
I agree, you don't explicitly need any of Eagleton's theology to conduct scientific research, but that's not at all relevant.
yes, THIS part IS relevant. You not only DON'T need Eagleton's, or anyone's, theology to conduct research, it's actually an impediment to it. That wasn't your challenge, though. This was your challenge:
"Can you name a single properly scientific conclusion that someone who agrees with Eagleton's theology would be required, on pain of contradiction, to reject?"
and we have been painstakingly since explaining to you exactly why your question is not only tangential to PZ's thesis (which you still seem to be misinterpreting), but also why theology itself is in conflict.
However this part you add here:
You don't need to understand biology to read Shakespeare, or to understand QM to raise a child. Note, this doesn't in any sense impugn the worth of Shakespeare, child rearing, or biology.
is entirely irrelevant.
You challenged PZ conclusion, and we are pointing out where he is correct, and you are misinformed.
It's quite simple really.
you tapdancing all around it isn't helping your case.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 8:26 PM
I said no such thing.
and PZ never used the name "eagleton".
Posted by: Lynna | May 10, 2009 8:28 PM
"Asking for physical evidence for god (as classically conceived) is akin to asking what the mandelbrot set tastes like."
Ah-ha, an Eagletonian metaphor. The student of the flailing master?
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 10, 2009 8:29 PM
Eric
Here lies Eric in his grave, all dressed up with no place to go.
I'm trying to spare you the agony and ennui of long drawn out repartee with clipped and quipped remarks to prove to you that your beliefs are not worth lengthy rebuttals.
You only have to show us your god for proof that you can back up bullshit with reality.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 8:30 PM
Posted by: maddogdelta | May 10, 2009 8:33 PM
@64
As a physicist I'd like to say: "leave us out of it".
Unless you can pass me elephant wings in a nice piece of Dirac notation we don't want 'em. Even if we did have your elephant wings they'd only be about for
In another forum, I had an interesting "conversation" with a nutjob who went on and on about "quantum" this and "quantum" that, Rupert Sheldrake, Depak Chopra and a whole bunch of other loony tune stuff.
Finally, I posted the Schrodinger equation and told him to either solve it for a hydrogen atom or STFU.
He stopped bleating about quantum stuff after that.
// physics major, not physicist..
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 10, 2009 8:33 PM
Gah! So much traffic! I want to go to bed here!
Priceless.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2009 8:36 PM
"Can you name a single properly scientific conclusion that someone who agrees with Eagleton's theology would be required, on pain of contradiction, to reject?"
Er, wait...Eagleton has a discernible theology? I agree with Taibbi, you can try and try to discern Eagleton's theology and just come away with frustration.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 10, 2009 8:37 PM
Oh, goody. Now we get into the argument that goes along the lines of 'We can conceive of immaterial things that aren't god; ergo, the specific god of the broader Judeo-Christian religion and everything pertaining to it must exist.'
<sarcasm>No, that's not much of a leap.</sarcasm>
I can conceive of a magic watermelon that does Tom Waits covers in a German accent. What does that mean?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 8:38 PM
If you're going to make shit up, it's generally a good idea not to leave a record behind when it becomes convenient to change your story in mid-stream. Can you even keep track of what is that you're arguing for?
answer:
no.
conclusion:
troll.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 10, 2009 8:41 PM
Hac sunt in fossa
Bedae Venerabilis ossa.
B-)
Posted by: Eric | May 10, 2009 8:45 PM
"If you're going to make shit up, it's generally a good idea not to leave a record behind when it becomes convenient to change your story in mid-stream. Can you even keep track of what is that you're arguing for?"
Cope, you're the one making sh*t up. You claimed that I criticized PZ for suggesting that Eagleton had referred to quantum.
Cope: "Eric tried to claim that PZ putting words about the quantum in the mouth of a character named Eagletosh was wrong, because some non-fictional character named Feebletoad, or Feetlebaum, or Eagleton, had not really appeared to have anything much to say one way or another about the quantum."
To support this, you presented a quote that in no way supports your claim.
"That aside, I think the Eagletons of the world would argue that while me may not have any scientific reasons to believe X, it doesn't follow that we therefore have no reasons as such to believe X. This is another problem with the parable: The Eagletons of the world don't simply make things up arbitrarily, and to even suggest that they do is intellectually dishonest."
I say nothing about 'quantum' here. However, if you look at post #68 by Rudy, you'll see an explicit complaint that Eagleton hadn't mentioned quantum:
"It would be a more devastating critique of Eagleton if it actually had the remotest connection to his views. Is PZ mixing up Frank Tipler with Terry Eagleton? Where on Earth does TE every mention "quantum" anything?"
You're the one who lost track of the argument (as usual), not me.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 10, 2009 8:47 PM
So it's true: all paragraphs of a blockquote except the first are still indented.
PZ, please raise a stink in the ScienceBlogs web design department.
The new layout is the stupidest idea since Austria's completely unqualified science minister, Johannes Hahn, decided that Austria would quit CERN and pump the 16 million € per year into the budget hole instead (or into the hilarious fighter planes, who knows).
Posted by: echidna | May 10, 2009 8:48 PM
Much as I love bacon, it really tastes of almond bread.....Posted by: Russell Blackford | May 10, 2009 8:49 PM
Copyright in "Eaglefish" belongs to Ophelia Benson - I picked it up from her.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 10, 2009 8:50 PM
Eric@186,
Numbers are immaterial in the sense that they are do not have a spatio-temporal location, or any physical properties. However, they do have non-physical properties, such as being prime or composite, independent of our beliefs or wishes. Hence they are in a readily intelligible sense, real.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 8:50 PM
Where on Earth does TE every mention "quantum" anything?
and where does PZ mention eagleton?
see, even, #69.
*yawn*
you're making me sleepy, Eric.
time for something more productive than watching trolls flail.
Posted by: kamaka | May 10, 2009 8:52 PM
Hac sunt in fossa
Bedae Venerabilis ossa.
Ok, polyglot guy, you got my attention. I lost my translation dictionary for that language, whatever language that might be.
How about a translation?
Korero tangata Maori koe?
Posted by: Lynna | May 10, 2009 8:53 PM
#195 was me. Forgot to sign in. Parsimony. Bacon.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 10, 2009 8:56 PM
@203 ...and we can find physical evidence that particular numbers have specific non-physical properties. For example take n cubical blocks of the same size: if you can arrange them in a rectangle of width greater than one block, n is composite; if you can't it's a prime.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 9:00 PM
Oh dear me, did I mix up one troll's droppings with another troll's fewmets? You still accused PZ of intellectual dishonesty for creating a strawtheist and in your non-denial denial of my accurate description of your actions, all you've offered is the fact that I had not quoted you in the midst of my barrage of rotten vegetables hurled in your general direction. So, as if anybody cares, I'm just curious if you can make a positive claim. What are you arguing for? What can you offer in support of your conclusion? So far as I can tell, you're here to make everybody else look ten times smarter just by virtue of not being you.
Posted by: GMacs | May 10, 2009 9:01 PM
Kamaka,
It's Latin. These are in ..?.. something..
#207
Simple, but made from the finest grade of Win.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 10, 2009 9:02 PM
Fine. Could you then answer my questions instead? :-)
Posted by: kamaka | May 10, 2009 9:05 PM
It's Latin. These are in ..?.. something..
Very helpful, thanks GMacs
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 10, 2009 9:08 PM
Seriously postclassical Latin: "In this ditch are / the bones of the Venerable Bede." Allegedly that's what it really says on his grave. Sort of contradicts the whole "venerable" thing and sounds more like... ka ngaro i te ngaro a te moa, right? (Does a macron belong there anywhere?)
Posted by: Echidna | May 10, 2009 9:09 PM
Eric said:
What has that got to do with the price of fish in China? The philosphical argument here is that without evidence, rhetoric is at best a fairy story, at worst a con job. Anybody can make stuff up, and some people do just that. Worse, the made up stuff starts to propagate throughout a community, distorting the community's perception of reality.
Eric, the only way you can make headway in this argument is to present evidence that your particular god, which looks like a myth to us, is real.
If you can't produce evidence that the myth is real, it remains at the status of a myth. You can't make a myth real by saying or believing that it might be real. You need some evidence in the real world. Are you trying to argue, philosophically of course, that believing in fairies makes them real?
Posted by: Buccephalus | May 10, 2009 9:22 PM
And yet, it flies.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 9:22 PM
Are you trying to argue, philosophically of course, that believing in fairies makes them real?
See, this game comes up often in threads cluttered with Eric's pribbling. We keep assuming that there must be some point other than Eric's pointlessness, so we keep playing guessing games about what it is that it seems he must be getting at, and we don't even get any old Harry Nilsson songs for our troubles. Eric's deniability is not plausible.
Posted by: kamaka | May 10, 2009 9:24 PM
ka ngaro i te ngaro a te moa, right?
Hahaha, Totally Busted!! Yah, close enough to count.
I couldn't have written that sentence, but I can read it.
Just how many languages do you know?
Nā Maka &lsquoĀ
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 9:27 PM
@214,
De Chelonian Mobile.
Posted by: ngong | May 10, 2009 9:30 PM
And then there are the mystics. Mysticism might be described as being the child's habit of magical thinking all grown up and carefully nurtured and mentally defended against critical thinking. It is the idea that somehow there is more out there than can be found by reason, logic, and evidence.
Problem is, we're intimately stuck with this often irrational, unpredictable, difficult-to-understand thing called "mind". Is it rational to abandon the quest for self-knowledge simply because the data is difficult to crunch? Is it inherently deluded to fill in the gaps of self-understanding with a working hypothesis? Is meditative tinkering worthless because our ordinary state of consciousness is clearly optimal?
Posted by: Brian English | May 10, 2009 9:34 PM
Copyright in "Eaglefish" belongs to Ophelia Benson - I picked it up from her. You have too many scruples Dr. Dr. :)
Posted by: Rudy | May 10, 2009 9:39 PM
Eric gets a zillion posts telling him that his sky god is imaginary b.s., along with a zillion posts telling him not to push his theism on people.
I guess it's not technically projection if the two sets of posters don't intersect... it's projection on the part of the Collective Mind That is Pharyngula.
(And, while it's cute for PZ to jump in and pretend he wasn't talking about Eagleton, it makes it hard to take this forum seriously. Does PZ just want to preach to the converted? Is this just the PZ Myers fan site?)
Posted by: Pablo | May 10, 2009 9:40 PM
Has anyone considered the fact that, if you believe the elephant has wings, then he will fly you over to Gumdrop Land when you die? He won't fly you there if you don't believe, so I say, hedge your bets and believe in wings. It doesn't cost you anything if you are wrong, but just imagine the gain if you are right! Eternal gumdrops! Yum!
(all I ask is that it is known as Pablo's Wager in the official encyclical)
Posted by: SinSeeker
|
May 10, 2009 9:43 PM
Eric, I can empathise with what (I think) you’re saying up to a point. I was corrupted in my youth by reading lots of stuff about zen and have always liked the idea of obtaining sudden insight into the nature of reality through personal empirical study of one’s own consciousness. So in that sense I can empathise with your position about some explanation of reality / deity being somehow beyond “existence.”
However where theists lose me is that, after saying how a diety is beyond understanding, they immediately attribute him (!) with a whole lotta attributes, such as omniscience, compassion, wings, and a dislike of just about everything including foreskins, pork (hmmm pork ….) praying in the wrong direction, same sex marriage etc. A proactive generally and accurately described as "making shit up."
The thing I’ve always liked about the stories of zen masters is, if someone had the effrontery to actually try and describe their experience, at the least they got a good verbal bashing and at best a solid whack over the head with a large stick. If Eagletosh had been fortunate enough to have this happen to him early in life, it might have avoided a lot of unnecessary bloodshed in the name of Eagletoshianty or Eagletoshlam.
Posted by: Phoesune | May 10, 2009 9:45 PM
I was expecting this:
Eagletosh saw the interruption as an opportunity to sit in the shade beneath a tree and relax. "It is my considered opinion," he said, "that whatever it is, we should get inside because its raining pretty hard from where I am sitting"
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 10, 2009 9:46 PM
Except I'm not talking about Eagleton. I'm talking about a general attitude among many defenders of theism.
I could have called him Colleagishins, I guess. Doesn't matter. You're getting too hung up on a name.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 9:49 PM
@220
Aw how cute! Eric has a wannabe.
I'll try to break it down for you, Rudy. "Ditchkins" is a straw atheist, and "Eagletosh" is a straw theist. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is more or less accidental, but entirely non-actionable.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 10, 2009 9:53 PM
Rudy #220
Think of Eagletosh as a generic theist apologist if that makes life easier for you.
Posted by: uncle frogy | May 10, 2009 9:53 PM
@eric
"The Eagletons of the world don't simply make things up arbitrarily,"
of course not it comes from the only place it can come from the deep psychology of man. The images that speak to our emotions, to the experience of being alive here know, out of memory, out of the mind. They All come from within and that is where they have any meaning at all.
I have heard other stories about the blind men and the elephant before. The point is that we are all blind (as was said above) and see, experience this thing called living from our own point of view and like PZ's blind men only see a part of the whole. PZ's point of departure is the collaboration of the three to combine what they see to form a more complete understanding (science) of what they have encountered. The one who used only his mind to understand points out his foolishness and arrogance. He is only interested in himself and his own thoughts.
Posted by: Rudy | May 10, 2009 9:53 PM
OK, PZ, so he's not Eagleton. I'll go back and reread the story with that in mind.
The "tosh" part sounded kind of anti-intellectual too (like "posh"); your new name is better.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
May 10, 2009 9:54 PM
And supporters of the Winged Elephant hypothesis pointed at the wealth of art and music that had been created by humans in praise and glorification of the Winged Elephant, and of the Beneficial Effects throughout the history of human civilization of veneration of the Winged Elephant, and of the flight-capability thereof, invoking it as evidence for the existence of the Winged Elephant, for surely if the beast was only figment, so many would not have been moved to such acts of creation in It's name, and surely civilization could not have acquired such Beneficial Effects apart from the reality of the Winged Elephant, and surely humans would feel no urge to flight themselves, but for the flight of the Elephant.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 10, 2009 9:55 PM
And Rudy, remember if you want to post here: philosophy without evidence is sophistry. This is a science blog. Evidence is de rigueur.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 9:58 PM
Coll
eagishinsheh.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 9:59 PM
I should add that the composite "Ditchkins" enables the grifter to attack positions held neither by Dawkins nor Hitchens, while "Eagletosh" is a stand-in for positions that punters like Eric rush in to take umbrage at. "Ditchkins" is more an assault characterizing people on the NY-Times bestseller list, while "Eagletosh" is a characterization of the tosh itself, common to all tosh-slingers, no matter what their name may be.
Posted by: buttershug | May 10, 2009 10:00 PM
"No, I think you've missed mine. The point is that the 'or' the story ends with doesn't follow from the story itself."
No Eric you missed the point.
Either you believe people who "conjure phantoms in the spaces within their skulls" or you don't.
Believeing evidence does not change the fact you also believe in non-evidenced things.
Another analogy is that during the Salem Witch Trials "spirit evidence" was accepted. That is the witnesses were allowed to present evidence from the spirit world. The court could have followed every other legal precept but that would not change that they accepted evidence from young girls claiming to be channeling spirits.
(what stopped them was when they accused the Governor's wife)
It comes down to accepting Eagletosh's views or not.
You can accept Larry, Moe, and Curley's evidence AND accept Eagletosh's views but it comes down to believing Eagletosh's account OR not.
Posted by: Rudy | May 10, 2009 10:08 PM
Ken Cope (225),
I've posted here before, though not often (before the last couple of days it's been a few months I think).
I have a thick skin, calloused from a decade wasted on the 'net. So I'm not saddened by your cruel characterization of me as a (sniff) wannabe.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 10:11 PM
The focus on Eagletosh obscures the real genius of the tale, which is that the enterprise of science is a product of knuckleheads, with the presumption that they are knuckleheads, but that collectively, they rise to the level of Stooges, yet still, they are more productive than Eagletosh can ever be.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 10, 2009 10:12 PM
Yet you had to take the time to tell him.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave | May 10, 2009 10:13 PM
This is begging the question by making an unjustified assumption that there is a category other than the natural. You've got two choices: (1) provide evidence of the supernatural category in which it becomes untenable to assign it to a completely separate category, or (2) accept that you're building castles on pure fantasy.Posted by: SC, OM | May 10, 2009 10:26 PM
OK. Admittedly, I've been hanging with my family* and drinking all day and I've only skimmed this thread, but I'm at a loss as to what Eric's argument is - especially if it's about a deity. Eric, if it's not too much trouble, would you mind spelling it out (feel free to cite others, as long as you've described their positions)? Thanks.
*Yes, the only reason I can visit and post here is that I'm away from home and not on my computer. That's how serious the Sb problem is for me.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 10, 2009 10:28 PM
SC do you need a computer consultation?
Posted by: eric | May 10, 2009 10:31 PM
Dude.
http://www.connollyco.com/discography/osibisa/woyaya_hi.jpg
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 10:37 PM
your cruel characterization of me as a (sniff) wannabe
It isn't the accusation of wannabe that was cruel--many of us have heroes and role-models whom we emulate on our way toward discovering who we are. It was my identification of your remarks in emulation of a troll whose positions you were primed to echo that should offend you. It is your capacity to reflect upon your arguments, and, in light of new information, consider revising them, that puts you in a category beyond the aspirations of any dime-a-dozen Eric.
Posted by: SC, OM | May 10, 2009 10:37 PM
You're so sweet. No, I need a new computer, desperately, which I plan to get very soon (it has been a decade - I don't think I'll lose any Swamp Yankee cred :)). Still, everything was just fine until they started messing with it, and it's still fine on every other site, so I'm pretty confident blaming them. I also hate when people make changes without warning, providing a rationale, or openly addressing potential problems. Sure, I may not understand what's going on, but that's not my fault.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 10, 2009 10:45 PM
SC, I'm beta testing Firefox 3.5b4 for Macs (PPC version), and SB has been blowing up at least twice a day. It started with the "improvements". Safari works fine, but doesn't have the add-ons. *Shakes fist at SB software*
Posted by: hf | May 10, 2009 10:52 PM
Can you name a single properly scientific conclusion that someone who agrees with Eagleton's theology would be required, on pain of contradiction, to reject?
Hard to say. Does Eagleton have a consistent theology? It seems to me from reading quotes that he writes about a God that is not a possible object of cognition, or to put it another way, KtlikitkaktlbargleElessar. A creationist like Gosse seems sophisticated by comparison.
As for the claim that Eagleton doesn't arbitrarily make up anything except Ditchkins, does he give any reason for believing in a God that is not an object of cognition? (Hint: this is trick question.)
Similarly, if you can tell us what "immaterial" means then we can have a discussion about it. Otherwise, it's all KTlik.
Posted by: SC, OM | May 10, 2009 10:56 PM
For a bit of context: I'm the sort of person who LOVES the thing on airplanes that gives you all of the information about your status and progress. I also want to be kept informed not only about the reasons for any delays or changes but about the reasons behind the course of action that's being taken. I have no problem with change, but I hate having it sprung on me without explanation, and I've yet to see a constructive change made here by the Sb staff. I can't imagine why these people would take what's possibly the most popular science blog on the planet and go fucking about with it.
Posted by: Rudy | May 10, 2009 10:56 PM
Nerd, PZ's story is not evidence, it's a story. Sometimes the only way to present an idea is a story (this is what the philosopher Richard Rorty used to argue, thinking of Dostoevsky and Dickens); the still popular academic "narrative theology" makes religion all about stories - in a good way of course :) Like turtles, it's stories all the way, well, a long way down.
Ken Cope, if Eagletosh (now Colleaglshins) was intended just as a straw counterpart to Mr. D, the story wouldn't have any point except to prove that PZ Can Play That Game Too. That doesn't seem to be what most of the posters here took away from PZ's story, they paid PZ the compliment of taking it seriously.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 10, 2009 11:00 PM
SC,OM,consider this inexpensive solution to your puter problem :
http://eeepc.asus.com/us/products.html?n=0
Reading SB from work on a PC workstation via IE leads to hang-ups,given the number of widgets,JS shit and Flash thingies buried in the pages.Pretty much unreadable without Firefox and the blocking tools.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2009 11:03 PM
I am sensing a bit of inspiration from the flying sheep sketch here.
...
-Uh...those ARE sheep aren't they?
-Yeh.
-Hmm, thought they were. Only, what are they doing up in the trees?
-A fair question and one that in recent weeks 'as been much on my mind. It's my considered opinion that they're nestin'.
Posted by: charley
|
May 10, 2009 11:06 PM
I am willing to concede this much to Eric. The fact that the characters are seeking knowledge about a physical object stacks the deck in favor of the scientists. I doubt that philosophers or theologians would disagree that science is the best way to learn about an elephant.
Imagine a parable where scientists make fools of themselves trying to find what makes Beethoven's 8th great by spending years analyzing the attributes of the sound waves. Meanwhile, an artist listens once and guided mostly by her emotional response produces an explanation that resonates with many listeners. In other words, there are other paths to knowledge besides science, if you aren't too rigid about what you mean by knowledge.
The fact remains, however, that theology contributes nothing of value. It has no way to get beyond riffing on imaginary and hypothetical concepts and beings. It is an enormous distraction and waste of time.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 10, 2009 11:07 PM
At what point do you think Nerd or anyone claimed it was "evidence"?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 10, 2009 11:07 PM
Rudy, two things of note. One, PZ did tell a story. I thought it was a nice story. Two, Eric thinks he is the philosophy specialist here and we all should bow down to him and his conclusions, and gets very upset when we don't. Especially with the existence of god being philosophically correct. This has been a multithread argument over about three months on and off, and today was just the latest round. My warning to you is to remember this is a science blog, and science requires physical evidence (I know, as I've been doing science for 30+ year, and been a skeptic for 20+).
Posted by: SC, OM | May 10, 2009 11:08 PM
You're sweet, too (extra cuteness points for calling it what my friend's little 2-yr-old daughter does :)). I'm getting another HP* - been researching online and on Consumer Reports. I would ask for opinions here, but...
...well, you can imagine the mayhem that would ensue amongst opinionated computer people...
Posted by: anonymouroboros | May 10, 2009 11:10 PM
@Rudy
It seems that Nerd never said that the story was meant to be taken as evidence for anything really. He simply reiterated an earlier comment that he aimed at Eric since he thought you were going to bring up the same sort of "evidence" as Eric.
The story does have a point other than the name that you're fixated on, which was basically what everyone else responded. The only thing I got from the name was that it was a sort of parody of the "Ditchkens" strawman. The thing is, though, that the parody was not meant to represent any views of Eagleton or Fish, or at least I did not think so as it was not stated anywhere. I think the problem is that you thought it was implied that Eagletosh was meant to represent the views of either Eagleton or Fish. It seems like you simply misunderstood, but I could be wrong.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 11:11 PM
Rudy @246, see my post @235. Of course the Tosh is flashy and distracting, but even knuckleheads working collectively as Stooges yield more toward our understanding of the way things are, enabling us to modify our surroundings for good or ill, while invisible quantum elephant wings are, at best, otiose.
Dude: Horton Hatches The Egg precedes Roger Dean, too. Again, as per Jean-Luc Godard, “It’s not where you take things from—it’s where you take them to.”
Posted by: SC, OM | May 10, 2009 11:12 PM
I'm getting another HP*
Yeah, there must have been a reason for that asterisk. Can't for the life of me remember what it was...
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 10, 2009 11:12 PM
SC,OM,
Off to work,the question is not which brand,theyre all nice,more or less fast and gadgety these days,but which OS,really,IMO.
*Drops the Linux bomb and runs*
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 10, 2009 11:16 PM
What? People here have opinions and express them? ;)My Mac is 8 years old and the PPC will no longer be supported by Snow Leopard according to the rumor mill. Sigh. The iMacs look very nice though...
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 11:23 PM
*Drops the Linux bomb and runs*
Oh gods, not a religious discussion, here; won't somebody please think of the children...
Um, which distro? (he said, running Vista64, since Windows is the price we pay for cheap hardware, and I build my desktops myself). New Mac laptops shore look purty though...
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 10, 2009 11:26 PM
Vista runs better on cheap hardware?! In which universe?!also: Ubuntu rulez. the only reason not to go with Ubuntu on PC is if you do serious graphic work, and then an iMac is better, anyway.
Posted by: Megan | May 10, 2009 11:29 PM
freakin genius. solid gold :)
Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2009 11:30 PM
Nerd of Redhead..
I was wondering about your use of OM in the following comment of yours.
"So we would appreciate it if you kept your belief to yourself, like Scott Hatfield, OM. That is our point."
Is it this definition from the Urban Dictionary.?
OM
a dum retarded loser who keeps bragging nonstop about anything that he achieved that HE thought was great. Super talkative and a loserish wanna be. only way to shut him up is to ignore him.
Posted by: Caryn | May 10, 2009 11:31 PM
Eric, FYI Richard Healy posts here sometimes. Not every poster tries to argue from authority by establishing his bona fides.
have you ever heard of a category error? Asking for physical evidence for god (as classically conceived) is akin to asking what the mandelbrot set tastes like.
I suppose you think the category error is that God belongs to the category "non-physical things", and it is inappropriate to expect physical evidence for things belonging to this category. That's all well and good, but it doesn't excuse believing in God without any evidence at all. God and numbers might both belong to the category "non-physical things" but neither of them belongs to the category "things it makes sense to believe in without evidence". That isn't a problem for mathematics, but it is a problem for religion.
PZ's entire point is that the definitions here are drawn from... what, exactly? Why should we think the classical conception of God relevant, particularly in the absence of the regular transparent sort of evidence everyone can go check?
Posted by: Stanton
|
May 10, 2009 11:33 PM
"OM" is short for "Order of the Molly"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 10, 2009 11:34 PM
One of the reasons I stick with Windows. One, I'm an IT manager and need to have windows because of what we run, and two since I'm on windows and I'm also a photographer I can't quite switch 100% to gimp as Photoshop and Lightroom are too important for me.
Though I do run RHEL for a number of our servers at work.
Posted by: Rev. bigDumbCHimp | May 10, 2009 11:36 PM
OM
Posted by: Lee Picton | May 10, 2009 11:44 PM
In case no one else has done so, thank you, Owlmirror, for a lovely essay. It is worth reading more than once.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 11:47 PM
Admittedly, Vista was a rather intensive upgrade your hardware program, as in, what? you still think your Wacom tablet will run on a serial port? Where have you been? Serial ports are so last century! But I was raised to prefer rolling your own, er, roasting my own. That is, I roast my own green coffee beans, and don't know what else you might be thinking about rolling green stuff. As for the hardware, Apple has gone Intel and Nvidia, and so do I. Since I do 3D animation and game development, I go for the lowest common denominator. Apple's OS shore is purty, but I want it first and flakey, not months later and bee-aye-oot-i-ful.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 11:52 PM
a dum retarded loser who keeps bragging nonstop about anything that he achieved that HE thought was great. Super talkative and a loserish wanna be. only way to shut him up is to ignore him.
sounds more like the definition of John Kwok to me.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 10, 2009 11:54 PM
Ken, I rarely use my tablet, and I find color management on linux and windows to be a massive pain in the ass; not to mention that AI CS3 doesn't run in Wine, and the sites I sell my images at don't accept SVGs for the most part, so I can't just post my Inkscape files (the EPS files from Inkscape have too many issues as well).
and the mouse scrolls sideways. SIDEways!!!!
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 10, 2009 11:57 PM
I'm getting another HP* - been researching online and on Consumer Reports. I would ask for opinions here, but...
I went with ASUS instead last year and couldn't be happier.
btw, there's nothing saying you can't install a linux distro on a PC with Vista.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 10, 2009 11:59 PM
AI CS3 doesn't run in Wine, and the sites I sell my images at don't accept SVGs for the most part,
Ah, I can tell your selection is based on what hardware/OS combination best supports your most critical applications too. Glad to see we're neither of us are bound to rigid ideologies.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 11, 2009 12:14 AM
there's nothing saying you can't install a linux distro on a PC with Vista.
Sigh. Yet another thread deteriorating into nothing more than vigorous agreement...
Posted by: fly44d | May 11, 2009 12:17 AM
"Where do you find meaning and joy and richness and beauty, O Reader? In elephants, or elephants' wings?"
Like I suspect most here do, elephants. I find these things in the way I choose to live my life, relieving pain, bringing pleasure, exploring myself and the universe. I find richness and joy in music, arts, science, friends and family. The awe I experience almost daily from ourselves, our world and our universe is amazing. I do not fear death, only of dying before I am ready. I don't need imaginary wings to soar. I don't need a meaning decreed to me, I create my own. The meaning of life is to be all that you can be to your family, friends, community, and world.
Sorry, felt the need to answer the question... :-)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 11, 2009 12:17 AM
well, that's MY reasoning for using the iMac. But it certainly helped that the boyfriend wanted to buy me one because it's the only type of computer we don't have at our home yet. :-pThe collection now includes: one self-built desktop, running appx. 10 different linux distros, plus Windows 7; one netbook, running eeebuntu and Windows 7; one laptop, running ubuntu; one iMac, running OSX (Leopard); one server, temporarily not running anything at all
and now he's debating whether to build some archaic form of computer(don't ask me what... but I think it had to do with not using an Intel chip), or buy a MacBook :-p
Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2009 12:31 AM
What does the elephant think of this?
And a bird?
We can't know, but we can empathize. And then consider that those who refuse to empathize and consider the life of any but themselves as having self-imposed blinders. Blinders, when we of all animals can most empathize, if only we choose.
Posted by: 386sx | May 11, 2009 12:36 AM
Congrats for creating the new word "Eagletosh", which previous to today had precisely zero google hits! And growing...
Posted by: elephantbirdie386sx | May 11, 2009 12:45 AM
Congrats for creating the new word "Eagletosh", which previous to today had precisely zero google hits! And growing...
Errr, I should say "prior" to today. Anyway, Eagletosh is taking off like an... ummmmmmmm... I can't really think of an idom at the moment. Eagletosh is tasking off like an... ummmm... somethin. I dunno.
Posted by: 386sx | May 11, 2009 12:49 AM
Errr, I should say "prior" to today. Anyway, Eagletosh is taking off like an... ummmmmmmm... I can't really think of an idom at the moment. Eagletosh is tasking off like an... ummmm... somethin. I dunno.
Grrr...
s/idom/idiom
s/tasking/taking
Okay, beddie byes time apparently...
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 11, 2009 12:53 AM
Your problem is that ascribing the property of "existence" to an entity which is "immaterial" in the sense you're using the word is itself a category error.
Posted by: Chewy | May 11, 2009 12:59 AM
I remember being recited this poem several dozen times back when doing my undergrad. It was never used to defend theology, but used to defend qualitative research and their epistemology. Interesting to see a new take on the poem ... albeit, I think PZ had it right, that the original "Elephant" poem had more to do with theology than the quant vs. qual "battle".
Posted by: Robert Estrada | May 11, 2009 1:03 AM
Sorry, I've been drinking nice red wine al evening, but isn't using metaphysical/spiritual arguments in a debate surrounding science a major "CATAGORY ERROR"?????
Robert "at this point an abalone" Estrada
Posted by: 386sx | May 11, 2009 1:17 AM
I'm so glad that if I wanted to believe in God I wouldn't have to support those beliefs with evidence because that would be a category error. I'm so freakin relieved about that.
Posted by: 386sx | May 11, 2009 1:30 AM
Saying that metaphysical/spiritual arguments in a debate surrounding science is a major category error is itself a major category error, because some things that previously were thought to be metaphysical/spiritual turned out to belong to the domain of science. For example, people once thought that lightning, planetary orbits, and comets were metaphysical/spiritual.
Posted by: Uncle Ebeneezer | May 11, 2009 1:33 AM
Hate to rain on your parade Mr. Myers, but how do you explain this?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7aGL...rom=PL&index=7
Keep fighting the good fight! --UE
Posted by: 376sx | May 11, 2009 1:36 AM
Hate to rain on your parade Mr. Myers, but how do you explain this?:
Very simple: it is a major, major category error. Everybody stop making category errors!!
Posted by: Ineffable | May 11, 2009 1:39 AM
@Ebeneezer
Many physicists and mahematicians (like Roger Penrose and Paul Davies) believe mathematical truths and abstractions exist as platonic forms (in a realm outside of space and time). Is platonic realism a scientific theory?
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 11, 2009 1:48 AM
Is platonic realism a scientific theory?
Not when mahematician Roger Penrose wanks about platonism and the quantum, it isn't. While he's useful doing sums for Hawking, his quantum microtubules shite should have him committing sepuku out of sheer humiliation for having become a laughingstock. All Davies is good for any more is whoring after Templeton cash.
Posted by: astrounit | May 11, 2009 1:49 AM
That was SUPERB PZ!
Aber sauber!
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 11, 2009 1:57 AM
Damn but that is funny. A medieval wanker who is impressed by Aquinas' variants of Aristotelian science asks if Platonic realism is a scientific theory.
Only for the Catholic Church.
Somewhere in the TRUE REALITY there is to be found the idealized Ineffable. It has to be even more insufferable than the pale reflection we deal with here.
Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | May 11, 2009 2:03 AM
Sorry to bring this up again, but eric said "I only take issue with misrepresentations of theism and atheism, not with your atheism," which leads me to ask: in what sense is he a theist who admits the total absence of evidence (i.e. physical effects) of a deity? Isn't that saying "I believe in an imaginary God"?
He does know, doesn't he, that "immaterial evidence" is never going to keep anyone persuaded after the drugs wear off?
Posted by: sbh
|
May 11, 2009 2:12 AM
I always liked Pogo's take on the story--when someone in the comic strip compared a situation to the wise men and the elephant, saying something like Each was partly right and each was partly wrong, Pogo answered, Yes, but remember, each was wholly blind.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 11, 2009 2:18 AM
Sigh. Another one pushing the 'we believe in other non-physical concepts so why not believe in the Judeo-Christian god and all the rubbish that comes with it?' approach as part of the argument for belief.
Putting it all together I guess the equation goes something like this (for them): philosophical arguments supporting the possible existence of a non-specific god + fact that we don't yet know exactly how everything in the universe works + general consensus amongst historians that someone approximating Jesus existed + argumentum ad populum = undeniable Christian faith.
But that seems pretty weak to me - I guess that's why I'm not a Christian.
Posted by: Shane | May 11, 2009 2:34 AM
I have to say I am disappointed at the treatment Erik is receiving on this board. Erik criticizes something and goes to the trouble to define terms and actually have a legitimate argument, and then people yell, "keep your god to yourself," without addressing the substance of his argument and without Erik mentioning god at all. I don't know. I expect better from atheists.
Posted by: Lotharloo | May 11, 2009 2:44 AM
Following the lead of Eagletosh, Eric sat on his ass and declared, "It is my considered opinion that God is 'an immaterial entity' and is immune to any form of physical test and thus no physical evidence of its existence can be found." He lazily sipped his drink and continued, "Nonetheless, this immaterial entity, created the universe 13 billion years ago, filled it with galaxies, clusters of galaxies, massive supernovas and many other wonders, and then commanded that no man is allowed to put his penis inside another's anus."
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 11, 2009 2:44 AM
I expect better from atheists.
Thanks for that contribution, which succeeded in only making atheists look even better.
Posted by: JeffS | May 11, 2009 2:45 AM
Elephants have wings? I saw lions take down an elephant and it didn't try to fly away. It didn't even try. It just ran. There were like a bunch of lions, it looked like a dozen or so lions (possibly more, maybe less).
Like, if I saw someone being hurt and had the ability to stop it, I would. You know, like seeing a child raped by someone. I would stop it. If I could supposedly stop it with minimal effort on my part (say picking up a telephone and calling the police or using my supernatural powers to alert someone of it happening, or by sending down a angel with a flaming sword to exact justice), I would do that. I wouldn't watch. I wouldn't do nothing.
I couldn't allow someone to be hurt if I could stop it, and I would have flown away from the lions.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 11, 2009 2:46 AM
Why? While I'd love to say that all atheists are more likely to behave in a more intelligent, perceptive way than all theists, I can't support than claim with evidence.
We have no defining qualities save a lack of belief in gods. Beyond that, one atheist is no more likely to behave like another than are any other two people with characteristics unrelated to the determination of behaviour.
Posted by: Scrabcake | May 11, 2009 2:46 AM
So, is Eagletosh at all related to Ditchkins?
lol
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 11, 2009 2:47 AM
Thus spake SC,OM
Having seen it, I can vouch for its antiquity — SC's computer is so old that paleographers are still debating its exact date — it had to be smuggled out of the Middle East.
Posted by: Robert | May 11, 2009 2:47 AM
Oh AssProf PZ, I'm so embarrassed for you! This is really a dreadfully boring read, constructed without any literary grace or skill. I understand that you're madly in love with your own thoughts and words, but this narcissism causes you to produce far too much gunk that clogs the internet and assaults the minds of all those with a sense of taste and style. I think you were trying to write some sort of fable but just proved yourself to be as mediocre a writer as you are researcher. Really, dear AssProf, less is more when it comes to your writing.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 11, 2009 2:58 AM
Thank you for you helpful and insightful comment, AssFace.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 11, 2009 3:09 AM
Robert, a whining pissant, squealed:
Not half as embarrassed as you should be by your own actions.
While there are people in the world who fit that description nothing you've written here would support a claim that you are amongst them.
I doubt it.
Less is certainly more when it comes to you, Robert. Why is it you come here again?
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 11, 2009 3:15 AM
So we commend them for such a paucity of imagination that they instead believe things that were made up arbitrarily by illiterate bronze-age goatherds.
So, you simply define away the necessity for empirical evidence — “God is that which exists, but for which there is no evidence of existence” — that seems like an extraordinarily feeble cop-out that seeks to invent a new category of existence to dispense with the requirement to assign god(s) to be either physical or notional. If by “immaterial entity” you mean “figment of imagination” then, yes, god(s) do(es) indeed exist(s) — in the same sense as unicorns and Harry Potter — if you mean “exists” in the sense of physical existence in the real world, then you must present empirical evidence. What you cannot do is implicitly invent a new definition of “exist” like a theological Humpty Dumpty.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | May 11, 2009 3:19 AM
Eric,
A universe with a powerful being that regularly intervenes in human affairs would like very different that a universe without such a being. Such interventions could be pointed to and be said to be physical evidence for that being.
Now, this argument doesn't work if you believe (1) God rarely or never intervenes in human affairs or (2) he "covers his tracks". There are many theist who don't accept (1) or (2). A God "covering his tracks" seems a bit deceptive, a feature many wouldn't consider a supreme deity to have. Thus asking for physical evidence for God isn't necessarily wrong. In fact, many theist do point to things like the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich or other "miracles" as physical evidence for God. I have yet to see convincing evidence.
I have two question:
- Do you accept (1) and/or (2) or is there some other reason the requirement of physical evidence doesn't apply to God?
- What is your evidence, if not physical, for God?
Posted by: Red John | May 11, 2009 3:20 AM
"also: Ubuntu rulez. the only reason not to go with Ubuntu on PC is if you do serious graphic work, and then an iMac is better, anyway."
I switched over to Linux through Ubuntu, but now run Arch on my desktop and Debian on my PPC laptop. That being said, I'd recommend any linux distro over Windows/Mac.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
May 11, 2009 3:30 AM
Great stuff, PZ. Are we allowed to spread this around?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 11, 2009 3:32 AM
Eric, if you're willing to specify that your god exists in the same sense that, say, Aragorn the Ranger exists- as a fictional entity in a story- you might be doing OK. But if you claim that it in some sense "really" exists and has any properties such as, say, creating universes, you will need some convincing evidence.
At the moment you're repeatedly taking issue with atheists for not taking your god-concept "seriously". But I have a nagging feeling that in a conversation between a fundamentalist who thinks God loves him personally and is planning to end the world next week, an atheists who thinks there are no gods, and you, you'd side with the fundie in browbeating the atheist. Am I wrong about this?
Posted by: JeffS | May 11, 2009 3:33 AM
I giggled.
@300
There are lots of Athiest blogs out there. Few have the amount of readers PZ has. Few blogs have the amount of readers as Pharyngula. This is mostly because PZ is a good writer. He is very easy to read. If you are wrong on this point, perhaps you are wrong on others. Perhaps more important points. Maybe you should think about that a bit.
Posted by: nothing's sacred | May 11, 2009 3:37 AM
Delightful, PZ, and well constructed; so many bases touched (Ken Cope points out one of many in #235). And there are some great comments; to mention just a couple: Owlmirror's #115 is a tour de force. And after wading through a long, dreadfully boring exchange with Eric, with many responses to him substituting ad hominems for for substantive response (hint to David and Windy about making certain persons bad guys), I finally encountered buttershug's point-getting #233. I would add about Eric and his arguments: First, on communication skills: starting out with "How in the world is this even sensible?" when everyone else finds it eminently sensible is good trolling but is not a good way to discuss issues with people with whom one disagrees, especially when it is followed, not by an explanation of why it isn't sensible, but by two questions that completely miss the many sensible points of the parable (including the reflection of "Ditchkins" in "Eagletosh"). On substance: talk of "the" classic conception of god is nonsensical when there are many, and most of them involve someone who does various things that have physically discernible consequences -- like chatting with prophets and other folk, as one frequent theme, often to get them to write down the god's thoughts and actions in holy books. The very existence of these books is purported evidence of the god and is often presented as such. And if not, these books are indistinguishable from fictional fables; there is no reason to think or claim that they are about anything real. As for category mistake, the notion that something with no physical attributes or for which there cannot be physical evidence "exists" is a category mistake -- existence is about membership in a set, and the set that is meant when the word is used without qualification is the set of physical phenomena (I agree with Knockgoats about emotions, minds, and social norms but not about numbers). (Ah, I see that Azkyroth made the same point about this being a category mistake in #279).
On a personal note: I escaped from the fires, smoke, and ash in Santa Barbara but hope to return home tomorrow. I'm staying with a friend in the woo capital of California -- perhaps of this entire plane of existence. Much of what you write about here, PZ, applies to purveyors and practitioners of woo, and Owlmirror's analysis captures the human elements that contribute to the formation of these beliefs. These folks are generally very nice and have their hearts in the right place (they aren't libertarians, conservatives, or other forms of sociopath), but they're rather gullible, they pay lip service to science but have a poor understanding of what science has taught us about how the world works, and they reinforce each other's mistaken beliefs, especially when gathered together in a community like this one.
Speaking of beliefs, I notice that Ken Kope in #102 and David Marjanović in #181 talked sensibly of their beliefs being grounded in evidence, and there are other mentions of belief that recognize that beliefs can be grounded in evidence or not grounded in evidence, and no one took objection. I strongly suspect that everyone here understands what the word means except when they're in the midst of defending clearly mistaken claims about it.
Ah, and Sastra should note Occam's Aftershave's #237.
*Drops the Linux bomb and runs*
As someone who has been running various Linux distributions since Yggdrasil, I would say that's not a good idea for anyone who doesn't think of their computer as a hobby unto itself.
As for HP, regardless of whether it's the best possible choice, it's a good choice.
Posted by: nothing's sacred | May 11, 2009 3:55 AM
@Lotharloo
Following the lead of Eagletosh, Eric sat on his ass and declared ...
Another case of commenter genius.
@Shane
Erik criticizes something and goes to the trouble to define terms and actually have a legitimate argument, and then people yell,
How many people?
"keep your god to yourself," without addressing the substance of his argument
Did none of those who did that ever address any of the substance of his argument? Did no one ever address any of the substance of his argument?
and without Erik mentioning god at all. I don't know. I expect better from atheists.
All atheists? Or just those particular atheists?
Are you an atheist? If so, shouldn't you expect better of yourself?
Posted by: toto | May 11, 2009 4:05 AM
and the blind who prefer to conjure phantoms in the spaces within their skulls.
Unfortunately, the above also applies to mathematicians. Would you lump mathematics together with religion?
That's the basic problem with the equation "science=experiment". Feynman addressed this problem by decreeing that mathematics are not a science - "or at least, not a natural science", he qualified.
Posted by: Jack
|
May 11, 2009 4:09 AM
Excellent.
Eagleton is such a goddamned fool. It's highly enjoyable seeing his dishonest, disingenuous, pseudo-intellectual apologist mindset lampooned so well.
Posted by: Kel | May 11, 2009 4:21 AM
Probably been answered a few times, but I've been at work so I'm pleading ignorance...
In relationship to physical evidence for God, if one claims that there can be no physical evidence for God then they are conceding that God does not interact with the world, it takes any concept of the supernatural and relegates it to deism. If God physically interacted with the world then there should be evidence. Even if God is in the supernatural realm, in order to influence the natural God has to interface with the natural. Otherwise the natural remains unchanged. Thus any god that cannot have physical evidence has to be deistic in nature and unknowable my humans.
To take this point further, this is nothing more than having your cake and eating it too. Christianity is founded on the principle of there being physical evidence, that God is indeed a force in this reality and has chosen to physically manifest in the world some 2000 years ago. A theist believes in an interactive god, so it takes more than philosophical musings to demonstrate this notion. Either concede that God has no physical dealings in this world (and is thus unknowable) or concede that there has to be physical evidence in order for us to come to know it...
Posted by: oriole | May 11, 2009 4:34 AM
Great post, PZ. But you forgot one thing: since they're quantum wings, they only exist when someone looks at them; otherwise, they're in an indeterminate, existing/non-existing state. The only reason the others haven't seen them is because they're not as "pudgily superior" as Eagletosh. As soon as he looks at them, they'll pop right into existence. CHECKMATE!
Posted by: Gorogh | May 11, 2009 4:34 AM
@Kel (#313)
My guess is that a) since it further diminishes the gaps in which to hide in, very few of faith find that an appealing question, and b) the "hard facts" are actually found in the bible, beyond examination (or at least, very difficult to put to the test), while god's intervention nowadays seems to be restricted to rather ambiguous prayer-answering or miracle-cures-when-no-one-is-watching. This dualism is so pathetic, more so when used apologetically.
To the topic, I liked the story a lot (especially the ending... "O Reader", loved that). For some mememetic engineering it might yet be good to shorten it a little... but don't ask me how or where.
Posted by: Tassie Devil | May 11, 2009 4:46 AM
Just a small note - I'm on an iMac (leopard/firefox), and apart from the indenting blockquote problem, I never would have noticed the issues in scienceblogs in the last couple of days if posters hadn't commented on it. It's been working just the same as always as far as I can see.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2009 4:54 AM
He did?
Where?
As far as I can make out, he opined that he was better than anyone here because he <i>knows philosophy</i>. Then he ducked the physical/non physical issue, without which he has no argument at all.
Posted by: Lotharloo | May 11, 2009 5:11 AM
To be serious with the likes of Eric, from my personal anecdote, his point is raised quite often by people working in theoretical fields, specially pure mathematics. These people, because of their profession, sometimes treat the real world as a mathematical construct with no regard to evidence or the methodology of the scientific method. Probably the most well-known example here is Godel's ontological argument.
As repeated by many people, the answer to Eric is that one cannot define something into existence. Defining a concept to be unmeasurable does not make it more likely than all the millions of other unmeasurable and undetectable concepts (e.g., Sagan's invisible dragon).
So here is a question for Eric and his sympathizers: I agree, that it is possible that unmeasurable and undetectable things exist; however, if you accept the existence of one, then how can you deny the existence of others?
If your belief in an unmeasurable and undetectable deity stems from your feeling that such a deity "makes sense" or "feels real", then what happens when we show that as a human you are biased towards such feelings? In other words, what if your feeling is a logical illusion? Just as the visual system of our brains can be easily fooled by optical illusions, what if the logical part of your brain has fallen victim to say agent detection illusion?
Posted by: Kel | May 11, 2009 5:17 AM
That's just it. The bible is filled with stories of God interacting with the earth in one way or another. It means that God has to hide his tracks or that there should be evidence if there is any validity at all to the concept. Eric by trying to avoid the evidence question makes God even more implausible as it calls into question any way of knowing God. But Eric does believe in the physical manifestation of God and has used the gospels as evidence for Jesus. Apparently a few "eyewitness" accounts are enough to validate the concept of the man-god and thus the Trinity.Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 11, 2009 5:37 AM
I see the value of the philosophy of religion as an interesting exercise, but not very useful beyond that - and pointless as a basis for making claims regarding the existence of the Christian god.
Being able to argue that some kind of god could exist (or may have existed) is one thing; extrapolating from that the definite existence of the specific deity known as Yahweh is another thing entirely, if for no other reason than we have no verifiable facts regarding that god's qualities - only folk tales, speculation and propaganda.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 11, 2009 5:41 AM
NS,
as someone that just recently had to evacuate due to bushfires,it's good to see you safe and well !
To the 'puter debate,I think unless you're working professionally with Windoze API and editing tools,Linux can do all that the others can,and is cheaper and safer.
Bought a cheapo Dell Laptop 6 months ago,kicked Vista off and installed Ubuntu,running like a charm,very fast,use it for all my presentations and some minor video editing.
Back to work!
Posted by: Kel | May 11, 2009 5:44 AM
Windows has games so that's keeping me on Microsoft's software. If it weren't for games and the phoning abilities of Google Talk, I'd switch back to Linux. But yeah, Windows wins by supporting the software I use - sad really.
Posted by: Gorogh | May 11, 2009 6:01 AM
@Kel (319), and as a more general aside: This does not stop at whether or not god exists (still hesitant to write it with a capital G, I am; you of course know that I refer to the "arguably... most unpleasant character in all fiction" (Dawkins, 2006)), and is one of the deeper reasons for me to oppose christian derivation of morals even here in Germany, where it is not nearly as great a problem as in other countries:
Fallacious legitimacy.
Most christians I know are peculiarly eclectic about what they accept from their holy book (mostly, they tend to defend only those implications that happen to conform to this culture's social values anyway), notwithstanding the fact that Jesus' legitimacy was derived by his referring to Old Testament-prophecies and being entrenched in the corresponding cultic in-group-/out-group-morals. To derive one's morals from this source even today is denying that it has been watered down from the beginnings in order to be memetically viable.
Finding Jesus admirable as a person or not has no bearing whatsoever on his authority (which is derived from the Old Testament), and even if Jesus' character is brought up as an excuse for being christian ("ah yeah the Old Testament, but you know, thankfully Jesus arrived with the second covenant and all that..."), this is a hollow appeal to justify any influence at all of "christianity" on today's society. There might have been more pleasant characters, and of course, there is the question of whether it is more acceptable to idolize an individual to accept his norms (through authority) or to formulate a philosophical foundation of how to behave morally. Since the Enlightenment, at the latest, we supposedly know the answer.
Posted by: Gorogh | May 11, 2009 6:08 AM
post scriptum: Kel, regarding your statement
I have talked to people who said they witnessed the moment the leg of someone (with formerly differently sized legs) grew longer in a prayer circle. And of course Our Lady of Fatima. Conspicuously, never is there an alleged sceptic witnessing these incidents.
Posted by: Aquaria | May 11, 2009 6:08 AM
I keep waiting for Eric to take the high dive into the Anselm cesspool. He seems to be hovering on the end of the diving board. Somebody push him in, and get it over with.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 11, 2009 6:20 AM
Glad to hear that you're alright, NS. That's great news.
Posted by: Kel | May 11, 2009 6:27 AM
Indeed, Gorogh. I'm guessing it's the same argument everywhere. Morality has been hijacked by religion to the point where it seems one cannot be moral without religion. The fact that believers still do "wrong" while there are many noble non-believers really should be evidence against that view. Morality is a social construct and that's something that needs to be said loudly time and time again.
Posted by: shifty | May 11, 2009 6:40 AM
I heard people say that there wouldn't be a black man as president until pigs could fly. And then, three months later...swine flew (flu)! ;).....(but, of course, you can't see their wings either)
Posted by: Jo | May 11, 2009 6:41 AM
Yet another poll (this time on a Christian site) that shows just how moral those religious types are - this one's about how great they think waterboarding is. Hordes, mobilise! http://www.onenewsnow.com/Poll.aspx?ekfrm=522196
Posted by: shifty | May 11, 2009 6:42 AM
Speaking of winged mammalians... I heard people say that there wouldn't be a black man as president until pigs could fly. And then, three months later...swine flew (flu)! ;).....(but, of course, you can't see their wings either)
Posted by: shifty | May 11, 2009 6:46 AM
sorry, reached in and tried to grab it before it left, but alas, I have lost that first step.
Posted by: AncientBrit | May 11, 2009 6:47 AM
I just read that DARPA had a secret multimillion dollar research project to weaponize flying elephants, but that it was canceled after several years without explanation...
Posted by: Gorogh | May 11, 2009 6:58 AM
@Jo (#329),
This seems like a dilemma. Personally, I'd vote "yes, it's unethical"; but what message would that send? Assuming the poll is going to be pharyngulated in this direction, whether or not this is to our intended goal (to further our view of the world) would be determined by whom this result is attributed to. Anyone reading the poll result of a majority condemning torture might say, "apparently, it's not true religious people tend to justify torture - they are not so bad after all; maybe we should listen to what they have to say". Whereas, if everyone voted "no, waterboarding is ethical", the consequence might be closer to what we actually intend to achieve.
These are pragmatic considerations. Nevertheless, I am going to vote "yes, it is unethical".
Posted by: Gorogh | May 11, 2009 7:01 AM
... and the bumblebee was the prototype?
p.s.: Enough spamming for now, excuse me :/ Lunchtime.
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 11, 2009 7:01 AM
Gorogh @ 324
The shorter leg grew longer in a prayer circle? If someone, whether they were there and witnessed this insane event, or whom were not there but claim it to be true told me this, In would not laugh but use the most vitriolic derision I can muster and end by judging them retarded. Of course there was no alleged sceptic witnessing these incidents; that explains the insane absurdity of it all. One wonders why a shorter leg will grow longer, yet a severed leg will not regenerate at all. It isn't hard to equate insanity with religious delusions.
Posted by: Gorogh | May 11, 2009 7:10 AM
@Holbach (#335), emotionally I perfectly agree with your sentiment
To preserve civic conversation, though, I answered somewhere along these lines (after that guy insisting on his question, around 1:15), only less eloquently.
There. You got me. Still not off for lunch.
*off, muttering*
Posted by: Clemens
|
May 11, 2009 7:23 AM
This is truly beautiful. Especially since just the other day I read a chapter in a German book titled "Gott" (God) where the author claimed that the discovery of quantum mechanics meant the end of reasonable atheism. You know, God twiddling around on the quantum level and the ascension just a very rare, yet perfectly plausible quantum event.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 11, 2009 7:30 AM
ooooof
Posted by: melior | May 11, 2009 7:35 AM
I loved this story!
My favorite part is Eagletosh's confident insistence (as a blind man) that the wings are iridescent, and the nods of wondering agreement that this statement must have evoked in his (blind) followers.
"They're iridescent, people!"
Simply brilliant.
Posted by: James Sweet | May 11, 2009 7:43 AM
Don't forget all the folk tales about elephants trampling little children because their parents believed the wings were the wrong color... Or is that stretching the analogy too far? :D
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 11, 2009 7:44 AM
Gorogh @ 336
I have seen that video of Richard Dawkins deriding that obviously religion strickened retard, and I suppose out of deference to not alienating the whole audience, he was somewhat mild with his rebuke. I would definitely not be so inclined to sympathetic understanding but would express precisely how religion has caused this person's dementia through his own volition. To witness this insane outporing from this religious idiot would cause me to worry for the breakdown of rationality that seems to be in dire straits the more these examples are witnessed and known. As with insanity, these religion saturated morons have no inkling of how they sound or appear to rational minds. Scary.
Posted by: Michelle | May 11, 2009 7:44 AM
PZ, may I please reproduce this fable (giving you full credit, of course) on a discussion forum website for military personnel and veterans? I'm a veteran, but also a biologist, and I've become sick and tired of the idiotic Creationists and the blindly religious who seem to pervade the military. I think your parable here has the point put into terms that even some of the Creationists might be able to understand. In the very least, I want them to squirm a bit.
So, may I have your permission? As I promised, I'll give you full credit.
Posted by: Ryan | May 11, 2009 7:56 AM
Beautiful piece of writing - really, really lovely, witty and incisive. Awesome! Think I'm gonna have to save it.
Posted by: penguinsaur | May 11, 2009 8:41 AM
I like the quatum wings, just yesterday some idiot tried arguing with me that Quantum physics is weird=the over 99% of scientist who think a flood and 6000 year old earth is idiotic are dead wrong.
Posted by: Larry_boy | May 11, 2009 8:43 AM
Lies, I know elephants can fly, I have proof!
http://engrishfunny.com/2009/05/10/engrish-elephants-safety/
If elephants couldn't fly, why would it be carved in stone that they can? Huh? I bet you can't answer that one.
Posted by: SC, OM | May 11, 2009 8:54 AM
*checks in the morning after*
Huh. Not too bad for posting while (slightly) plastered.
Yup, then I think I'll rebuild a transmission. There's nothing saying I can't.
:)
Seriously, I know nothing about this stuff.
Thanks. I know I may not have the same luck this time, but I'm going with the one that's worked out well for me.
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
May 11, 2009 9:00 AM
It's OK Eric, when you finally arrive at the end of your journey and shed your mortal coils, you will then be able to witness the full glory of the shimmering iridescence of the elephant's quantum wings for all eternity. Enjoy!
Unless of course you screw up somehow and incur the wrath of the great elephant in the sky and end up in a steaming heap of elephant dung for the same eternity. Bummer!
As for the rest of us, we will just cease to be conscious and our matter will be recycled in the ebb and flow of natural cycles. Cest La Vie!
Posted by: hithesh | May 11, 2009 9:07 AM
"But this sort of thinking is exactly what most agnostics find ridiculous about religion and religious people, who seem incapable of looking at the world unless it’s through the prism of some kind of belief system. They seem to think that if one doesn’t believe in God, one must believe in something else, because to live without answers would be intolerable. "
No, we all don't need answers for everything, but our self-awareness does demand an ability to make sense of the world around us, a worldview, or else we'd have a very disoriented engagement with the world.
A worldview is how we perceive purpose, what motivates us to get up everyday, and strive the way we do, what we live for, and the questions that pertain to that, and that answers that we have for them.
Posted by: Rudy | May 11, 2009 9:08 AM
I'm a mathematician by training, and I agree that math types think differently about the world than scientists.
That our abstract entities seem so real makes us more willing to accept religion, or at least religious arguments. (I had a discussion about this with an atheist friend last year).
Some important 20th century Soviet mathematicians seem to have been influenced by heterodox theological ideas. See
Russian Mathematical Mystics".
But I think mathematical training also makes it easier to see the rhetorical/abstract nature of arguments against religion. Most of the arguments against theism in this thread would apply equally against the existence of beauty, love (or hate), or any other immaterial quality.(Lovingkindness, sunyata, metta, ...)
No one actually stops using these ideas (people still love their kids and their partners, people still like looking at pictures in museums and listening to Bach). You can argue that they are emtoions, explicable in material terms, and Darwin definitely has something to tell us about the emotions. But if I say, "Yes, we have emotions like many animals do, and they are a gift from God", I don't think I'm being like Coll... sorry, can't spell that. I could spell Eagletosh.
On mathematicians:
I think E.O. Wilson in "Biophilia" makes a remark about mathematicians collecting examples the way naturalists collect species, or something like that.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 11, 2009 9:19 AM
That's one of the oldest, hoariest, deadest arguments around, you know, and it's completely bogus. Evolution is also an "immaterial quantity", yet we can measure it. We even have criteria for assessing love -- we do it all the time. These are phenomena that actually have effects in the world, and not just because people believe in love while it actually doesn't exist.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 11, 2009 9:19 AM
Lancre. He's one of the Nac Mac Feagletosh.Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 11, 2009 9:23 AM
I'm getting a lot of requests to reproduce this. It's a blog -- knock yourself out. All I ask is proper attribution, and if you make a profit off of it, I get a cut. But hey, if you're just putting it on a blog or website or newsletter, go ahead.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 11, 2009 9:26 AM
Rudy, to me that reads like a false dichotomy. It's both. This story, as many do, has more than one point, and yes, one of the points is "PZ Can Play That Game Too."
I suppose this comment is redundant by now, but there it is.
Posted by: speedwell | May 11, 2009 9:36 AM
Almond bread? Mandelbrot is biscotti, pure and simple. My grandmother and I make mandelbrot every time I fly out there to see her. A Mandelbrot set would, therefore, be a piece with a cup of coffee.
Posted by: Yer Wan
|
May 11, 2009 9:42 AM
The Mandelbrot set tastes like
broccoli. Yum, yum.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 9:47 AM
hithesh, we don't need your imaginary god and morally bankrupt religion for anything. Much less for meaning for life, which both only provide the illusion of. Quit bothering us with your woo, unless you are ready to show physical evidence for your alleged god.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 11, 2009 9:54 AM
It's nice that you have a worldview to motivate you to get up and brush your teeth in the morning, Hithesh. Now, wouldn't it be so much better if that worldview were not founded on lies?
Posted by: Eamon Knight | May 11, 2009 9:54 AM
(Oh man, 350 comments already. Teach me to go see Star Trek instead of monitoring my incoming RSS.)
Couldn't you have had the elephant just stomp Eagletosh, back at the start?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2009 9:56 AM
Nerd: "hithesh, we don't need your imaginary god and morally bankrupt religion for anything. Much less for meaning for life, which both only provide the illusion of. Quit bothering us with your woo, unless you are ready to show physical evidence for your alleged god."
:)
It's a public site, and i can woo where i want to.
And who do you think you are to demand of me anything? You demand that I do this, in order to respond on this site, and you act is i care about your silly demands? Get a life, and find another tree to bark at it.
Posted by: Geek | May 11, 2009 9:57 AM
Rudy #349:
I hope no one thinks, as a result of reading this, that mathematicians are unusually susceptible to religion. It doesn't make any difference how much the methodologies of mathematicians and natural scientists differ. All that matters is that they both work: results build on each other to great heights without collapsing in a heap as they would if significant numbers of false ideas were lurking in the pool of accepted results. Lack of care to filter out false assertions would be a bad idea for mathematicians as well, so the contrast with religious thought is just as sharp.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 10:05 AM
Hithesh, this is not a public site. It is PZ's blog, which is considered private. So watch your attitude, as you can be banned if you prove obnoxious. Check the dungeon in the masthead for those who ran afoul of PZ's rules. It also describes behavior that PZ considers a crime. Being an arrogant godbotting wanker is the easiest way to get there. You are on your way.
Posted by: hithesh | May 11, 2009 10:09 AM
PZ Meyers "Evolution is also an "immaterial quantity", yet we can measure it. We even have criteria for assessing love -- we do it all the time. "
And you miss the point don't you. We speak of love in non-scientific terms all the time. If you wife were to ask you why you loved, and you expounded on the biology of it, she'd probably slap you.
In your other post you said you believed that if we all adapted the imagery of the star gazing child, to be a depiction of the human condition, we'd be living in a better world. Of course that's not a scientific belief, but a statement of meaning and you expound on it as such, which according to you logic should be no different than your poor parody of Eagleton.
Posted by: speedwell | May 11, 2009 10:13 AM
...It's a public site...
Nope, babe, it's PZ's site.
Posted by: windy | May 11, 2009 10:15 AM
Whatwhat? I forget which thread that was in, but we weren't trying to.
Glad you're OK. I have to ask, what is the woo capital of California? SF?
Posted by: Hollis Henry | May 11, 2009 10:16 AM
Nicely done! One of your best yet.
Posted by: FastLane | May 11, 2009 10:16 AM
Eric's Elephant poop:
Well, no, Eagleton didn't make things up arbitrarily. He just follows a book written by a bunch of bronze age goat herders who made things up arbitrarily.... HUGE difference. HUGE, I tells ya.
Not to mention that people are still being forced to follow those beliefs at the end of a proverbial sword in parts of the world to this day. This isn't a harmless joke about elephantine lack of wings. Those who believe as our also mythological Eagletosh are killing real people in the real fucking world on a daily basis. Just because the worst offenders are those who believe that elephants breath fire, but don't have wings are the ones doing the killing, does not absolve the Eagletosh's of the world from taking some responsibility for enabling the violent fire breathing elephantists (of peace).
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 11, 2009 10:21 AM
If I told my wife that I loved her, and then slept around on her, treated her like a slave, said nasty things about her in public, and so forth, then she would be able to actually assess my love for her and realize that I was lying. Science is not about slide rules and graduated cylinders, you know -- it's about analyzing the evidence. And yes, human beings examine love scientifically and rationally all the time. Those that don't end up in relationships that fall apart.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 11, 2009 10:23 AM
Who?Posted by: UU4077 | May 11, 2009 10:24 AM
Is Eagletosh, perchance, an artist? a poet? a writer? Maybe he's a philosopher?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 11, 2009 10:25 AM
I have to agree with several of the commenters above. THIS IS MY SITE, and I am both capricious and merciless.
It's amazing that some people don't get that.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 11, 2009 10:28 AM
hithesh, PZ's wife _actually exists_. So does mine. Unscientific discussions of our love for our spouses is rooted in the _reality_ of real people living out their lives. You appear to have confused this with your deep conviction that your imaginary friend exists and loves you. You might as well argue that because we give Christmas presents, Santa Claus must exist and have a palace at the North Pole.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 11, 2009 10:29 AM
'Course that can happen to people that do, as well.(Twice, even.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 11, 2009 10:31 AM
Wait
Santa doesn't exist or have a palace at the north pole?
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 11, 2009 10:33 AM
Beat me to it,Sven.
Posted by: Watchman | May 11, 2009 10:33 AM
Hithesh:
No. You do. Badly.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 11, 2009 10:41 AM
Maybe we're touching on a major misunderstanding here: a lot of commentators seem to regard "science" as something cold and inhuman, done with slide rules and test tubes. In fact, it's just the acquisition of knowledge, and can include any proposition for which, if we were wrong, we would know we were wrong. That's why it's ridiculous to make your god "scientifically untestable"; because that means your god _makes no difference_.
Posted by: FastLane | May 11, 2009 10:42 AM
Wowbagger:
It means you need to share the drugs, man....
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 11, 2009 10:48 AM
Most of the arguments against theism in this thread would apply equally against the existence of beauty, love (or hate), or any other immaterial quality.(Lovingkindness, sunyata, metta, ...)
I see PZ stomped on this, too. Man, it’s irritating when people say crap like this. The elephant has properties that many agree on: purity of form and function, pleasing aesthetics. Others would agree that it is an ugly animal, bloated and snouty, but these are personal and social sentiments about what actually is. The goddamn elephant does not have wings, and though you sit around writing dissertations about them, wax poetically about the fineness of the feathers and admonish ever larger congregations of the dangers of not believing in them, though you may love them or hate them and feel kindly or not toward them—they do not exist except in someone’s overactive imagination. Why do you guys keep trying to blur the line between the real world—or as close as we can get to it—and the imaginary?
Why do you insist on mischaracterizing scientists as being so cold and skeptical that they’re stupid?
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 11, 2009 11:06 AM
On the non-physical existence of mathematical objects, by a mathematician.
The philosophical foundations of maths are somewhat interesting in their own right but they really don't matter to anything else. Whether something like the category of all groups "really" exists in a Platonic realm, or is part of an elaborate fictional story or is a move in a formal game doesn't make any difference to the practice of pure mathematics, let alone to anything about the world in which we live. Your God just doesn't matter.
And so it is with the more philosophical versions of God or gods. You can define in the abstract what they are. You can reason about them based on your definitions (although this has a dreadful track record of letting in hidden assumptions). Some philosophers may be able to say that the word "exist" applies to your abstraction and others will say not. The difference between there arguments will be things that make no difference to the world: not just in terms of things with SI units but no difference to what beauty or goodness or love is.
The existence or not of these things just doesn't matter. If they proved themselves to build useful models of things around us (as a tiny subset of all possible maths does) they would be of great worth, but this is true whether of not they are really real (and FWIW they have a shit record).
So spin your philosophers gods all day long, but don't expect anyone to care much whether they really exist of not, any more than people care much whether the axiom of choice is "really true".
Posted by: Mu | May 11, 2009 11:11 AM
so many posts, and no one has answered the only important question: How much do you have to lead the flying elephant with a .416 rigby at 80 yards?
Posted by: SeanJJordan | May 11, 2009 11:16 AM
I enjoyed that. Thanks!
Posted by: Gorogh | May 11, 2009 11:30 AM
@Holbach (#341), while I agree with your statement
that Dawkins was somewhat mild, the title of the youtube-video alone implies how "cruel" it appears to some people not to believe them. Dawkins was, on the face of it, far from cruel or even insulting, and yet, the simple "I do not believe you" is sufficient to insult people not used to being questioned. It is nothing original to emphasize that religious beliefs even hold a special position in the eyes of many. So, I guess it is, for the people convinced of their deluded ideas' reality, drastic enough just to deny their credibility; it's a fine line not to cross if you want to continue the conversation, whatever it is worth.
Among like-minded people like you, one may of course be more outspoken than that.
@PZ's #370,
Waaaaiiit a minute... that remiiiinds me of someone... who was it again...
*scratches his head*
*stares at a tattered bible*
PZ = God?
Posted by: Professor Eagletosh | May 11, 2009 11:33 AM
I did not say the wings of elephants are quantum.
My detractors, whom, for the purposes of rhetorical onanism I will contract to "Lurly", lacking a sense of poetry, confuse "quantum" with the "quantum of solace", that existential consolation yearning to be satisfied in the hearts and groins of humanity. The erstwhile and archetypal poetic Everyman, the man from Nantucket, desires to have genital reassignment surgery performed on his pinna, (and indeed wipes his mouth with relish at the prospect), while the merely prosaically-inclined Lurly dreams of a cochlear implant. His feet are on the ground, while the wing-ed elephants and all their fellow travelers are soaring the heights of imagination and wonder.
The wings of elephants, being of one substance with this imaginative sense, are gossamer thin and of course quite useless for the purposes of mere flight. That is the whole point of gossamer wings, that they be useless. "Lurly" fails to see this. Indeed, he is quite blind and continues to fist elephants in his efforts to acquire mere knowledge.
Posted by: Watchman | May 11, 2009 11:37 AM
Because it suits their sophistic aims to do so.
Same as it ever was.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 11, 2009 11:38 AM
Stealin' it.Laughin' out loud at it.
Posted by: Watchman | May 11, 2009 11:40 AM
Not "Marly"?
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 11, 2009 11:41 AM
Um the order my sentences at 379 got a bit mangled. Some editing fail with an accidental "paste" ignore first ref to a god.
Posted by: ??? | May 11, 2009 11:45 AM
Nope, babe, it's PZ's site.
Yes, because PZ owns Seed Media. We've been over this before.
Posted by: li3crmp | May 11, 2009 11:49 AM
Skimmed the thread and just wanted to point out that one of the notorious Four Horsemen is, himself, a philosopher.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 11, 2009 11:52 AM
Gorogh, you are sadly mistaken if you think PZ = God?
Who is known for being Merciless?
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 11, 2009 11:52 AM
His feet are on the ground, while the wing-ed elephants and all their fellow travelers are soaring the heights of imagination and wonder.
Well, not really. What these Dumbo riders (whom I will unimaginatively contract to “Lurvers,” lacking a sense of veracity) are actually doing is grasping fistfuls of wrinkly grey flesh, closing their eyes, and letting others take them on a journey into imagination. They themselves are not all that imaginative and require others to do all the detailed mental work. The result is: they only soar so high.
Meanwhile, scientists, who conceive of actually flying, are building flying machines.
Posted by: !!! | May 11, 2009 11:54 AM
Yes, we have. Over and over, point after pointless point.
Don't be an idiot. At least try.
Posted by: ??? | May 11, 2009 11:57 AM
Don't be an idiot. At least try.
That's an incomplete thought. Try what?
Posted by: Buridan | May 11, 2009 12:01 PM
Who of the "Eagletoshes" argue that their "winged elephant" is simply poetical, simply metaphorical, simply allegorical, simply symbolic, simply subjective, simply Shakespearian-like tales, parables, myths or moral exemplars?
Religionists always seem to use this equivocation when backed into a corner – one which gets exceedingly smaller over time. We can all find meaning in poetry, parables, and fiction, but this is decidedly not the ground on which the "Eagletoshes" wage their war on science.
And, if you're one of those who wish to argue for the "best" of both worlds, in what existential space does that other world exist if it's not simply poetical, metaphorical, allegorical, symbolic, literary, moral or subjective? The issue here is not simply about what is meangful…
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 11, 2009 12:02 PM
Which one? Ric, Arn, Ole or Tully?
Posted by: &&& | May 11, 2009 12:04 PM
Try to read this:
Posted by: ??? | May 11, 2009 12:10 PM
Try to read this:
Okay, I tried to read it, and succeeded in my efforts. Now what?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 11, 2009 12:14 PM
Indeed, he is quite blind and continues to fist elephants in his efforts to acquire mere knowledge.
Do you have a better way of pregnancy testing them?
Posted by: Gorogh | May 11, 2009 12:19 PM
@Janine (#390), as to having seen
I can only cringe in terror of the revelation... yet, Flash Gordon was before my time, the only connection I have to the series is the fact that Queen was the first band I considered myself being a "fan" of. Nevertheless, "Merciless Ming" strikes a chord. Might be because I played Jade Empire recently.
Posted by: %%% | May 11, 2009 12:21 PM
Hmmm. Anybody have any suggestions?Posted by: John Bode | May 11, 2009 12:23 PM
What is the airspeed of an unladen elephant?
Posted by: !!! | May 11, 2009 12:24 PM
Wow! You're actually too stupid to figure it out? Really? That's impressive, though not totally surprising for someone intent on once again pursuing the pointless "blog ownership" argument. Or are you being intentionally obtuse because you mistakenly believe that you've failed to convince everyone that you're a gaping asshole?
Obviously, PZ Myers doesn't own Seed Media. However, for all practical purposes he has dominion over Pharyngula, and that's what's being discussed. Got it yet?
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 11, 2009 12:25 PM
Is this still the religious wars thread?
I used to have an SGI Indigo on my desk at work for 3D and next to it, a Mac IIFX, running the first Photoshop. Later the spouse and I bought a Quadra 950 instead of the 840AV she'd been running at work. It survived the Northridge Quake and a two-bookcase avalanche. When Softimage came out for NT, I could do my 3D and 2D on the same box.
A few years ago I played with Suse and Redhat and Windows 2000 on a PC assembled just for fun. The Power Tower Pro Apple clone was orphaned by Apple's vertical hardware/OS upgrades. The more recent Apples are fun to play with at school. For me, Apple's current appeal, apart from the slick GUI, is nostalgia for Unix. When it's time for a laptop, I'll likely go Apple.
At home, EVGA makes a lot of my hardware (I tried an SLI system, but decided one GPU was enough and built a new system around the extra video card for the spouse rather than make her inherit an older system. Parity at last! So, at the moment, what's plugged in are two Vistas and an XP. Like Kel, I like to push those frame rates on games, most of mine are through Steam. Valve's development tools are worth enduring Vista for now. Otherwise, the dead tech museum is in storage.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 11, 2009 12:31 PM
Posted by: hithesh | May 11, 2009 12:33 PM
PZ Myers: "It's nice that you have a worldview to motivate you to get up and brush your teeth in the morning, Hithesh. Now, wouldn't it be so much better if that worldview were not founded on lies?"
Well, it's not just me who has a worldview, but we all do, it's a part of being human, your image of the child gazing at the stars is what you yourself proposed as the center of it, the power you afford this imagery to make the world a better place, is all a part of that world view, and it's no less of a lie or less superstitious than my own.
In fact I'd say that mines is far more grounded in reality than your own, it's not founded on a disneyland notion of human nature, or the naive magical thinking that leads you to believe the star gazing child is the aspiring image of the human condition.
What's odd is you can profess to see the sawdust in the eyes of other, and fail to see the log in your own. There's magical thinking at it's best.
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 11, 2009 12:34 PM
Gorogh @ 382
Yes, the religion afflicted do not like to questioned on their insane beliefs, and when done so react with outrage and umbrage. I always get the usual reply, as do we all, that how can I be certain there is no imaginary(my word, not theirs) god and what if there was? My reply is that this god will most definitely reveal itself in any physical manner if it exists, and when I die all life and thoughts of a god ceases, as with you, but I die knowing there has never been a god, but you will die and you will never know. This last is enough to frustrate them and walk away in a huff, preferably with a mind disordered by my blatant and provoking comments. Suffer, you morons.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 11, 2009 12:35 PM
African or Asian?
Posted by: ??? | May 11, 2009 12:35 PM
Wow! You're actually too stupid to figure it out?
No, I just don't like to make assumptions.
Really?
No, fakely.
That's impressive, though not totally surprising for someone intent on once again pursuing the pointless "blog ownership" argument.
Where did I pursue the argument? I didn't even know it was on the run, to be honest.
Or are you being intentionally obtuse because you mistakenly believe that you've failed to convince everyone that you're a gaping asshole?
I resent that remark! How dare you insinuate that I am greater than 90 degrees! I'll have you know that my angle is only pi/2.2 radians!
Obviously, PZ Myers doesn't own Seed Media.
Oh, but he does. We've been over this before. Please try to keep up!
he has dominion over Pharyngula
Dominion? Didn't they sell out to A&P back in the eighties?
Got it yet?
Got what? Swine flu? No, not yet.
Posted by: ??? | May 11, 2009 12:37 PM
What is the airspeed of an unladen elephant?
About the same as an elephant being ridden by bin laden.
Posted by: logicamente | May 11, 2009 12:39 PM
Isn't it the case that you have faith that love (the emotion of love) exists?
Atheists accept that some things are of necessity taken "on faith," so why not accept God "on faith"?
Posted by: !!! | May 11, 2009 12:42 PM
So it's to be childish wiseassery, then? Have at it.
Posted by: KI | May 11, 2009 12:46 PM
@410
I've been "in love". I love the Grateful Dead and the E Street Band. I love flowers and bugs and vegetable gardening, driving fast and smoking grass. None of this requires "faith". Love exists, though it is hard to quantify. Gods are entirely imaginary.
Posted by: James Sweet | May 11, 2009 12:46 PM
@Logicamente #410: Ah, now I have a pet theory that I call "selective irrationality" that I would like to put forth. I think it is okay to be irrational about certain things if three conditions are met: One, you have to be aware you are being irrational about it. Two, you can't expect anyone else to believe it or try to get them to believe it. And three, you have to be careful that this irrationality is not causing significant harm to yourself or others, and be willing to let go of it if it does.
I believe -- and I mean it, I literally believe this -- that my wife and I were fated to be together. I see all sorts of things in our life stories that seem to make this obviously true. But I am also aware this is an irrational belief. I don't expect anyone else to believe it. And although I believe it with all my heart today, if there were to come a time when it was expedient for us to terminate our relationship, I know I would have to revisit this belief and decide if it is still right for me.
The problem with many (not all, but many) religions is that they don't meet all of these criteria. Biblical literalists fail the first criterion. Any religion that proselytizes (and for the record, asking us "why not believe in God?" counts) violates the second criterion. And when Rick Warren says things like "surrendered people do what God says even if it doesn't make sense," you'd better believe that violates the third criterion.
Daniel Dennett has put forth the idea of an "avirulent" religion. In my mind, it would have to be one that met those three criteria I listed above. If any of those criteria are violated, you've got something really dangerous on your hands.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 11, 2009 12:47 PM
Why not accept the little green leprechaun on my shoulder on faith?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 11, 2009 12:49 PM
Let's see.
1) Atheist accept the notion of love on faith.
2) God is love.
3) Therefore, atheists should accept the notion of God on faith.
Logicamente, could you use your blinding brilliance to determine which God which we should accept?
Posted by: KI | May 11, 2009 12:50 PM
I should point out that I never, ever combine smoking grass and driving fast.
Posted by: Gorogh | May 11, 2009 12:52 PM
Ha, my Azathoth-cult has just been intellectually vindicated!
Posted by: hithesh | May 11, 2009 12:56 PM
PZ Myers: And yes, human beings examine love scientifically and rationally all the time. Those that don't end up in relationships that fall apart.
Let's get something straight, we can speak of love rationally and not speak of it scientifically. You would like to believe all our rational ways of conveyance, are scientific when in fact they're not. If I were to express the meaning I found in a painting, this expression is aesthetic one, not a scientific one.
You seem to imply that abusive husband doesn't scientifically love his wife, and it's a lie if he says he does. You can rationally make a case for that, and some may even make a case that regardless of his failures, he does love his wife, but you can't make a scientific case for that either way. We'd have to agree on your subjective standard of love, in order to agree if the man loved his wife or not, but science is not about subjective values. It is beyond the ability of science to define what true love is, just as it is to define what morality is, or the meaning of one's life is or should be. Science may inform these views, but it's capable of defining them. Though we speak of these notions rationally, don't confuse this with a fairy tale that we're speak of them scientifically.
I know you'd like to believe that science is all encompassing, but its not. And you as a scientist should know better.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 12:56 PM
Any belief based upon imaginary deities and biblical fairy tales is inferior to reality. You haven't shown your deity exists, so you are just a delusional fool until you show the physical evidence for your alleged god.Posted by: James Sweet | May 11, 2009 12:58 PM
hithesh #418: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your argument boils down to "The word love is poorly defined, therefore science cannot define it." :p
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 11, 2009 1:00 PM
In fact I'd say that mines is far more grounded in reality than your own, it's not founded on a disneyland notion of human nature, or the naive magical thinking that leads you to believe the star gazing child is the aspiring image of the human condition.
I actually agree with you. The current state of the human condition is all too often more precisely represented by a man being tortured by being nailed to boards. We are certainly programmed to be endlessly preoccupied with this (and similar) macabre concept. Do you think we can change that? For the better? Is it ennobling to even try? Or not? (Which, by the way, was the whole point of PZ’s earlier post, was it not?)
Posted by: CJO | May 11, 2009 1:01 PM
Isn't it the case that you have faith that love (the emotion of love) exists?
Not if you mean the only way to ascertain whether the emotion of love exists as it is commonly defined is to take it on faith.
Atheists accept that some things are of necessity taken "on faith,"
This one doesn't.
so why not accept God "on faith"?
First and foremost, because I have never in my life had an experience that appeared to involve or require a transcendant entity of any kind. Secondarily, because a cursory glance around the world's religious traditions tells me that "faith" gives the answer you wanted all along --it's just a euphamism for "wishful thinking." Faith can't be trusted, or it would find the same object acrross cultures and traditions. Clearly it does not.
Shorter: "I have no need of that hypothesis."
Posted by: Piltdown Man | May 11, 2009 1:07 PM
Kel @ 313:
Suppose a scientist were able to travel back in time to the wedding feast at Cana and test the contents of the water jars. He is able to confirm that they contain water.
Scientist leaves the room.
Jesus performs His miracle.
Scientist returns.
Scientist tests the contents of the pots again and is able to confirm that they now contain wine.
Based on his observations, our scientist cannot make any further comment on what has occurred.
What "physical evidence" do you expect? Do you imagine the wine will contain faint traces of God particles?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 11, 2009 1:10 PM
Wait, why?Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 11, 2009 1:12 PM
Holy Shit! Did the Hoax just use time travel as part of the reason why one cannot scientifically prove the existence of god?
'Head crashes into keyboard.'
Posted by: Anath | May 11, 2009 1:13 PM
Looks like the Asians are way ahead of this us on this discovery:
http://engrishfunny.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/engrish-funny-elephants-safety.jpg?w=500&h=375
Posted by: Piltdown Man | May 11, 2009 1:13 PM
Gorogh @324:
Obviously you didn't read your own Wiki link:
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 11, 2009 1:13 PM
Wait, why?
It's a wedding feast. To get laid, of course.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 1:14 PM
Unless the room was guarded inside, a scientist would say a fraud had occurred. Since matter was made out of nothing, there should be some energy readings and the like that are out of kilter. If not, look for the trap door for the tunnel. Miracles are fiction (frauds) until proven otherwise with good hard evidence.Posted by: Gorogh | May 11, 2009 1:15 PM
Is it just me or is the feeling shared that to try to answer a certain kind of question by people with a certain set of mind is a rather futile, tedious attempt doomed to repetition?
Posted by: James Sweet | May 11, 2009 1:17 PM
Extrapolating MAJeff's comments in #428... does this mean that the only reason us atheists haven't seen evidence of God's existence is because every time He performed a miracle, we were in the other room getting laid?!
Hmmm... I suppose one might call this an "erotic epistemology?"
Posted by: CJO | May 11, 2009 1:20 PM
Suppose a scientist were able to travel back in time to the wedding feast at Cana and test the contents of the water jars. He is able to confirm that they contain water.
But then gets distracted, 'cause Holy Shit! Is that Dionysius over there?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2009 1:20 PM
Gorogh @#324: "And of course Our Lady of Fatima. Conspicuously, never is there an alleged sceptic witnessing these incidents."
Of course, in the very wikipedia article to which you linked, there *is* mention of an alleged skeptic witnessing the miracle of the sun.
"Columnist Avelino de Almeida of O Século (Portugal's most influential newspaper, which was pro-government in policy and avowedly anti-clerical),[1] reported the following: "Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws - the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people.""
According to other internet sources (I haven't checked any of this extensively!) Almeida had published a satirical and skeptical article about the alleged miracles at Fatima just a few days earlier.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 11, 2009 1:20 PM
Piltdown Man,
You just described a scenario in which the scientist would have no reason not to continue being skeptical, as not only did he not see the "miracle" being performed, but has seen with his own eyes (from his own time) the most astonishing illusions and sleight of hand tricks – often done without the need for sophisticated, modern technology. And in any case, what you describe as a “miracle” was actually the misinterpretation of the event by some of Jesus’ followers who didn’t see him quickly (and innocently) exchange the urn of water with one filled with wine—prove me wrong.
Posted by: hithesh | May 11, 2009 1:22 PM
Stephen: "You appear to have confused this with your deep conviction that your imaginary friend exists and loves you. You might as well argue that because we give Christmas presents, Santa Claus must exist and have a palace at the North Pole."
Yes, one of my favorite equations. I don't have any deep conviction that a imaginary friend exists. There no big old bearded white dude in the sky here. God's love and the love one finds abound him are not two. Just as the slaves belief "In we shall overcome", or a Rev. Kings belief "in a way out of no way" and belief in God don't equal two.
If our common atheist where a bit more inquisitive they'd understand why this is so, the what it means when Eagleton claims that God is a condition of possibility.
The slaves belief, "in we shall overcome", Rev. Kings belief "in a way out of no way", is a belief in that which can make this possible.
I believe in the transformative power of love, it's ability to heal our condition, as the only means to overcome hate and indifference, the last remnant of hope and saving grace in the world. This beliefs and God don't equal two, because God is only that which can make this possible, compared to if we were to say a leprechaun, for which the belief would not just be "in that which makes this possible", but also in attributes unrelated to this, such as a belief in tiny sized men, who are of green color, wear funny hats, and place gold at the end of rainbows.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 1:22 PM
Godbots lack imagination, so they tend toward the same stupid arguments. They also put their hands over their ears so they will hear nothing against their idiocy.Posted by: Piltdown Man | May 11, 2009 1:23 PM
Sven DiMilo @ 424:
Okay, suppose he stays and witnesses the miracle. There is still no physical evidence that a miracle has occurred, that the waterpots formerly contained water. Even if our hypothetical scientist accepted that what he had witnessed was no conjuring trick and became a fervent follower of Jesus there and then, there would be nothing he could present to a sceptical colleague for analysis when he returned to his own time.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 11, 2009 1:24 PM
Weird. Scientist gets a time machine, and uses it to visit a Jewish wedding? If I had a time machine, I wouldn't waste it on something so trivial. I'd be going straight to the Cambrian.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 11, 2009 1:25 PM
"Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws ..."
Funny how this was not witnessed in the rest of the world. It must be the same type of event as the Sun stopping over one city but the rest of the world did not witness an extra long day.
Also funny how god can somethings violate all physical laws a handful of times, proving that it exists but cannot too often so us of us know. Oh, yeah, right, having faith in an authority figure is better then actually knowing a fact.
Posted by: James Sweet | May 11, 2009 1:28 PM
Hithesh -- if your definition of God is "that which makes it possible for slaves to become free," then yes, I believe in God. God is the end result of a long political struggle. Sure, I believe that exists. I would just probably use a different word for it, because that's an oddball definition of God...
Honestly, Hithesh, I think your problem is that you have not precisely defined a lot of the words you are using.
Posted by: Lynna | May 11, 2009 1:29 PM
James @431: ROTFL. I will probably steal "erotic epistemology" from you, just warning you.
I'm not sure the premise works, though. In #433 it was reported that "Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, ..."
A biblical aspect, even standing bare-headed could be construed as engaged in erotic coupling while also witnessing signs from god, god, oh god.
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 11, 2009 1:31 PM
God is peculiarly impotent to perform his magic under close and careful observation.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | May 11, 2009 1:31 PM
Nerd of Redhead @ 429:
God laughs at your tricorder.
James Sweet @ 431:
In a manner of speaking.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 1:32 PM
Wrong fraudbreath. If the jars were sampled prior to the miracle and after the miracle, showing the change from water to wine. That would be physical evidence.Your god either acts in the physical world doing miracles, and then we can find physical evidence for him, or he is a philosophical god who doesn't interact with world. Make up your mind which one he is and live with the consequences of that decision.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | May 11, 2009 1:34 PM
So, this deep in the thread, what we're getting from the usual suspects is the assertion that - firstly - the water-to-wine thing is more likely to be a genuine "miracle" than a trick (paging David Hume), and secondly - we should also expect that "real miracles" would leave absolutely zero evidence that would could use to distinguish it from sleight-of-hand.
We're also being told we should have some confidence that Fatima is a "real miracle," with the implicit assumption that a crowd of people STARING INTO THE SUN won't cause them to see anything weird or unusual, like - oh, I don't know - the Sun appearing to move around or wobble.
You guys are truly the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by: God | May 11, 2009 1:36 PM
So... just to clarify, you're saying that I am not a person at all, merely a hypothetical of hope?
I ask only for information.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 11, 2009 1:37 PM
In a manner of speaking.
By a time traveling Satan who has to work hard having sex with people in order to distract them from gaining true knowledge of god. Satan must be one tired bastard.
Posted by: Gorogh | May 11, 2009 1:39 PM
@Piltdown Man (#427),
I admit that it was more a rhethorical allusion to miracles witnessed by people already inclined to believe them, so I did not read the article fully. But you are right in this regard, that an alleged sceptic, Mr. de Almeida, seems to have been part in the witness, which diminishes my point of argument somewhat. Yet I may formulate the hypothesis that miracles are, in a statistically significant manner, witnessed more frequently by people without a uncompromisingly sceptical background.
That is, granted that Mr. de Almeida happens to be as impeccably sceptical and above suspicion of mass delusion as his the preliminary events and his affiliation to an "anti-clerical newspaper" suggest; and that Father John de Marchi's report is accurate on de Almeida's testimony.
Posted by: God | May 11, 2009 1:40 PM
I will be glad to smite you so as to demonstrate My existence -- but I will only do so when you don't expect it.
Oh, and stop looking at Me.
Posted by: Satan | May 11, 2009 1:42 PM
God laughs at your Eucharist.
Truth be told, God is rather easily amused.
Posted by: Gorogh | May 11, 2009 1:44 PM
Mhrmm I always expected god to write in capital letters... you know, like Pratchett's Death.
*still a little suspicious*
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 11, 2009 1:44 PM
Natural effects that would produce what was seem above Fátima (and by people some distance away) are known and understood. On the other hand stuff like this is the best argument I've seen for the supernatural - certainly worth more than all the Feagletosh theology in the world. What you had was some shepherd-kids claiming to have been told (by the mother of Jesus) to expect a miracle on given time and place, this being widely publicized and then something impressive and unlikely happening at specified point in space-time.
It's certainly not proof that the children's story was true, but it was at least evidence, in a Bayesian sense. If you count in all the publicized predictions of miracles through history where nothing happened and it was forgotten and also consider that things as impressive as occurred at Fátima have been faked by magicians (and that there was certainly motive to fake it) it isn't strong evidence; it shifts my level belief that a god can control the weather from "minuscule" to "very slightly less minuscule". Still, it's the best type of argument for God I've seen and the sophisticated theologians seem embarrassed of it. Very strange.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 11, 2009 1:44 PM
<heaping more praise on comment 235>
Not Māori. I just read the proverb somewhere. :-) German (native), English, French; 6 years of Latin at school; 4 years of Russian at school (which, especially 9 years afterwards, is not enough); way too little Mandarin*; I'm starting Spanish. Also, with French and Latin and some theoretical knowledge of linguistics (that is, how sound shifts work), I can read scientific articles in Spanish and Italian.
* The limiting factor is the writing system. If you don't sit down every day and write a line of every character you know, you forget all but the graphically simplest ones very quickly. Obviously, I don't have time for that, and that basically means I can't learn any more vocabulary. Sure, learning words without the characters is feasible, but in this day & age it wouldn't help much. In sum, I took a few beginners' courses, stopped, and forgot most of the characters I had known at one time or another. :-) And then, of course, you start forgetting the tones. Learning a tonal language, if you don't start very early, is, well, not trivial.
Take that, Firefox disciples!!!1!
I hereby confirm that Safari on Mac works fine. Probably it simply ignores the more complicated stuff, while Internet Explorer 7 for Windows tries to parse it and takes 10 seconds for it, overheating my laptop (the ventilator gears up like mad when I try to scroll down for the first time on a page).
Hmm. Interesting. Firefox 2.0.0.17 on the same Mac (a G5) appears to work fine. Apparently the ScienceBorg tried to implement some extra-complicated gadgets and did it wrong.
If it were wrong, would it be possible to find that out?
If yes, then it is scientific. If no, it's not.
Sounds like good news!
Good observation.
Even better observation :-)
My (highly limited) experience is: Windows doesn't let you do anything yourself (unless maybe if you're a Grand Master who dares messing with the Registry); Linux forces you to do everything yourself, and if you don't know how, you're out of luck.
Best wording of this so far.
Dude, if he starts banning people left and right for shits & giggles (imagine the wizard in Monty Python and the Holy Grail), do you really think the Seed Overlords will do anything about it?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 11, 2009 1:47 PM
Truth be told, God is rather easily amused.
Is god also easily distracted by bright shiny objects.
And Satan, how tiring is it to travel through time in order to have sex with people and thus, distracting them from witnessing god's miracle? Or do you claim that having sex with you is a miracle?
Posted by: Piltdown Man | May 11, 2009 1:48 PM
Nerd of Redhead @ 444:
Not to anyone who didn't witness the miracle. They would just be separate samples of water and wine. I would have to take the witness' word for it that they were extracted from the same body of liquid before and after a transformation.
Posted by: God | May 11, 2009 1:49 PM
It was funny for the first fifteen centuries. Now it's mostly only good for a slight chuckle, although I do admit to an occasional guffaw when they do something particularly baroque like put the silly thing in a monstrance.
Shush! Stop giving away My secrets!
Only I am allowed to do that.
Posted by: rubberduck | May 11, 2009 1:54 PM
Am I the only pilot in this forum ? I have actually SEEN these creatures in the air! And they are not dark as described, but rather whiteish and fluffy...
Posted by: ??? | May 11, 2009 1:55 PM
Dude, if he starts banning people left and right for shits & giggles (imagine the wizard in Monty Python and the Holy Grail), do you really think the Seed Overlords will do anything about it?
They would probably bring in Dick to the Dawk to the Ph.D. (smarter than you, got a science degree) to replace him.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 1:59 PM
Wrong again Fraudbreath. Scientists, unlike godbots like yourself who tell falsehoods right and left, try to be scrupulously honest in their professional work. This gives us a degree of trust. This allows us to trust, but we also verify where possible.We have verified you have lied several times. Hence, we don't trust anything you say.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 11, 2009 2:00 PM
I have been resisting it but I am not strong enough, I have to link to a song. GASP!
Fairies wear boots and you gotta believe me
Yeah I saw it, I saw it, I tell you no lies
Yeah fairies wear boots and you gotta believe me
I saw it, I saw it with my own two eyes
Posted by: Satan | May 11, 2009 2:02 PM
No, not really. "Sophisticated theologians" are psychologically invested in thinking they know all about what God is and what God does, and they are pretty much arguing from a conception of God as distant from reality, and uninvolved with humans. At most, they think of God as acting by slight and undetectable manipulations of physical events, much like a theistic evolutionist thinks of all of those tiny Divine mutations.
Something big and flashy and obvious is actually rather an embarrassment to them.
Posted by: God | May 11, 2009 2:05 PM
Why else would I do it?
Posted by: Tulse
|
May 11, 2009 2:11 PM
Ack! Don't do it, PZ -- one literal misstep and you could squash a key distant ancestor of humans, and leave our future populated only by large tentacled things.
Hey...wait just a minute here...
Posted by: God | May 11, 2009 2:13 PM
It depends on how bored I am.
Satan does not have sex. Nor do I. We are bodiless and immaterial entities.
Distracting people from seeing miracles is pretty much a matter of simply saying: "Look over there! It's the Wingéd Victory of Samothrace!". You would be surprised at how often that works.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 11, 2009 2:14 PM
Just… wow. For absolutely any topic of human knowledge, there seems to be an expert on it right here among the readership.
:-o
No. Instead, it's the case that you have failed to read comment 367.
To comment on a thread without having read all of it is evil.
Comment 415 for a start…
Oh, please. Making up definitions isn't the job of science. Definitions are arbitrary conventions! Nomenclature isn't science, however convenient for science it can be.
Finding out whether something conforms to a particular definition, that can be the job of science (wherever logic alone doesn't suffice).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 11, 2009 2:17 PM
Pfft. I'm no expert. I never watched wrestling.
However growing up where I did I heard about it a lot and it only took a brief visit to google to find out who was in the four horsemen.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 11, 2009 2:25 PM
Hethish, since whatever-it-is you call god isn't anything like, say, a biblical god, why do you call it god? What is a god, anyway?
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 11, 2009 2:32 PM
god @ 464
Hey god, why do you capitilize your name and give credence to your non-existence? You'll never catch me doing that, as I know the difference between what is real and what pretends to be real.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
May 11, 2009 2:35 PM
In other words (because your words are somewhat difficult to parse, it seems), you are one of those "God is love" fools? Claiming "God is only that which can make this possible" is a typical bit of nonsense from this crowd. As many people do, you seem to need something supernatural in your life, an imaginary father figure, and have latched onto love as the cubbyhole for this.
The rest of us have no need for a fatherly "love god", we have plenty of love in our lives without any assistance from Bronze Age mythology, thank you very much. To claim "God is love" is nothing more than a last, feeble attempt to make god relevant in your life, after every other meaning of god has been stripped away. The sooner you realize you don't need any gods to know love, the better off you will be.
Posted by: frog | May 11, 2009 2:35 PM
DM: The point is the principle of parsimony: We don't need to assume that elephants have ineffable wings. We have no reason whatsoever to assume that elephants have ineffable wings. So why assume that elephants have ineffable wings?
Very important point -- it has an actual physical analog. An indistinguishable difference is not a real difference but simply a convention. Or in other words, just bullshit (loosely paraphrasing old Bill James). The physical effect can be seen with superconductivity, where the physics depends on electrons being indistinguishable -- and therefore in no meaningful way different, and in a very meaningful way the same.
So if you add shit that makes no difference, in no way distinguishes the universe you're in from the simpler universe without your extra shit, all you're doing is wasting energy in an energy constrained world. Aka, you're a waste of breath.
Bateson -- information is a difference that makes a difference.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
May 11, 2009 2:36 PM
FastLane @377:
What it means is that, finally, I know who's responsible for the scripting of about 1/4 of my dreams, that's what it means. Whether or not drugs are involved, and whether Wowbagger is willing to share, are completely beside the point.
BTW, is anyone else finding Pharyngula to be unusually sluggish and slow to respond, these last few days, or is it just me?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 2:49 PM
The SB techs did some back-end upgrades last week. My experience today at work with XP and IE6 has been painful. My Mac at home, much less so, but still problems.Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 11, 2009 2:49 PM
Zeilinger goes so far as to equate information and reality. That seems to be nothing but a short summary of quantum physics…
Posted by: Batocchio
|
May 11, 2009 2:51 PM
Brilliant. Thanks very much.
Posted by: hithesh | May 11, 2009 2:54 PM
James: "I believe in God. God is the end result of a long political struggle. Sure, I believe that exists. I would just probably use a different word for it, because that's an oddball definition of God..."
But we're not talking about the end result see, but the conviction that led to struggle for the end result. The slave who sung we shall overcome didn't sing it because he had faith in politics, or any thing in his surrounding to find hope in. They had faith, not in things seen, but as Paul puts it: "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." When Rev. King believes in "a way out of no way" it's exactly as this.
These are all supernatural beliefs, in that they're not deduced from logic, they were no real reason for slaves to actually believe they would overcome. But the slaves believed regardless.
"Honestly, Hithesh, I think your problem is that you have not precisely defined a lot of the words you are using."
Let's try and break it down for you even further, let's take a fictive bob, he is a disbeliever until one day he prays and find that his prayer is answered, he witnessed that his dead wife has been raised from the dead, he gazed upon life and comes to believes there's an inherent sense of design to it (this is basis for his belief). Bob now believes in God, as most of us would if this held true for us as well. Notice the belief says nothing else about God, doesn't afford him any other attributes such as he resembles a leprechaun, a midget, and green colored. The only attribute of God is that which he made possible. God and the force that made these things possible are not two. Like if we were to believe that our house has been broken into, and our next door neighbor did it are two. If I were to believe my house was broken into, this means that i believe in something someforce that did this, but this doesn't imply that I'm giving specifics to this something beyond this, like this something is a black guy as well.
For the slave and Rev. King, what was being spoken about is Hope. Hope is an assumption that believes that what's hoped for will be realized. It's a belief in whatever force one believes can do so. If I have Hope, that I'd do well on the test, it's because of a faith in my studying that I can believe so.
For Rev. King and the slave spiritual, their hope is not of a natural variety, not from an evaluation of their circumstances, their potential political power, the weapons at their disposal, their hope isn't believed to be grounded in something seen, but rather unseen. There hope is not derived at by reason, or logic.
The faith lies not in reason, in the visible potentials of their circumstances, but in an unseen force which can make it possible, a belief in God. Whose attribute here doesn't lie beyond his ability to realize their hope.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
May 11, 2009 2:55 PM
I mean, seriously, it took me this long to be able to post again! That's following it up ASAP, with a running start and a favorable tail-wind!
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 11, 2009 2:58 PM
According to other internet sources (I haven't checked any of this extensively!) Almeida had published a satirical and skeptical article about the alleged miracles at Fatima just a few days earlier. - Anonymous
And supposing Almeida was secretly anti-government and pro-"miracle", isn't that just what he'd do? I'm not saying he did (much more likely he just got caught up in the mass hysteria), but either of these hypotheses is more credible than the (utterly pointless) "miracle" of making the sun appear to turn cartwheels. Big, fucking, deal. Why not something useful like, say, Mary appearing to the warring armies and commanding them to stop fighting? How many independent testimonies are there of the "miracle", taken immediately after the event i.e. soon enough to prevent contamination of the individual's perception and memory by talking to others in the crowd, or what appeared in the press? My guess would be - none.
Posted by: frog | May 11, 2009 3:04 PM
DM:Is platonic realism a scientific theory?
If it were wrong, would it be possible to find that out?
If yes, then it is scientific. If no, it's not.
Not exactly. A scientific theory requires consistency between data and theory -- but you also have mathematical theory, where internal consistency is sufficient. So you can have a theory that can be "wrong", yet not scientific.
I know you love pedantry.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 3:06 PM
One doesn't need a god for hope. One doesn't need faith in god for anything. Faith in god and a $1.35 will get you a bottle of water from the drink machine. My drink there costs $1.35. A god that exists only between peoples ears is a worthless bit of delusion that gets in the way of appreciating reality.Posted by: Holbach
|
May 11, 2009 3:11 PM
Hithesh @ 475
Seriously, there is no such thing as a god, but just what was thought of in the brains of humans. Come now, if you did not have a brain there would be no thought of a god. Now isn't that simple enough that even you can comprehend it? Heck, it's not your fault that there is no god, but it is your fault if you make one up and expect other morons to believe in the same crap as you do. Do a simple test. Cut your head off and see if you still have thougts of a god. Now if all those others who believe in the same thing and were to do as you did, there you have it; no more gods. It really is simple as that. Do you get the point? Get the crap out of your head and come to your freaking senses.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | May 11, 2009 3:15 PM
Nerd of Redhead @ 459:
Very good - you believe you have grounds for trusting someone's word.
You accept their testimony as authoritative.
Still no physical evidence.
+++
Satan @ 450:
Yeah, but why would I believe anyone called "Satan"?
Posted by: hithesh | May 11, 2009 3:20 PM
Nerd: "A god that exists only between peoples ears is a worthless bit of delusion that gets in the way of appreciating reality."
It's weird when the critics of religion, the godless type, engage in peddling superstition all the time, without ever noticing it, like PZ belief that the peddling of the image of a child gazing at the stars, will heal the world. Or you belief that there's something appreciative to all in reality. If your hungry, poor, and the verge of dying with no visible means to get out of this, does this mean that you have something to be appreciative for in reality?
Their mythical post-christian belief among atheist that runs rampant in these part, a repulsive version of redemption, than man is held back from something, from realizing his true glorious nature, he's held back from seeing life is so gloriously beautiful with it's ponds and houses made of gold. The only cure for such a sickness, is to accept atheism. If we realize the hope of no religion, only then can we reach Providence.
And you have the nerve to accuse me of believing in fairy tales? Perhaps it's time you peer more closely in the mirror.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 11, 2009 3:20 PM
hithesh, there are two big problems with your "God is We Shall Overcome" screed. The first big problem is that, if you equate "People have done things because they believed X" with "X exists", you've just validated the existence not of "God" but of _all_ gods and other ideals including the triumph of the proletariat _and_ the glorious Fourth Reich. Your second problem is that religion has regularly been trotted out to _justify slavery_ - it's Biblical! - so your identification of God with only the stuff you like is hypocritical.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2009 3:23 PM
If your hungry, poor, and the verge of dying with no visible means to get out of this, does this mean that you have something to be appreciative for in reality?
why not try it and see for yourself? Surely, after all material possessions are gone, you still have your faith, right?
Or is what you have really a bunch of projection and denial masquerading as faith?
you're a pathetic wanker.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 11, 2009 3:26 PM
@482: ponds and houses made of gold? Have you been smoking something?
Posted by: Rudy | May 11, 2009 3:28 PM
Step away from the Pharyng. for a few hours and the thread is so long I can't even catch up.
Anyway, if anybody is still interested in the "math" subthread, I agree with the poster who said that mathematicians are not unusually susceptible to religion, and didn't mean to give that impression. They *are*, however, way more susceptible than the average physicist. I've known math types of a great number of religious persuasions (including Mennonite), but nearly all physicists I've known have been non-religious.
That's anecdotal, but I saw a survey somewhere that backed up my impressions. (Biologists were somewhere in between).
Posted by: AdamK | May 11, 2009 3:29 PM
hithesh @ 482. I did what you said--looked in the mirror--and I still didn't see your strawman. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 11, 2009 3:30 PM
It's the same Atheism is a religion argument dressed up in baroque prose and dripping with condescending self image and still lacking in anything of substance.
Posted by: Satan | May 11, 2009 3:30 PM
Why would you believe anyone or anything? Are you a follower of Pyrrho?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 3:31 PM
Pilty the hoax. You have no idea of how science is run. A miracle can be shown with science with the proper controls. For example, many attempts to show paranormal phenomena lack proper controls, which if present, show paranormal to be bunk. But then, miracles don't exist except in the minds of the delude godbots like yourself. Your god either interacts with the world or he doesn't. Make up your mind and live with the consequences. Otherwise, you are fraud and con man.
Posted by: Cara | May 11, 2009 3:37 PM
Is there a word for someone who's arguing just to argue, like a teenager who's baiting her parents? Besides the word "Eric" or "troll", I mean. Someone who insists that the (so-called) argument hasn't been addressed because their interlocutor didn't stand on his head or say "Simon Says" first.
It's on the tip of my tongue.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2009 3:38 PM
"It's the same Atheism is a religion argument dressed up in baroque."
No I don't believe Atheism is a religion, but some atheist do treat their atheism as a religion, and this should be pretty obvious even to you.
I was an unbeliever for most of my adulthood, and I sure didn't treat my disbelief as a religion, as a sort of cure to peddle to humanity, to be evangelized, as a means for humanity to appreciate reality, or any other sort of similar tracts.
Posted by: Nusubito | May 11, 2009 3:39 PM
Says Piltdown Man
That is why experiments are controlled, and can be rerun. With a time machine, the scientist could go back and watch it again, but this time, he could coax Jesus into doing it in a vial, while being watched by a camera, with spectrophotometry ongoing. He could weigh the total solution, and see if Jesus was really summoning new matter into existence(ethanol, acetic acid, etc.) or just somehow converted the water's mass into something else. If you wanted to get really fancy, you could put Jesus into a fMRI machine and watch his brain patterns while it was happening. If he is supposedly doing this by thought alone, then there will be some kind of correspondence between his thoughts and what happens in the real world. Would this process result in the transformation of all water in contact with the transformed water? In other words, is it a chain reaction? Do Jesus' hands have to come in contact with the solution to be changed? In short, you could dissect a miracle into its component parts, and come up with an explanation for it.
Hell, we could check out Jesus' chromosomes, just to be sure, and see if he had 'magic' DNA, or just regular old human chromosomes, with all of their flaws, repeats and bullshit. We could do a paternity test, and blow the whole 'Mary and Joseph were just platonic lovers' BS out of the water.
When Jesus healed people, we would be able to rewind and watch the process over and over again. Is it instantaneous? Do the cells of the sick/blind/dead reorganize, change expression patterns, etc? If we agree that blindness and sickness are physical states, with physical causes, then whatever 'miracle' Jesus performed had to have been a physical solution.
Could Jesus get sick? We could inject viruses into his veins, and see if he had a superhuman immune response, or what exactly happened to the viruses in his blood. If we were unhappy with the results, we could culture his cells in vitro, to visualize it better.
You have a very limited conception of what scientists might think of to investigate reality. They are, to a person, very curious, and interested in knowing more. Contrast this with your idea of the scientist who, perfectly happy to remain ignorant, 'leaves the room' and tries to avoid learning. I know the theme of projection is brought up far too often here, but come on! Leaves?! The only person who might conceivably do this is one who was already certain they knew the outcome. That is, a *believer*.
If it affects the world, we can come up with models for how it works. Deal with it.
Posted by: CJO | May 11, 2009 3:40 PM
like PZ belief that the peddling of the image of a child gazing at the stars, will heal the world.
You're projecting again. PZ said nothing about "healing the world" and you won't find atheists talking about healing the world, because that's a religious concept that has no referent in physical reality. "The world" is an abstraction. It cannot be sick or injured; there is no objective standard by which we can assess whether a given act of "healing" has had any effect on it whatsoever.
Is there injustice, suffering, unreasoning cruelty and violence in the world? Yes. Are the myths invented about a Suffering Servant as god's annointed in the 1st century Eastern Mediterranean one way that a group of pious Jews tried to make sense of these harsh facts in the light of their own experience of them in their seemingly hopeless situation? Sure. Are they relevant to me? No, not any more than the Dream Time of native Australians is.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 11, 2009 3:41 PM
@492: I knew the earth was round for most of my adulthood, but I would never have dreamed of peddling the idea to anyone as an actual truth about the world; I had too much respect for the deeply held beliefs of flat-earthers.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 3:43 PM
Hithesh, you are a deluded fool. No evidence, no existence. Your god is fiction, and does nothing for the human condition, except in your deluded mind. You don't like being called deluded, then quit presenting your delusions here, and just go away. No one is stopping you from that action. Until you show phyical evidence for your imaginary deity, you are just another liar and bullshitter for Imaginary ObjectsTM.
Posted by: Walton | May 11, 2009 3:45 PM
Devil's advocate? Barrack-room lawyer?
Posted by: AdamK | May 11, 2009 3:51 PM
Perhaps you should wait until somebody actually does the thing you dislike before you start railing against it.
Or maybe take your pill and have a lie-down. I'm sure you'll feel much better.
Posted by: Stu
|
May 11, 2009 3:52 PM
but some atheist do treat their atheism as a religion
Only in statements you just made up, moron.
I was an unbeliever for most of my adulthood
99.9% chance of a Big Fat Lie, with rain during the evening.
and I sure didn't treat my disbelief as a religion, as a sort of cure to peddle to humanity, to be evangelized, as a means for humanity to appreciate reality, or any other sort of similar tracts.
Yes, exactly. Except not at all. Bald is not a hair color.
Do you really think that if you take 500 words to say "God is love" (but not really, something else, but the cause, the, *THUD* sorry, all rational people just fainted from sheer boredom) that people won't realize that that makes God a meaningless, superfluous, amorphous, untestable semi-intellectual reach-around for those smart enough to avoid organized religion but weak enough to still need their binky of meaning for their pitiful existence?
Really, you might want to drop the "atheism is a religion" crock. And comparing humans striving for freedom with any useful concept of a God is truly pathetic and shows you as weak and dumb as a sack of hammers. And that is not two. Nowhere in your thousands of words of verbal diarrhea have you even come close to even a meaningful, discussable definition of God. Start with that. Hop to it. Ten words or less.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
May 11, 2009 3:52 PM
No, some atheists (like myself) treat their atheism as politics, not religion. And rightfully so. Our primary issue is with those who use religion as a weapon of ignorance, hatred and violence. That's a political issue, and this should be pretty obvious even to you.
Posted by: Stanton | May 11, 2009 3:54 PM
What about chocolate rumballs or stuffed porkchops?Posted by: Knockgoats | May 11, 2009 4:03 PM
Stanton,
No, I don't think miracles exist in the minds of chocolate rumballs or stuffed porkchops ;-)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 11, 2009 4:23 PM
You can be hopeful, and even see your hope be realized, without god. I notice you compare the end of slavery and the success of the Civil Rights movement to the physical impossibility of resurrection of the dead. are you seriously saying that equal rights were a physical impossibility? are you really failing to see that equal rights were achieved by human struggle, not by magic?
or are you saying there's something magical about the feeling of hope in hopeless situations, in-and-of itself? because that strikes me as a somewhat ignorant position. after all, a species that's capable of remembering past suffering, imagining future suffering, and knows what death is would not be very viable, since every prolonged crisis with no change in sight would produce suicides too massive to sustain a population. hope, while probably not well understood at all, is an essential part of our survival instinct. or, to put differently, those who are irrationally optimistic about their future are more likely to survive long enough to have and raise children than those who rationally assess that their lives are shit and will likely always be shit.
and since humans like being able to explain things, and yet this "hope against all hope" seemed unexplainable for most of humanity's existence, magic led itself as a sensible explanation; and voila, the birth of religion. or, as a smart man once said: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions"
on the other hand, of course, religion has been often used to suppress the fight against suffering by focusing those hope on the afterlife ("pie in the sky when you die"), and thus has actually stalled the fulfillment of the hope for better lives.
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 11, 2009 4:24 PM
I have never regarded or treated my atheism as a religion. I resent religion even being mentioned in the same breath as atheism. To me, atheism represents the epitomy of rationalism, which is used to ascertain the non-existence of things that just don't exist and the brain's refusal to even consider the likelihood without proof. Religion is insanity and bullshit run amuck and which threatens all rational thought and behavior.
Posted by: Coriolis | May 11, 2009 4:31 PM
@ #486 Rudy - actually I remember looking at the number of nonbelievers at the NAS, and at least there biologists are even more atheist than physicists. But it's something like 96% vs 93% roughly speaking. Still it's one thing we physicists can't feel all superior about hehe. I'm guessing it's those quantum gravity/string theory people who are at least half-mathematician bringing us down.
On the other hand mathematicians were somewhere in the 75-ish% if I remember right. Way behind all the natural sciences.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
May 11, 2009 4:37 PM
A Libertarian...
Posted by: Rokcet Scientist | May 11, 2009 4:42 PM
Brilliant!
Posted by: Cara | May 11, 2009 4:53 PM
They had faith, not in things seen, but as Paul puts it: "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." When Rev. King believes in "a way out of no way" it's exactly as this.
I wonder if this is part of the problem for those who believe and are absolutely appalled by those who don't--the idea that since people sometimes feel the same thing at the same time there's some Magic Power that makes it so.
Hope for something better is a pretty constant part of the human condition. Why would we need a great conductor in the sky to create it?
Posted by: Cara | May 11, 2009 4:56 PM
Thank you, pdferguson.
Posted by: Thorn | May 11, 2009 5:02 PM
Classic engrish or something more? http://engrishfunny.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/engrish-funny-elephants-safety.jpg?w=500&h=375
Posted by: Monimonika | May 11, 2009 5:06 PM
Thorn,
That's at least the third time that link has appeared in this thread.
Posted by: Watchman | May 11, 2009 5:07 PM
Yes, but this hope can only be experienced by contemplating the torturous death of an alleged savior. Or so I am told.
(And told, and told, and told...)
Posted by: truthspeaker | May 11, 2009 5:26 PM
Yes, stories about hope and salvation can inspire people. But that's not religion, that's art. I'm inspired by narratives too, but I don't go around calling myself a Han Soloist.
Posted by: Appreciative | May 11, 2009 5:37 PM
It would make a great childrens book.
I love it. So beautiful a story.
Posted by: Rudy | May 11, 2009 5:39 PM
PZ, I agree we each have criteria for assessing "love", or "justice", or maybe "sinfulness" :) But there's a sense in which they don't exist as empirical phenomena, the way that evolution certainly does.
We couldn't find two people to agree on what criteria to use, though there would be a family resemblance between their views. There's no "Zero-th" law of love, or justice, similar to the Zero-th law of thermodynamics. Temperature exists, in the sense that we can get everybody to agree on how to measure it. Evolution is more abstract, but we can get rational people to agree (OK, you know better than me how fraught the "get" part is) on how it occurs and the evidence for it.
Derrida somewhere talks about the impossibility of justice, that any concrete judgment necessarily involves a compromise that destroys the ideal. Any number of country songs make the same point about love. We just don't see examples of pure justice that we can use as criteria, we see injustice, and compromise, and failure. And yet we still imagine justice as an (immaterial) ideal.
p.s. The Christian cliche is "God is Love". In Islam, God is also compassion, mercy, and 97 other nice things. Personally I don't care if people think about God, as long as they think about the 99 or 100 nice immaterial things, or at least a couple. I've always thought that a god that requires belief from us is pretty self-centered.
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 11, 2009 5:42 PM
Cara #508 wrote:
I think that's part of it, yes. Religious people are also encouraged to reify abstractions: Love, Hope, Liberty, Virtue, and Goodness are all supposed to be thought of as things which exist, even though you can't see or hold or touch them. God, then, is like that: it exists that way. It's all part of the same continuum.
If you approach values and ideals from this angle, then someone who doesn't believe there's a God (because He can't be seen or held or touched) will be considered conceptually backwards, a simple, primitive thinker who only believes in what's actually physically before them. That leaves the atheist with no ability to accept, access, or understand intangible things like Love, Hope, Liberty, and so forth. So emotionally-laden abstractions don't just have to come from a Magic Power; they're magic powers in themselves.
Of course, part of the problem people who value faith have with atheists is that they frame everything Good in terms of their faith, leaving suicidal despair as the default mode, "absent God." It's not just a problem with religion, though religion brings the tendency out. There are fanatics in all sorts of areas who can't imagine that anyone would or could have a normal, reasonable, enjoyable life without whatever the heck it is that "gives life meaning" -- for them, and therefore for everyone.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 11, 2009 5:55 PM
rudy, "justice" and "sinfulness" are man-made abstractions, so of course they don't exist anywhere outside the realm of human social interaction, the same way "religion" does. "god" is not an abstract concept that describes aspects of human interactions though; it's an anthromorphization of abstract concepts, and as such is not only man-made, but is also an unnecessary embellishment on existing phenomena
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 11, 2009 5:56 PM
Don't forget your snorkeling gear.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 11, 2009 6:08 PM
Wouldn't oxygen tanks be more appropriate?
Posted by: Rudy | May 11, 2009 6:15 PM
Jadehawk @ 517,
But that's begging the question. It's far from clear that they are "man-made abstractions", and don't exist outside human social interaction (does that mean we'll have whole new words we can't imagine yet, for our dealings with intelligent aliens? Ok, that'd be cool).
In the Abrahamic religions, at least, our dealings with each other mirror the idea relationship God has with us. (In trinitarian Christianity, and maybe analogously in some nominally polytheist religions, our relationships mirror God's with Herself).
Unnecessary embellishment? Well, what criterion would we use to establish that? If we get along for a few centuries without the idea, and things go ok... I think that your case would be established. If everything goes to hell :) would your idea be falsified?
Posted by: GMacs | May 11, 2009 6:22 PM
And you miss the point don't you. We speak of love in non-scientific terms all the time. If you wife were to ask you why you loved, and you expounded on the biology of it, she'd probably slap you.
I'm guessing someone married to a bio prof would be used to it. I know my girlfriend wouldn't get too pissed at me for talking like that. Actually, the biology of love is fascinating and, to me, more romantic and meaningful than "it's like the angels meant us to be together".
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2009 6:27 PM
Unnecessary embellishment? Well, what criterion would we use to establish that?
likely the same criterion one would use to determine that the entire idea of the abrahamic god was unnecessary to begin with.
Of course, hindsight being what it is, it's easy to say that now. Deistic/theistic imaginings are simply unnecessary to explain anything, nor are they actually required for any real social purpose (take countries/cultures that are largely absent of such drivel as examples).
However, who knows how fucked up this bunch of loonies were thousands of years ago that they might indeed have "needed" to invent this story for some sort of social or political cohesion at the time.
If we get along for a few centuries without the idea, and things go ok... I think that your case would be established.
consider that experiment to have been done several times in recorded history, most recently and notably in many Scandinavian countries.
so, it's established.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2009 6:30 PM
But that's begging the question.
funny, I don't see how the post you are referring to is using circular reasoning.
Posted by: Kel | May 11, 2009 6:33 PM
Why'd you get the scientist to leave the room? It's like letting Uri Geller choose his own cutlery.Posted by: frog | May 11, 2009 6:36 PM
Sastra: I think that's part of it, yes. Religious people are also encouraged to reify abstractions: Love, Hope, Liberty, Virtue, and Goodness are all supposed to be thought of as things which exist, even though you can't see or hold or touch them. God, then, is like that: it exists that way. It's all part of the same continuum.
I've noted that about certain kinds of political radicals, like Libertarians. They seem to me exactly like the most primitive kind of pagans, worshipping Love, Virtue, Freedom as deities of some kind, rather than as simple recognition of generalities.
It may be one reason why in old texts (including the Bible), they never translate the names of the people/entities -- which are almost always names of the sort. "The Power of God said to the Love of God so-and-so" or "The Father spoke to Love..." -- guess which traditions those are from?
It would make the reification too obvious. It's funny, because so many of these traditions ban reification, only to recreate it in new form.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 11, 2009 6:41 PM
If we get along for a few centuries without the idea, and things go ok... I think that your case would be established.
There was this thing called the Age of Enlightenment, mostly associated with its roots among the humanists during the Renaissance. Reason and logic has other applications apart from rationalizing Catholic dogma. Science, as an occupation and enterprise thrives in the absence of religious dogma.
NASA just launched a team of astronauts into orbit to repair the Hubble Space Telescope, whose Galilean predecessor priests refused to peer through. I'm rooting for the fruits of observation and empiricism, which trumps Ecclesiastical Eagletosh, a barren and backward enterprise.
Posted by: AdamK | May 11, 2009 6:46 PM
Suppose a scientist uses a time machine to go back to some random 1st-century wedding feast at Cana. He tests the water jars. They contain water.
He leaves the room.
Jesus, being a fictional character, does nothing.
Scientist goes back and tests the jars again. Yep, still water.
Based on his observations, the scientist has no comment whatsoever to make on what occurred.
Posted by: GMacs | May 11, 2009 6:48 PM
What's odd is you can profess to see the sawdust in the eyes of other, and fail to see the log in your own.Weird. Scientist gets a time machine, and uses it to visit a Jewish wedding?
Not that there is a log, but a log can be moved, or light may refract around it's edges. Sawdust in your eyes causes lots of fucking pain and sticks. It makes you jam your eyes shut and scream like an idiot if it's bad enough. It is more difficult to get it out of your eyes, and the process can be uncomfortable, but worth it.
Weird. Scientist gets a time machine, and uses it to visit a Jewish wedding?
You, Prof PZ, have not been keeping up with Family Guy.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 11, 2009 6:52 PM
no, the abstractions are definitely human-made. the underlying biological/evolutionary/etc. causes are not, but the abstractions are. similar to how "love" is a social abstract concept, but attraction to certain persons is based in our evolutionary development, brain chemistry etc.
I suppose we could say they're "intelligence-made" if we wanted to be inclusive of non-human intelligences, but this is fully hypothetical, since with a set of one it's really hard to figure out whether such concepts as "justice" are even particularly common to intelligence. conversely, if we encountered an alien intelligence similar enough to us to even make any kind of dealings possible, we'd most certainly have to make new words to describe their own abstract social concepts, as well as social concepts for the interaction with them. this has already happened with intercultural encounters; it can only get more drastic with inter-planetary ones.
you're confusing "unnecessary as an explanation" with "unnecessary as a tool". the Noble Lie can be useful, it's still not true though. "god" has proven to be quite the useful tool to a lot of people; but as an explanation or useful concept for things it is utterly useless, and thus unnecessary.
also, you seem to confuse the usefulness of society-building myths with the necessity of existence of gods
Posted by: GMacs | May 11, 2009 7:05 PM
...belief that the peddling of the image of a child gazing at the stars, will heal the world.
No, it won't "heal" the world. I happen to subscribe to a less marred version of this philosophy than the one you describe. The little boy won't heal the world in the same way avoiding fights doesn't heal a wound, if we're speaking in allegories and such. If more people are like curious, stargazing children, rather than bellicose, deranged thugs, the world may have a little chance to let the wound scab over and the bone to set.
...he's held back from seeing life is so gloriously beautiful with it's ponds and houses made of gold.
They're platinum and jade, ya fuck.
Posted by: Wowbagger,OM | May 11, 2009 7:16 PM
Piltdown, even if it was verified by a time-travelling scientist that Jesus did turn water into wine, how does that prove your god exists? It proves magic exists - why does that have to mean your specific god exists? There are a lot more links in that particular chain.
Posted by: ndt | May 11, 2009 7:25 PM
Rudy, it's abundantly clear that "justice" and "sinfulness" are man-made abstractions. "Justice", "good", and "evil" only have relevance to humans and only exist in the minds of humans. That doesn't degrade their importance, it only puts them in the proper perspective. The universe doesn't care if people suffer or are happy, if people love or hate. We certainly care, and those feelings, and the behaviors they inspire, are important to us. It's when we start to think they have meaning outside of humanity that we run into trouble.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 11, 2009 7:33 PM
Yawn. Yet another 'we accept abstractions; therefore the specific Christian god must exist' parrot. I really don't understand how one leads to the other; there's just too much space in between.
I'm new to the term, so I'll ask - would it be accurate to describe that reasoning as a 'category error'?
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 11, 2009 7:37 PM
@windy
Whatwhat? I forget which thread that was in, but we weren't trying to.
Sorry, my comment was way too obscure; I didn't mean to accuse you of anything. You certainly weren't making me the bad guy but David was, and I just gave a hint for understanding how -- it's about singling out one person for what many do. You said David's comment was about him understanding me where PZ doesn't, but David presented what he portrayed as PZ's thoughts, but they were David's own thoughts, a characterization of my posts in that thread, and it's that characterization that I objected to. But that's over and done with; I've got more important things to attend to.
Glad you're OK.
Thanks.
I have to ask, what is the woo capital of California? SF?
Ojai.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2009 7:41 PM
I've got more important things to attend to.
I'm on the other side of the Pacific now, but I did my undergrad at UCSB and have many fond memories of SB.
what's the current status?
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 11, 2009 7:56 PM
Ojai indeed. I saw Krishnamurti speak under the oaks at Ojai in the seventies. A good friend had an aunt who lived in and managed one of the big deal "retreats" up on the hill top there, so we got first class digs for the event. I liked seeing the big K in his shirtsleeves, bapping away at the acolytes who were asking, "Who is God" and getting only "Who needs to know?" in response. It's a beautiful setting, used in at least one of the filmed versions of Lost Horizons as a stand-in for the valley of Shangri-La.
California is woo-suffused. Esalen in Big Sur is full of it, there's a new book I'd like to get with poetry from Zen Center's Gary Snyder about circumambulating Mt. Tam as a spiritual practice. It isn't so much that woo originates anywhere, it's more like people bring it with them to various vortices of woo. Ojai, I suppose, is as close as CA gets to Glastonbury levels of woo, minus the cool concerts.
Posted by: CCW
|
May 11, 2009 8:00 PM
The Awe... it weights heavy on me, yet it give me wings, opens up my mind, and lets me see the wonders of the world, unclouded, in my own poetic sense, and not that was written in stone.
Posted by: Adam | May 11, 2009 8:23 PM
eagletosh is LEGALLY blind, maybe, but he can see shadowy outlines when he squints.
he saw the elephant's ears and thought they were wings. he doesn't know as much about elephants as the other men, sure, but he does know something they don't.
Posted by: Rudy | May 11, 2009 8:30 PM
Yes, "begging the question" was probably the wrong phrase. I just meant to point up that whether love, justice, etc. were man-made was at least partly the issue.
Ken, the Enlightenment was just as fully responsible for "racial science" (Kant viewed Africans as practically subhuman) as it was for views we think of as progressive, now. Early on, the only intellectual opposition to racialist theories came from theologians like Thomas Reid. (The innate superiority of one group, based on biological descent, was a new notion. Romans thought of themselves as superior, because of their civilization, but had no problem with an African emperor, as long as he was a Roman citizen.)
We can look back and say, well, they were obviously wrong, because we can track gene frequencies (a la Cavalli-Sforza) and see that there is no such thing as race. But this is a remedy for a disease that the Enlightenment caused. (I don't mean that ethnic hatred is new, of course. There is more than one disease in the book. Nationalism is a another new disease caused by the Enlightenment, one that we haven't found a cure for yet).
I have to add that the Enlightenment brought along new religious forms as well a new skepticism; George Fox and Pascal as well as Descartes and Spinoza.
One poster pointed to Scandinavia as an indication that we can do without religion. Well, it hasn't exactly been a couple of centuries, there, has it? :) If nanobots save us all from old age, we'll see whether Death Metal bands from Sweden destroy the planet...
I'm not sure how to fairly carry out the comparison though: if North Korea
As China gets more modern, affluent, and at least way more open than under Mao, it has also gotten considerably more religious, with Christianity growing extremely quickly. This isn't a counterexample of course, but maybe just a sign that religious attitudes are more uncoupled from social attitudes that anyone here including me, thinks.
No, the "existence" of abstractions isn't a proof of the existence of God. The original point was about the existence of "immaterial" entities. God may or may not exist in the same way. Google "weak ontology" for the most extreme theological view of this.
Mathematicians have agreed to sort of ignore problems about the existence of Platonic entities, but I have to disagree with the poster who thinks it is completely irrelevant to mathematical practice. It was just the issue that stopped Cantor's ideas dead for a while, and also was behind the constructivist critique of "standard" mathematics. (I'm not sure the status of this now, with categories giving a new view of the whole debate about foundations).
Posted by: Rudy | May 11, 2009 8:33 PM
Ack, my comment about N. Korea got chopped off because I used angle brackets in the sentence, I guess. I was just commenting that it's hard to compare, as Sweden and N. K. are both less religious than the US. So which one counts?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2009 8:36 PM
we'll see whether Death Metal bands from Sweden destroy the planet...
the rest of what you say is so generalized as to be fairly meaningless, but that statement reminded me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMRzEw1ErT0
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 11, 2009 8:45 PM
um... the one that's a democracy? you can't compare dictatorships with democracies and then talk about the effect of religiousness. (unless you're attempting to corelate how common each of the four possible combinations is). if you want to see effects of religiosity on a society, you have to chose subjects that are as close together as possible, to eliminate as many extraneous variables as possible.so: you can compare religious dictatorships to secular ones; and you can compare secular democracies to religious ones. and THEN see where that gets you. and the trend you get is that the less religious a society is, the healthier it is, with the exception of societies where religion is simply replaced with another totalitarian belief-system.
and this STILL deals with "god" as a tool, not an explanation. as an explanation for anything, it's still an unnecessary embellishment on reality.
Posted by: Rudy | May 11, 2009 8:56 PM
Jadehawk, your comparison seems reasonable. So you are saying that within groups, the less religious the better? Let's try that with
some dictatorships:
Cuba (more religion) vs. N. Korea (less): Cuba wins.
Mainland China (more) vs. N. Korea (less): China wins.
Burma (more religion) vs. N. Korea (less): hard to call.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 11, 2009 8:57 PM
On water to wine:
Since no reliable confirmable measurements were made, it is foolish to believe that such an event occurred.
If such measurements were made, scientists would offer hypotheses to explain them ... e.g., Jesus used sleight of hand. "A miracle happened" is equivalent to "I don't know how" and thus is not a candidate hypothesis.
We could conceivably allow "a miracle happened" if we had a theory of miracles that carefully characterizes miracles and provides guidelines for what sorts of miracles occur under what circumstances with what frequency; like all scientific theories, this would be predictive and could be falsified if the evidence doesn't fit the predictions. The absence of a causal mechanism for miracles would not be a stopper because scientific theories often precede the determination of a mechanism.
Even given such a theory of miracles, "miracles are caused by god" would not be a valid inference, any more than "quantum mechanics is caused by god" -- "goddidit" is equivalent to "I don't know how" and thus is not a candidate mechanism.
Posted by: Caryn | May 11, 2009 9:02 PM
"A god that exists only between peoples ears is a worthless bit of delusion that gets in the way of appreciating reality." It's weird when the critics of religion, the godless type, engage in peddling superstition all the time, without ever noticing it, like PZ belief that the peddling of the image of a child gazing at the stars, will heal the world. Or you belief that there's something appreciative to all in reality.
Careful; you're equivocating. There's a difference between "appreciating reality" in the sense of *recognizing* reality accurately, or as accurately as possible (and Nerd of Redhead's point is that this is much easier in the absence of superstitious beliefs about reality), and "appreciating reality" in the sense of *having a positive opinion of* reality.
(posted all wack for busted blockquotes)
Posted by: Rudy | May 11, 2009 9:06 PM
Oops, I meant to add a tendentious democratic matchup:
Canada (more) vs. Japan (less): hard to call.
Posted by: GMacs | May 11, 2009 9:12 PM
Cuba (more religion) vs. N. Korea (less): Cuba wins.
Mainland China (more)...
This is interesting, because most religious folk call China non-religious (which is pretty true) and say that they are oppressive against the religious (yeah, the Cultural Revolution was overkill, but that's because the destruction of history is always shitty). Now you try to say they are religious?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 9:13 PM
Rudy, North Korea has a religion, with their political leader at the godhead. False comparison.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 11, 2009 9:15 PM
Ojai indeed. I saw Krishnamurti speak under the oaks at Ojai in the seventies.
I like Krishnamurti. He gets a bad rap for "infecting" David Bohm with "Spirituality"; although, I don’t know how much there is to that. And it's true, he wasn't a scientist and he often talked in flowery language, and he often gets hijacked shamelessly by New Agers whose views are actually contrary to his, but he understood the underlying nature of religion and belief and the desire for belief quite well, and he expressed his views eloquently. Reading him was a real eye-opener for me when I was young, and afterwards there was no way I could ever go back to belonging to a religion—of any kind. To this day he is one of the few people who really makes sense to me in certain areas of thinking, and he was far deeper than he is often given credit for. He said things like this:
I agree with him.
Posted by: hithesh | May 11, 2009 9:16 PM
Hithesh, you are a deluded fool.[...] You don't like being called deluded, then quit presenting your delusions here, and just go away.
Nerdy i don't really care what you call me, it doesn't even offend me, i get a chuckle out of it. It's like guy on the other forum, who called me an awkward kid with no friends. I'm guessing if the allegation were true, or if they had some basis in reality, or if they were a sore spot, than I guess it would mean something.
To me it sounds like, Ken Ham calling Richard Dawkins an idiot because he accepts evolution.
Your brand of RRS like Atheism, that goes around calling the Dostoevskies, the Reinhold Niebhlur, the Rev. Kings, the Desmond Tutus, the Nelson Mandela of the world delusional, doesn't really get too far, and most reflective people (atheist and theist alike) look upon you guys not much differently than the fundies you so despise.
No one takes u that seriously dude, except a few choir boys, that when you go around calling people deluded doesn't really amount to much at all. So you might as well just can it, you've already spent several post pointing out that you believe I'm deluded already. We got that point already. Would you like a cookie for that?
Posted by: Kmuzu | May 11, 2009 9:17 PM
Is there no beauty in elephant poop? My artichoke plant would disagree.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 11, 2009 9:17 PM
Rudy,
your comparisons at 543 are completely nonsensical.What criteria do you use to decide who "wins" or "loses" ?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 11, 2009 9:17 PM
Rudy, IIRC, North Korea isn't religious in the sense that its people follow a religion like Christianity or Hinduism - but don't they treat their leader like some sort of deity? It's not 'religion' per se, but it's significantly different from China or Cuba and can't really be compared the way you're comparing them.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 11, 2009 9:22 PM
But that's begging the question. It's far from clear that they are "man-made abstractions", and don't exist outside human social interaction (does that mean we'll have whole new words we can't imagine yet, for our dealings with intelligent aliens? Ok, that'd be cool).
You might as well say that it's far from clear that shaking hands doesn't exist outside of human social interaction because there might be intelligent aliens that shake hands. The point is that the meaning and significance of humans shaking hands -- as with human concepts of justice, sinfulness, love, etc. -- flows from humans and their institutions, not from external agents like "god". To attribute these human concepts to external agents, or even to suggest that it isn't clear that they shouldn't be attributed to external agents, is to commit a major category mistake -- a misapplication of attributes to something that isn't of the sort to have those attributes. (I contend that all Platonism involves a category mistake, including mathematical Platonism, which attributes "existence" to deductive derivations from axioms.)
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 11, 2009 9:23 PM
If North Korea and Cuba are religious,then the communist==atheist crowd is in real trouble !
LOL
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 9:26 PM
Don't worry hithesh, you will remain deluded until you show physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Evidence, what separates the men from the boys, and the rational from the deluded. You just picked the wrong side of the evidence.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 11, 2009 9:29 PM
splendid. you've just proved that in communist dictatorships, when their power isn't absolute(i.e. they have to share with religion), the situation can be usually try to purge it: it gives them more control
now, just to be fair, let's mix and match this a bit more, since you simply picked NK from the bottom of the barrel and compared everything else to it.
Mainland China vs. Cuba: more religious wins
Burma vs. China: less religious wins
Burma vs. Cuba: less religious wins
now, if you throw Vietnam with it's 85% of secular buddhists into the mix, which has a better quality of life than all of the above except cuba, what you get is 5 wins for more religion, one draw, and six wins for less religion
and if we actually bothered to do this right, included all communist dictatorships and some accurate, or at least verifiable measures for both religiosity and quality of life, we might get a different result yet. cherrypicking your datapoints is not cool.
also, why have you picked communist dictatorships specifically?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2009 9:35 PM
shorter hittesh @550:
blah blah blah... argumentum ad populum, argument from authority, blah blah blahitty blah-blah.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 9:41 PM
Your are right Ichthyic, godbots like Hithesh talk a lot, but remove the vapid illogical arguments, and there is nothing there.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 11, 2009 9:44 PM
er... first sentence was supposed to include "the situation is usually marginally less bad because they have to share, which explains why they..."
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 11, 2009 9:48 PM
I like Krishnamurti.... he often gets hijacked shamelessly by New Agers whose views are actually contrary to his
Quite. From Wikipedia: "He claimed allegiance to no nationality, caste, religion, or philosophy". He completely rejected the idea of gurus and spiritual leaders: "All authority of any kind, especially in the field of thought and understanding, is the most destructive, evil thing. Leaders destroy the followers and followers destroy the leaders. You have to be your own teacher and your own disciple. You have to question everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary."
Posted by: hithesh | May 11, 2009 9:53 PM
Cara: "Hope for something better is a pretty constant part of the human condition. Why would we need a great conductor in the sky to create it?"
Who said anything about needing a great conductor in the sky to create it? I wish individuals spent a little more time carefully reading. First of all I'm not making a case for God, or making a claim such as since such hope exists, there is a god. I'm providing a psychological analysis of the belief, one that I would make no differently if i was an atheist.
Secondly, just because certain beliefs are a pretty constant part of the human condition, that doesn't mean that some of these beliefs are not absurd. Self-deception in certain animals has an evolutionary advantage doesn't make self-deception any less irrational. Hope in hopelessness may have had a tremendous affect on humanity, but it's still absurd.
"the idea that since people sometimes feel the same thing at the same time there's some Magic Power that makes it so."
What are you talking about?
Let's break what's been into even more basic blocks, in hopes that individuals here can finally comprehend what's being said.
When we have hope, it mean that we faith in the eventual realization of that hope. We have faith in whatever force of power can bring that hope into realization. A non-absurd hope, is one that we have reasons for, it involves a faith in something in reality, such as soldiers, the government, family, friends.
Hope in hopelessness such as the hope of slaves, is an absurdity, a superstition, it has no basis in reality, it has no reasons for it, no evidence in support of it to convince anyone to believe. The slaves don't have faith, in the physical strength and will of their fellow slaves, or faith in grand white saviors, or in politics. It doesn't involve any sort of faith in reality, reality has only given them reasons to be hopeless.
But just as any other sense of hope, it involves a belief in force or power that can bring their hope into realization. But for slaves this is unseen, a grand mystery, it's a faith in power transcendent to reality, since reality itself doesn't do it. And the name given for this empowering is God.
Hope is not a belief contained in itself, it involves other conditions of possibility, to have hope, implies we have faith it what can bring it to realization. The slaves hope in hopeless, his spiritual hymn, and belief in God don't equal two, it's a unifying part of that belief, an inseparable notion of it, as if they are one and the same thing.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 9:58 PM
hithesh, hope doesn't need god. We keep telling you that. Learn something. Otherwise, you just sound like a delusional fool.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | May 11, 2009 9:59 PM
What the hell? How come we only get the worst sort of second hand christian here?
Where are the True Christians , the ones that know humans are made by gawd, in gawds image? The ones that believe GOD walked and talked with Adam and Eve in the garden?
What a bunch of back peddling, bed wetting sissies.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 11, 2009 10:00 PM
Let's break what's been into even more basic blocks, in hopes that individuals here can finally comprehend what's being said.
For that to happen, you would have to learn to write (and think) coherently.
Posted by: Wowbagger,OM | May 11, 2009 10:04 PM
hithest wrote:
Maybe the problem isn't with the reader but the writer. Perhaps you should focus more on coherence and actually making points rather than writing wafty twaddle like this:
'Hope is not a belief contained in itself, it involves other conditions of possibility, to have hope, implies we have faith it what can bring it to realization. The slaves hope in hopeless, his spiritual hymn, and belief in God don't equal two, it's a unifying part of that belief, an inseparable notion of it, as if they are one and the same thing.'
I've gone over this a few times and I still can't make it make sense - and your odd comma usage isn't helping.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 11, 2009 10:05 PM
Yep, that's classic Krishnamurti. He always did make me smile.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2009 10:13 PM
I'm providing a psychological analysis of the belief, one that I would make no differently if i was an atheist.
you have a strange understanding of what "psychological analysis" means, then.
I would lean towards describing your posts as more "personal opinions for the justifications of belief" instead.
When we have hope, it mean that we faith in the eventual realization of that hope.
this, right after describing self-delusion as "absurd".
if you want to make this statement coherent, you need to remove "faith" and substitute "evidence".
because otherwise, faith without evidence is self-delusion.
It doesn't involve any sort of faith in reality, reality has only given them reasons to be hopeless.
it's a ludicrous example, but OK, let's run with this. Then by that logic, there should be no religions at all, unless they are all based on self-delusion.
funny, but isn't that essentially what's already been said by others here to you?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2009 10:23 PM
Ichthyic: "if you want to make this statement coherent, you need to remove "faith" and substitute "evidence".
Please, i know atheist get quite sensitive when the "f" word gets passed around, not allowing it to be applied in it's common usage, as we would in saying I have faith in my wife or my child, or faith in scientific hypothesis. You can have faith with or without evidence, i.e. "i have faith that assumption made by the evidence is right."
I suggest you go back and reply again with this in mind.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 11, 2009 10:30 PM
does not compute.
Main Entry:
1faith Listen to the pronunciation of 1faith
Pronunciation:
\ˈfāth\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural faiths Listen to the pronunciation of faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology:
Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date:
13th century
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonyms see belief
— on faith
: without question
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 11, 2009 10:39 PM
if you want to make this statement coherent you need to remove "faith" and substitute "evidence".
I don't think that helps (in fact it would make it even more incoherent). Even if we make his statement coherent by adding the missing letter ("s") and word ("have"), it remains false: when we hope for something, We do not have "faith", or even an expectation, that it will occur. "I hope that X" means approximately "X is possible and I desire X". Consider: "I hope my friend's house didn't burn down", "I hope the economy improves", I hope my favorite team wins" ... these have nothing to do with faith, expectation, or evidence; they express a preference for one outcome over others.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 11, 2009 10:47 PM
I suggest you go back and reply again with this in mind.
I suggest that everyone recognize how fruitless it is to debate with someone so muddled in his thought processes and so poor at communicating them.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2009 10:49 PM
faith |fāθ|
noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians.
• a strongly held belief or theory : the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.
Are scientist incapable of suggesting a hypothesis they have complete trust in confidence in, that it would be proven right? Faith only conveys how confident we are about an expected result, and it can just as easily be applied to a scientific hypothesis.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 11, 2009 10:51 PM
because otherwise, faith without evidence is self-delusion.
If one takes "faith" to mean "trust", it would be not just delusional but incredibly foolish to trust without evidence (there's a word for that, but it's not in the dictionary).
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 11, 2009 10:54 PM
Ohhh,not this one again !!!
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 11, 2009 10:55 PM
Are scientist incapable of suggesting a hypothesis they have complete trust in confidence in, that it would be proven right? Faith only conveys how confident we are about an expected result, and it can just as easily be applied to a scientific hypothesis.
The degree of confidence is a function of the strength of evidence that supports the hypothesis. But the only scientists who have complete confidence are stupid and incompetent.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 11, 2009 10:56 PM
you fail at understanding how science works. for one, the whole point of hypotheses is that scientists aren't supposed to have such blind confidence in their own ideas. and two, science doesn't "prove" things; it either disproves things, or provides evidence for things.Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2009 10:58 PM
Posted by: nothing's sacred:
"I suggest that everyone recognize how fruitless it is to debate with someone so muddled in his thought processes and so poor at communicating them."
Well, you ever think the problem is not that my thoughts are muddled, but rather you're just too stupid to comprehend it? You, like a creationist go around calling ever argument made for evolution muddled, rather than asking questions to help clarify their confusion. This says more about you than it does about me.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 11, 2009 10:59 PM
P.S. Why would anyone have complete confidence that a hypothesis will be proven right if it hasn't been proven right? Anyone who does that is bad at science.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 11, 2009 11:02 PM
Well, you ever think the problem is not that my thoughts are muddled, but rather you're just too stupid to comprehend it?
I have thought of that, but it's obviously false.
You, like a creationist go around calling ever argument made for evolution muddled
Uh, no, I only called yours muddled, as it obviously is.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 11, 2009 11:05 PM
I suggest that everyone recognize how fruitless it is to debate with someone so muddled in his thought processes and so poor at communicating them.
And here I've gone ahead and done it myself, sigh. Goodbye to this thread.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 11:13 PM
No Hithesh, your writing is vague incoherent, rambling, and nonsensical. The problem isn't with us, but with you. Those who think so vaguely tend be delusional, and you keep proving you are with every post. You have no real idea of how science is done. I am a 30+ year practitioner of science, so I know of what I speak.Since you can't coherently state your ideas, get some sleep and try again tomorrow. But I suspect you will have the same problem then.
Posted by: hithesh | May 11, 2009 11:15 PM
Jade: "and two, science doesn't "prove" things; it either disproves things, or provides evidence for things."
You're right science doesn't "prove" anything, I should have replaced it with "shown to be right".
"you fail at understanding how science works. for one, the whole point of hypotheses is that scientists aren't supposed to have such blind confidence in their own ideas."
Who said a hypothesis is based on blind confidence? The hypothesis itself in based on some degree of evidence, some sort of observance or what else, that serves as the reason for why the hypothesis was made in the first place. I can be quite confident that when further testing and analysis is done, that my hypothesis will turn out right, and there's nothing that prohibit a scientist from having such confidence in their assumptions like that. Or anything inherently wrong about this.
And just become I have a complete trust that an assumption of mine will turn out right, doesn't mean that I have an absolute confidence in it. Having complete confidence, doesn't mean that if my assumption turns out wrong, that I'm incapable of accepting it.
I'm sure you understand that every hypothesis a scientist makes is not treated with the same degree of confidence, they might be less confident about some of them, and more confident about other ones.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2009 11:16 PM
wait, before you go, what's happening in SB?
It's hard to get much detail over here.
Posted by: Kagato
|
May 11, 2009 11:18 PM
See, if every time you try and explain something, every single person who responds has misunderstood you, that usually means you are failing to communicate.
Take a step back, gather your scattered thoughts, and give us a single paragraph -- a couple of sentences, no more than 5 or 6 lines worth -- to clearly and succinctly explain whatever the hell it is you're trying to get across.
Don't go for flowery prose. Don't phrase it as a mangled reply to someone else, let your comment stand on its own for once. And for chrissake don't bring mention the bloody child-staring-at-the-stars crap again; if you can't say something meaningful independent of that, you probably don't have anything worth hearing.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 11, 2009 11:22 PM
are you having problems with English comprehension, too? "having blind confidence in X" != "X is based on blind confidence"
as a the point is not to have such great confidence even in ideas for which there's some evidence, before those ideas have even been tested.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | May 11, 2009 11:24 PM
What?
I have 50 years as a True Bible Believing christian, and even I can't understand this hithesh character.
Damn Dollar Store trolls. *snort*
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 11, 2009 11:26 PM
Hithesh, still no physical evidence for your god. Science is all about evidence. Put up evidence (no talk, something physical), or just shut up about it. Welcome to science. And those who can't put up but can't shut up are delusional fools.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 11, 2009 11:29 PM
wait, before you go, what's happening in SB?
See http://www.countyofsb.org/ceo/dept0.aspx
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2009 11:32 PM
You're right science doesn't "prove" anything, I should have replaced it with "shown to be right".
that's not the function of science, either.
hypotheses are tested for problems, not for confirmation.
It's my job as a scientist, after constructing an hypothesis, to construct experiments designed to try and tear it down, not build it up.
We don't use "shown to be right", instead we say "supported by experiment until it isn't".
As a person, I can say that some things have been tested by experiment and prediction to such an extent that it's simply no longer plausible to think they will be rejected entirely by any new information.
However, as a scientist I say things like "the current theory of evolution is supported by the fact that it has survived tens of thousands of attempts to reject it, and has accurate predictive value"
Who said a hypothesis is based on blind confidence?
nobody except you. You seem to have misread what you responded to.
I can be quite confident that when further testing and analysis is done, that my hypothesis will turn out right, and there's nothing that prohibit a scientist from having such confidence in their assumptions like that. Or anything inherently wrong about this.
the problem comes when you apply "confidence" as "faith" and suggest that there is nothing wrong with confidence based on no evidence whatsoever.
In fact, I think you will find that a scientist's personal confidence in the outcome of any given experiment is based on a LOT of already known information.
it's not faith, it's more of a probability estimate based on already known information.
NOT the same thing at all.
I've grown weary of your conflation and misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of terms and definitions as you ramble ever onwards.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 11, 2009 11:36 PM
And just become I have a complete trust that an assumption of mine will turn out right, doesn't mean that I have an absolute confidence in it.
Muddle.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 11, 2009 11:37 PM
No, the problem really is that your thoughts are muddled; that's perfectly clear. Embrace coherence just a little and we might actually be able to work out what you're saying and respond to it.
Posted by: hithesh | May 11, 2009 11:43 PM
Nerdy: "No Hithesh, your writing is vague incoherent, rambling, and nonsensical. The problem isn't with us, but with you. Those who think so vaguely tend be delusional, and you keep proving you are with every post. "
Well, buddy I've been on forums long enough to know how rare few individuals accuse me of being incoherent. But when ever we're anaylzing or expounding on a complex phenemonem such as religion, you're not going to get any sort of cookie cutter, easy to chew explanation. You're not going to find that "sesame street" shit here.
I'm sure when you read humanist Pyscholonalyst Erich Fromm "Psychonalaysis and Religion, you'd be far more muddled by it, if my break down of Fromm's argument here puzzles you.
But I want to test this. Here's summary of Fromm's work, by an atheist who does understand it:
"Human beings, lacking the power to act at the behest of instincts alone while possessing the capacity for self-consciousness, reason and imagination, require a frame of orientation, a world-view and object of deviation in order to survive and unfold their potentialities.
Without a structured and coherent map of our natural and social world, human beings, according to Fromm, would be confused and unable to act purposefully and consistently, because there would be no framework for orienting oneself, of finding a fixed point that allows one to organize all the impressions that impinge on the individual.
....Religion is one of those maps or frames of orientation created by humans, and despite its several weakness, fulfils its psychological function.
[...] we lack total instinctive determination of our behaviour, and we have a complex brain that permits us to think of many directions we can take.
Consequently, we require an object of devotion a focal point for the convergence of all our strivings and the fulcrum of our emotional and rational values.
As Fromm maintains “we need such an object of devotion, in order to integrate our energies in one direction, to transcend our isolated existence with all its doubts and insecurities, and to answer our need for a meaning to life.”"
Do you understand this? Is it muddled to you? Is it a bunch of goobly-gook? If you can comprehend it, and expound on what's being said coherently, than we might actually be able to have an intelligent conversation, rather than one that resorts to childish name calling.
"I am a 30+ year practitioner of science, so I know of what I speak."
Haha, well i doubt your 30+ years of science makes you anymore of an expert on religion, than it does on politics, or art, of whatever else have you.
And i tend to agree with Chomsky here:
"On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide. In fact they are often the worst guide, because they often tend to focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world."
And scientist such as PZ Myers, Dawkins, Sam Harris, sure do help endorse this view.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 11, 2009 11:51 PM
Saying that your thinking is muddled is not "childish namecalling"; it isn't even about you, really, but rather about the claims you're making. That Chomsky quote, OTOH, is 100% ad hominem.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 11, 2009 11:54 PM
He's not your buddy, friend.
Anyway, I'm guessing it's because they ignore you, preferring not to wade through the textual equivalent of molasses to bother finding anything to engage with.
Either that, or the forums you frequent are dominated by people with a similar penchant for content-free waffling and are too afraid to admit it for fear of having their own rambling drivel skipped over.
Posted by: Tulse
|
May 11, 2009 11:55 PM
So does fascism. The point isn't that religion provides a "frame" or "map", but that such map is wrong -- it doesn't actually reflect the real world. A map that is wrong is worse than useless, as it can lead to terrible errors (such as driving off the road or the Crusades).
Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 12:02 AM
"In fact, I think you will find that a scientist's personal confidence in the outcome of any given experiment is based on a LOT of already known information."
I can tell you what I believe the problem is here, you believe that faith means a belief without evidence. But I haven't used faith with that implication. The gripe some one took with my use of faith in previous post, was a use of faith, no different than saying I have faith in my wife.
"it's not faith, it's more of a probability estimate based on already known information.
NOT the same thing at all."
Let's try this:
faith |fāθ|
noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something
Can a scientist have a complete trust in a belief "based on probability estimates and already known information."?
Posted by: chgo_liz | May 12, 2009 12:10 AM
Thank you, PZ...thank you, thank you.
I didn't have the time to read all the comments, but I made the time. This has been a stellar thread.
All the talk of Fatima & Cana, etc. made me wonder: what if the stories that were incorporated into the Christian Bible were once the Onion articles of their time?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 12, 2009 12:17 AM
he could, but he wouldn't be a very good scientist if he did. please note that complete trust/confidence is misplaced in science.Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 12:17 AM
"And just become I have a complete trust that an assumption of mine will turn out right, doesn't mean that I have an absolute confidence in it."
Posted by: nothing's sacred | May 11, 2009 11:36 PM
"Muddle."
Let's see:
Absolute confidence in something being right: It's going to be right, there's no way it can be wrong, no evidence can arise to reveal that it's wrong. My wife didn't cheat on me no matter what anybody says.
Complete Confidence: I'm pretty confident that my assumption is going to be right. i believe it's unlikely that further analysis is going to reveal my assumption to be wrong. But in the unlikely hood that evidence comes in contrary to my assumption, I can accept that my assumption was wrong. I have faith my wife didn't cheat on me, I'm completely confident that she didn't, but if you have solid evidence, and reason to doubt that she's faithful I can accept it that perhaps she did cheat on me.
If it's still muddled than God help you.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 12, 2009 12:19 AM
A scientist can read the relevant journal articles and research and - significantly - perform the same experiment themselves. The trust a scientist has for other scientiest is based, at least in part, on them all following the same procedures to reach their conclusions.
If one scientists makes claims that other scientists can't follow and replicate, those claims are thrown out.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 12, 2009 12:24 AM
lol... #600 actually reminds me of how DnD ranks sizes... because of COURSE colossal is bigger than gargantuan. :-p
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 12, 2009 12:29 AM
quoted for awesomeness of garbling. and because now I want an unlikely hood (that, too, sounds like something form DnD)Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 12:33 AM
"he could, but he wouldn't be a very good scientist if he did. please note that complete trust/confidence is misplaced in science."
Only if complete trust means 100% certainty right? If it means less than that, then it doesn't say much about if he's a good scientist or not?
Do you have anything in your life you would say you have faith in, like faith in your wife, or children, or fellow human beings? Do you have faith that your wife is not cheating on you, or that your best friend isn't an ax-murder? If so, are you a 100% certain of this?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 12, 2009 12:37 AM
lol, yes. I have "faith" that my best friend isn't an axe-murderer. exactly the same "faith" that all the best friends of actual axe-murderers had before being proven wrong.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 12, 2009 12:40 AM
Yes, you unhinged twit. In this context the word 'complete' means 100% - to everyone other than you at least.
Newsflash: just because you want words to mean certain things doesn't mean they do. If you can't argue your points beyond prattling on about whether 'complete' can mean the same as 'absolute' then you're wasting your time and ours.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 12:44 AM
"quoted for awesomeness of garbling. and because now I want an unlikely hood."
:)
Oh shit, instead of "unlikelihood" i wrote "unlikely hood" and it was so fucking garbled, that our 30+ year scientist couldn't figure that shit out.
If that kind of shit bat shit confuses you, no wonder you have comprehension issues.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 12, 2009 12:45 AM
now he's confusing me with Nerd?
dude, stop talking, you're making it worse.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 12:50 AM
Complete Confidence: I'm pretty confident that my assumption is going to be right.
I'm pretty confident that you're an idiot.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 12, 2009 12:54 AM
Sometimes, it is too much fun to just sit back and watch the regulars vivisection a troll.
Can't even tell the deference between Jadehawk and Nerd. This muddled and garbled thinking and communicating is such great low comedy.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 12:54 AM
Another possibility is that he's drunk off his ass. That would explain why he can only occasionally remember to enter his name. But even if he is drunk off his ass, I'm still pretty confident that he's an idiot.
Posted by: Wowbagger,OM | May 12, 2009 12:56 AM
I know I always get confused by shit bat shit :)
Seriously, dude, don't huff and blog. It's hilarious for us, but I'm of the opinion you can't really afford to lose any more brain function.
Damn, I can't stop giggling at that gem.
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 1:02 AM
@#607 - "unlikelihood" would still be garbled, at least grammatically. "Unlikely event" makes sense there, but you really need to respond to #606 - when used as an unqualified adverb, "complete" is a perfect synonym to "absolute". The accusations of incoherence leveled at you are perfectly justified, because your use of English is demonstrably incorrect. If you cannot use the language properly, it is absolutely, completely your fault that your thoughts are not understood by your audience.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 12, 2009 1:03 AM
All of a sudden, I want to figure out how I can shit bat shit while wearing my unlikely hood. I have faith that I can do it.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 1:06 AM
dude, stop talking, you're making it worse.
Yup. His moronic claim that "complete trust" is not only different from "absolute confidence" but is the same as "pretty confident" takes him even further from his point, which was some strawman about whether scientists have "faith" ... an equivocation, a word play on faith as trust (which is usually based on evidence) and faith as unfounded belief.
Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 1:13 AM
"Yes, you unhinged twit. In this context the word 'complete' means 100% - to everyone other than you at least[....]If you can't argue your points beyond prattling on about whether 'complete' can mean the same as 'absolute' then you're wasting your time and ours."
No, you fucking moron. Do a google news search for "complete trust". In our everyday usage we don't use the term literally, to mean we are 100% certain. In everyday usage we imply it to mean the entirety of one's trust (the most trust I am willing to give).
In a claim such as "I have complete trust that my wife won't cheat on me," what's not meant by this is that I'm 100% certain that she won't, that there's not even a infidecimial chance that she won't. That no evidence can ever be presented to make me belief otherwise. If "complete trust" was used in such a strict fashion as you purpose, than it would hardly ever be applied to anything.
All these sentences in the google news search, would be absurd:
"I have complete trust in the America that voted Obama "
"She was known in the campaign for her ability to resolve conflicts and for having Obama's complete trust. "
"Ruta says investors need to be actively engaged in their money management even when they have complete trust in their advisers."
Posted by: Kagato
|
May 12, 2009 1:15 AM
#593:
No, no, no. One paragraph, remember? Short and sweet.
Tell you what, let's make it even simpler -- summarise whatever your position is in one sentence. Make a bald assertion, you don't even need to support it (we can always follow up). Just make it specific.
But no, so far instead you've quoted a vague snippet of someone else rather than just stating your position:
I was originally going to say "no, just vapid and meaningless", but now that I read it again... yeah, some of it really is gobbledy-gook. I mean, "focal point for the convergence of all our strivings and the fulcrum of our emotional and rational values"? Come on.
Read that last sentence of Fromm's again.
To paraphrase: "People need to focus on something they feel gives them meaning, because it makes them feel better and answers their need for meaning". He's just begging the question.
Regarding "Religion is one of those maps or frames of orientation [that] fulfils its psychological function":
I could draw you a map to Candy Mountain, and while it might comfort you to know that (if you could just figure out how to read it) the map can guide you to the "Mecca of love", it's still complete bollocks. It's not "guiding" you in any meaningful sense; you still don't know where you're going, you've just stopped thinking about it.
So, is that your point -- Religion guides us, somehow? Well, maybe not guide per se, but at least it gives us meaning? Okay, not meaning meaning, but it makes people feel nice?
And is therefore necessary?
...
As for your later comments:
Protip: "complete" and "absolute" are synonyms.
If you mean "pretty confident", then why say "completely confident"?
And you're sure no-one has trouble understanding you on other forums...?
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 1:16 AM
... vivisection a troll. Can't even tell the deference ...
Caution: your keyboard appears to have been taken over by a spell checker.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 12, 2009 1:19 AM
infidecimial
Is that an attempt at coining a word? If Google points to it, it'll be here first.
So, is that a lot, or a little? I mean, context is usually a guide, but I'm afraid I don't have a lot of trust in my capacity to glean intent based on what I've read so far.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 1:19 AM
No, you fucking moron. Do a google news search for "complete trust". In our everyday usage we don't use the term literally, to mean we are 100% certain. In everyday usage we imply it to mean the entirety of one's trust (the most trust I am willing to give).
entirety = 100%, MORON.
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 1:29 AM
@#616 Stop with the gormless equivocation. If you do a google news search for "absolute trust" you get results that are semantically equivalent to those given by a search for "complete trust". Aside from some very specific technical contexts, complete and absolute both mean the same damn thing.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 12, 2009 1:30 AM
vivisection a troll. Can't even tell the deference
Is there a vas deferens between trolls before and after they've been vivisected?
Posted by: Grendels Dad
|
May 12, 2009 1:33 AM
I don't think the scientist needs to leave the room between testing the water/wine. In the South Park episode Jesus just asked everyone to "turn around for a second."
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 12, 2009 1:34 AM
i see; this is merely another case of a moron not understanding that colloquial and incorrect use of words does not magically make those words actually conform to the misapplied meaning.
if I hiss at my boyfriend that he never does the dishes, and actually mean that he does them too rarely for my taste, that doesn't suddenly mean that "never" is synonymous to "rarely"; it merely means I'm using hyperbole for dramatic effect.
"absolute/complete trust" is used the same in social context; science is not a social context, so your ramblings and equivocations about "faith" "complete trust" and "absolute confidence" are completely and utterly misplaced.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 1:34 AM
"when used as an unqualified adverb, "complete" is a perfect synonym to "absolute".
You're right, but this is not how we use it when we refer to terms such as "complete trust" or "complete confidence". You can clearly see this from our everyday usage of the term, that this is not what's being implied, that we're not speaking in absolute terms.
If the extent of my confidence is "pretty confident", or if I am only willing to afford at the most 99% certainty towards anything, whatever I afford this extent of trust to, get's my complete trust. It's not inconsistent of me to give my absolute trust to anything, and yet give my complete trust to something. Because complete trust in our everyday usage means the entirety of one's trust, not that the entirety is absolute.
It's not rocket science here, we speak of having faith (complete trust) in our children, in our wives, in our government, even to certain ideals, but we rarely if ever mean this to be an absolute sort of trust, in infallible, can never be proven otherwise sort of way.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 12, 2009 1:37 AM
Hithesh, I wouldn't say you're incoherent, and you may not often be accused of being so, but that may tell us more about fora you habitually frequent than it does about the quality of your prose. Some of your paragraphs are cogent, while others are so poorly written the meaning is difficult to apprehend, and prompt me to wonder to myself (and not for the first time) whether English might not be your native tongue. No offense meant.
The Chomsky quote is ludicrous in this context. It's true in the only sense that it can be true: Science doesn't have much to tell us about how to live our daily lives. I can eat a meal, open a door, and conduct a relationship without having to know the physics and biology of it all. But so what? As Nothing Sacred said, the quote is pure ad hom. The same criticism could be leveled at some meaningful proportion of people in any number of professions and vocations, the clergy not least of all. Consider how most American Catholics ignore virtually everything the Pope has to say. Why? Because this great moral leader of billions is so hopelessly out of touch with reality, it would be foolish, even reckless, to follow his instructions.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 1:42 AM
Look, idiot, competent scientists do not have "complete trust", whether that is 100%, or 99%, or any other of your alleged "everyday usage" in their hypotheses, unless they already have overwhelming evidence in support of it. So just STFU, because you're too boring and stupid for this place and you have no friends, supporters, or anyone whom you're going to sway.
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 1:49 AM
@#625 No, you don't get to use the hard literal context for "absolute" as opposed to the social, hyperbolic context for "complete" without some very specific signaling that you are changing contexts. In post #583, the phrases "complete confidence" and "absolute confidence" are semantically identical despite your attempt to contrast them. That is why people are correctly accusing you of incoherent use of the language.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 1:52 AM
@Kseniya
hithesh wrote in #562
Let's break what's been into even more basic blocks, in hopes that individuals here can finally comprehend what's being said.
And I responded
For that to happen, you would have to learn to write (and think) coherently.
Take a look at his "even more basic blocks" in #562 and see if maybe I didn't have a point.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 1:54 AM
i see; this is merely another case of a moron not understanding that colloquial and incorrect use of words does not magically make those words actually conform to the misapplied meaning.
I asked you to clarify how you were applying the term. If you were using "complete" trust in meaning of it everyday usage which it seems you are well now is not affording 100% certainty, or in a stricter form for where it does. I didn't tell you had to apply the term this way or the other, i asked you to clarify how you were applying it.
So you tell me whose the moron that didn't understand the question?
Regardless I'm done arguing about "complete trust", I made my case that the term "complete trust" in our every day usage does not imply 100% certainty, you seem to agree with this, so I don't know what else is left to argue here?
Posted by: Kagato
|
May 12, 2009 1:55 AM
Holy crap, that is possibly the most ridiculous sentence I've yet read in the Pharyngula comments (and there has been some stiff competition). Is there a font even more goofy than Comic Sans?
You're trying to defend the indefensible. If someone says "I have complete confidence in Bob", or says "I have absolute confidence in Bob", they're saying the same thing. In colloquial use like that, no one ever means it literally. Get over it.
Stop, take deep breath, and start again.
In a single sentence, what are you actually trying to tell us?
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 1:58 AM
@#630 In everyday usage, the term "absolute trust" does not imply 100% certainty either. It is equivalent to the term "complete trust" in both the hard literal sense AND the everyday, colloquial sense. There's nothing left to argue, all that's left is for you to admit that your communication abilities are at best, imprecise.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 2:00 AM
In post #583, the phrases "complete confidence" and "absolute confidence" are semantically identical despite your attempt to contrast them.
And his justification for this contrast is a complete non sequitur:
Neither "complete trust", "absolute confidence", nor "complete confidence" in any way implies that one is incapable of accepting that one was wrong.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 12, 2009 2:02 AM
See http://www.countyofsb.org/ceo/dept0.aspx
thanks, that's the ticket.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 2:05 AM
@Anonymous/hithesh/troll/moron
I'm done
One can only hope (without confidence or faith).
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 12, 2009 2:08 AM
Because complete trust in our everyday usage means the entirety of one's trust, not that the entirety is absolute.
that one goes in my WTF?? file.
thanks, though it seems to be getting a little full of late.
for my last turn at this game, I'll guess that the writer is trying to create some sort of artificial qualitative vs. quantitative distinction between "entirety" and "absolute". Haven't a clue which is intended to be which.
conclusion: the person who wrote that line likes to reinvent words for fun and to waste time.
nice job trolling the thread, though.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 12, 2009 2:10 AM
n.s.:
Oh, I'm totally with you on that one. It was eerily similar to #435, in which he also lays out some unusual arithmetic involving God, belief(s), and the number two.
Posted by: Grendels Dad
|
May 12, 2009 2:13 AM
I don’t know why this guy has been called a discount troll. I mean, come on. He obfuscates, he equivocates, he prevaricates…
If this guy had any more features RonCo would be selling him for $19.99.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 12, 2009 2:15 AM
(The intent of my my prior comment was to say that he's not completely, absolutely, or entirely incoherent.)
*smirk*
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 2:30 AM
It was eerily similar to #435, in which he also lays out some unusual arithmetic involving God, belief(s), and the number two.
What I got from that is that he thinks that hoping to achieve political change is irrational because the only thing that can make that happen is "God", which is unconditional love. In addition to the incoherence, there is the denial of the hard work that it took to end slavery (especially since he apparently includes all of Jim Crow and institutional racism in that term). In #562 he contrasts such "absurd" hope with "A non-absurd hope, is one that we have reasons for, it involves a faith in something in reality, such as soldiers, the government, family, friends" -- as if none of those had anything to do with ending slavery/institutional racism. Compared to those posts, hithesh's comments about the entirety of complete but not absolute or 100% trust are the model of clarity.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 12, 2009 2:39 AM
It is even worse than that, this is what happens when a poor speller uses spell check.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 12, 2009 2:40 AM
No, incoherent-loon-of-many-names, please don't go! You're providing us all with no end of entertainment. I'm almost certain I've never read anything more unintentionally funny than your line about the confusing power of 'shit bat shit'.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 3:15 AM
"You're trying to defend the indefensible. If someone says "I have complete confidence in Bob", or says "I have absolute confidence in Bob", they're saying the same thing. In colloquial use like that, no one ever means it literally. Get over it."
You're right. I erroneously treated "complete confidence" in it's colloquial use, and didn't take into consideration that "absolute confidence" is used in the same way, that there's really no distinction between the two terms, in that they both can be used in a formal and informal manner, while I erroneously tried to distinguish one as formal and the other as informal.
good shit :)
Posted by: Kagato
|
May 12, 2009 3:17 AM
Hey now, be fair. The really good bat shit isn't nearly as confusing.
I must say, his approach would probably be an awesome trolling technique in real life at parties. Walk up to a group having a conversation (could be about anything, it doesn't matter) and whine at them "No, no noooo... you've got it all wrong, YOU'RE DOING IT ALL WRONG!". Latch onto some random comment from someone and harp on it at intervals, but otherwise be as incomprehensible as possible. Throw in the occasional relevant word or two to keep people hooked in.
I doubt I could come up with enough gibberish material, or keep a straight face for very long though.
Posted by: Rosberry | May 12, 2009 3:22 AM
@HiTesh. You wrote:
I can see no reason for making a semantic difference between “absolute” confidence and “complete” confidence. Absolute means total and something is only complete if there is nothing missing. If you allow room for possible error then, by definition, your confidence is not complete. In other words, both of these terms means 100% confidence.
All the non-exact sciences (mathematics is the only exact science with chemistry following closely behind) there is a degree of uncertainty about every finding. Our results are reported in levels and degrees of certainty based on the mathematics of chance.
To give you some relevant examples:
On the basis of what I know about my husband’s whereabouts during the day I estimate that there less than one chance in 50 that my husband is cheating on me right now (that’s a confidence level of 98%).
On the basis of what I have read of your writing I think that there is less than one change in 100 that you have an education which includes biological, physical or statistical sciences at International Bacchelaureate level of higher (that’s a confidence level of 99%) and even less that you have mastered the elements of psycho-metrics or critical thinking.
Please note that in neither case can I say that I am absolutely or completely (=100%) confident. There is the rare possibility that my husband is sneaking out of the house for 3am sex with another woman. There is a remote possibility that you have an American Bachelor level degree with a major in statistics but have forgotten the lot due to carbon monoxide poisoning or near drowning.
From my perspective as a psychologist, Fromm's illustrative paradigm is a "bunch of goobly-gook". Fromm was a theoretical psycho-anlyst, not an empirical psychologist. His theories are untestable and unfalsifiable which makes them the equivalent of religious doctrine, not science. In terms of PZ's parable, he is painting elephant wings in the air.
@PZMyers:
It surprises me that no-one has yet recognized that Eagletosh was uttering prophecy, not talking about events which can be experienced in the "now". The man was obviously possessed of sufficient vision to predict that gene manipulation will progress to the point where elephants will join pigs in the air.
Posted by: Kagato
|
May 12, 2009 3:24 AM
Great! Glad we got that cleared up.
Now... you were saying?
(As an aside, I can reliably guess when you're posting -- about 2 minutes before me, while I'm typing. This message is hopefully short enough to break that pattern...)
Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 3:32 AM
"A non-absurd hope, is one that we have reasons for, it involves a faith in something in reality, such as soldiers, the government, family, friends" -- as if none of those had anything to do with ending slavery/institutional racism. "
No, they all had an influence in ending slavery, but none of them were the reasons for a slaves hope in his eventual freedom.
I can be hopeful that one day the meek shall inherent the earth, the poor will be fed, there will be no more war, that people would turn their tools of destruction into tools of cultivation (swords beaten into plow shares). That the Jew and the Arab will one day sit at a table and break bread together.
Can you see why such a hope is absurd? Nothing about reality conveys that this form of life is possible, in fact reality seems to suggest other wise. That'd I'd have a better chance of winning the lottery seven day consecutively than having this sort of hope realized.
When we have no reason, no evidence, no basis in reality for hope, our hope is absurd.
It doesn't matter if somewhere down the line, what I hope fore miraculously comes to fruition, at the time I held it, it was no less absurd
The hope of many slaves was not much different that this sort of absurdity.
AM i still be confusing for you? If so show me what needs even more clarification
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 3:59 AM
@#643 - Thank you. Now that that's cleared up, we can go back to #583 with some hope of communicating clearly. With respect to the following statement:
"I'm sure you understand that every hypothesis a scientist makes is not treated with the same degree of confidence, they might be less confident about some of them, and more confident about other ones."
"confidence", as you are using it here, cannot correctly be applied directly to a hypothesis. A hypothesis is provisionally -assumed to be true-, and a prediction is made based on the assumed truth of the given hypothesis. An experiment is then performed to determine if the prediction was correct. If the experimental results invalidate the prediction, the hypothesis is discarded. If the outcome of the experiment corresponds to the prediction, then the hypothesis is retained.
Now, a scientist (as a human being) will obviously have some expectation as to what the outcome of a given experiment will be, and this is what "confidence", in the sense that you are using it, applies to. This confidence in an expected result has even quite probably aided in the selection of a useful hypothesis, i.e. one that provides the opportunity for experiments that will expand the scientist's knowledge about the world. However - and this is a big however, btw - this "confidence" has absolutely no bearing on or relevance to the validity of the hypothesis. Only the actual results of experiment can provide any confidence in the validity of hypothesis in the scientific sense, never the scientist's expectations or "confidence" in his predictions of experimental outcomes.
When you've demonstrated that you understand this distinction, perhaps we can clear up your conflation of two exclusive definitions of "faith". If that goes well, then we can maybe, possibly, discuss whatever the hell it is you mean by "hope".
Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 3:59 AM
"His theories are untestable and unfalsifiable which makes them the equivalent of religious doctrine, not science. In terms of PZ's parable, he is painting elephant wings in the air."
Ah, so you're comparing Erich Fromm to the Eagletosh character? If so, how do you distinguish Eagletosh, from writer such as Dostoevsky, or Thomas Mann who reflect and expound on the human condition in their own mediums?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 12, 2009 4:09 AM
did you seriously just attempt to compare art to science and say that if we don't accept unsupported speculation in the latter, that we shouldn't accept it in the former...?
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 4:17 AM
@#647 - Never mind, I get it now. What you're describing is a -wish-. Have you considered the possibility that people just sometimes want impossible things, or things that at the time are assumed to be impossible? No god is required for this desire to occur, nor does this desire itself necessarily equate to god.
@#649 - I don't make any distinction. Dostoevsky and Mann primarily wrote fiction. God and elephant wings are also simply fiction. Of course, some fiction is better art than other fiction, but that's entirely beside the point.
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 4:19 AM
@#647 - Never mind, I get it now. What you're describing is a -wish-. Have you considered the possibility that people just sometimes want impossible things, or things that at the time are assumed to be impossible? No god is required for this desire to occur, nor does this desire itself necessarily equate to god.
@#649 - I don't make any distinction. Dostoevsky and Mann primarily wrote fiction. Similarly, god and elephant wings are fiction. Of course, some fiction is better art than other fiction, but that's entirely beside the point.
Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 4:20 AM
Twin "If that goes well, then we can maybe, possibly, discuss whatever the hell it is you mean by "hope"."
Well, I believe I'm using hope in the normal sense of the word, the only notion of it I'm excluding, is when we say things like I hope the underdog team wins tomorrow, or I hope i became a billionaire. These are notions of hope with out any real faith in what I hope for coming true at all.
Compared to say I have hope, or I'm hopeful, meaning that I do have faith in what I hope for coming true, or being realized.
The other distinction that I made was between absurd hope, and non-absurd hope.
Reality can present us with promising conditions, hopes based on these conditions are not absurd-- Hope in hopeful conditions. If we have such hopes, we can give the reasons for them, what evidence and such leads us to be hopeful.
Reality can also present us with unpromising conditions, hopes based on these conditions are absurd--Hope in hopeless conditions. This sort of hope, has no reason for it, no evidence that lead us to be hopeful, nothing in reality to believe in that can make it happen.
"When you've demonstrated that you understand this distinction, perhaps we can clear up your conflation of two exclusive definitions of "faith".
I'm not sure what you mean here?
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 4:22 AM
@#647 - Never mind, I get it now. What you're describing is a -wish-. Have you considered the possibility that people just sometimes want impossible things, or things that at the time are assumed to be impossible? No god is required for this desire to occur, nor does this desire itself necessarily equate to god.
@#649 - I don't make any distinction. Dostoevsky and Mann primarily wrote fiction. Similarly, god and elephant wings are fiction. Of course, some fiction is better art than other fiction, but that's entirely beside the point.
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 4:49 AM
Erk, sorry for the double post. As long as I'm here, the two definitions of faith that you've conflated are:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof
These are (mostly) exclusive - #1 implies some evidence to support the confidence or trust, whereas #2 specifies that there is no evidence. You've used "faith" literally dozens of times in this thread, sometimes to mean 1, sometimes to mean 2, and you've resisted others' attempts to draw a distinction between these contradictory definitions for the sake of simple clarity.
W/r/t absurd hope, or hopeless hope, the very apogee of such a thing in the human heart is REGRET, the wish or hope that things could have been other than what they were. Wanting the past to change is the epitome, model and prototype of the phenomenon you describe, and the past never changes. Therefore, the god you posit is shown to be reliably impotent where and when it counts most - meaning that, for all human purposes, it does not exist, does not matter.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 4:57 AM
Twin: "Never mind, I get it now. What you're describing is a -wish-. Have you considered the possibility that people just sometimes want impossible things, or things that at the time are assumed to be impossible?"
People can want all sorts of impossible things, I want a lambroghini to fall out of the skys, but i'm not hopeful that one will though.
We can all desire all sorts of ends, like world piece, and yet be fairly sure that it's never gonna happen.
Now, let's just exclude the God belief for now. The distinction between wishing something and be hopeful about something is this: Both want a desirable end, only hopeful (or saying you have hope) implies that you believe that such an end will come about.
The slave singing a hymn claiming that he'll be free, is not only expressing his desire for a freedom, but his belief that he will eventually be freed. A wish to be free, doesn't include the later.
Do you understand this better now?
"No god is required for this desire to occur, nor does this desire itself necessarily equate to god."
Well, I'll leave the god question on the side line for now, until we're somewhat on the same page, as to what it being implied by being hopeful.
Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 5:08 AM
tiny " Wanting the past to change is the epitome, model and prototype of the phenomenon you describe, and the past never changes. "
No, again, I think the last post should have clarified this, I made it a point in my other post to exclude the use of hope in the sense that you're replying. In the way I'd tell her gf I just broken up with, that "I really hoped that things would have worked out differently." As an expression of regret for the past, or as a wish.
I'm speaking of hope, as in hopeful, where it's forward looking, a faith in a change in the future of a present condition, is not regret dwelling, but optimistic.
Posted by: Kel | May 12, 2009 5:22 AM
That's just silly. Faith adds nothing to hope beyond a validation of a delusion. Faith is a nothing mental condition, and it's the beliefs validated by faith that give people hope. If someone believes in God, it isn't the faith that gives them hope but the belief in God. Faith adds nothing to the human condition, so your whole point about faith giving hope is one huge red herring.Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 5:31 AM
@#656 Okay, Let's review:
A) A person strongly desires outcome "X"
B) To the extent of their knowledge, outcome "X" is absurdly unlikely or even outright impossible.
C) However, they have faith that outcome "X" will obtain, either in the absence of evidence to support said faith or even in spite of strong evidence indicating that outcome "X" cannot happen.
Right so far? I hope so.
Now, at any time there are three possible eventualities with respect to outcome "X".
1) Outcome "X" happens.
This merely demonstrates that the person with the absurd or hopeless hope was wrong about the likelihood of outcome "X", or in other words - the hope was never absurd or hopeless, they merely thought that it was.
2) Events progress to the point where Outcome "X" can never obtain, e.g., the person has the hopeless hope that their child will recover from an incurable terminal illness and then the kid dies.
This merely demonstrates that faith without evidence can be easily misplaced, and that the person was wrong in their belief that outcome "X" would obtain.
3) Outcome "X" has not yet obtained, yet has not been definitively eliminated as a possibility.
In this case, we simply haven't waited long enough - but we can be assured that we'll hit 1) or 2) if we do. This is usually the gap that god is stuffed into by Christian theology, especially w/r/t eschatology - as an aside, I can tell you that the vast majority of adherents to such beliefs would take serious offense to categorizing the resurrection of the dead on Judgment day as an absurd or hopeless hope - they see it as a promised hope, and absolute certainty. However, even if we don't have time to wait and we want to keep hoping, the very fact that we cannot definitively eliminate the possibility that outcome "X" will obtain means that B) is not true! We know that "X" is merely very unlikely, not impossible, because we're not at result 2)!
Sorry man, there's no room for god in this argument. I looked everywhere.
Posted by: ZMW | May 12, 2009 5:34 AM
"People can want all sorts of impossible things, I want a lambroghini to fall out of the skys, but i'm not hopeful that one will though."
You are confusing hope with expectation. I am capable of hoping something will happen without expecting that it will.
"I'm speaking of hope, as in hopeful, where it's forward looking, a faith in a change in the future of a present condition, is not regret dwelling, but optimistic."
Could you be more incoherent? How does your quibbling on semantics help your case? What is your case in the first place?
The closest thing I can see to an argument in your posts is that belief in god is warranted because people sometimes think things will change even if they have no evidence for that belief. Not that you back this up or explain it in any way.
You also seem to think that scientist reach conclusions the same way- by being really confident or something. I really don't know. You make my head hurt.
Please explain what exactly you believe in and state the reasons that support that belief.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 12, 2009 5:36 AM
When will hithesh/anonymous grasp that _wishing for things does not make them true_? It's a simple concept that many five-year-olds can cope with but some adults seem to get stuck on.
Posted by: Kel | May 12, 2009 5:55 AM
Belief in the healing powers of homoeopathy may give someone a hope that they can beat terminal cancer, while someone who is on the latest knowledge of cutting edge medicine would not have that hope. But so what? Homoeopathy is still complete garbage even if it does give people hope. Same goes for a belief in God, it may be that because they believe in a universe where magic happens (known to them as a miracle) they have hope for the impossible. It doesn't make God any more or any less true.
And by taking this approach, one must concede that it's not even faith in God that gives hope, it's a belief in anything that promises the miraculous. What do people need religion for when there are a million other things out there that fill that same gap? It's conceding a belief in belief, and doesn't make the case for God (or homoeopathy) in the slightest. No evidence for your God = delusion.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | May 12, 2009 6:07 AM
Can we please get a Hithesh-to-English dictionary?
I have to go with pretty much everyone here and say that your thoughts are muddled. Maybe the thoughts in your head make some sort of sense in there, but after they have been typed out they don't.
Honestly, when you write something like:
can you understand why people have trouble reading you?
Even when we try and break things down to agree on basic terms you remain baffling. "Absolute confidence" is taken literally but "Complete Confidence" isn't?
Now you say :
No, no one uses those terms like that. Have you ever heard phrases like "I hope you die in a fire" or "I hope I win the lottery"? Did you really think that when people say "I hope X" they always, or even most of time, believe X will happen?
Please take some courses in linguistics or statistics or any courses in the sciences. Anything to develop your critical thinking and communications skills.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 12, 2009 6:16 AM
That's backwards. Windows wins because the people who write the software you use only support it. And they will continue to do so until their customers demand otherwise.
Ah, inertia.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 12, 2009 6:21 AM
Wins a prize for stupidest comment.On this thread,anyway.
Posted by: Kel | May 12, 2009 6:22 AM
True, but to deprive myself of the software I use for some hypothetical software support in the future is just plain silly. While I feed the system, there simply is no other way around it.Posted by: Kel | May 12, 2009 6:44 AM
It was an honest reflection of the reality of the situation. I've used linux before and even now on Windows I still use a lot of open source software that runs on different platforms. Hell, even for development I use a unix emulator on my PC. But quite simply I play too many games that run on Windows-only, that ties me to the operating system. Because in the end, what matters when you use a computer is what you can do with it. I would prefer to use linux, but there isn't the software support to be a gamer under linux. So before you say it's a stupid comment, consider what role an operating system plays with the software above it. The software I use is only supported on Windows so because of that I use Windows, pure and simple.Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 12, 2009 7:01 AM
Kel,
sorry,seems i plugged the comment out of context.
As to gaming,I have an XP partition in a virtual machine that does my gaming for me,i guess if youre serious about online gaming etc that doesnt do,well,same with my online soccer needs,those chinese hackers just dont want to code for Unix lol.....
Other than that,I hate to use the Xp partition,just too dangerous and fault-ridden !
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 12, 2009 7:29 AM
Windows is as big of a pain in my ass as anyones, but the truth is it is still the most used OS in business and because of my job and the amount of work I do not sitting in my office I have to use windows. Because of that I'm not spending the cash to get a MAC (though I would if I had extra cash lying around) so I can run Photoshop, Lightroom and a host of other photo tools (and the occasional game though that's less and less important). I don't think GIMP is nearly as good as photoshop so that is a problem. But I use linux servers where ever possible at the office. Weaning users off windows to linux desktops is not worth the trouble as most of our users are idiots as it is.
Where we really should be focusing our rage is at people who put ketchup on their hotdogs.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 12, 2009 7:32 AM
No, you still haven't shown physical evidence for your imagainary deity, so he doesn't exist. That has been my point all along.A philosophical god that doesn't interact with the world is simply a personal belief. That appears to be your god. Now, simply because you choose to believe in your imaginary god, why should we? You have presented no physical evidence to convince us of that, just vague imbecilic meanderings. You are deluded, and we choose not be share your delusions. What part of that are you having trouble with?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 12, 2009 7:38 AM
I hope you will stop torturing the English language. I don't expect this hope to be fulfilled.
Posted by: Kel | May 12, 2009 7:40 AM
Back in 2007 when I left uni and entered the workforce, I ha every intentiaon of going dualboot. I always have the latest Kubuntu system lying around somewhere. What I found was that I spent almost all my time in Windows (because of games and chatting facilities) and because windows needs to be formatted so often that setting up a dualboot is more hassle than it's worth. Maybe I should go back to a dualboot system, I want to try out KDE4. If google talk lets me voice chat in linux, then I may spend a fair bit of time there - away from the temptation of games which means I might get some coding done.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 12, 2009 7:46 AM
Well I'm lucky in that because I'm in IT every single person I knows asks me if I want their old PCs when they are done with them so I usually have about 10 or so in the office or server closet at my house. I have a few servers running and always have a pc or two trying out new distros, but it's just easier to go back to the Windows PC because it will do anything I need it to and honestly I rarely have issues. But that's just probably because of my knowledge / experience / career.
I will tell you I'm ready for Windows 7 to come out because Vista is a fucking resource hog.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 12, 2009 7:54 AM
I knows?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 12, 2009 8:13 AM
(a) I use a Windows laptop for presentations and logins and do all my serious work remotely on Linux systems.
(b) I hope this ticket will win the lottery but I don't really expect it to.
(c) hithesh isn't really trying any more.
Posted by: Rudy | May 12, 2009 8:46 AM
The "N.Korea" religion thread is hundreds back, so there's probably no hope of picking it up again, but just to respond:
Yes, N.K. (like other stalinist states) has a cult of personality around its leader. That is *sort* of like a religion, though I think that idea's got some problems, like no one expecting him to be immortal, or that the Leader created the world, etc., and similar cults existing around dictators in other places, Saddam Hussein, say, with no one confusing that with the actual religions of Iraq. Cuba certainly makes a big fuss about Che but people would laugh at you if you told them they worshiped Che.
For the poster who asked about China, yes, China is more religious than NK. Religion is very popular there right now, though some groups that are considered politically dangerous like Falun Gong get repressed.
The fact that posters can argue about which countries are more and less religious, and all the reasons why we shouldn't count certain countries, etc. really proves my point, that there is no real correlation between religiosity and social progress.
Note that the correlation between "highest standard of living" and "least religious" is also belied by looking at smaller cultures: the Piraxa in Brazil are probably even less religious than the Swedes (there are a few religious Swedes, I've met one), but their "standard of living" in a material sense is very low. I should note, the Piraxa are reportedly very happy.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
May 12, 2009 8:59 AM
Regarding China: I took Chinese language lessons in a college in Missouri, USA. The instructor was born in mainland Communist China. He said that Communism, in China, *was* a religion. He said that he had to declare his belief in Communism, do rituals and read the correct books.
That was one man, one time, but he came up with the comparison, himself. Which leads me to think that the Chinese are pre-loaded by their current Communist culture to be susceptible to "other" religions, rather than being atheistic or seeking out free thought.
Posted by: Pablo | May 12, 2009 9:45 AM
This whole "faith as trust" and "faith as belief without evidence" discussion is just a bait-and-switch. As has been pointed out, the scientists' trust in the scientific method or confidence in a hypothesis is empirical, in that we have plenty of evidence that the scientific method works, and the hypothesis is not invented from no where, but is already consistent with a large amount of observed facts.
If you want to call that "faith" then ok, but don't pretend that it is at all comparable to "faith in god" which is based on nothing but wishful thinking. Again, it is the distinction between evidence or no evidence. This "faith in God" is without any evidential foundation at all. So if you want to talk about faith as "trust" or "confidence," it still comes down to the difference between belief based on evidence or belief based on no evidence.
The bait-and-switch comes in the ever changing usage. Theists bait, by saying, "You have trust in the scientific method. Since faith means trust, that means that you have faith _just_ _like_ _christians_ _do_."
And there is the switch.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 12, 2009 9:52 AM
Good point, Pablo.
Posted by: DLC | May 12, 2009 9:54 AM
What about the much more successful Marx brothers, one of whom once quipped :"This morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas -- How he got into my pajamas I'll never know!"
Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 10:30 AM
"You are confusing hope with expectation. I am capable of hoping something will happen without expecting that it will."
We use hope in two different ways, one in which we hope without expectation, and in a way in which you do with expectation. The Christian use of the term hope is always with the later not with the former. Saying you "have hope", or are hopeful, implies it as well.
Here, lets read the wikipedia entry on Hope:
"To hope is to wish for something with the expectation of the wish being fulfilled."
As you can that I'm not confusing anything here.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 12, 2009 10:34 AM
I would prefer to use linux, but there isn't the software support to be a gamer under linux.
We can discuss the relative merits of the XBox, the PS3 and the Wii all day long, but my choices are constrained if I want to play Super Mario Galaxy. I'll use Linux if I want to build a wall of rendering stations to crunch animation frames, but if I want to play Crysis or HL2 or UT3, and/or use the available development tools to make mods, it won't be on linux. I'm told Eagletosh's Holodrome is the best, but then I'm just another knucklehead.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | May 12, 2009 10:35 AM
New Language Discovered on Blog
MINNEAPOLIS, Minn- Linguists today announced the discovery of a new language found in the comments of the popular science blog, Pharyngula. The new language has been named Hithish, in honor of its only known speaker, Hithesh.
While Hithish may superficially resemble English there are many key differences. For example, while in English 'absolute' and 'complete' are synonyms in Hithish they are antonyms, with 'complete' having its opposite meaning in English. Also, the phrase 'child gazing at the stars' in Hithish means 'a child being left alone in a room with a Catholic priest'. This comes as a relief to many commenters who thought Hithesh was launching a bizarre, inexplicable campaign against an innocent image.
In fact, there was much confusion during the thread. "The way he put words together just didn't make sense," said one commenter. "I mean, it got to the point where we had to get him to define every word he used. It was then we realized he simply didn't use those words like we did."
"To my knowledge this is the first case of a new language having been discovered on the internet" offered Dr. Syntax, a professor of linguistics at MIT. "While Hitish often appears semi-grammatically correct semantically it is meaningless. Take this for example: 'When we have hope, it mean that we faith in the eventual realization of that hope.' I mean no native speaker of English would write something like that."
Linguists have begun analyzing comments from Hithesh. The work so far has included various obstacles. "It's hard work," explained Dr. Syntax. "How Hithish words have changed from their original English meaning is quite arbitrary. At times they appear to be quite similar, at other times they have acquired their opposite meaning, and yet at other times they mean something completely different. It will be years before we are able to translate paragraphs of text."
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 12, 2009 10:36 AM
Your evidence for this assertion is what?
Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 10:50 AM
Feyn "No, no one uses those terms like that. Have you ever heard phrases like "I hope you die in a fire" or "I hope I win the lottery"? Did you really think that when people say "I hope X" they always, or even most of time, believe X will happen?"
Catholic Encyclopedia:
Hope, in its widest acceptation, is described as the desire of something together with the expectation of obtaining.
Britannica:
hope
Christianity
Main
"in Christian thought, one of the three theological virtues, the others being faith and charity (love). It is distinct from the latter two because it is directed exclusively toward the future, as fervent desire and confident expectation."
Wikipedia
Hope: "To hope is to wish for something with the expectation of the wish being fulfilled"
So what where you saying that no one uses hope in that way again?
So what was that about no one uses the word hope like that again?
I'm curious, so you see no difference in saying "I have hopes for the future, of us living in a peaceful world." and "i hope we leave in a peaceful world", You don't see that one use comes with an expectation of obtaining, while the other use doesn't?
Posted by: Pablo | May 12, 2009 10:50 AM
Another bait-and-switch.
If you want to say you "use it differently" then darn it, recognize that you are using it differently and don't pretend that it is similar to or has anything to do with how others use it.
Taking a theist approach and giving it the same label as something different does not make them the same.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 11:00 AM
Another bait-and-switch.
No, i've said this from the get go:
"For the slave and Rev. King, what was being spoken about is Hope. Hope is an assumption that believes that what's hoped for will be realized. " (#475)
"Well, I believe I'm using hope in the normal sense of the word, the only notion of it I'm excluding, is when we say things like I hope the underdog team wins tomorrow, or I hope i became a billionaire. These are notions of hope with out any real faith in what I hope for coming true at all.
Compared to say I have hope, or I'm hopeful, meaning that I do believe in what I hope for coming true, or being realized." (#653)
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 12, 2009 11:04 AM
Hope: "To hope is to wish for something with the expectation of the wish being fulfilled"
Fine, then. I hope your religion expires along with every other so people's hearts and minds may no longer be subjected to its toxins; that our children may gaze at the stars in the hope of reaching them.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 12, 2009 11:10 AM
Ugh I really wish PZ would have the SB nerds remove the ability to comment anonymously. Make people use a name. ANY name to separate all the different people commenting on all the threads.
maybe they can do that when they fix the blockquote formatting disaster.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 12, 2009 11:14 AM
Hitest probably doesn't want to click on my name lest he be offended by the image.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 11:16 AM
"Fine, then. I hope your religion expires along with every other so people's hearts and minds may no longer be subjected to its toxins. That our children may gaze at the stars in the hope of reaching them."
Good for you, I see the peddling of a faith here, that when religion is out the picture, children will gaze at the stars and hope for reaching them. Of course, it doesn't follow logically why this would be so, and is no different than a superstition.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 12, 2009 11:20 AM
I see the peddling of a faith here
You're hallucinating. I want your religion and all others to expire, and I will work toward that end. Because I'm well aware of the power of deceit and self-deception, I have no confident expectation that my wish will be fulfilled.
Posted by: AJ Milne | May 12, 2009 11:30 AM
Posted by: AJ MIlne | May 12, 2009 11:33 AM
@#$% blockquote fail...
... Testing. Page sane again?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 12, 2009 11:35 AM
Good for you, I see the peddling of a faith here, that when religion is out the picture, children will gaze at the stars and hope for reaching them. Of course, it doesn't follow logically why this would be so, and is no different than a superstition.
That is where you would be mistaken. If those children are able to follow their hopes and desires, it will because they worked hard enough and learned enough to make it happen. It will be tangible. It will not be as the result of asking for supernatural help.
Or are you implying the the ability to imagine possibilities and acting on it is, in it's roots, a supernatural activity?
Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 11:39 AM
Ken Cope: "You're hallucinating. I want your religion and all others to expire, and I will work toward that end. Because I'm well aware of the power of deceit and self-deception, I have no confident expectation that my wish will be fulfilled."
And you're deluded, not because you doubt that you expectation will be fulfilled, but what you expect will come about if the verse of the John Lennon's song came true "imagine no religion".
You're deluded, by your belief in the magical power of disbelief, that a world without religion, a world where atheism runs rampant makes for a better world, and appeals as a utopian fetish.
This is not a view supported by science, or even coherent reason, and is not much different than a superstition.
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 11:41 AM
I still don't get how having faith that a desired outcome will obtain while simultaneously believing (on evidence) that said outcome cannot obtain demonstrates anything other than the ability of human beings to think irrationally. It certainly doesn't demonstrate any form of transcendence - at the very most it shows that a -belief- in god can lead to doublethink or outright denial of reality, and that in some cases such irrational beliefs can augment a person's ability to maintain optimism in the face of severe adversity.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 12, 2009 11:45 AM
And you're deluded, not because you doubt that you expectation will be fulfilled, but what you expect will come about if the verse of the John Lennon's song came true "imagine no religion".
I had no idea that Hithesh had the ability to peer into the intertoobz, look into people's heads and see where people got their ideas.
In order to make Hithesh's musings even more funny, I imagine them being said by Hesh of Sealab 2021. It is the perfect voice for such ramblings.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 12, 2009 11:49 AM
Hithesh, quit talking about science, which is obviously a topic your are ill informed on. I speak as the 30+ year working scientist. Science does not use hope, faith, or god. It uses physical evidence. Something you are unfamiliar with.
Humans don't need religion for hope. Only deluded/stupid fools think they need religion for hope. We know that. Why can't you see it? Too tied up in your woo to see reality?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 11:52 AM
Twin: "It certainly doesn't demonstrate any form of transcendence - at the very most it shows that a -belief- in god can lead to doublethink or outright denial of reality, and that in some cases such irrational beliefs can augment a person's ability to maintain optimism in the face of severe adversity."
::facepalm::
:), and you speak of me not being incoherent?
Tell me how you reconcile the above with this:
"I still don't get how having faith that a desired outcome will obtain while simultaneously believing (on evidence) that said outcome cannot obtain demonstrates anything other than the ability of human beings to think irrationally."
optimistic |ˌäptəˈmistik|
adjective
hopeful and confident about the future :
How is it not irrational according to your logic, to be optimistic about a good future, that all the evidence reveals is not coming about? Why would we rationally maintain optism in the vase of a severe adversity, rather than pessimism, when we perceive the odds not being in our favor.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 12, 2009 11:57 AM
Hithesh, you must show using physical evidence that hope can only occur with a belief in god. If we can show hope can occur without a belief in god, which we have already done, you will be/are already refuted.
Show, with physical evidence, where god allows something to be done that cannot be done without your imaginary deity. Until then, you have nothing, just like you have at the moment. Nothing but your delusions.
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 11:59 AM
Hithesh, I never said that the optimism was rational. It might be desirable or useful or conducive to lower stress levels, but none of these things imply rationality or correspondence with reality. In fact, the whole point I was making was that the optimism in question had its foundation in irrational thought, doublethink, denying reality, what have you. It seems you've got problems with reading comprehension as well as with clarity of expression.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 12:05 PM
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 11:59 AM
Hithesh, I never said that the optimism was rational.
You're right, I read your post wrong, and I apologize.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 12, 2009 12:08 PM
Instead, we have a world where archbishops excommunicate people for giving nine-year-old rape victims abortions, where fundamentalists want mythology to replace science, where gays are denied rights because "God thinks what they do in bed is icky, and pedophiles are given a free pass by their church. That's so much better than a religion free world.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 12, 2009 12:16 PM
And you're deluded, not because you doubt that you expectation will be fulfilled, but what you expect will come about if the verse of the John Lennon's song came true "imagine no religion".
First of all, I demonstrated how foolish it is to use the word "hope" in the manner Hitest prescribes, because its meaning cannot be so exclusive. So, for Hitest to take what I wrote:
and change its meaning this way: is both dishonest, and leaves Hitest arguing with something I didn't say.And thank you very much AJ Milne @694 for expanding on what we both understand the issue to be. My children will not need to spend as many years as I did unlearning nonsense. For Hitest to sputter about my presumed superstition would be ironically funny, were it not for the fact that Hitest's language usage is so peculiar that what he meant by "superstition" might very well have been, 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 12, 2009 12:20 PM
Hithesh, still no physical evidence for your imaginary god. Bad troll.
Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 12:25 PM
Twin: "It certainly doesn't demonstrate any form of transcendence - at the very most it shows that a -belief- in god can lead to doublethink or outright denial of reality, and that in some cases such irrational beliefs can augment a person's ability to maintain optimism in the face of severe adversity."
I'm not demonstrating any form of transcendence, but that such beliefs of hope in hopelessness are beliefs in transcendence, not that what's being believed is true or not.
Secondly, I wouldn't say having hope in hopelessness is always a denial of reality, since I can be hopeful and yet be well aware that reality gives me no reason to be hopeful. Sort of like how I can believe I'll survive my fight with cancer, and yet be well aware that the odds are against me. I'm well aware of what the reality of my situation is, that i'm unlikely going to win here. But I won't allow the odds to lead me to despair, or the grimness of reality to have such power over me.
I believe in what can make this possible, that can turn the odds in my favor, such as Rev. King believe in what "can make a way out of no way". These are beliefs in transcendence: "existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe."
Do you concede this much?
Posted by: AJ Milne | May 12, 2009 12:28 PM
Re #705, you're welcome.
And I'd note generally (again, and as has been noted so many times) that this will generally be the nature of arguments with liars of this p[articular streak. Twisting and turning and sliming their way past and through whatever tiny chink they hope they can open through liberal and convenient misinterpretation of what they're facing, the 'complex theologian' will always play this game, as ultimately, it's the only one they can hope a partially disinterested audience might view as legitimate. Thus the notion that it is somehow 'faith' to hope the reduction of superstition might lead to a saner world--or at least that it is likely to be a sensible long-term goal if only for the more immediate likely effect on would-be adherents--will be expanded to appear a very thesis. As opposed to 90 percent wilful misinterpretation of a varied and complex view on the part of opponents who may or may not always have stated it terribly clearly. And 10 percent trollish chest-thumping.
Quite seriously, that very behaviour is one more argument as to why I'd be happy to see these systems' influence reduced: the faint hope of a little less time wasted on neosophist idiot savants whose only actual talent is talking in increasingly tiny circles around any significant points which might be so unfortunate as to come anywhere near their person.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 12:33 PM
Ken Cope: "I hope your religion expires along with every other so people's hearts and minds may no longer be subjected to its toxins"
Here, let's allow your own words to be your noose.
You hope my religion expires, what do you expect will happen if it did? Do you believe the world be made better by it if it did?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 12, 2009 12:34 PM
We concede nothing to your pile of bullshit. That is all you are presenting, piles of incoherent bullshit. When you arrive at a lucid, cogent argument, we will tell you. Try losing the need to justify your imaginary deity. It would help your clarity of thought.Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 12:36 PM
Hithesh, of course I concede that some people believe in transcendence. That's never been at issue. It's the inferences you draw from that fact, and from your own belief in transcendence, which are being disputed.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 12, 2009 12:40 PM
Here, let's allow your own words to be your noose.
I had you pegged as an exuberant proponent of crucifiction, although the pointy white sheet you're wearing does not surprise.
How about we just gaze up at the stars instead?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 12, 2009 12:45 PM
Yes, the less stupidicious nonsense like your religion in the world, the better off the world will be. We know that.Posted by: Ken Cope | May 12, 2009 12:54 PM
Our two weapons are conflation and obfuscation. And incomprehensibility. Our three weapons are conflation, obfuscation, incomprehensibility, and a fanatical obsession with a dead man on a stick.
I'll come in again.
Have you seen the stars tonight?
Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 12:57 PM
Nerd of Redhead, why don't you just run along dude, I know you're dying for attention but sheesh, you would think after all these times of me ignoring you, you would have moved on already. I would hate to see how you act when a gf breaks up with you, or a chick you met the other night doesn't return your phone calls.
And stop projecting dude, I doubt Twin needs you to be his/her spokesperson. I didn't ask you anything, I asked twin, and I'm sure he's capable of responding on his own, and doesn't need you to do it for him.
Posted by: AJ Milne | May 12, 2009 1:04 PM
Translation: I don't want to argue with you. I'm currently more interested in trying to troll someone else. So I'm gonna try to misrepresent that specific dishonesty as some kind of authority, here, in some hope it'll piss you off. Which might amuse me a little, anyway.
/Obvious troll is obvious.
Posted by: Stu
|
May 12, 2009 1:08 PM
Here, let's allow your own words to be your noose.
What an arrogant little douche you are.
You hope my religion expires, what do you expect will happen if it did?
Fewer wars. A less divided society. Better education. How many would you like?
Do you believe the world be made better by it if it did?
Yes. Counter-question: what good does religion do?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 12, 2009 1:08 PM
Hithesh, you are the one who needs to run along. You keep presenting some type of inane presupposition argument that makes no sense to us sciency types. You cannot clearly state your premise is just a couple of sentences. You will get nowhere here until you do. You also present no physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Total failure on your part to date. And I am going nowhere.
By the way, I have been married to the Redhead for 30+ years. Learn to read. I am an old fart.
Posted by: AJ Milne | May 12, 2009 1:09 PM
... also, since your statement is too direct, too clear-cut, and playing with the gaps in it the way I intended to with Ken is gonna appear way too obvious, that's not gonna work for me nearly as well, here. So go 'way. Please.
/Adds notch to 'theotroll conventions' counter...
Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 1:11 PM
Tiny: "Hithesh, of course I concede that some people believe in transcendence. That's never been at issue. It's the inferences you draw from that fact, and from your own belief in transcendence, which are being disputed."
What inference of mine is being disputed? Is transcendence being disputed? Or belief in God based on a belief in transcendence being disputed?
All I've been arguing so far is that a belief in the transcendent and a belief in God are rarely if ever two separate beliefs. A belief in the transcendent, is also a belief in what can make the transcendent possible (God).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 12, 2009 1:16 PM
Wrong again. Philosophy without evidence is sophistry. You can substitute god for philosophy with the same result. Put up the physical evidence for god, or you have nothing. Just as I have been saying all along.Posted by: Stu
|
May 12, 2009 1:25 PM
A belief in the transcendent, is also a belief in what can make the transcendent possible (God).
Whoop-dee-doo. So? What is your point? Belief in the transcendent is the entire problem. Most of us here have none; it seems safe to assume from your confused, muddled troll-vomit that you do.
Do you have anything to back up such a belief?
Posted by: Piltdown Man | May 12, 2009 1:26 PM
Nusubito @ 493:
* Instant fail.
If Jesus is, as claimed and believed, the Most Supreme, Most Holy and Most Blessed Christ, the Son of the Most High, the Bright and Morning Star, Redeemer of the World, Almighty Saviour, Highest Judge, Chief Priest, the Son of David, Lily of the Valley, Lord of all Lords and King of all Kings, Ruler of Heaven and of Earth, you don't coax Him into doing owt.
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 1:29 PM
Hithesh, suppose that I grant that belief in transcendence is largely congruent and overlapping with belief in deity. What does that imply, according to you? What, in short, is the fucking point? I know that people believe things. Are you aware that people believe things that are not true?
Now that you've spent thousands of words to assert that A) people believe in transcendence, B) people believe in deity and C) people believe that transcendence is deity, I want to see a payoff - or at least a punchline.
Also, if you're going to abbreviate my name, I prefer TIE. (Not Tie, TIE)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 12, 2009 1:34 PM
Don't worry Pilty, you are still wrong. Your record is intact. You still haven't shown physical evidence for your imaginary god, just like Hithesh, so your bible is a work of fiction and your dogma even worse fiction. We know that. The day you recognize those facts is the day you intellectually grow up.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 12, 2009 1:35 PM
Piltdown Man, you can be banned for godbotting. Go pray or something useless like that.
Hithesh, you're a babblin' idiot. I just needed to say that.
Posted by: Watchman | May 12, 2009 1:38 PM
Great stuff. Long-time fan of Blows, here.
Posted by: KI | May 12, 2009 1:44 PM
Ken@714
Thanks for returning me to one of my all time favorite albums (my copy is so played out that it's almost nothing but vinyl fuzzy buzz-how many hundreds of times can you play a vinyl record until it gets incomprehensible-let's find out!).
Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 12, 2009 1:44 PM
Let's see if I've got hithesh's "argument" down:
"Atheists have not delivered a perfect, universal, free, instantaneous, simple, prepackaged solution to every single problem in the world, therefore my version of god (and no other) exists, and is not in any way obligated to provide the aforementioned solution. In fact, it is sacrilege to even ask for such a thing, though it is perfectly acceptable to make absurd demands for prefect solutions of random atheists on the internet based on a willful misrepresentation of a blog post. The very thought that anything could be different in any way is an explicit acknowledgement of the reality of my version of god, because I say so, and any atheist who denies this is a filthy liar, because words mean what I find it convenient for them to mean, and nothing else. Because I've lived such a pitifully hard life, oh woe is me, everything I say and do MUST be correct, and anyone who disagrees with me MUST be an ivory-tower elitist born with a silver spoon in his mouth, the actual facts are irrelevant, the calamity and woe of my horrible, horrible childhood give me a special omnipotent insight into anything and everything, much like Jesus Christ. I, and I alone, determine what everyone in the world believes, no matter what anyone else thinks. And because everyone believes in my god (because I say so), my god must be real. Reality is what I want it to be, your pitiful requests for evidence fall on deaf ears."
Posted by: God | May 12, 2009 1:53 PM
Or even if he wasn't all of those.
Because I, God, absolutely hate, despise, loathe, and utterly reject all honest inquiry, reasoned analysis, controlled experimentation, and any and all attempts to find truth and falsity in the physical universe and avoid the deception of self and others.
I mean, really. Where would I be if I allowed that sort of thing?
Posted by: Watchman | May 12, 2009 1:53 PM
Big "if" there, Pitly. Big, BIG "if".
(And you forgot "Shepherd of the Sheep".)
Speaking of "instant fail," did you really have to quote nearly 50 lines of text to make a point about a phrase in the second sentence? Sheesh.
By the way, I think you're wanted on the Maine thread.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 1:54 PM
"Hithesh, suppose that I grant that belief in transcendence is largely congruent and overlapping with belief in deity. What does that imply, according to you? "
Well, this all started around post 465, where someone couldn't get this, why my holding of a transcendent belief in the power of love is congruent with my belief in God. They couldn't figure out that these beliefs are overlapping. That they are not two separate beliefs, but one.
There really hasn't been much else implied by me, beyond this.
Posted by: Watchman | May 12, 2009 2:05 PM
KI:
Eighth grade was a big year for music. ;-)
KI, it is available on CD, you know. My copy has all the original artwork (reduced, of course) which isn't terribly common for obscure reissues like that one.
Posted by: Notagod | May 12, 2009 2:10 PM
James Sweet@413 has a "pet theory" which isn't necessarily a bad thought but, haven't you learned anything from PZ about what a theory is?
And, you were "fated" to be together with your wife and you "literally believe this"? What mystical force is driving this fate that you literally believe in?
PZ and many that post comments here don't believe in woo. I suppose that might be what is causing the tension that you have expressed experiencing not because there is some conspiracy to dislike ex-mormons.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 12, 2009 2:16 PM
Hithesh, lying troll for jesus:
Bullshit. You've been deliberately misrepresenting other people's words, creating a new and incomprehensible language, and whining about how your horrible childhood makes you automatically right and everyone else automatically privileged and out of touch, regardless of reality.
And even if it were true that the above is all you're implying (and it clearly isn't), you've made no effort whatsoever to support your claim with evidence, and it's a meaningless load of crap anyway.
Posted by: Satan | May 12, 2009 2:16 PM
There was a famous theologian who said that Reason was My greatest whore, wasn't there?
I suppose that would make Me an ontological panderer, or an epistemic pimp, perhaps.
"Pssst! Hey, check out the sweet lemmas on this syllogism! Sexy, right?"
Posted by: Stu
|
May 12, 2009 2:25 PM
There really hasn't been much else implied by me, beyond this.
Well, other than that there is an abstract concept of love, that there is a God, that everyone here is stupid, and many, many more things.
Back to what has been asked of you many times: what do you have to back up either/not two/whatever the hell you decide to call it, before you go off on another peyote-like sidetrack... what do you have to back up your belief(s)?
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 2:26 PM
Then we're back to Santa Claus and leprechauns, because whatever distinctions one attempts to draw between the idea of such entities and the idea of transcendent deity/deific transcendence don't matter with respect to the truth of said claims.
In other words, whatever category distinctions separate leprechauns from transcendence do not apply to the beliefs held in either the former or the latter. A belief in leprechauns is epistemologically equivalent to a belief in transcendence - there may be a difference in how these beliefs make you feel, but not in what knowledge they can be used to acquire.
Hell, maybe there are some people who get the same emotional benefit from believing in leprechauns that you do from believing in transcendence. It doesn't actually have meaning, despite any qualia of meaning or fulfillment that you may be experiencing. It's your brain making itself feel good.
Posted by: AJ Milne | May 12, 2009 2:29 PM
I am so adding those to my CV.
/Yes, it's padding. But y'know. When in Rome...
Posted by: KI | May 12, 2009 2:29 PM
Watchman@733
Yep, I know that, but after all the years of it slowly getting murkier and murkier, the sudden digital crispness shocked my ears and it's taking me a bit of time to get used to hearing it as it was recorded.
Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 2:29 PM
"Let's see if I've got hithesh's "argument" down:"
Woah there buddy, that's a shit load of projection. Let's see what if we can one up you:
"Any theist who misapplies the use of words, even when he admits that he mistakenly did, is claiming that words mean what he wants them to mean. That the theist use of the definition of Hope including an expectation, backed up by three different Encyclopedias, is him presenting an obscure version of it, a version of in betrayal of the english language.
Any theist pointing out the silliness of a certain atheist's conclusion, is the theist claiming he has the solution for everything. But when an atheist points out the silliness of a theist belief, he's not claiming that he has the solution for everything.
A theist pointing out that 1+1 doesn't equal 3, is claiming he has empirical evidence for God. A theist conveying why other people believe, is him trying to convince you to believe in his God. A theist saying he doesn't find the image of a child gazing at the stars meaningful, is him claiming what you should find meaningful.
All theist are fundies, if they're not fundies they're those dang godless liberals who believe in a "nebulous humanism". If religion is not portrayed in the way PZ Myers, and Richard Dawkins present it, it's a distortion. If scientist who actually study the phenomena, such as those who study the behavior of suicide terrorist (Scott Atran, Robert Pape), and claim that arab terrorist are not motivated by religious reason, they're full of shit. If they claim that religion does not have the power to do what Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers claim it can do, they're fucking lying.
A claim that a world will be made no better if we all were disbelievers, is a claim that we'd all be made better if we were believers. Just as we'd all be be blue, if we weren't yellow. "
Posted by: Stu
|
May 12, 2009 2:34 PM
maybe there are some people who get the same emotional benefit from believing in leprechauns
Actually, many people get nutritional benefits as well.
Posted by: Walton | May 12, 2009 2:42 PM
Hithesh,
I was brought up as a Christian, and until quite recently I was an active and practising believer. Over time, I have gradually become an agnostic.
My non-belief is not the product of an intentional choice or preference. Nor do I have any desire to wipe out religion; other people can believe and practice what they wish, so long as they don't impose it on me. Rather, my non-belief is the simple acknowledgement of this fact: there is insufficient evidence in support of any particular theological belief system to justify adopting that belief system. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; all revelatory religions make extraordinary claims, and none of them adduce extraordinary evidence in support of those claims.
Christianity rests on the belief, inter alia, that Jesus of Nazareth was a divine being who performed miracles and was physically resurrected from the dead. There is, however, very little evidence for this. In fact, we know next to nothing about his life; all we have are four pseudonymous accounts, of uncertain date and provenance, which were almost certainly not written by eyewitnesses.
Of course, I can't prove that it isn't true; and I don't doubt that you will concede, as most intelligent Christians do, that reason alone cannot compel the adoption of Christianity. Rather, a belief in the tenets of the Christian religion is said to require faith. But the problem with "faith" as an epistemic method is that, once you abandon the requirement that a claim be supported with evidence before you are willing to believe it, there is no coherent way of distinguishing between those claims which you deem worthy of belief and those which you do not.
Why do you accept the claim that Jesus was the Son of God, while rejecting the claim that Mohammed was God's final prophet, or that Joseph Smith transcribed the Book of Mormon from golden plates given to him by the Angel Moroni, or that Zeus impregnated human women in ancient Greece, or that (as David Icke claims) most world leaders are part of a reptilian alien conspiracy to take over the world? Like Christianity, all of these are claims which have been believed by many people, but which are not backed by solid evidence. You need, therefore, to show me your epistemology; how do you know that Christians are right, and that Muslims, Mormons and neo-pagans are wrong? If you rely on faith in lieu of evidence, how do you discriminate between the true and the untrue?
You correctly point out that faith provides inspiration and comfort to many people in their darkest times. That is true. But the fact that a belief enhances some people's lives doesn't make that belief right. This is the case from any perspective. People have drawn inspiration and comfort from any number of different beliefs, ranging from Islam to Mormonism to Marxism - and many of them have died as martyrs for their beliefs. Yet these beliefs cannot all be right, for many of them contradict each other; Muslims and Christians, to take a stark example, cannot both be right about the nature of God, since Muslims view the idea of Jesus as the "Son of God" as blasphemy against monotheism. So I would have to reject the notion that a belief is any more valid because people - even great people - draw their inspiration from it.
Simply put, you're making an argument from consequences: "a belief in X has beneficial effects, therefore X must be true." This is no more objective and meaningful than "I want X to be true, therefore X must be true." It's not a valid form of objective epistemology. There is a big part of me that would love to embrace Christianity, the religion of my family and many of my friends; and indeed I was significantly less depressed about my life when I was a Christian. But, as Jefferson said, "...the opinions and beliefs of men depend not upon their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds.” I can't choose to believe a lie simply because I wish to believe it. Neither can anyone who pays even the slightest attention to the demands of intellectual honesty.
Sorry for the rant.
Posted by: Stu
|
May 12, 2009 2:49 PM
Walton... if you could just let go of your libertarian delusions, you'd be a shoo-in for a Molly. That wasn't a rant, that was beautiful.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 12, 2009 3:02 PM
Libertarian or no (and, Tory or no), I totally intend to put Walton up for the next Molly after that. Apart from him having earned it, if we Mollify Walton it will annoy the hell out the other libertarians who won't be able to say "WAH you ignore my brilliance because you're all sheeple and bigoted against libertarians".
Posted by: pdferguson
|
May 12, 2009 3:02 PM
Nicely said, Walton.
Posted by: KI | May 12, 2009 3:09 PM
I'd like to add a bravo for Walton, nicely put.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 12, 2009 3:15 PM
I have never doubted Walton's intelligence. It's his disconnect from others, callous disregard for the disadvantaged, and ignorance of history and economics that annoy me. Oh, and his self-loathing.
Posted by: ZMW | May 12, 2009 3:15 PM
"As you can that I'm not confusing anything here."
This is from a while back, but anyone else find this sentence particularly hilarious?
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
May 12, 2009 3:23 PM
Probably everything I'm about to say has been covered, and better than I'm about to do it, by the usual suspects :) , but the only way to find out would require hitting "refresh", and that could take years and cost millions of lives, so....
anonymous (presumed to be hithesh) @ 700:
Because we may not have all the evidence, or we may be misinterpreting the evidence we do have. Because the odds may not be as we perceive them to be. Because, even if we do have all the evidence currently available, the conditions of the "test" may change. To use your slavery example, when society condones slavery, considers it to be a natural state for some groups or individuals, the slave may indeed have a hopeless hope of freedom, and the conditions would suggest that it would never be possible. Then, society's acceptance of the rightness of slavery changes (as it has, in much of the world, though gradually), and the hope becomes possible.
You're trying to pin the word "hope" down to meaning only what you want it to mean. It's perfectly possible for me to hope to win the lottery tomorrow, without any expectation that it will happen (based on my current understanding of the odds), and that be a perfectly valid use of the word "hope".
The best I can make of your attempts to differentiate between absolute and complete is the difference between "I have absolute faith that my husband is not cheating on me right now, because I can see him from where I'm sitting, and to the limits of my senses, he is not cheating on me", and "I have complete faith that my husband is not cheating on me right now because, although I cannot directly confirm that he's not cheating on me right now since he is in another room, I have reason to believe that no-one else is in that room with him, hence the chances that he is cheating are vanishingly small; though it is hypothetically possible that there is someone with him that I don't know about, and he is cheating with that person". *deep breath* I don't think anyone else is drawing this kind of distinction, in common usage of the words.
In short, it is possible to be completely, absolutely, unequivocally certain...and still be wrong. The quality of the certainty does not affect the degree of wrongness. It may be ignorance of the evidence, it may be innocent misinterpretation of the evidence, it may be conviction without any evidence, it may be willfully ignoring the evidence, and still be as confidently believed...and still be as wrong.
Now, to hit "send" in a hopeful spirit, in the confidence that this will post. Eventually.
(But I could be wrong.)
Posted by: Watchman | May 12, 2009 3:36 PM
KI:
I hear that. It's especially jarring on CDs that haven't been remastered - the high end is overly bright, sometimes harsh, sometimes brittle.
Coincidentally, just last night I pulled out an old Hot Tuna disk - vinyl LP, that is - and gave it a spin on the old Dual 'table. It was my first attempt at playing vinyl in well over a year. I was pleasantly surprised at how good it sounded. Crisp? No, not even close - but not murky, either. It was quite listenable, and a nice return to a decades-old LP I hadn't heard since... well, never mind that. ;-)
Posted by: Rudy | May 12, 2009 3:38 PM
Walton, I had the same emotional experience going other direction. I was definitely happier as an atheist, and have mentioned that fact to (bemused) friends. Also my recent religious turn doesn't really help me with my (extended) family, as they are way more mainstream, and it doesn't help with my friends, who are by and large all atheists, except for the ones I met through Quaker Meeting.
Hearing that you made a similar difficult choice makes me feel a little less alone.
It's possible to be religious, and not be bothered by the plurality of different religions; they all have part of the truth. Fundamentalists don't like this idea at all, but I really don't care what they think about it (they must have part of the truth too, but it's not that part). Atheism has a great lesson to teach us too; that it's all up to us, God is not going to come down and fix it for us.
There is a story by Rabbi Kook that makes this point. A student asks him, "Why good does atheism do? Can God make anything good from it?" He answers with a story about various religious types ignoring a homeless man, saying "God will provide" or "It's God's will", and an atheist stopping to feed the man, thinking "there's no one who can help this man but me."
Posted by: Watchman | May 12, 2009 3:56 PM
Walton:
I hear that, Walton. Letting go of faith can be saddening and difficult, but it's a transition, not an end. At the other end of the tunnel you will find not only liberty, but clarity.
Posted by: Watchman | May 12, 2009 4:06 PM
Rabbi Kook? Didn't PZ make up that name for one of his fables?
Yes children, and that's how God, through inaction or nonexistence, gets credit for the dangersous, selfish atheist's act of compassion. Let that be a lesson to you.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 12, 2009 4:13 PM
Hithesh, more verbal salad with nothing beyond you don't like atheists. We don't care if you like us. All we care about is that you quit trying to convert us. If you want to covert us, show us the physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Philosophy, which is all you have presented to date, won't cut the mustard. Why? Philosophy without evidence is sophistry. You, Hithesh, are a sophist. Which means you have false arguments. Which we have been telling you for days.
Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 4:21 PM
Well, I commend the tone walton.
And I do not believe that your non-belief is product of choice or preference.
Walton: "I was brought up as a Christian, and until quite recently I was an active and practicing believer. Over time, I have gradually become an agnostic."
Well, I was also brought up Christian, with fundamentalist parents and community, and it was easy to abandon the belief i grew up with, and accept disbelief to the large portion of my adulthood. I know the no true scots man fallacy people like to apply here. But I consider my years of disbelief, a highly reflective period, and it because of this and not because of my theism I tend to be repulsed by certain not so reflective expounders of atheism. The God Delusions would have been as silly to me than, as it is now. As it is to many other atheist, such as John Gray, or Theodore Dalrymple.
I feel there are compelling cases for disbelief, but you'd hard pressed to find them in the PZ Myers of the world.
"Christians do, that reason alone cannot compel the adoption of Christianity. "
I agree, reason alone doesn't compel anyone to adopt christianity, but reason alone doesn't compel much else either. Reason alone cannot compel us to be moral, in fact reason really has little influence at all on our moral behavior.
"Why do you accept the claim that Jesus was the Son of God, while rejecting the claim that Mohammed was God's final prophet."
When we speak of such things as divinity or terms like Son of God, in order to understand why I accept them requires that your understand what is meant by them.
"Son of God" is title of kingship, or in attributing it to Jesus is title of ultimate sovereignty, a title that was even afforded to Caesar. To say Jesus is the Son of God, is to say that I have no king, but Jesus, no ideal worthy of my servitude than his, no one else worthy of following than him, no life better to set as one's ideal than his. That God's reign, is not distinct from Christ's own.
The reason why I reject other religions, is for the same reason I reject humanism, the same reasons many of us reject the ideals of liberalism, or conservatism, in their assessment of the world, and it's solution.
I find christianity to be the most accurate depiction of my condition, and the condition of most of the world, that at the heard of the human condition there is in fact a sense of depravity, a tragedy, and yet there is still a dignity. That even in the face of misery, the cruelty symbolized by the cross, there is still hope.
I'm a christian, not because of my parents, or church, I rejected their faith a long time ago. But because I find in the Gospel narratives my doubts and hope, a depiction of disbelief and belief. If I was to be a disbeliever now, I could not accept the dewey eyed humanism of Dawkins, Ted Turner like, but it would be tragic humanism symbolized by the death of an innocent, a man of good intentions, and endearing hope, yet crushed. Though I would no longer empowered by the Christian Hope, it would still be a cross haunted world.
The reason why I accept christianity over any other religion or worldview, is because I find the questions at heart of the narratives, shared by the writer and the community surrounding Jesus Christ, to be my own as well, and the answers that are claimed, to be the most profound one's I know. The reason for why I find my worldview as true, and others as not as accurate or false, is for the same reason you find yours true, and others not so true.
The reason why I hold Jesus is God, is because I see him, as the way, the truth, and the life, and these beliefs are indistinguishable for me from a belief in god. I perceive in his way and means of life, the way I should live mine, i find the direction that he points in to be the direction I'm compelled to follow, I perceive the truth he claims of human of existence, as a call to love even if we have to suffer for it to be a truth i hold as well. The image of Jesus Christ is indistinguishable for me from any image I could hold of God.
PZ Meyers can find the image of a child staring at the stars to be meaningful for him, an image that inspires him, it just doesn't do it for me. I'm a Christian because I find the Gospels profoundly meaningful, and inspiring, in it's depiction of humanity at his worst, and humanity at it's best. I reject what PZ myers finds meaningful, no differently that how he would reject what I find meaningful.
I'm a christian not merely because I'm compelled by reason, but because I'm compelled by conviction
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 12, 2009 4:28 PM
Hithesh, we don't give a shit about your illogical and unreasonable opinions. We reject your belief. We reject your god. We reject your opinions on those subjects. You want us to be reasonable with you, you have to quit godbotting, which is a crime against Pharyngula, and will get you banned. Your choice.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
May 12, 2009 4:30 PM
If you're repulsed by atheists why are you here fuckwit?
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 12, 2009 4:35 PM
So basically you're a Christian because you have a strong emotional response to the drama and pathos of Christian mythology.
"The reason for why I find my worldview as true, and others as not as accurate or false, is for the same reason you find yours true, and others not so true."
Sorry, this is incorrect. Our reasons could not be more different.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
May 12, 2009 4:36 PM
SHitesh why don't you go suffer somewhere else. There is no gawd, you are delusional.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 12, 2009 4:41 PM
Another example of how shallow hithesh is. If you have an emotional basis for morality then, whenever your mood changes, your morality could change as well. Or is his morality based on "The Big Guy In The Sky will smack my pee-pee forever if I'm a bad boy"?
Posted by: Stu
|
May 12, 2009 4:44 PM
If I was to be a disbeliever now, I could not accept the dewey eyed humanism of Dawkins, Ted Turner like, but it would be tragic humanism symbolized by the death of an innocent, a man of good intentions, and endearing hope, yet crushed. Though I would no longer empowered by the Christian Hope, it would still be a cross haunted world.
Aaaaand BINGO, I had it right way back at #499... you were lying through your fucking teeth about being a "disbeliever" -- you don't even know what it is.
Your arrogance is pathetic -- and decidedly un-Christian.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 12, 2009 4:47 PM
Hithesh, you are rejecting other viewpoints _because you don't want them to be true_; whereas we are rejecting yours because _there is no evidence it is true_. Grasp the difference, please.
Part of being an adult is accepting that just because you really, really want something to be true, that doesn't make it so. You've taken your own emotional response to a story and mistaken it for proof that the characters in the story are real.
Posted by: Watchman | May 12, 2009 4:52 PM
Stu, I believe Hithesh has consistently claimed to be a believer who was, for most of his life, an unbeliever.
Was. Not is.
Was an unbeliever. Is a believer.
My question is, what span of time accounts for "most of" his adult life? Two years? Forty?
Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 4:56 PM
Tis Himself"Another example of how shallow hithesh is. If you have an emotional basis for morality then, whenever your mood changes, your morality could change as well."
Shallow huh?
Let's put this through the ringer:
Do you believe there is correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behavior? Do you deny that in most recent studies no correlation has been found or at best a small correlation?
Do you deny that morality is more correlated with emotion and self-control?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 12, 2009 4:59 PM
Stu #762
The vast majority of people who claim "I used to be an atheist" never were atheists. Many of them were rebelling against their particular religion, or had fallen away from the religion they were brought up in but hadn't found an acceptable substitute yet, and some of them are just liars. I suspect Hithesh got disenchanted with whatever sect Mommy and Daddy followed and, for a few years, didn't find some other cult that suited him better. Now he's fallen in love with a denomination and he's all happy again.
Posted by: Walton | May 12, 2009 4:59 PM
To Stu, Matt Heath et al.: thank you. I appreciate it.
Tis Himself:
For the first part, thank you.
As to "disconnect from others and callous disregard for the disadvantaged", I will admit that I have some difficulty in understanding and caring for other human beings. My natural empathy is extremely deficient, as are my social skills.
However, in my defence, I would like to point out that this week I stood up at a college JCR meeting and spoke out against the college's plan to dismiss several of the cleaning staff in order to cut costs. I pointed out that in the current economic climate they're unlikely to be able to afford further employment; and I said that, for my part, I would be glad to accept a bigger rent increase next year rather than throw some of the college's most vulnerable employees out on the street.
Why did I act against my own self-interest in this way? I don't know. It just seemed like the right thing to do at the time. I realise that this doesn't make me some sort of hero; but I'm just trying to demonstrate that I don't despise the poor.
Nor am I unaware that I am extremely privileged, compared to the vast majority of people in human history, to have three meals a day and a roof over my head without really having to work for it. Indeed, I frequently feel guilty that I was granted this unearned privilege and, so far, have achieved nothing whatsoever in life to merit it.
Self-loathing I will admit to - but I won't discuss it further, as I have an unfortunate tendency to derail threads with my personal mental health issues.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 5:03 PM
No, they all had an influence in ending slavery, but none of them were the reasons for a slaves hope in his eventual freedom.
First, wrong. Second, hopes are preferences and preferences don't need reasons to be held.
I can be hopeful that one day the meek shall inherent the earth, the poor will be fed, there will be no more war, that people would turn their tools of destruction into tools of cultivation (swords beaten into plow shares). That the Jew and the Arab will one day sit at a table and break bread together.
Can you see why such a hope is absurd?
No. It's not absurd, your claims are absurd. The last one is particularly so, since Jews and Arabs sit at tables breaking bread together every day. Not just Jews and Arabs, but Jews and Palestinians (not all of whom are Arab). If you're talking about the political conflict between the state of Israel and the Palestinian refugees trapped in the West Bank and Gaza, we know from history that all political conflicts eventually end.
Nothing about reality conveys that this form of life is possible, in fact reality seems to suggest other wise.
You're wrong and ignorant (see, for instance, Steven Pinker's "The History of Violence"), and even if you were right the hope still would not be absurd or "irrational". In fact, it is a category mistake to claim that a hope is irrational, since hopes are not beliefs or expectations or actions, they are merely desires about outcomes ... with the exception of hoping for the truly impossible, such as gods answering your prayers. But none of the things you mention are impossible, and certainly the end of slavery wasn't impossible, since it happened. And it didn't happen through a miracle, it happened as a result of things "in reality".
That'd I'd have a better chance of winning the lottery seven day consecutively than having this sort of hope realized.
When we have no reason, no evidence, no basis in reality for hope, our hope is absurd.
Probability is Bayesian, a measure of ignorance. The probability estimates of an utter ignoramus such as yourself are worthless. Taking into account all available evidence, the probability of there eventually being peace in the Middle East is nearly 1.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 12, 2009 5:03 PM
There is hope for you yet. And no, I am not being facetious.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 12, 2009 5:06 PM
Whether Hithesh was or was not a believer is irrelevant. His trying to force his testamony upon us now is all that is relevant. We reject his irrational testamony. Now you can go away, never to bother us again Hithesh. Further attempts to testamony will be considered proselytation, which is an immediate banning offence. Your choice.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
May 12, 2009 5:07 PM
What friggin' nonsense. There's no evidence any of them have even the slightest "part of the truth".
That's the problem with religions, they all make loud, forceful claims on "the truth", elevating it with a capital "T" to give it an air of authority, making their claim exclusive of all others. It's an integral part of the sales pitch (which Hithesh apparently fell for.) But that's all it is, a sales pitch, nothing more. All religions have to sell are smoke and mirrors, neatly wrapped in nice shiny wrapping paper, imprinted with "The Truth" in cursive script.
Religion is comprised of mythology, superstition and fables designed with one goal--power and control. The way they achieve that is to conflate their mythology with "The Truth", distorting the meaning of the word to the point it loses all meaning. In fact, they turn the word upside down. The moment someone starts a sentence with "According to God's Truth...", they're lying to you. Whenever someone claims the only way to "know the Truth is to accept Jesus", they're lying to you. When someone says the Bible (or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon) is the "word of God", they're lying to you. In religion, truths, with or without a capital "T", are lies. It really is that simple.
The truth is, they can't handle the truth. That's why evolution (and before that, geocentrism) pose such a dire threat to religion, it upsets the carefully scripted sales pitches they spent centuries refining. It exposes religious "truths" and those that spew them for what they are: frauds and liars.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 5:08 PM
Well, I believe I'm using hope in the normal sense of the word, the only notion of it I'm excluding, is when we say things like I hope the underdog team wins tomorrow, or I hope i became a billionaire. These are notions of hope with out any real faith in what I hope for coming true at all.
The things you are excluding are the normal use of the word.
Compared to say I have hope, or I'm hopeful, meaning that I do have faith in what I hope for coming true, or being realized.
"hope" has no such connotation.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 5:12 PM
P.S. In fact, "hope" carries a connotation of doubt, often coupled with worry. I hope I get the job (there's a good chance I won't). I hope he's ok (I fear he isn't).
Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 5:14 PM
"Hithesh, you are rejecting other viewpoints _because you don't want them to be true_; whereas we are rejecting yours because _there is no evidence it is true_. Grasp the difference, please."
Well, let's keep in mind a worldview is an all encompassing sort of frame work.
Here's a summary of my worldview: To love all, even our enemies, to live life not in pursuit of materialism but in serviture and love towards others, : "to steward rather than pillage the earth, to distribute rather than to hoard her gifts, to serve rather than to rule, and to give life rather than to take it. " To not engage in violence, but creative non-violence, that hate cannot conquer hate, only love can.
To speak truth to power, to confront injustice were ever it lays, even if it means we suffer and die in such pursuits.
And at the heart of this worldview is a conviction that makes it possible, and a hope that such pursuits are never in vain.
How do you deny this worldview is true? anymore than yours is false?
Posted by: Walton | May 12, 2009 5:15 PM
Fair enough, and I understand your point of view. But you have to understand that what you have detailed above is an intensely personal, subjective set of visceral reactions. I acknowledge that your personal emotional connection to Christian imagery and symbolism is no doubt very meaningful for you, and I'm not asking you to reject, or even reconsider, your faith. Rather, I'm just trying to explain that your personal emotional reaction to Jesus and the Gospels does not constitute objective, testable evidence, and is not going to convince anyone other than yourself that your faith is the correct one.
I apologise if this sounds harsh. You're certainly far more intelligent and reasonable, and express a much more nuanced and realistic view, than a lot of the believers who post here. But the fact is that your personal religious feelings are not sufficient to demonstrate, objectively and to the satisfaction of a dispassionate observer, that the truth-claims made by Christianity are factually accurate.
This is, indeed, the most common answer that intelligent believers give me when I challenge them on their reasons for believing. They usually admit that they can't adduce objective evidence to support their creed; but they typically explain that they have a "personal relationship with God" and have felt the "presence of God in their lives", and that this is sufficient reason for them to believe. And that's fine. But that kind of "evidence" is inherently personal and subjective; to an outside observer, there's no way of distinguishing between that and mere delusion or wishful thinking.
I can say, for myself, that in all the years I was a fervent believer and attended church regularly, I never felt the "presence of God in my life" - despite desperately wanting it. So such claims - high-minded as they sound, and real as they no doubt feel to those who experience them - are not going to convince me, in the absence of solid evidence. Ultimately, Christianity makes a claim of fact - that Jesus was a divine being, performed miracles and was resurrected from the dead - and I will become a Christian if, and only if, someone unearths compelling historical evidence for the truth of that claim.
Posted by: Watchman | May 12, 2009 5:15 PM
Hithesh:
That sounds interesting. Do I "believe" or "deny" any of this or that? No, not yet. Cites, please?
"Emotion and self-control" ... what do you mean? There's a contradiction lurking in that phrase. Which emotions? Anger? Rage? Compassion? Delight? If a man gives $1,000 to an orphanage on a whim, does he lack self-control?
+ + +
For now, we have an anecdote from Walton that supports Hithesh's claim:
Hmmmm!
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
May 12, 2009 5:15 PM
Walton - Sincerely, congratulations on taking a giant step in the right direction. Well done.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 5:20 PM
The slave singing a hymn claiming that he'll be free, is not only expressing his desire for a freedom, but his belief that he will eventually be freed. A wish to be free, doesn't include the later.
But this is not a case of hope, it's a case of expectation or even certainty. You muddy your already muddy ideas by misusing words and making bogus distinctions (like between "complete" and "absolute").
Do you understand this better now?
What I understand is that you are as confused about the English language as you are about everything else.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
May 12, 2009 5:24 PM
sHitesh - You are prostelitizing. That is a bannable offense here. PZ does not suffer this foolishness for long.
Your god is bullshit.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 12, 2009 5:26 PM
Hithesh, your opinion means nothing to us. You can believe in your god, but we don't have to. And we won't given your inane arguments and lack of physical evidence. We don't want to hear more of your proselystation. Time to pack up your posts and fade into the bandwidth.
Posted by: AJ Milne | May 12, 2009 5:27 PM
Oh, no no, Watchman. Sure, that's how it's done in sane discussions actually directed at getting to the truth of something. State your cites upfront, explain your conclusions therefrom, let your critics have at both...
This is not that world. Here, the troll merely implies he has supporting material, and waits for someone he intereprets as hostile to make a statement he thinks he can contradict with whatever he might have on the spike. He plays the hand only if he thinks he can make it play in his direction. And the interpretation allowing him to do so will, of course, be his--allowing him to remain on the attack almost regardless of what is said and what he has...
See, the other way, he has to defend an actual thesis. And that's no good. That would require him to have one that's actually (a) coherent, and (b) defensible. As opposed to stroking his own ego with small tactical, rhetorical gains against an enemy that doesn't even precisely know exactly what it is he's defending.
Also, more or less the method of 'complex theology'.
/Ref #765. See also 'chum, you don't even have a ringer. Just a spin cycle.'
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 5:31 PM
Wins a prize for stupidest comment.On this thread,anyway.
I doubt that Kel has ever made the stupidest comment on any thread. Not so for you, Clinteas/Rorshach. Hell, I've been programming since 1965, was a UNIX systems programmer for years, have run Linux since 1994, and I still keep a Windows box around to run the numerous apps that require it.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
May 12, 2009 5:34 PM
And where the fuck does Bronze Age mythology come into this? What does any of this have to do with your ancient book of superstitions? Why do you need Jesus, a cartoonish superhero on a stick, to validate your views?
Inquiring minds want to know...
Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 5:36 PM
Walton:
"Rather, I'm just trying to explain that your personal emotional reaction to Jesus and the Gospels does not constitute objective, testable evidence, and is not going to convince anyone other than yourself that your faith is the correct one."
Well, walton I never attempted to present my beliefs otherwise. I find it ridiculous to argue for God like we would in arguing the correctness of a mathematical equation. I believe for entirely subjective reasons, for the same reason that I love my mother for entirely subjective reasons, or find a painting or poem meaningful. I couldn't give you objective reasons to find a poem as meaningful as it is to me, or objective reasons to love my mother as well. I may be able to articulate why I believe what I do, but lets not confuse that with me trying to get you to believe what I do.
I only expound on the subject because you asked, not because I felt that after expounding that I would convince you or anyone else here to believe in God.
In the Gospel the projection of christian life is marked not by giving other objective reasons to share in one's belief, but compel by living it--the "and they'll know you're christians by your love." It's call to be a light unto the world, that reveals the darkness in the lives of others, and the conviction to turn from it.
It's only by the empowering sense of life, i find in the Gospel that I am made to believe, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 5:40 PM
Windows wins because the people who write the software you use only support it. And they will continue to do so until their customers demand otherwise.
It will continue to do so as long Windows dominates the market. Software vendors aren't so stupid as to waste their resources supporting low-market-share platforms just because a minority of their potential customers "demand" it.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 12, 2009 5:46 PM
Walton, you wrote a version of that post a while back in a similar situation. That previous comment wasn't bad. This one was quite good. I rather enjoyed reading it. Well done. You're seasoning nicely.
Posted by: hithesh | May 12, 2009 5:50 PM
"Hitesh - You are prostelitizing. That is a bannable offense here. PZ does not suffer this foolishness for long."
This is kind of comical, Walton asked why I believe Christianity to be true, why I believe Jesus is the son of God, i expounded on why, now individuals like yourself and Nerdy accuse me of proselytizing?
It's probably a good way to get rid of theist you don't like, ask them why they believe, and when they give you an answer, accuse them or proselytizing, and then try and get that accusation going, and scare them that that big bad boogey monster known as PZ Myers is going to ban me for this.
I don't know, if I did get banned for this, whether I should be offended, or laugh at the absurdity.
Silly rabbits, tricks are for kids.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 12, 2009 5:53 PM
hithesh, do you understand why the wish to live your life in a certain way (because you think the Big Kahuna told you to) is not in any sense evidence for the existence of the Big Kahuna?
If your "god" is just an idea in your head, and you know that, fine. Run along. If you claim otherwise, evidence please.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
May 12, 2009 5:55 PM
Stop the damn preaching!
Walton, you shouldn't play with boys like him. It will ruin your somewhat improved reputation.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 5:58 PM
Read it again. A funny thing about Wikipedia: anyone can edit it, even people as confused and mistaken as you are. That claim was not supported by the given dictionary citation, and the reference to unrequited love was absurd (that has nothing at all to do with hope) so I've removed it. That's just the beginning of the problems with that article, which is marked with "Citations missing" and "Inappropriate tone" tags.
Posted by: AdamK | May 12, 2009 6:02 PM
Have to add my thanks to Walton for the long post, not to mention the good deed. I love seeing intellectual and moral growth in people.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 12, 2009 6:04 PM
hithesh #774
Words fail me. The only question I have is: How do you keep your halo from getting too tight?
Posted by: Kel | May 12, 2009 6:06 PM
That sums it up well.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 12, 2009 6:11 PM
Hithesh, we are still waiting for the physical evidence for your imaginary god. Until you show that evidence, you are a delusional fool, like we have been saying all along.
Posted by: Watchman | May 12, 2009 6:24 PM
nothing's sacred:
Impressive. I wrote my first program (in FOCAL) at age 12 in 1969, but didn't even begin to get serious until college (mid '70s) and didn't earn a paycheck from it until '82. I'm in the *NIX world now, but am still recovering from having been a VMS guy for years. (That's OpenVMS for you youngers.)
hithesh:
The description you've posted can't be evaluated as either true or false. What you've done is itemize characteristics of the way you'd like to live your life, and the way you'd like to see others live their lives. Are they admirable goals? Sure. Do they require "conviction" that God and Jesus are real? No. Are they "true"? I don't know; is vanilla ice cream true, or false? How about chocolate pudding? Or fried grasshoppers? Do you prefer baseball to football? Is a preference for one more contain more truth than a preference for the other? If my worldview includes socialized medicine, is my worldview true, or false?
What was your point again? That only through Christ can we achieve morality, compassion, love, and hope? Or that only through Christ can You achieve morality, compassion, love, and hope?
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 6:32 PM
Walton, this is not the first time you have earned my admiration. Your flashes of humility and recognition of your flaws -- as when you commented recently to the effect that you might not know what you were talking about and often don't -- provide you with a form of cognitive power, the ability to reevaluate your beliefs and incorporate additional evidence. They also encourage a certain trust in your sincerity and your willingness to listen. (Now if only that would extend to discussions of AGW ...)
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 12, 2009 6:43 PM
So... just to clarify: you don't believe in God as an actual person; a hairy thunderer or a cosmic muffin that is out there in reality somewhere, but rather as an set of ideas inside of your own head? What you call a "worldview" is just that: a subjective and personal set of ideas and interpretations that you have absorbed from the New Testament canon and call "Christianity", with no regard or even real interest as to whether any of the narrative of the person called Christ happened as actual events in history?
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 12, 2009 6:45 PM
(Now if only that would extend to discussions of AGW ...)
Ah, I just saw your
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/idiot_america_new_and_expanded.php#comment-1626541
Good on you.
Posted by: Chemgirl
|
May 12, 2009 6:49 PM
Simply beautiful, PZ. May I suggest you give up on biology to become a poet?
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 12, 2009 7:51 PM
I'm glad I'm not the only one with so much fondness for Blows Against the Empire. When I get home from school I'll have to dig up the story told by Frank Drake, about his visiting Tim Leary in San Quentin with Carl Sagan, who both had to break it to Tim gently that "kidnapping the starship," at least anything buildable with 1960's technology, wasn't going to get anybody very far, interstellar distances being what they are.
"The world continues to deteriorate. Give up."Posted by: MikeG | May 12, 2009 9:01 PM
All this tosh about hope and transcendence and no one has mentioned today's Jesus and Mo? Hithesh may want to see this.
Apologies if I missed a link to this in the comments between work (and pub) and home.
Posted by: MikeG | May 12, 2009 9:14 PM
I would also like to add my voice to those speaking in praise of Walton.
Walton, you have come a long way in your intellectual development. Keep it up, and remember, dogma in any form (religious of otherwise) can be dangerous.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | May 12, 2009 9:35 PM
Walton,
I disagree with most of what you write, but I believe in giving praise where it's due. Comment #743 was excellent. I don't say this merely because I agree with it (though I'll let you be the judge of that). You articulated your thoughts well and showed a commitment to reason and evidence.
If we are harsh to some of your comments it is because we know you are capable of better.
Please keep it up.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 12, 2009 10:29 PM
NS,
I misread,thought it was someone else's post,and apologized to Kel straight away.Fail to see what the big deal is.
Walton @ 775,
very nicely said.This "argument from personal relationship with god and special emotional connection to Jesus" is one of the most annoying and silly,and you hear it all the time.
Rudy and Hithesh,
in case you missed it,our junior just wiped the floor with you.
Posted by: Rudy | May 12, 2009 10:53 PM
Rorsarch, Walton didn't seem to be addressing anything I said (though I did make some remarks prompted by his 775. If by
"junior" you mean Walton?
His 775 seemed reasonable to me. Is this whole thread just about winning and losing to you, Rorsarch?
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 12, 2009 11:00 PM
in case you missed it,our junior just wiped the floor with you.
Yep, another good reason I'm glad I brought a (previously) transparent tarp down here for the cheap seats. After Walton's patented "flying pinwheel of doom" finishing move, it was transubstantiated Kensington Gore everywhere, as gibbets of "this is my body" flew amid geysers of "this is my blood."
It needed doing.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 12, 2009 11:38 PM
incorrect. while the belief in dieties usually demands a belief in the transcendent (i.e. magic), a belief in magic doesn't require a belief in dieties.
that's because they ARE two separate things. more precisely, they are two different degrees of abstraction. "love" is a term we humans use for the complex, bio-chemical reactions that occur when confronted with certain people; it's a social abstraction of a real phenomenon. gods are the result of anthropomorphism of those abstractions (and, more directly, of various natural phenomena); in other words, they're wholly made-up embellishments on reality.your god as you describe him in this thread is the anthromorphization of love. congratulations, you are worshiping a male version of Aphrodite.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 12, 2009 11:41 PM
also, I'm going to have to jump on the bandwagon and congratulate Walton both on his lucid explanation of agnosticism, and for standing up for the disadvantaged. :-)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 12, 2009 11:51 PM
lastly: rudy, you were certainly right that the conversation about countries and atheism is now over. I thought I explained to you that you can't pick from widely disparate social situations and meaningfully compare them on the basis of a SINGLE aspect. I even thought you got the point when you picked only a small subset of countries. but since you then jumped ahead with some small indigenous tribe, you clearly STILL don't understand how to compare things for a single variable.
unless of course you think anyone here claims that religion is the SOLE variable in determining standard of living, which would be a strawman.
also, "standard of Living" is not a game of "he who dies with the most toys wins"; actual wealth is part of it, but social stability, freedom, health, happiness, level of oppression of parts of the society etc. are very much part of that, too. so simply saying that a non-theistic tribe has less wealth than a somewhat theistic western society is meaningless in the context of standard of living. it is also meaningless in the context of religiosity, since there's too many other variables to consider
until you stop cherrypicking your data, and comparing apples to oranges, any further discussion with you is worthless
Posted by: Kseniya | May 13, 2009 1:17 AM
J-hawk:
Perhaps you mean this fellow.
Nice comments, by the way.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 13, 2009 2:20 AM
I misread,thought it was someone else's post,and apologized to Kel straight away.
Ah, right, it was only the stupidest comment in the thread if someone other than Kel made it. You're such a pathetic coward.
Fail to see what the big deal is.
I made one small comment on it; no big deal for me, but obviously one for you.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 13, 2009 2:23 AM
thanks
well, I never considered Eros as a god of all kinds of love... if I remember correctly, Greek pantheons had the main god, and then godlings for the different aspects of what the main god stood for... kind of like Ares had the godlings Phobos and Deimos... anyway, I always thought of Eros as the god of EROTIC love, so maybe not quite appropriate here (unless I got my interpretation wrong :-p )
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 13, 2009 2:25 AM
the eros and psyche story also involved jealousy though... so maybe a bit more fitting for the jealous OT god, heheh
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 13, 2009 2:52 AM
@ 811,
Way to twist what I wrote.I dont care,really,if it makes you feel better,twist away.
Posted by: SaynaTheSpiffy
|
May 13, 2009 2:53 AM
This is a brilliant story and all, but I just have one question:
What kind of freaky elephant lets itself be felt up by three creepy blind dudes?!
Posted by: Kel | May 13, 2009 5:08 AM
Because yours has a magic man and a blood sacrifice of said magic man at the centre of it. All you have is belief in belief, your beliefs however they make you act do not verify the truth of said beleifs. I deny your worldview is true because you believe in worshipping a god whose stand-out feature is impregnating a woman to give birth to himself so he could partake in blood sacrifice in order to redeem the sins of allegorical ancestors. Even if your beliefs lead to what people would consider noble and admirable characters, they are still based on the same falsehoods as those who use those came beliefs as an excuse for malevolent actions.Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 13, 2009 5:12 AM
I dont care
Lying coward.
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 7:25 AM
"So... just to clarify: you don't believe in God as an actual person; a hairy thunderer or a cosmic muffin that is out there in reality somewhere."
Well, other than besides a few fundies, I don't know any christians who view God as a hairy thunderer or a cosmic muffin.
"but rather as an set of ideas inside of your own head? What you call a "worldview" is just that: a subjective and personal set of ideas and interpretations."
Well, all religions are worldviews, this is no different if you're a fundie, orthodox theist, or a liberal one. It's through the lens of Christianity that a christian looks at the world. For a fundie, beliefs that the tainted nature of humanity is caused by a man eating an apple a couple thousands years ago, the world is a couple thousand years old, and has an appearance of intelligent design, are all perspectives of the world they live in, even if they're all false, and not all of it is subjective, such as the view that the world is only a few thousand years old is not a subjective claim.
"that you have absorbed from the New Testament canon and call "Christianity", with no regard or even real interest as to whether any of the narrative of the person called Christ happened as actual events in history?"
Sure, i have an interest in the history behind the text, how was it was formed, what ideas went into it. I have an interest in Jesus Christ being an actual historical person, who was actually crucified, and that there was an actual resurrection experience. It would be quite difficult to reconcile the meaning of the gospels without such things.
But do I have an anachronistic belief that the Gospel accounts, or biographies written in the greco-roman world are written like modern biographies for the sake of conveying what actually happened, and the order in which event took place? No, I don't. The Gospel's like any other greco-roman biography of a religious figures, are written to convey the meaning of that person, the meaning of his teaching, and the meaning of the events that surrounded his life.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 7:45 AM
Hithesh, you seen to think we care about what you say. We don't. You are a woo filled fool, and we are less than interested in such nonsense. You need to pull the plug on your posts.
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 7:55 AM
Rorshach: "Rudy and Hithesh,
in case you missed it,our junior just wiped the floor with you."
Judging that all Walton pretty much did was ask a few questions about my faith, you have to be pretty deluded to assume he wiped the floor with me.
It's like me asking why are you an atheist, "why do you think that atheism is true and not paganism. The problem with atheism is that you can tell the difference between one truth and the other, like what makes a child gazing at the starts a better signifier for the human condition than a suffering innocent? What makes love your neighbor any more significant than brushing you teeth, yada..yada..yada." And then some clown claiming that by me asking these questions, is a roundhouse kick to the face o my opponent.
When I responded to his questions, all he said was:
"Fair enough, and I understand your point of view." And then when on to state that all I've presented was subjective reasons for my belief, and not objective reasons to convince anybody else to believe. He only repeated something that I've said all along, something I already confessed. That its out of a conviction that I became a christian, just like for walton it was out of a conviction that he spoke out on behalf of the soon to be unemployed janitors
And I don't care if some atheist take gripes with this, or in their shallowness claim that I should only be believing out of objective reasons, when I myself feel that the God they're looking for, the one that waves a large flag and yells, "yo dudes here i am." Is a pointless god, and a distraction from the purpose he tends for his creatures. Such believers becomes obsessed like some fundies are, creating creation science museums, and the discovery institute, rather than pursuits of agape love, tending the least of the world, following a god who desires mercy over sacrifice, the pursuit of justice, and not servitude towards him alone, but servitude to him seen in our servitude toward others.
You may claim that such a god would be the only meaningful one for you, just like PZ can claim the star gazing child is meaningful for him, but they are meaningless to me. The God that the village atheist demands to be convinced of, is not my own, and would only be a distraction, from what is wanted out of our conviction.
So you must be fairly delusional, to take this as wiping the floor with me? I doubt even Walton feels that.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 8:05 AM
Hithesh, until you are ready to present physical evidence for your imaginary deity you have nothing cogent to say to us. You have no logic, just woo woo woo. The neighbors dog has a more coherent message than you do.
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 8:05 AM
Nerd: "Hithesh, you seen to think we care about what you say. We don't. You are a woo filled fool, and we are less than interested in such nonsense. You need to pull the plug on your posts."
Nerd I know you're stuck on this "we" delusion, but I doubt anyone here wants to make you their mouth piece. So have the intellectual honesty to say you're speaking for yourself, and you really don't have a clue what each and every other atheist on the forum feels. Rather than "we" say "I" or even "me and patricia". Could you at least get this my little dimwit?
Judging that I've only been responding to questions asked of me. It sure seems like some people care, at least enough to be asking them in the first place. So how much more fucking detached from reality could you be?
In the words of PZ Myers "you're a pathological nutcase.", just go home dude, and quit the whining, and the threats. You're just embarrassing yourself, not me.
Posted by: echidna | May 13, 2009 8:15 AM
Hithesh,
Nerd is welcome to speak for me. You don't seem to understand, Walton did indeed wipe the floor with you.
Your reasons to believe are basically inside your head, and have no basis in reality. Walton told you that. Now go away, and keep your hallucinations to yourself.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 8:16 AM
Hithesh, you are a pathological nutcase. Quit bothering us. We don't want your woo. You have physical evidence for your imaginary deity, which would be the only thing we are interested in, and we have demonstrated your religious belief is irrelevant to leading a good life. So you have nothing to offer. Go away.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 8:29 AM
*headdesk* second sentence in #824 should read: You have no physical...
Posted by: John Morales | May 13, 2009 8:40 AM
hithesh:
I find it pretty funny that a believer in the supernatural should address an atheist scientist so.Hint: Nerd is not using the royal 'we'.
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 13, 2009 8:43 AM
"I have an interest in Jesus Christ being an actual historical person, who was actually crucified, and that there was an -actual resurrection experience-."
That's the sticking point, Hithesh. There are no good reasons to believe that there was an actual resurrection experience, period. All that you can establish is that you have reason to -want- a resurrection to have occurred.
To back up a little:
"The reason why I accept christianity over any other religion or worldview, is because I find the questions at heart of the narratives, shared by the writer and the
community surrounding Jesus Christ, to be my own as well, and the answers that are claimed, to be the most profound one's I know."
As people keep telling you, wishing doesn't make it so. You have said that you believe for "entirely subjective" reasons, as you might "find a painting or poem meaningful" - but no subjective motivation provides any reason to believe in historical actuality of the resurrection event - only to desire it.
This isn't an anachronistic detail, this is the center of the Christian faith. No resurrection means no sacrifice, no sacrifice means no grace. And you can't even demonstrate that -you- should believe that it happened, because it depends upon a physical event in the material world. Objective reasons are required, and all you have (by your own admission) are subjective ones.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 8:46 AM
Kel: " I deny your worldview is true because you believe in worshipping a god whose stand-out feature is impregnating a woman to give birth to himself so he could partake in blood sacrifice in order to redeem the sins of allegorical ancestors. "
Judging that I don't believe in any of this, and you just made that shit up that this was my beliefs, I don't know how well your argument holds up.
Judging that the message of the "reign of God" is at the heart of the gospels, and you completely annexed that from your supposed assumption about my beliefs, we could guess how stupid the assumptions are in reference to the text as well.
Posted by: Kel | May 13, 2009 8:47 AM
I'm going to take a page from NoR's book here. hithesh, your God exists purely between your ears. You have done nothing in this thread to demonstrate your beliefs have any validity. Instead you've justified belief in belief and that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth behind the beliefs themselves. Your emperor has no clothes, we can see shriveled genitalia and are calling it as such. If you want to demonstrate that your beliefs have any validity, please stop engaging in "belief in belief" arguments and start showing evidence for the belief itself. Until such time, people can and will call you out on you espousing credulous nonsense.
Posted by: Kel | May 13, 2009 8:49 AM
Yes or no answers:Is Jesus God-incarnate?
Did Jesus sacrifice himself to redeem the sins of mankind on the cross?
Do you believe in original sin?
If you answered no to any of those, then what makes you a Christian?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 13, 2009 9:05 AM
Why isn't heddle here? He keeps on denying that cafeteria Christians as embarrassingly clueless as hithesh exist; it's unfortunate he's not he to be proved wrong.
hithesh, can you write that stuff about how confusing shit bat shit is again? That was brilliant.
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 9:15 AM
The reason my country comparisons were all over the map, was to make the point (not clearly I guess) that there are way too many variables involved to make the kind of comparison people wanted to make.
Just the fact that the US crushed its labor movement, and Sweden did not, is enough to make a welfare comparison between them difficult; just becuase they are both "democracies" doesn't mean that you can go ahead and say, "well, we've controlled for that variable, now let's compare their religiosity". Haiti and the US are both capitalist countries, India and the US are both democracies, Vietnam and NK are both Communist. These categories are just starting points in a discussion, not "variables".
Posted by: Kel | May 13, 2009 9:17 AM
I can understand that different Christians choose different aspects of their religion to emphasise. But really, those issues seem core to Christianity (well ever since the Nicene Creed.) While not supported in the oldest of gospels, the notion of Jesus being God-incarnate has been central to Christian thought for over 1600 years. And what else was the sacrifice for but to atone for original sin? I can see that he may object to the terms I used to describe the events (they are absurd to I framed it as such) but really those seem to be the underlying beliefs of Christianity. That God is a trinity, composed of the father, the son and the holy spirit. Jesus came to earth to atone for the sins of mankind, and by dying on the cross was able to give his followers a path to God.
John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - really, if hithesh is going to deny that these are the basic parameters of his belief in God, then what does he have left to call himself a Christian? It's redemption through Christ at it's most basic. This isn't about being a Cafeteria Christian, it's about the basic tenets of the religion. If hithesh doesn't subscribe to the belief that Jesus is God, then what is he?
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 9:21 AM
"That's the sticking point, Hithesh. There are no good reasons to believe that there was an actual resurrection experience, period. "
Well, even historians agree there was a resurrection experience, though they're not sure of what it was comprised, whether it be visions or whatever else not.
Jesus was crucified and died, and rather than meeting the fate of every other crucified and killed messiah at the time, abandon, and forgotten, something happened after his death, that instead of diminishing their hope, renewed it. What ever this experience was it was as real to them as touching wounded flesh.
This stands regardless of if I want it to be true, or not.
"You have said that you believe for "entirely subjective" reasons, as you might "find a painting or poem meaningful"
Well, if it wasn't for subjective reasons we wouldn't be compelled to believe anything at all. We just wouldn't care to believe. As I said in a previous post I would still find the christian perspective as the most accurate worldview, as a form of tragic humanism, even if I was a disbeliever, I just wouldn't be empowered by the Christian hope, there for I wouldn't be a believer (a Christian).
It's only by being compelled, by being convicted to follow, that I'm believer, without that even if all the facts were true, I wouldn't be a christian at all.
Posted by: Kel | May 13, 2009 9:27 AM
Ahhh, the experience is subjective card. Someone talking to someone else and someone rising from the dead, it's all subjective right? Nevermind that millions of people die each year and none rise from the dead. Nevermind that mythology is littered with god-men conquering death. All that matters is that a couple of eyewitnesses said Jesus resurrected and all sense of scepticism is thrown out the window. After all, when Christianity had to compete with pagan God-men, what reason would it's followers have to say that Jesus is just as powerful as the gods they are trying to displace?
I submit that human resurrection is an extraordinary claim, and thus a claim that requires extraordinary evidence. If all we have is eyewitness accounts (which we don't even have but that is besides the point) then is that extraordinary enough evidence to support the belief? Do we take the words of millions who have seen UFOs and thousands who have been abducted to mean that aliens are among us? If the answer is no, then why is it any better for Christianity?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 13, 2009 9:39 AM
What a fucking crock of shit. They might agree that a person roughly equating to the Jesus of the bible existed based on the documentation available; that says nothing whatsoever about whether they believe in the 'resurrection experience'.
The two are vastly different, and require completely different forms of validation. Support for the existence of Jesus the man ≠ acceptance of Jesus the god.
You've worked on your writing with some success; now try working on your thinking.
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 9:56 AM
Twins: "I can understand that different Christians choose different aspects of their religion to emphasise. But really, those issues seem core to Christianity (well ever since the Nicene Creed.)"
Well, I don't really care what you think the core of Christianity is. Judging that most atheist here portray fundamentalism as the core, we could only imagine what they think the core of the Christian faith is. I consider myself an orthodox theist, a mainline christian. The outline Eagleton paints for the mainline Christian beliefs, i find to be accurate. Its only PZ Myers and crowd who believe such christianity such as that belongs to the fringe.
But to prevent you from running off with what you believe are the tenets of orthodox theism are, and what they mean. I suggest we leave the battle with an interpretation of text themselves, and not an interpretation of the creeds of the Christian church. If you want to speak about original sin, I want it to come from the new testament text, not because you heard it out of the mouth of Pat Robertson.
"While not supported in the oldest of gospels, the notion of Jesus being God-incarnate has been central to Christian thought for over 1600 years. "
Well, i already said that I believe Jesus is God, the Truth incarnate.
"And what else was the sacrifice for but to atone for original sin? I can see that he may object to the terms I used to describe the events (they are absurd to I framed it as such) but really those seem to be the underlying beliefs of Christianity."
I believe Jesus died for the atonement of sin, but I rejected your framework for it, you're version of what atonement means, or even what original sin is, a version annexed from the entire gospel message, and even the Pauline epistles. I reject a notion of atonement, that portrays it a legalistic event, an event annexed from the events that led to his death, a betrayal to the text itself, or says it has something to do with magic blood, rather than the change of heart.
"That God is a trinity, composed of the father, the son and the holy spirit. Jesus came to earth to atone for the sins of mankind, and by dying on the cross was able to give his followers a path to God. "
And I whole heartedly agree with this.
"John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
I whole heartedly agree with this too
"I can see that he may object to the terms I used to describe the events (they are absurd to I framed it as such) [....]really, if hithesh is going to deny that these are the basic parameters of his belief in God, then what does he have left to call himself a Christian? It's redemption through Christ at it's most basic. This isn't about being a Cafeteria Christian, it's about the basic tenets of the religion. If hithesh doesn't subscribe to the belief that Jesus is God, then what is he?"
Well, its good to know you confessed your absurdity, and that's exactly what I rejected, not the basic tenets of the christian faith, which as you can see from this post, I confessed to believing in, not rejecting it.
Imagine if I asked you if you believe in PZ's image of the star gazing child as an inspiring symbol of the human condition, then went on to interpret it as an image that claims that the literal stars have some sort of supernatural power that leads us to be more moral, live better, etc... You may believe the image to be inspiring, but yet reject my absurd interpretation of what it means.
I accept that Jesus died for the atonement of sins, I just reject what you believe that means.
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 13, 2009 9:58 AM
"Well, even historians agree there was a resurrection experience"
This is an objective claim. Support it.
"something happened after his death"
As vague and weasel-worded as this is, it's an objective claim. Support it.
Time to shit or get off the pot.
Posted by: Kel | May 13, 2009 10:11 AM
I don't listen to the likes of Pat Robertson. He represents an extreme ideology that is at the far right of Christian values and as such is not very relevant to anyone who isn't a fundamentalist Christian. Rather I tried to define Christianity in the broadest possible sense because I don't think that it's appropriate to play the "no true scotsman" gambit - especially on a religion I don't adhere to.
Then just what of my characterisation are you objecting to? It seems you are disagreeing with me for the sake of taking an objection, trying to characterise my interpretation as a fringe view of Christianity by which you can dismiss out of hand and not object to.I don't believe it means anything, it's nothing more than a ritual designed to cleanse oneself from responsibility. I'm still calling your beliefs absurd as you belief that Jesus is God. You asked why we deny your worldview as true and the core of my answer was that you belief that God came down to earth in manform, i.e. Jesus. What I characterise as the purpose of that sin is irrelevant, but what I've been told by countless Christians of all different schools of thoughts is that Jesus died for our sins and that Jesus is God. I called that absurd and thus denied your worldview that has that as the centre. Now that you agree that you have that at the centre of your worldview, surely you can agree that my point sticks and you were wrong to dismiss it as me not understanding your worldview.
I'll reiterate, you believe in God, a manifestly false belief. And since God is at the centre of your worldview, I will call your reality as absurd until such time as you demonstrate that God really exists. For reading material, check out former preacher John W. Loftus' "outsider test for faith" and see whether your religion can pass it. If not, then stop acting as if you have any validity to your delusion.
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 10:12 AM
Well, the Nicene Creed might be part of institutional Christianity, but for all we know might in 2,000 years be considered an aberration that got fixed sometime near the end of the 21st century... it's useful to keep a perspective on these things.
The "atoning for original sin" thing is not the only orthodox (or heterodox...) interpretation of the the Crucifixion. A more appealing one is the theologian Girard's idea that it represents God's exposure of the "scapegoating mechanism", the social dynamic that looks to innocent victims to blame for social disorder; Jesus' death then is interpreted as fulfilling the movement against sacrifice that the Hebrew Prophets started.
That is, the crowd (mob, whatever) demanded the sacrifice of a victim, but this victim, being the Incarnated Deity, was obviously innocent (stay with me here) and made it impossible for the scapegoat mechanism to be used after that without guilt or self-consciousness, the way it was before. (He uses this to explain, for example, the ferocity with which the Nazis tried to "Germanify" the Christian story to one in which Christ's death was just the fall of a hero, in order to evade this moral.)
On the Resurection thread:
A rather famous atheist, the Dalai Lama, has no trouble believing in the Resurrection, and says that the Apostles may have seen Jesus' "Dharma Body". Just so you know. :)
Posted by: Kel | May 13, 2009 10:14 AM
I did not confess that I wrote an absurdity, just that I framed your beliefs in the absurd manner to which they sound to anyone who doesn't follow those beliefs. Discern the difference you fool!Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 13, 2009 10:17 AM
It means you're a clueless sucker; your rejection of the fact changes that not at all.
Think about it; why, exactly, did Jesus need to die? Why was your god's power so limited that the only option he had was to come to earth in human form and then be tortured and executed before he could 'forgive' us?
What was preventing your supposedly omnipotent god from just forgiving humanity?
How anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can buy into this blatant attempt at a guilt trip is beyond me; it's just too stupid for words. And let's not even start on how utterly ridiculous it is for an omniscient, omnicognisant being to judge and condemn his creations for how they acted.
Having your nonsensical god judge us is like turning on the tap and then demanding to be allowed to punish the water for coming out.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 13, 2009 10:21 AM
and?
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 13, 2009 10:22 AM
Hithesh, the correct answer is: "I do not have any reasons for believing in the historical actuality of Jesus' resurrection, instead I accept it to be true as a matter of faith."
You have only two options, and no others - either concede that you accept the claims of your religion by virtue of faith and that you have no evidence, or you MUST provide objective evidence to support the historical actuality of the claim. Anything else is flat-out insulting and will demonstrate once and for all that you have zero respect whatsoever for anyone here.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 10:22 AM
Hithesh and Rudy, still no physical evidence for your claims, either for jebus or god. Just mental wanking and word salad. As TwinIonEngines says, it is time to shit or get off the pot. Show your physical evidence or go away, and do your mental wanking elsewhere.
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 10:27 AM
Wowbagger: "They might agree that a person roughly equating to the Jesus of the bible existed based on the documentation available; that says nothing whatsoever about whether they believe in the 'resurrection experience'."
I suggest you go read up on the views of the Jesus seminar, concerning the resurrection.
But let's get something straight.
I have a friend, who sometimes when she sleeps she wakes up to demons attacking her, she was made paralyzed and couldn't move, while the demons would choke her, and do whatever else. If you watched the night line debate, on the existence of Satan, you'd find the emotional theist woman, confessed to having similar experiences.
I have no doubt that my friend and this woman experienced this. Very few of us with a little thought, and few questions to them, hardly would deny this.
They experienced exactly what they said they experienced.
Where we disagree, is what was the cause of it. They may believe it was caused by literal demons attacking them. But for me, and for most of us here the cause was sleep paralysis.
A historical analysis of the ressurection experience would be like this, if the early followers of Jesus felt they saw a ressurected Jesus what would the experience be like, what would happen to them by it, from what we do know of the early followers do they portray the behavior we would expect from such an event? What was the expected result of a community witnessing their supposed messiah crucified be? why did the followers of Jesus defy that expectation?
There's plenty of reasons, from these questions alone, to reasonably hold that the early followers of Jesus had a resurrection experience. Historians even on the far left of the equator concede this much (the jesus seminar).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 10:36 AM
Hithesh, more verbal salad, but no hard evidence. You appear to be terrified of hard physical evidence. The only conclusion I can draw is that there is no physical evidence whatsoever to back up your claims, and you know it. Which makes you a woo infested delusional fool.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 13, 2009 10:41 AM
Help! I keep going around and around!
Posted by: Stu
|
May 13, 2009 10:48 AM
Paging heddle... paging heddle... hitesh v. heddle, this afternoon, ten paces, with KJVs...
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 10:49 AM
By nature, people are imaginative, highly suggestible, credulous as all get out, and really poor interpreters of subjective experience, traits that amplify themselves in groups united around religious leaders. For you to turn that around and tell us that what people believed, gleaned from stories written in a style of mystery-fable that was dripping with miraculous and portent-filled tropes, tells us more about something that must have really happened rather than telling us something about people, doesn't tell us anything very impressive about you.
Posted by: Stu
|
May 13, 2009 10:51 AM
There's plenty of reasons, from these questions alone, to reasonably hold that the early followers of Jesus had a resurrection experience. Historians even on the far left of the equator concede this much (the jesus seminar).
Sure, and the proof of these early followers having such an experience is...
(Knock it off with your pathetic "Jesus Seminar" argument from authority. It's transparent, sad, mendacious and stupid.)
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 10:52 AM
No, we (I'll lump myself in with Hithesh this time) haven't provided any physical evidence for God's existence. The few theists posting here have said, over and over, that their particular notion of God rules out this evidence.
If you can see it, it's part of the Creation, not part of the Creator.
Hithesh, who is more orthodox than me, will disagree with my next statment, but I think God is greater, as a great idea, than as a great being. Sort of kicking the ontological argument up a notch.
Brian Aldiss (I think) once wrote a novel where God appears on Earth, as a large insectoid alien, and proceeds to issue cryptic commands. Clearly to the reader, but not to the narrator, this God is just an alien parasitizing human religious emotions.
If God seems to show up, as a human avatar, and starts giving terrific sermons (J.C.) or playing the flute to milkmaids (Krishna), how do we know for sure that we aren't just in a scenario like Aldiss' novel above? I don't know. I think you have to, as J.C. remarks, consider the fruits.
I just brought up the Dalai Lama to show that There Is More Than One Way to Look At All This, and for fun. Not every post here has to be about persuasion, or winning an argument, I hope.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 13, 2009 10:57 AM
I have a friend, who sometimes when she sleeps she wakes up to demons attacking her, she was made paralyzed and couldn't move, while the demons would choke her, and do whatever else. If you watched the night line debate, on the existence of Satan, you'd find the emotional theist woman, confessed to having similar experiences.
I have no doubt that my friend and this woman experienced this. Very few of us with a little thought, and few questions to them, hardly would deny this.
They experienced exactly what they said they experienced.
I would say that they experienced something but their interpretations of the events are way off. So, hithesh, to you think mental illnesses are the results of demon possession?
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 11:01 AM
Wowbagger: "It means you're a clueless sucker; your rejection of the fact changes that not at all."
Oh shit you called me a clueless sucker! That's a fight in my neighborhood. :)
"Think about it; why, exactly, did Jesus need to die?"
I went over most of this in comment #379 of this post: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/the_eagleton_delusion.php.
So i'm not going to repeat everything I wrote there again. But you're more than welcome to comment here on it.
"Think about it; why, exactly, did Jesus need to die?"
To reveal a way of life, not by words but being an example of it, and by being the source of the conviction for others to follow him as well. In the Gospels the claim is not that Jesus died so we didn't have to, that the cross is only reserved for him, but that the cross waits all those who follow him. As Herbert Mccabe would sum it: "If you do not love your dead, and if you love they'll kill you."
Jesus doesn't claim that his followers because of his suffering will be able to avoid the same fate, in fact he tells them the exact opposite, in their lives they'll go through trials and suffer for being his followers, but to fear not.
Atonement, at it's most basic, regardless of which version one adheres to is, is the cause of a change of heart, that causes a steering of an aimless life, or life one felt wasn't lived in a good way, to one that is. Its not an act that causes atonement, but the conviction the act produces that does it.
It's by a theist reflection of his own depravity, fraility, cruelty and indifference that we see symbolical represented by the cross, by a murdered innocent who loved us regardless, are we redeemed, and moved to be better.
[quote]Why was your god's power so limited that the only option he had was to come to earth in human form and then be tortured and executed before he could 'forgive' us?"[/quote]
Well, its your view that Christ willful death, is a testament of God's limit. It's the option that God choose, and I find it to be a profound one. I don't find it to be a testament of God's limit, but a testament of God's infinite wisdom. I don't believe any other way would have been better, that's your belief, not mine.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 11:07 AM
That hithesh would try to use subjective impressions of followers who needed to collectively deny the death of their leader as compelling testimony, in the same breath as he characterized the subjective experience of a woman who interpreted her sleep-paralysis experiences as demonic, is self-sabotaging. Meanwhile, among the religious believers with whom hithesh vaguely allies himself (at least moreso than with atheists, as a defining characteristic of Christians appears to be that no two can agree upon what it is they should believe and why, and that any of us former Christians never describe Christianity properly at all, no matter whether it's hithesh or heddle), tales of demons and hellfire and possession and exorcisms are lapped up by suggestible people who would both sincerely fear eternal punishment and reject science. We're to be persuaded by hithesh that a tortured man is a sublime image of contemplation, while an image of a child contemplating the stars is contemptible superstition, when children are crushed to drive the demons out of them by well-meaning Christians.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 13, 2009 11:09 AM
"I would say that they experienced something but their interpretations of the events are way off. So, hithesh, to you think mental illnesses are the results of demon possession?"
I already confessed what I believed the cause of the experience was, I suggest you go back and read it again. And no, i do not believe that mental illness is caused by demon possession, I don't even claim that my friend suffering from those demon visions is mentally ill, anymore so than a friend who suffered a similar sleep paralysis where with Lex Luther standing over him, is mentally ill.
Posted by: Stu
|
May 13, 2009 11:15 AM
It's by a theist reflection of his own depravity, fraility, cruelty and indifference that we see symbolical represented by the cross, by a murdered innocent who loved us regardless, are we redeemed, and moved to be better.
News flash: we're not all as fucked up as you, and therefore do not need God as a binky.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 13, 2009 11:22 AM
"Sure, and the proof of these early followers having such an experience is..."
Well, history nor science gives you proofs, so you're barking up the wrong tree here.
Here let's let you lead yourself.
Historical facts: Jesus was crucified. The early followers unlike followers of other messiahs who met their untimely death, continued to believe in him, even more fervently so, as the writings of the community portray.
And the question for you is, what was the cause of this? Why the unexpected result?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 13, 2009 11:22 AM
Fine, so it is a demonic attack instead of demonic possession. You still have jack squat about the proof of demons. And my charge remains, they experienced something, it is just now what you are claiming it is.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 11:25 AM
Rudy, if your deist god can't be proven with physical evidence, why not keep it to yourself? Any philosophical god incapable of interacting with the real world is a worthless git, not worthy of being respected, much less worshiped, since it only exists a persons mind. Physical evidence should be present for any god who does interact with the real world. Defending an idea with no physical evidence is not the smartest thing to do at Pharyngula.
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 11:26 AM
Ken, you write,
[as a defining characteristic of Christians appears to be that no two can agree upon what it is they should believe and why]
Why is this a problem? And how is it "defining", as this would seem to be true of any label that covered a large group
otherwise you would have to agree with all the views of the Dalai Lama [Rudy pauses to dodge a well-thrown brick, then resumes] or any number of nontheist UFO enthusiasts. Sure, you can say that well, they at least all agree that there is no God, no waffling or dancing around the point, but you know, Christian is a little more specific than "theist", with more complex attributes.
That's like complaining that Buddhists don't all agree with each other, though they are all atheists (or at least don't consider gods important, even if some think they exist in theory).
Or complaining that you can't get string theorists to agree with each other, so they must just be BS'ing. (OK, people *have* written books saying that....)
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 11:27 AM
And the question for you is, what was the cause of this? Why the unexpected result?
What was unexpected about this result? Cults around dead and resurrected gods were a dime a dozen for centuries, both all around the Mediterranean and all along the Silk Road. Oh, and if you see the Buddha coming down the road, kill him.
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 11:30 AM
Stu:
"News flash: we're not all as fucked up as you, and therefore do not need God as a binky."
Get over yourself dude, you like your buddy over there Nerdy, suffer this delusion, of always perceiving a "we", I was talking about myself, and other Christians, there was no you in that dipshit.
What was so fucken hard about understanding what I wrote: "It's by a theist reflection of his own....." doesn't include Stu the dimwitted atheist.
Tell me was that so obscure for you? Was it written in some sort of mystery tongue, that you couldn't comprehend that much?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 13, 2009 11:32 AM
Rudy, if you've now conceded that god is just an idea people had, not an entity that actually exists, congratulations; you're an atheist.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 11:33 AM
Rudy,
Why is this a problem?
Hint: it isn't a problem for atheists.
Or complaining that you can't get string theorists to agree with each other, so they must just be BS'ing. (OK, people *have* written books saying that....)
When string theorists get to the point where their rich conjecture becomes in any way scientifically confirmable or discomfirmable, there won't be much for reasonable people to disagree about.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 13, 2009 11:34 AM
Well, history nor science gives you proofs, so you're barking up the wrong tree here.
So Shithesh lays out his own facts that we are supposed to accept at face value. (Like his tale of his friend with the night time demonic attacks.) Sorry, Jesus being crucified is not a historical fact. As for having a growing number of followers, amazing how that can happen when christianity become the official state religion of the Roman Empire and the other competing religions are either outlawed, suppressed or absorbed.
Shithesh, you are an easily misled simpleton. Also just a bit shit bat shit insane.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 13, 2009 11:37 AM
And hithesh, way to go with that Christian charity and cheek-turning, man. I think your guy had something to say about those who call their brothers, raka, thou fool; I think dipshit probably counts? dimwit, pretty clearly... yup, hithesh has damned hisself again. Or would have, if his beliefs were true.
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 11:46 AM
Ken Cope:
"What was unexpected about this result? Cults around dead and resurrected gods were a dime a dozen for centuries, both all around the Mediterranean and all along the Silk Road."
Supposed messiah claimants were a dime a dozen, after their untimely death, none of them developed into such a cult. The expected result of when supposed Jewish messiah claimant dies, is that his followers abandon their beliefs in his messiahship, or at least reveal a diminished sort of faith in him (as it was for Sabbati Zevi, though it wasnt death that was the unexpected event).
What happened with the Christian community as conveyed by their writings, is that they reveal a very vivid and entrenched sense of hope, I would like to know what possibly caused that conviction.
I already said that I believe that they had a resurrection experience, that they're experience of Christ still living, was as vivid and as real to them as touching wounded flesh.
I don't care if you believe otherwise, but i would like to see you argue that this view is not reasonable for me to hold.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 11:46 AM
Hithesh, you are a proven liar and bullshitter. Therefore, your testament is worthless. What part of that don't you understand? We are trying to get you outside of your mind for verification of what you say, preferably with physical evidence. And you fail miserably each and every time. What part of that do you have trouble with?
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 11:48 AM
Ken, well, if (and it's a big if) the mind is immaterial, then God interacts with us through our minds.
Or, to put it the way I think about it myself, if meaning is immaterial God speaks through the meanings of things, the way a Van Gogh painting is physical but has a (hard to grasp) meaning also.
I don't think this whole humongous thread started because theists were wanting to prove they were right through physical evidence, but because PZ's story misrepresented their story. Or at least it mispresents mine, and I guess Hitesh's and eric's (can't recall any other theists who posted).
Christians also think God intervenes in history, but I would argue, in the same way you or I intervene in history. If Jesus was in fact also an avatar of the Deity, he still just talked, and "healed" (I'm skeptical of the miracles, as physical healing, Hittesh probably isn't), and died. Resurrection, which if it happened seemed physical to its witnesses, left no traces for us except people's writings.
But I don't think that's important to think about for non-Christian theists.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 13, 2009 11:54 AM
"It's by a theist reflection of his own depravity, fraility, cruelty and indifference that we see symbolical represented by the cross, by a murdered innocent who loved us regardless, are we redeemed, and moved to be better." - hithesh
Doesn't seem to have worked with you. Or... is it possible you were once even more obnoxious and conceited than you are now?
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 12:01 PM
Stephen, no, you're wrong. I'm not an atheist; I know the difference. I think your idea of what a theist is, is too small. (Again, Google "weak ontology".) As I said earlier, though, I don't think She cares, She loves you anyway.
(Rudy dodges again).
Being an idea is a good thing. Ideas are not all imaginary, or at least, She isn't.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 13, 2009 12:07 PM
(Rudy dodges again)
Damn but that Rudy likes to show off his belief that the cruel masses are out to persecute him.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 12:15 PM
Rudy, the only thing that will convince a majority of us is physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Otherwise, it is just a personal belief on your part. Why not keep it personal then?
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 13, 2009 12:23 PM
"Historical facts: Jesus was crucified." - hithesh
Far from established, of course, since the gospel accounts are from several decades after the supposed event, and there are no reliable accounts from elsewhere.
"The early followers unlike followers of other messiahs who met their untimely death, continued to believe in him"
Joseph Smith's and L. Ron Hubbard's followers still believe in them, despite the abundant proofs that they were liars and frauds. Jehovah's Nuisances continue to believe in their prophecies, despite several dates for the end of the world passing without event. Human credulity is limitless. Perhaps that's what you are here to demonstrate?
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 12:27 PM
Janine, that was supposed to be a joke; "God loves you anyway" is a cliche' that atheists get told a lot by earnest religious types, and I guess I felt as though I had to put scare quotes of a sort around it, like a vaudeville joke. I'm sorry it didn't work.
If I directed a pun at someone here, I would (virtually) dodge too.
No one has called me names on this thread, and I don't feel persecuted - but are the 20 or so posters here really "masses"? I'll hold my tongue regarding the "cruel" part :)
but I sympathize with Hittesh holding his tongue, uh, keyboard as long as he did, with all the trash talk going his way. (As soon as he gives it back, he's suddenly a hypocrite. That is sophmoric, people.)
Posted by: Stu
|
May 13, 2009 12:32 PM
Historical facts: Jesus was crucified.
Any proof of this? The Bible does not count, as it was written (way) after the fact by people with a vested interest in it being so.
What happened with the Christian community as conveyed by their writings, is that they reveal a very vivid and entrenched sense of hope, I would like to know what possibly caused that conviction.
Asked and answered, moron: it became the official religion of the most powerful state at the time.
Get over yourself dude, you like your buddy over there Nerdy, suffer this delusion, of always perceiving a "we", I was talking about myself, and other Christians, there was no you in that dipshit.
So we agree: you need your binky because you are, in essence, a depraved asshole.
Posted by: Stu
|
May 13, 2009 12:38 PM
but I sympathize with Hittesh holding his tongue, uh, keyboard as long as he did, with all the trash talk going his way.
It would have helped if he hadn't dodged, preached and lied for a few hundred posts, Rudy. Besides being vague, long-winded and dumb as a sack of hammers, that is.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 13, 2009 12:38 PM
Even if it were a "historical fact" as you say, that some 30ish year old man named Jesus existed at all and was crucified around the time people claim he was, that is far from being important.
The important part is what is claimed next. Without the resurrection, Christianity means exactly zero.
And there is absolutely no evidence of the resurrection let alone anyway to show there was one.
Posted by: tom | May 13, 2009 12:39 PM
Every year thousands of blind people are killed while fondling elephants. Thank you PZ.Myers for taking on this issue that no one else seems to be willing to discuss.
Posted by: Monimonika | May 13, 2009 12:45 PM
Hitesh,
I know you're busy trying to respond to multiple people, so I can understand if you miss this, but I am just curious.
Do you believe/have faith in/(insert appropriate term) that Jesus was born of a virgin?
Do you believe(etc.) that Jesus was born somewhere around December (or at least during the winter season)?
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 12:58 PM
Nerd, I'm not trying to convince, I'm trying to explain. I've tried to make it interesting, and writing stuff down at least helps clarify my beliefs to myself.
If this thread was just about "is there physical evidence for God", then I guess my posts would be OT, but the discussion seemed to range around more than that. PZ's story was about more than that (though the Moe, Larry and Curly aspect - the mundane, dull work of science that nonetheless gets to the truth - only got a few brief nods, and I didn't notice it for a while. I liked that part too.)
If you think my beliefs are just BS, at least you know they are a different brand of BS than the brand on offer at the Creation Science Museum. Is that fair enough? I don't have to go on anymore about them.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 1:07 PM
I don't care if you believe otherwise, but i would like to see you argue that this view is not reasonable for me to hold.
I don't care if you believe otherwise, but based on your behavior in this and other threads, you wouldn't recognize reason if it walked right up and bit you on the ass.
You believe that your belief is reasonable and that my disbelief is not, but you won't admit that you believe either out of need (for Stu's binky) or desire. For whatever reason, you behave here as if you'll feel better about your belief if you can convince yourself and others that your belief is reasonable.
My concern in participating in these online discussions is in checking with my neighbors about our experiences and challenges in learning how to avoid fooling ourselves, because we're curious about our nature and the nature of the world, in order to build accurate models and representations against which we can measure new observations and evidence, and determine how well they correlate with predictions based on our models, so that our models can be revised, as a means for a deeper understanding of ourselves and our world. This process is rather less foundational, and more like a nautical running fix.
As part of the discussion among people who understand this endeavor, various people persist in claiming that they are not fooling themselves, and that we are fools for not believing things which, to my knowledge, nobody has ever claimed to be able to objectively verify beyond reasonable doubt. I have a lot more respect for people who believe things and are willing to admit that they do so because they fucking well feel like it and if I don't like it I can go fuck myself, than for people who torture reason and evidence and English and honest human interaction in order to shriek at the wind that they're right and I'm wrong, goddammit.
YMMV
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 13, 2009 1:12 PM
oh whop-dee-doo: one woo-addled old man is able to fit your magic into his own magical world view. newsflash: he's only an atheist because his religion doesn't require belief in god.
it isn't. dualism has been disproven. gods actions on a person's brain would be visible as "unnatural" brain-activity. while prayer and meditation do stimulate the brain, there's noting supernatural about the activity, merely a self-stimulation (think of it as the brain masturbating)
meaning is human-made. Your god then is the anthropomorphzation of thoroughly human-made thing. still nothing than an embellishment on reality, and one even less "real" than hithesh's.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 1:15 PM
Rudy,
if (and it's a big if) the mind is immaterial, then God interacts with us through our minds.
You probably know that such a premise is not attractive to an audience of physicalists. The world would be a lot different than it appears to be if our bodies were merely tranceivers for psychic woo, or transcendent unexplainium, or whatever hand-waving pixie dust you're asking us to accept is indistinguishable from non-existence. I'm not inclined to cede the possibility of its existence in order to help you prop up your magic sky pixie.
The minute you come up with any evidence for the non-locality of mind, and any resultant communication with phenomenal cosmic Powers, James Randi has a million bucks waiting for you. Good luck with that. I'm glad that the discipline of neurophysiology is less than sanguine about your otiose hypothesis.
Posted by: jay | May 13, 2009 1:18 PM
something like this, perhaps
http://www.pixeladdiction.com/Contest_entry.php?id=14653&cad=1658&type=u
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 13, 2009 1:19 PM
oh awesome. your friend suffers from something that sounds suspiciously like debiliating anxiety attacks, something that is fully curable with therapy, and all you can do is say OMGZ, DIMONZZZZ!!!!!one!!, instead of suggesting to your friend that she might be ill and that if she got help, she could get rid of the attacks...?
at least I hope you've refrained from "spiritual warfare" on your poor friend's demon :-/
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 1:27 PM
Jadehawk, I think saying "dualism is disproven" is a bit of a reach. In any case, I'm not sure what "unnatural" brain activity would mean.
Take for example, Case 1: After long research, I suddenly solve a long-standing conjecture in algebraic topology. Case 2: After long prayer, I suddenly realize that God wants me to give up eating meat.
Would my brain activity be detectably different in these two cases (supposing that our poor subjects could concentrate while in the machine)? Could someone, even in principle, tell that I was even thinking about algebraic topology?
Posted by: Stu
|
May 13, 2009 1:32 PM
Ken: I am SO stealing "unexplainium". Pure win.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 1:32 PM
Could someone, even in principle, tell that I was even thinking about algebraic topology?
Yes.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 1:35 PM
Rudy, Isaac Asimov, the prolific author, and atheist, would on occasion get stuck in his writing. His method to get past the block was to attend an action movie that had enough car chases, explosions and the like to keep his attention, but didn't have a deep enough plot to totally absorb his mind. By the time his subconscious worked on the problem for a while, he found the solution to get past his block. I've used his technic a time or two with success. Your AHA moments you describe come by the same process. Deities are not required.
Posted by: CJO | May 13, 2009 1:42 PM
Well, hithesh is right on one thing. There almost certainly were resurrection experiences. Since even Paul had one, years after some others and far from Jerusalem and Galilee where (most of) the others seem to have occurred, we can be pretty confident that they were distributed in space and time, and seem to have resembled garden-variety religious experiences accompanied by evangelizing zeal. Then, 40 to 60 years later, we have these elaborate narratives detailing the earthly career of the figure who supposedly was the object of these experiences.
The problem here is the long history of reading this record backwards. Just because a new kind of Jewish piety arose is Judea and Galilee in the early first century, accompanied, as religious fervors often are, with powerful subjective experiences, doesn't mean that the contextualizing of those experiences done by later generations accurately reports the situation on the ground prior to those experiences. The gospels were written for their own time, not the time of the experiences, and they invented a historicized figure as their focus, where such a literalization would have, I am convinced, utterly missed the point as far as those original 'experiencers' would have been concerned.
hithesh said
I have an interest in Jesus Christ being an actual historical person, who was actually crucified, and that there was an actual resurrection experience. It would be quite difficult to reconcile the meaning of the gospels without such things.
The situation with the gospels is quite the reverse. It is impossible to reconcile the gospels with their contradictory claims and divergent theologies if there were any actual, historical truth to the claim that this figure existed and was crucified at the time and place the gospels specify. The figure was invented to make the resurrection experiences relevant to later generations of Jews, and new groups of gentiles who had been getting into the act, after the religious fervor had died down and the vague claims of the (now dead) forebears no longer satisfied (not least because they were dead, though they had believed that the they would live to see the kingdom).
By the mid 2nd century, all of this context was lost, and most Christians have been clinging to some version of the historicized figure ever since. Fundies, of course, buy the whole thing; 'sophisticated' Christians like our hithesh, aware of the mythical character of most of the gospel stories, lay claim to only the minimal core. Doesn't matter. The whole thing was invented to make sense of an early 1st century Jewish religious revival, and none of it is any more relevant to the modern world than Abraham's views on child-rearing.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 1:42 PM
Stu, be my guest. If I didn't steal it, I applied the form after hearing a friend of mine in IT describe a second monitor I'd requested as "being made of unobtainium."
Unexplainium is what Mysterians (after ? and The, per Dennett) say that consciousness is made of.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 13, 2009 1:49 PM
the brain activity is different for those two activities; however, if an actual God was involved, the activity would be different in a way that would be inconsistent with self-stimulation (what exactly that would entail is a question for actual neuroscientists, so I'm not gonna speculate here).
also, you seem to be confusing detection of specific brain-activity with thought-reading...
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 13, 2009 1:58 PM
#890: hah! I completely forgot about that one... I guess we ARE one step closer to though-reading! :-p
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 2:01 PM
[puts on Karnak turban]Jadehawk @895, you were thinking of the letter "t" weren't you?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 13, 2009 2:02 PM
also, I always get a giggle out of the claims that there must have been SOMEthing to the resurrection if so many people believed in it... because, you know, those thousands of people who believe that Elvis Lives! also have SOMEthing to go on: namely their pathological need for it to be true :-p
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 13, 2009 2:04 PM
Ken: lol, indeed
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 2:15 PM
Ken, it's a nice result (stare at big ol' N on screen you can pick it up in visual cortex) but doesn't really take things that much farther than McCulloch and Pitts did in 1968, except for the nicer tech. (Google "What the frog's eye tells the frog's brain", there's a PDF online). Even dualists think the brain DOES something (it's breaking down visual patterns, in this case.) I don't have a strong leaning towards dualism, as far as consciousness is concerned, it's the meaning of the world that's its spiritual aspect.
I admit though, in principle you might pick up some signs that someone is visualizing something (a fuzzy commutative diagram, or something) which would give you hints as to what they were thinking about. I think I made my claim too big for the point I was trying to make, which actually went the other way: that you wouldn't expect anything "unnatural" when a person thoughts were influenced by God, any more than it's "unnatural" when a person gets an idea from a book.
Nerd, I've seen that same technique suggested for ADHD folks. I'm not surprised that it helps jog the ol' synapses loose.
Wittgenstein liked to watch American mysteries and Westerns.
Posted by: Watchman | May 13, 2009 2:22 PM
Therefor, God's influence is indistinguishable from that of a book.
Parsimony, parsimony, parsimony.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 13, 2009 2:27 PM
right, the same way a hurricane supposedly sent by god is indistinguishable from a natural hurricane.
if your god is indistinguishable from non-supernatural events, it is an unnecessary embellishment; to say that your thoughts are influenced by god is as scientifically accurate as saying that the muses have inspired you to create a piece of art: it's an unnecessary (from an explanation-POW) embellishment on reality, sicne reality can be explained just fine without it. I've been trying to explain this since you've come into this thread, except you then took it on that silly "religion is socially necessary" tangent, which is a separate topic.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 2:30 PM
I don't have a strong leaning towards dualism, as far as consciousness is concerned, it's the meaning of the world that's its spiritual aspect.
Apart from its conditional status as the antecedent for the consequent that your preferred spiritual meaning of the world could be accurate, what do you suppose we'd need to learn before scientists began to prefer dualism to physicalism?
What evidence would compel any reasonable person to abandon physicalism for dualism?
Got any?
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
May 13, 2009 2:33 PM
Still more testy goodness.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 13, 2009 2:39 PM
and another involuntary(?) admission that the whole spirituality thing is man-made, since "meaning" is man-made
for "meaning" to be non-human-made, it would have to be extraneous... and if there's only a singular source of this extraneous meaning (i.e. god), "meaning" would have to be universal. it is not. "meaning" is completely and utterly subjective, and even socially "meaningful" things vary greatly from culture to culture. nothing that I can think of right now has the same "meaning" to every culture, or even to every person within the same culture.
Posted by: Lynna | May 13, 2009 2:40 PM
Ken Cope @#885
Dr. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at U.C.S.D.. Excerpt from article by John Colapinto in the May 11, 2009 issue of The New Yorker:
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 2:46 PM
Um, Jadehawk, I don't remember saying "religion is socially necessary" - are you thinking of the subthread involving Swedish heavy metal bands and North Korea? There are too many posts to look back through, but I thought I expressed agnosticism on that idea. I thought that was clear enough when I said we'd have to wait a couple of centuries to see how Scandinavia turned out.
Someone else *did* claim that religiosity and social quality were inversely correlated, and I tried to find counterexamples there (but the thread was too fragmented for me to make a good case, I lost the thread of my argument a few times.)
Watchman, they don't call them "People of the Book" for no reason. All these religions have inspired books - Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, Zoroastrians, just about all the big ones. You read the books to get inspired too, just the way you would read and think about a science paper or a novel.
The point is what the book means, and here I'm back to saying that the meaning is the point, not the physical embodiment. Books are about as immaterial as you can get, and still be something you can hold in your hands.
Jadehawk, the muses are a good example, thank you. I'll have to think about that one for a while.
Posted by: CJO | May 13, 2009 3:02 PM
Ken said "the non-locality of mind." So-called mirror neurons are being investigated as the mechanism by which we construct representations of other minds. You might as well call the primary visual cortex "non-local," since we can see things outside our own skulls.
Ramachandran's a fascinating guy, and that New Yorker profile is fantastic, as usual. But he tends to wax a little poetic about potential breakthroughs in neuroscience. Hyperbole notwithstanding, there's no comfort for dualism in mirror neurons.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 13, 2009 3:03 PM
Yes, I was thinking about that subthread. When I said that "god" is an unnecessary embellishment in my original answer to your claim that "god" is similar to "justice" etc, your answer was this:
"Unnecessary embellishment? Well, what criterion would we use to establish that? If we get along for a few centuries without the idea, and things go ok... I think that your case would be established. If everything goes to hell :) would your idea be falsified?"
which is an answer to whether it is "socially necessary", not to whether it is necessary as an explanation for anything.
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 3:33 PM
"And hithesh, way to go with that Christian charity and cheek-turning, man. "
Hypocritical cowards don't get much sympathy from me. I find it quite annoying that some hypocrite of an atheist has the nerve to tell me to be more Christian like, and are too cowardly to tell their fellow atheist to modify their behavior.
If PZ Myers and company, and fellow atheist endorse, and advocate the manner in which I address people like Stfu, when atheist are talking to theist, than I'm going to return the favor, I really don't care if you don't like it, or feel that I'm not living up to Christian values. I have my reasons for it, and I'm going to stand by them.
I sure don't talk to every atheist like that, when someone's like Walton knows how to be respectful, i return the same respect back. If that's the sort of conduct you want from me, than demand it of yourself, and don't be so cowardly that you won't demand it of you friends.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 3:33 PM
mirror-neuron experiments
First I've heard of those, although at least a decade ago I remember reading about studies that suggested that people who watched athletes performing, or even looked at posed statues, had measurable activity in the motor cortex, as if internally going through the motions of how the observer would adopt the pose or perform the activity, which would go some way toward explaining responses to porn, at least.
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 3:40 PM
Ken Cope:
Ken: "You believe that your belief is reasonable and that my disbelief is not,"
Really Ken, did I go and claim that your disbelief is not reasonable? I think atheism is a reasonable position to hold, so I don't knew where you get the idea that I think atheism is unreasonable. I sure didn't think my atheism was unreasonable when i was a disbeliever, what reason do I have to judge yours any differently?
I suggest you quit with the matryr complex, and stick with what's true, not some pulled out your ass assumption about me not based on reality at all.
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 3:45 PM
Jayhawk, oh, that's what you meant. OK, I see what you mean, I was too offhand with that. I think that I meant to suggest that "unnecessary embellishment" would be unfalsifiable, but then I went ahead and suggested a way to falsify it, and then went ahead and quibbled about the details when other people suggested that had already happened... at least that's what I think I was thinking. My brain hurts, and my mind, soul, spirit and psyche along with it.
And I wasn't even responding to the right sense of your words. I'm sorry, and mortified.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 3:45 PM
Hithesh, what is your point for your continued posting here?
Posted by: 386sx | May 13, 2009 3:47 PM
hithesh: What's odd is you can profess to see the sawdust in the eyes of other, and fail to see the log in your own. There's magical thinking at it's best.
That's not exactly what I would say is a prime example of magical thinking. Unless they literally think they see sawdust and logs!
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 3:50 PM
I suggest you quit with the matryr complex, and stick with what's true, not some pulled out your ass assumption about me not based on reality at all.
I'm going to have to add "delusional" to my list of hithesh attributes in post @883.
I sure didn't think my atheism was unreasonable when i was a disbeliever
Did reason have anything to do with your purported abandonment of disbelief when you decided to describe yourself as a believer, or would you claim that your belief is a leap of faith, which is of more importance to you than reason?
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
May 13, 2009 3:51 PM
Jadehawk @ 897:
The very example I was going to bring up! Not only are there many who believe Elvis is still alive, evidence to the contrary, but many claim to have actually seen him. I would argue that the big E is potentially in the process of deification---he has his priests (the flocks of Elvis impersonators, a congregation of celebrants of the Mysteries (the die-hard fans who study the minutia of his life and collect all the memorabilia), even temples (most obviously Graceland, but also the smaller "shrines" by private individuals, displaying their collections of the memorabilia), icons (often painted on black velvet) and sacred music (made known to the faithful by E Himself!). Just give it a hundred years or so....
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 3:57 PM
Janine: "Jesus being crucified is not a historical fact."
Knockgates:
"Far from established, of course"
Stu:
"Any proof of this? "
Oh brother, i should have known that we were going to get some quasi-mythicist coming out. So you three doubt Jesus was crucified? Do u also doubt that there was a historical Jesus that gospels writers based their accounts on?
Sorry to break it you, contrary to whatever delusions you hold, the Jesus being crucified is a historical fact, and if you had a clue as to how historical facts are determined you would know this already.
I may not know all that much about science, but very few people know as much about the historical method, and anaylsis than me. But do I really have a desire to go through all this for the sake of you three--three individuals who hardly listen.
The best I'll do for you guys is link you to few of my countless debates on the subject with individuals such as Rook Hawkins, and you can chew on those. If you really want to learn that is.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 3:59 PM
I like Icons on velvet, especially when they're painted in pixels by my friend Trici.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 4:06 PM
The best I'll do for you guys is link you to few of my countless debates on the subject with individuals such as Rook Hawkins, and you can chew on those. If you really want to learn that is.
Gosh fellas, look! Hithesh is doing us all a favor! He's gonna link us to some place where he believes he was coherent and won the day in a debate! Isn't that swell? We're all going to be disabused of our ignorance by a real, honest to gosh historicyst!
I'm breathless with antici
Posted by: Stu
|
May 13, 2009 4:07 PM
I sure didn't think my atheism was unreasonable when i was a disbeliever, what reason do I have to judge yours any differently?
Stop lying. You never were one. You don't even seem to understand what atheism is.
Oh, by the way, you can be as mean to me as you like. You're obviously out of cheeks, right?
Posted by: Stu
|
May 13, 2009 4:17 PM
So you three doubt Jesus was crucified?
Yes.
Do u also doubt that there was a historical Jesus that gospels writers based their accounts on?
Since there's zero contemporary references to him, and outside of the gospels only a few sideways references by Joshephus of all people, yes.
Sorry to break it you, contrary to whatever delusions you hold, the Jesus being crucified is a historical fact
Like hell it is. Argument from assertion. Look it up.
and if you had a clue as to how historical facts are determined you would know this already.
Hoo boy, this is gonna be good. Do tell how you have determined this.
I may not know all that much about science
Yes...
but very few people know as much about the historical method, and anaylsis than me.
Well, such method would be pretty damned useless unless it were scientific, which you admit to being ignorant about.
Also, care to back those credentials up? Got a degree from a university other than Google?
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 4:23 PM
I'll tell you what Stu, Janine, Knockers, who ever else. If you guys seriously want to have a discussion on the historical Jesus, if you would actually like to learn, we can do it. But I prefer to do so on a forum, a forum of your choice. Because it's be very annoying and harder to follow in this comment section.
If you're serous about it, and not looking to waste my time, I'll do it, just tell me what forum you prefer, and start a thread in it, and we can have such a discussion.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 4:27 PM
Yawn, Hithesh is such a bore. And keeps saying nothing cogent despite of repeated posts. In order to say thing interesting, he needs an original unrefuted thought, which seems beyond his capability. And he doesn't get the need for hard physical evidence, which is what separates the truthtellers from the fictiontellers. At the moment, Hithesh is on the side of the fictiontellers, as he is without any evidence to substantiate his claims.
Posted by: Stu
|
May 13, 2009 4:27 PM
By the way, hithesh...
Sorry to break it you, contrary to whatever delusions you hold, the Jesus being crucified is a historical fact, and if you had a clue as to how historical facts are determined you would know this already.
I may not know all that much about science, but very few people know as much about the historical method, and anaylsis than me. But do I really have a desire to go through all this for the sake of you three--three individuals who hardly listen.
The best I'll do for you guys is link you to few of my countless debates on the subject with individuals such as Rook Hawkins, and you can chew on those.
This is known as the Courtier's Reply. We've seen it before. We are not impressed. But hey, if you have laid out extensive evidence for Jesus somewhere else, by all means, bring on the links. I could use a good laugh.
Posted by: Stu
|
May 13, 2009 4:39 PM
So, hithesh, before you run away... is this you?
http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=637&page=11
See, I'm an economics major, and I deal with measuring certainty.
Economics major AND the bestest biggest expert on history? Where do you find the time?
When one reads the gospel, when one reads the Book of Acts, we see clearly that writers of these various books are trying to portray a figure that did exist.
This alone, separates the story of Jesus from the story of Hercules, of Remus and Romulus, and other myths.
Gotcha. All other religions are just pretending to believe that their idols exist, right?
Dude, if that's you, let's not bother trying to debate. You actually throw out the Argumentum Batmannium: people wrote about him, he must have existed.
Posted by: JeffreyD | May 13, 2009 4:40 PM
Gadzooks, hitesh is a bore. Makes me long for kenny.
Hitesh, not only do I doubt that there was a real jayzus, I am not even sure you exist and there is more evidence for your existence than there is for your saviour on a stick. I am not a scientist either, but I was trained as a historian, and the bulk of evidence of there being a real jc would not convince a jury if you called him ET instead of the founder of xtianinanity.
Oh, cicely, you reminded me of my favourite ever Elvis painting, on black velvet, day glo paint, Elvis as jc on the cross...still wish I had bought it. It defined bad taste.
Ciao y'all
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 13, 2009 5:01 PM
Would my brain activity be detectably different in these two cases (supposing that our poor subjects could concentrate while in the machine)? Could someone, even in principle, tell that I was even thinking about algebraic topology?
Obviously not, because thoughts are magical and have no causal relationship with physical brain states.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 13, 2009 5:06 PM
If you think my beliefs are just BS, at least you know they are a different brand of BS than the brand on offer at the Creation Science Museum.
Right, the BS at the Creation Science Museum is about believing things based on misinterpreted evidence, whereas your BS is based on believing things for no reason at all. The former is more creditable.
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 5:11 PM
Watchman, parsimony is not the only game in town.
I actually like all the big, complicated religions with lots of statues, mandalas, rituals that take days and days... even though mine is the exact opposite, and I like theologians and philosophers who write unfathomably dense prose, even if I can't follow them, sort of the way I appreciate that proof of Fermat's last theorem takes several long books to explain all the way (depending on where you start of course, and if there were a one-liner that'd make me happy).
The meaning of a big, complicated universe should be big and complicated. Of course, I like Maxwell's equations too, no reason we can't have it all. And the easiest philosopher of all, William James, was all in favor of a "pluralistic universe" with lots of levels of explanation and meaning. A universe with Beethoven's Ninth in it is way more implausible and interesting than a big empty one, even one filled with frothing quantum foam.
This isn't an argument by the way, just a personal observation.
jadehawk, I looked back and see I've left your questions hanging more than once. I've got to make supper but I promise to get to at least the "muses" one later on.
Posted by: CJO | May 13, 2009 5:17 PM
hithesh, did you read my #892? In it, I present a sketch of an alternate account of Christian orgins that does not posit an actual, historical figure crucified in the time of Pilate. It's based on a not-inconsiderable amount of research on my part into the subject, so I consider your bluster about being a world leader in understanding historical method and analysis somewhat laughable. Arguments from authority are impoverished enough; never mind arrogant appeals to one's own dubious authority.
Explain what's wrong with my account.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 13, 2009 5:21 PM
The point is what the book means, and here I'm back to saying that the meaning is the point, not the physical embodiment. Books are about as immaterial as you can get, and still be something you can hold in your hands.
We all ready dealt with this foolish equivocation over "immaterial" with Eric. Information is "immaterial" in a very different sense from elephant's wings and gods. Information is "immaterial" because it's composed of relationships, and thus can be embodied many ways in material objects such as books. Elephant's wings and gods are "immaterial" because they don't exist -- they are just stories. It's the difference between "Tom Sawyer" the novel and Tom Sawyer the person; the former exists, "immaterially"; the latter doesn't exist at all.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 13, 2009 5:33 PM
Watchman, parsimony is not the only game in town.
Indeed, there are also fairy tales.
sort of the way I appreciate that proof of Fermat's last theorem takes several long books to explain all the way (depending on where you start of course, and if there were a one-liner that'd make me happy).
The current proof is most parsimonious one known.
The meaning of a big, complicated universe should be big and complicated.
Duh. Do you have even the faintest idea what the word means? Here's Einstein' parsimonious description: "as simple as possible, but no simpler".
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 5:36 PM
Watchman, you asked, what would make scientists abandon physicalism for dualism?
Well, I'm not sure they need to. I don't have a strong attachment to dualism. But let's see, if they were competing scientific theories, instead of philosophical positions, we would look for an experiment that would falsify one or the other.
I suppose that building a conscious AI would falsify dualism, though if the AI was too complicated to understand (say, built by the umpteenth iteration of genetically programmed nanobots) we'd be back to trying to decide whether a mind snuck in there somewhere...
If I can't think of an experiment that would falsify physicalism, in principle. doesn't that point to physicalism not being a scientific position? I mean, just getting confirmations (visual cortex readable, check; mirror neurons, check) just gets us back to the problem of induction. Of course you're getting confirmations because you set up your experiments in that framework. If they couldn't see a fuzzy letter N on the screen, would that have disproved physicalism? Of course not.
Posted by: jariyan | May 13, 2009 5:40 PM
Thank you, Mr Myers! Your story made my day :)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 13, 2009 5:47 PM
it's only tricky to think of because things that would falsify physicalism seem silly and impossible: people remembering things from periods of brain-death (not coma); zombies; switching bodies (without the full-body transplant [aka brain-transplant]); evidence for incorporeal minds such as ghosts;there's a whole bunch, but we relegate most, if not all, of them into the realm of fiction, because they simply have never happened anywhere except in fiction.
Posted by: CJO | May 13, 2009 5:48 PM
I can't think of an experiment that would falsify physicalism, in principle.
Any controlled experiment that confirmed the existence of any of the phenomena commonly referred to as ESP, like telepathy, "remote viewing," precognition, or psychokinesis, would falsify physicalism.
You're confusing "not falsified" with "unfalsifiable in principle."
Posted by: Kel | May 13, 2009 5:52 PM
Buddhism != atheism. The Dalai Lama is a reincarnation of a Tulku, using him as an example of an atheist is like using Joseph Smith as an example of a Catholic.Posted by: Kel | May 13, 2009 6:01 PM
Given what we do know about consciousness, about how our brains developed and how other animals have subjective experience, how can anyone still support dualism as a model? It's absurd. A physical mind is the only model that makes sense, that is compatible with our origins, that explains what individuals in this species and in non-human species experience. We can directly link brain injuries to change of function in experience, therefore physicalism has strong evidential support. The fact that the brain makes decisions before we are consciously aware of them really is a nail in any dualist coffin.
There's nothing quantatively unique about the human brain, only qualitatively. We are just another permutation of the animal kingdom - a successful permuation given the reliance on memes for survival, but a permutation nonetheless. A dualist has to demonstrate that the mind is separate from the body, which could be done in many ways. It's just that when it comes time to test such things, all the anecdotal support isn't matched by empirical evidence.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 6:01 PM
Watchman, you asked, what would make scientists abandon physicalism for dualism?
No, Rudy, I'm the one who asked that one.
if they were competing scientific theories, instead of philosophical positions
What, you think the place to look for an understanding of the nature of consciousness is in the philosophy department (and if you were talking about the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, then I'd be tempted to be OK with that), with nothing for scientists to do but throw up their hands in fear of stepping beyond the rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty? Wouldn't want the Magisteria to Overlap now, would we...
we'd be back to trying to decide whether a mind snuck in there somewhere
Speak for yourself. You've filling your head with too much woo from the Dalai Lama. You think somebody not yet free from the Wheel would incarnate in some gears? What need would an immaterial mind have for a transistorized substrate? What need would an immaterial mind have for a biological one, for that matter?
If I can't think of an experiment that would falsify physicalism, in principle.
Argument from ignorance, check.
How about some good old-fashioned ESP? Some bi-location, some remote viewing? How about somebody like Terry Schiavo recovering from her vegetative state with nothing much more in her head than enough water to keep her head inflated? Come on, you should be able to do better than than a shoulder shrug for ways in which physicalism could be falsified, even if it's only by channeling your spirit guide.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 6:06 PM
JeffreyD @926, did you see my Elvis link @918?
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 13, 2009 6:28 PM
I suppose that building a conscious AI would falsify dualism
You had better talk to David Chalmers, the banner carrier of modern dualists, about that. See, e.g., http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-13834.html
though if the AI was too complicated to understand (say, built by the umpteenth iteration of genetically programmed nanobots) we'd be back to trying to decide whether a mind snuck in there somewhere...
Wait ... so, because people have minds, they are demonstrations of dualism? And didn't you just say that the AI is conscious ... which implies that it has a mind? You're very confused, and have things quite backwards. If we built a robot controlled by a very simple program of a few lines, perhaps simply a "while(true) {}" loop, and it displayed complex behavior on the order of a human being, that would falsify physicalism -- or at least we would have a heck of a time sustaining it. But nothing can falsify dualism, because a "mind" -- as you conceive of it as something independent of physical processes -- can always "sneak in" by mere assertion.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 13, 2009 6:34 PM
Any controlled experiment that confirmed the existence of any of the phenomena commonly referred to as ESP, like telepathy, "remote viewing," precognition, or psychokinesis, would falsify physicalism.
I don't think so; we would have to rule out the possibility that human brains exert unknown physical forces somehow -- a popular conception about "parapsychology". A better example would be if we lived in the land of South Park, with talking turds and people who continue to act normally (well, the South Park version) after their heads have been blown off.
Posted by: John Morales | May 13, 2009 6:51 PM
hithesh @922:
Asking you to justify your dubious assertions doesn't imply either that the subject is itself of interest, or even of any relevance. This is an unsubstantiated and highly dubious claim. Perhaps, rather than telling us of your erudition, you could show it to us. I expect that would be a highly amusing spectacle, so I encourage you to do so.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 13, 2009 7:03 PM
I have to echo John. The combination of the two quoted passages does nothing to boost your claim of knowledge.
Are you planning to show us a .jpg of your MENSA card next.
And again, the historicity of Jesus as claimed in the bible doesn't mean anything without substantial evidence for the resurrection (none) and various other things.
And the historicity of Jesus and his actions as described in the bible (and which version?) is a highly suspect notion.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 13, 2009 7:47 PM
The only sources for Jesus that exist outside the Bible are Josephus and Tacitus.
There is good reason to think that the passage in Antiquities of the Jews that mentions Jesus was a forgery written by a Christian apologist to provide historical evidence of Jesus' existence. There are a couple of arguments against authenticity: Parallel sections of Josephus' Jewish War do not mention Jesus; and some Christian writers as late as the third century, who quoted from the Antiquities, do not mention the passage.
As for Tacitus, quite likely he was writing what the Christians in the year 116 believed, and is not therefore an independent confirmation of the Gospel reports. Richard Carrier writes:
As Charles Guignebert notes "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless."
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 8:03 PM
Ken, sorry about the misattribution.
By "wondering if mind snuck in" I just meant that if the AI were too complex to understand, we would be in the same exact position that were are now, with respect to our own brains.
You reading my post in a pretty hostile manner, to think that I literally meant that if "I" couldn't think of a way to do it, it couldn't be done. I would be happy to see some proposals, and I see that you and a few people have suggested such. (I actually thought of ghosts while away from the computer picking up a family member, but I wasn't really sure how to do an experiment involving one... and it's not really clear to me how a physicalist explanation of ghosts could be ruled out. Creatures from the id? Ghostly but quite physical aliens? Someone else already pointed this problem out, with respect to ESP.
Nothing's Sacred's post started me thinking about dualism = independent of physical process. While I don't think that it's possible for a mind occur without a physical process (and I don't think dualism requires this... we haven't said *which* version of dualism we're talking about here... ), if we built a physically correct simulation of a human brain (down to the molecular level, let's go for the gold) and it couldn't pass the Turing Test, that might falsify physicalism.
Just as a cultural note, most U.S. Christians seem oblivious to the traditional Christian view that the mind and the body are inseparable, and imagine themselves as ghosts after death floating up to heaven. I guess we can all agree that they are wrong. :)
(The standard solution, as though anyone here were interested, is that we get new bodies, sort of like rebooting a Sim.)
Nothing Sacred, my thought experiment involved completely understanding the construction of the AI, so that we could see that everything going on was completely, utterly physical. That's why the spooky nanobots had to come in later, to muddy the water so that we couldn't see that anymore.
Nothing's Sacred, I assumed that Wiles' proof was the best known. Thank you for confirming that.
I think I do understand what parsimony means. I thought that was clear from my remarks about Maxwell's equations. As I said, my personal preference, not Einstein's. Seeking parsimony is a good rule of thumb for science.
Now, imagine two books on Beethoven's Ninth: One ("The Dummie's Ode to Joy", 100pp.) is short, to the point, and tells you why it's so great. It "explains" the symphony. The other ("The Ninth in Nine", 9vol., 20000pp) has the complete score, every critical review ever published in a major world language, pictures of every musician and singer at the first performance... you get the picture. They both (it's my story) sell for the same price. Is the shorter one necessarily a better book? Parsimony just isn't relevant here. Since Beethoven's Ninth is part of this universe, parsimony doesn't apply to every phenomenon in the universe.
Jadehawk, the muses: I think people still "think" muses, even if they don't "name" them; Stravinsky said that he was just a vehicle for the Rite of Spring, and artists search for "inspiration". It's just as mysterious as ever, but we use different (still not physical) language about it. It's easy to say that we don't need the idea of muses, but our substitutes are just as cryptic. It might be relevant that artists tend to be more religious than scientists, based on a small set of personal observations, not a scientific survey; and I do know a nonreligious artist. Just like I know one religious Swede :)
Kel, are you quite sure that the Dalai Lama is a reincarnation? I'm a little skeptical about that myself. I know they do tests and all...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 8:10 PM
Rudy, there is still no need to posit your imaginary deity for anything. You appear to be trying to find a hole for one to exist. There isn't one. All gods either need physical evidence or they exist only in peoples minds. If you want to believe in a deistic god, fine. We don't have to. And you nee to quit pushing your belief upon us.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 13, 2009 8:22 PM
well, in comparing godly inspiration to inspiration by the muses, I was addressing specifically the tendency of humans to anthropomorphize things, and that those anthromorphizations are fictions, metaphors for things we do not have better ways of describing. But there's non-anthropomorphic metaphors as well (thopugh I suppose one could argue that Stravinsky, by saying he was a vehicle for his work, is giving a life and a personality TO his work, thus anthromorphizing not the inspiration, but the creation (pygmalion etc...).
Artistic inspiration, when perceived subjectively, is such a feeling of something we cannot really put in words; and the greater our creation, the more unbelievable it seems to us that *we* are the creators of it. So we abstract, externalize, and even anthropomorphize such experiences. And even when we DO have an accurate way of describing it, the sciencey descriptions of love, inspiration etc. are emotionally not very satisfying, so we stick with the more poetic versions. That's human nature, and it's ok. But what we do need to keep in mind (heh) is that those are inventions of the human mind; nothing more, nothing less. As long as we remember they're fictitious, they're art; the moment we take them seriously, they become religion and can become a hindrance or even dangerous
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 13, 2009 8:37 PM
"Perhaps, rather than telling us of your erudition, you could show it to us. "
I've seen quite enough of it, thank you very much.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 13, 2009 8:40 PM
By "wondering if mind snuck in" I just meant that if the AI were too complex to understand, we would be in the same exact position that were are now, with respect to our own brains.
I know what you meant, and pointed out how it reflects confusion about such concepts as minds and falsifiability.
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 8:42 PM
Nerd, I'm really at a loss as to why you are so upset. But I think I've responded to everybody, and I don't like making people mad, so I'll sign off this thread. Thanks for all the food for thought. (Nothing Sacred, thanks for the Chalmers link, I hadn't run across this argument of his, though I leafed through one of his Consciousness volumes a few years ago.)
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 8:51 PM
So, hithesh, before you run away... is this you?
Ah, yes, that post is quite old, he's a more recent one, in an encounter I had with Rook Hawkins:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14997#comment-187747
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 8:58 PM
Rudy, you don't get it. We don't need your god. Period. End of story. You trying to make room for one is just obnoxious to real atheists. If you want to believe, fine. Just stop trying to push you personal belief upon us. How do you do that? Easy, just don't talk about it.
Yawn, not interested Hithesh. Boring godbotting git. You have nothing to offer we have seen a hundred times before. Just in a more boring package.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 9:09 PM
Ah, yes, that post is quite old, he's a more recent one, in an encounter I had with Rook Hawkins:
So not ready for prime time.
Bored now.[/Willow]
Rudy appears to realize he's out of his league and is scarpering, Hi-test can't take a hint to save his life. It's almost worth getting one of those greasemonkey scripts for firefox so I can say "plonk" but it really isn't worth the effort.
Posted by: Stanton
|
May 13, 2009 9:09 PM
What if it was packaged in a porkchop?Or wrapped in bacon?
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 13, 2009 9:12 PM
While I don't think that it's possible for a mind occur without a physical process (and I don't think dualism requires this... we haven't said *which* version of dualism we're talking about here... )
I didn't say "without", a physical process, I said "independent of" -- the sort of independence supposedly demonstrated by Chalmers' zombie thought experiment, wherein there are two physically identical worlds, the inhabitants of one of which are conscious while the inhabitants of the other aren't. Dualism being the sort of unfalsifiable mental masturbation that it is, highly adept masturbaters like Chalmers can always posit consciousness as something whose content perfectly tracks physical processes without being caused by them, and then conjuring magical "psycho-physical bridging laws" to "explain" this. You should just love that sort of unparsimonious crap.
if we built a physically correct simulation of a human brain (down to the molecular level, let's go for the gold) and it couldn't pass the Turing Test, that might falsify physicalism.
Which human brain? There are human brains in comas that can't pass the Turing Test. Heck, there are human brains in former Presidents of the U.S. that can barely be considered able to pass the Turing Test. We do not have nearly enough understanding of the construction of the human brain to identify the causes of these differences, so how could we possibly know that the reason the brain we built wasn't able to to pass the TT was because some magic hadn't been added?
See, you've got (at least) two major conceptual failures here. First, you're making a category mistake, applying an attribute -- a precise molecular makeup -- of an individual extant entity (some human brain) to a class of entities, human brains. Second, you don't understand falsification. It's about a proposition, or set of propositions, entailing, as logical necessity, something that doesn't actually occur. But physicalism does not predict that, were we to build a human brain, it would necessarily pass the Turing Test, because there are many purely physical ways in which that could fail to happen, and it would always be more plausible (and parsimonious) to assume that we had made some mistake in construction than to assume that we had left out some magical Turing dust.
Posted by: Rudy | May 13, 2009 9:36 PM
OK, I have to delurk for a second. Geez, Ken Cope, I had thought better of you. The damn thread gets up to 956 (at least) and I'm "scarpering" off scared? That's right, I always give up before 1000. I'm a coward that way.
Nerd craps on me for staying, Ken for leaving.
Nothing Sacred, yeah, I'm a sucker for that stuff! Thanks again for the pointer. I don't see why the particularity of the human brain is a problem, just don't pick a President to simulate. Your point about falsification is more subtle and I'll have to think more about it. I don't think I should post any more on this thread though.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 13, 2009 9:41 PM
Which human brain? There are human brains in comas that can't pass the Turing Test.
Let me elaborate on my point. These brains in comas once weren't. So even if you create an exact physical duplicate of the brain of someone able to pass the Turing Test, how do you know that it didn't immediately go into a coma because you haven't given it the sort of physical environment it needs to function? Perhaps it isn't passing the Turing Test because it is silently screaming in agony or isolation because you didn't hook up the sensory nerves properly, or because the motor nerve connections are screwed up. Of course you can extend the premise of the thought experiment to include getting everything right, but it just is a thought experiment, a question begging one -- the premise can never be established. And since what you are attempting to falsify is "no magic needed", you would need complete confidence (heh heh) that you got everything right to warrant the conclusion that magic is needed.
As I said, this is going about falsification bassackwards. You don't show that magic is needed by building a complex mechanism and then asserting that it should have displayed complex behavior, you do it by having some simple mechanism unaccountably display complex behavior -- e.g., remove someone's brain and if they still pass the Turing Test, then we can reconsider physicalism. (Here's where the IDiots have it over you -- they argue that you can't get the complexities of biological organisms out of "unintelligent" processes. They're wrong, but at least they're lookng in the right direction.)
Posted by: CJO | May 13, 2009 9:43 PM
From the screed that hithesh proudly points to as evidence of his erudition and masterly command of the historical method:
Why would the writer of Matthew write against accusation of stolen body, if he was writing about person he intended to be treated as fictional rather than historic? What’s the point in arguing against such a claim, if Jesus didn’t exist at all?
Matthew is revising Mark. The accusations were against the empty tomb pericope as it stands in Mark, unadorned. The author of Matthew felt no need to respect the tradition as he got it from Mark; these stories were freely revised throughout the late first century, just as we would expect in a situation of legendary accretion in a mythmaking tradition, and not of accounts constrained by a historical core of reliable information.
As for "intended to be treated as fictional," you don't really understand what "mythmaking" means at all, do you, O great and wise historian for the ages?
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 9:45 PM
The damn thread gets up to 956 (at least) and I'm "scarpering" off scared? That's right, I always give up before 1000. I'm a coward that way.
Strange Interlude[/Groucho Marx]
I don't think I should post any more on this thread though.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 13, 2009 9:45 PM
I don't see why the particularity of the human brain is a problem
I anticipated that (reasonable) objection in #958.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 13, 2009 9:56 PM
Nerd craps on me for staying
Nerd is a very simple and predictable mechanism whose capacity to pass the Turing Test is less than that of Weisenbaum's Eliza; I wouldn't pay it much mind.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 13, 2009 9:59 PM
The lengths to which Christians go to rationalise the contradictory aspects of the gospels is fascinating. 'Oh we've got stories that don't match on key points; it must be because they've been mistranslated, or because the literary style at the time allowed for people to intermingle fact with fiction - and only we are allowed to determine the writer's delineation of which is which.'
The far better - and more intellectually honest - explanation for the stories is that they weren't written by anyone with any knowledge of the event as a historical occurrence; rather, they were the stories different people created after they heard the basic storie (hence the things they all have) and chose to elaborate on it.
It's also good to remember that the contents of bible was decided upon by committee, rather than being a compilation of all the material pertaining to Jesus' life. For all we know there may have been dozens of even more wildly speculative accounts of what happened; it would make sense that the early chuch picked only those which they could explain away using the same equivocations that Christians trot out today.
Posted by: John Morales | May 13, 2009 10:04 PM
Rudy, you've chosen to enigmatically go to lurk mode, when you could've chosen either to defend your contentions or to admit they were refuted.
What inference is to be drawn from this? ;)
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 10:05 PM
"So, hithesh, before you run away... is this you?"
Ah, yes, that post is quite old, he's a more recent one, in an encounter I had with Rook Hawkins:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14997#comment-187747
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 10:08 PM
Dualism being the sort of unfalsifiable mental masturbation that it is, highly adept masturbaters like Chalmers can always posit consciousness as something whose content perfectly tracks physical processes without being caused by them, and then conjuring magical "psycho-physical bridging laws" to "explain" this. You should just love that sort of unparsimonious crap.
Wow. I thought I hated Chalmers and his stupid FCCing pzombies. I'm not worthy. Chalmers grosses me out almost as much as the sight of Chalmers sycophant Jaron Lanier, the Rastafarian Hobbit, consuming a mountain of Dim Sum nearly as large as he was, by himself, in Sausalito. Alas, virtual reality.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 13, 2009 10:09 PM
Hi John. Thanks for defending me in conversations with SC when I came back as NS. I wanted to thank you at the time but was avoiding all metadiscussion.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 13, 2009 10:11 PM
I like Chalmers; he's fun at parties. Lanier disgusts me.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 10:15 PM
Still not interested Hithesh. You are boring, and your posts are inane. Try some physical evidence. Works much, much better than talk for convincing this group. But then, all you have is talk, right?
Posted by: John Morales | May 13, 2009 10:20 PM
[OOT]
NS, no worries, and may I say I prefer the new incarnation.
Posted by: John Morales | May 13, 2009 10:26 PM
Nerd,
To be charitable, I'd say mediocre rhetoric, which is a touch better.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 13, 2009 10:30 PM
John, I'll bow to your better words...
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 13, 2009 10:37 PM
Rudy wrote:
This is one of those things I love about the religious. 'Everyone else's woo-beliefs are nonsensical - even though every claim I make for mine is no more valid than theirs.'
Here's a hint: if you're practicing skepticism without a mirror, you're doing it wrong.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 10:39 PM
I like Chalmers; he's fun at parties. Lanier disgusts me.
Chalmers at least archives arguments and is an online resource, while Lanier is a parasite who has apparently never experienced anything but praise for presenting nothing more substantial than a full potty rather than a full diaper; in his case, no doubt, a transitory skill. When they couldn't get enough Chopra on the Huffington Post, there was Jaron.
I once had the privilege of watching Lanier lose track of his virtual saxaphone in performance at a SIGGRAPH electronic theater, when he had inadvertently negated a Z value so that everybody but him could see it on the big screen behind him, fixed behind his head instead of visible in his big Amiga VR goggles. As he spun about, gesturing frantically with his power gloves and wondering where his instrument had gone just when he required it for his virtual noodling around like a genius solo, nobody in the audience thought to stop laughing and volunteer to let Lanier know where his saxaphone had gone.
Posted by: John Morales | May 13, 2009 10:43 PM
Ack, regarding the post itself, I think it's a keeper, in that select category of biting allegories that I reckon should be part of a book one day, or be the basis for animated fables, or the like.
Good one, PZ.
Posted by: hithesh | May 13, 2009 10:55 PM
CJO: "By the mid 2nd century, all of this context was lost, and most Christians have been clinging to some version of the historicized figure ever since. Fundies, of course, buy the whole thing; 'sophisticated' Christians like our hithesh, aware of the mythical character of most of the gospel stories, lay claim to only the minimal core. Doesn't matter. The whole thing was invented to make sense of an early 1st century Jewish religious revival, and none of it is any more relevant to the modern world than Abraham's views on child-rearing."
Yes, I'm well aware of how this sort of argument goes, I've heard it before. It goes something like Paul didn't believe in a historical Jesus , and since the Gospels were written later they took off from here.
First and for most, Paul epistles are written to communities of believers, not to unbelievers, or for sake of winning over new converts. Paul's epistles are written to address the pressing question of the early Christian believers "How do we understand the meaning of Jesus death, and his messiahship". He is developing a Christology, an activity that even today theologians still engage in. If you were to pick up a copy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Christ and the Center, it would read not much different than the Epistles.
Secondly, the Gospels incorporate facts and fiction, but this is the nature in which biographies were written in the Greco-Roman world, where the concern for readers, and the early hearers wasn't our age of science desire to know literal history, the order in which events occurred, but for the sake of conveying the meaning of events. When you read accounts of the life of Hillel you get all sorts of elaborate fictive elements. "In the Poetics, Aristotle argued that poetry is superior to history, because poetry speaks of what must or should be true, rather than merely what is true. This reflects early axial concerns (good/bad, right/wrong) over metaphysical concerns for what "is". Accordingly, classical historians felt a duty to ennoble the world"
Like the life of the Buddha the life is Jesus is told to convey their message. And this is the elephant in the room that mythicist and like tend to leave out.
Individuals such as yourself try to portray the life of Jesus as doing just magnificent feats, walking on water, turning water into wine, etc.., ignoring the fact that it wasn't the miraculous that was the most profound attribute of Jesus, but his teachings, it's the reason for why Jesus is proclaimed as God's wisdom incarnate. He amazes the Pharisees by responses to their questions, they ask where the heck did he get such wisdom from. In the non-historical portrayal in Luke, of his youth, he appears among in the temple among the religious leaders who were portrayed as amazed by his understanding and wisdom. And even today the admiration among various religious groups, and persons, as diverse as the Dalai Lame, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Dawkins and Spinoza is Jesus the teacher. It's not a fictive character at the heart of the Gospel, but the teacher who taught and spoke these things. Here's the elephant in the room, that everyone else notices, but somehow vanishes in the mythicist arguments. I mean they belong to somebody, they just didn't magically appear out of thin air.
We have teachings, like that of going 2 miles when forced to do one, putting roman soldiers using the angaria law in a bind, and turn the other cheek which forced those who back hand their slaves, and those they deemed as inferior, to hit them with an open palm, rather than back hand them, a gesture reserved for hitting one's equals, not inferiors. Or when someone takes a poor debtor to court and demands their tunic, hand over you cloak as well, reducing the debtor to nakedness, which in the jewish tradition brings shame on the viewer. And recalls to mind the verse "clothe the naked when you see them."
Who spoke all those parables that took on this style of irony, reversal of fortune, and frustration of expectations, such as the parable of the Good Samaritan?
This teacher is at the heart of the Gospels, this teacher is the historical person the Gospel accounts are based on. So amuse me, try and give me a coherent mythicist argument that actually takes into account the elephant in the room.
"It's based on a not-inconsiderable amount of research on my part into the subject."
If you spent a significant amount of time to coming up with your conclusion, I pity you.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2009 11:12 PM
Shorter hithesh: People can't be smart, only gods incarnate can, and Jesus was Jesusier than anybody could ever have Jesused before or since. The end, Amen.
That's all you've got?
Piss off, hithesh, you demented fuckwit.
Posted by: John Morales | May 13, 2009 11:26 PM
hithesh:
I've lost count of the times self-proclaimed Christians have claimed the reason to believe is the Resurrection, this being utterly contrary to your claim.Thus, I disbelieve you.
Posted by: windy
|
May 13, 2009 11:37 PM
turn the other cheek which forced those who back hand their slaves, and those they deemed as inferior, to hit them with an open palm, rather than back hand them, a gesture reserved for hitting one's equals, not inferiors.
whoop-de-doo.
I'm not sure how that's supposed to work, either, unless the slappers only had one hand.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 13, 2009 11:41 PM
Yeah, it's amazing how, after the cleverer people don't fall for lies, the liars try to claim that gaining from those lies wasn't their intent.
Obviously, Paul knew a thing or two about lying...
You join the long list of those who try to use the 'genre defence' to explain away why vast sections of the bible can be ignored and other sections must be taken seriously - with no consistency whatsoever beyond it suiting your arguments. You have no idea what the author's intent was; claiming that you know for sure which sections - if any - were meant to be factual is utterly ridiculous and blatantly dishonest.
If some of the gospels are fiction, how do you determine which parts aren't? It seems to me - and anyone else with an ounce of intellectual honesty - that this is simply a convenient way for you to ignore the fact that things just don't add up.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 13, 2009 11:48 PM
windy: "I'm not sure how that's supposed to work, either, unless the slappers only had one hand."
"At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.[2] If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.[3] The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality (wikipedia). "
Posted by: Kseniya | May 13, 2009 11:54 PM
Rudy,
I don't think you understand what parsimony really means. It's not a synonym for simplicity or brevity. Others have already posted about this, but the point seems to have escaped you somehow. Read Nothing Sacred's #932 again. The basic clues are right there.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 14, 2009 12:01 AM
@981:
Fool of a theist, if you can't be bothered to take the care to identify yourself as anybody other than "anonymous" while citing FCCing wikipedia in support of a claim, don't expect anybody here to rouse themselves to give you the sound slapping about the head and face you deserve for such thoughtless effrontery.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 12:05 AM
"If some of the gospels are fiction, how do you determine which parts aren't? It seems to me - and anyone else with an ounce of intellectual honesty - that this is simply a convenient way for you to ignore the fact that things just don't add up."
Well, perhaps by asking questions, and examining each part. You'd be hard pressed to find single historian in the pre-modern world who didn't incorportate facts, and fiction into their accounts, if we didn't have some methodology to determine which events are more probable than not, than we'd be fairly clueless.
I mean even if we had a contemporary historians mention Jesus, how would u determine if he didn't make it up?
Posted by: windy
|
May 14, 2009 12:06 AM
#981: since of course everything Jesus said must be reverse engineered to make sense afterwards. Apologetics is fun! (And why would the superior be so worried about using the unclean hand on the inferior?)
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 14, 2009 12:06 AM
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 14, 2009 12:12 AM
"Here's the elephant in the room, that everyone else notices, but somehow vanishes in the mythicist arguments. I mean they belong to somebody, they just didn't magically appear out of thin air."
Having the wisdom magically appear would be the theistic explanation. You know, the one that requires transcendence. The parsimonious explanation is that human beings invented the teachings of the gospels. This would be entirely unremarkable because they would then have the exact same origin as every other text known to exist.
"This teacher is at the heart of the Gospels, this teacher is the historical person the Gospel accounts are based on. So amuse me, try and give me a coherent mythicist argument that actually takes into account the elephant in the room."
At least one person (but more probably many people) did some thinking about life and human nature and invented some parables. Other people found value in these teachings, recorded them, and passed them on. Nothing more than this is necessary for the explanation.
If you wish to claim that there is an "elephant in the room", you assume the burden of proof and must demonstrate that it exists. All you need to do in order to fulfill this burden of proof is to show that any small part of the Gospels or other Christian thought cannot have been created in a purely mundane fashion. If you can demonstrate that a single sentence of the New Testament is divinely inspired, then this is a valid argument. If you cannot, it's nothing more than argumentum ad populum.
Why is it so difficult for you to admit that you're making a leap of faith? I thought that was kind of the point of the whole exercise.
Posted by: John Morales | May 14, 2009 12:15 AM
Hithesh to Wowbagger:
Not much of an answer, that.Asking questions of whom? Do you mean rely on established authorities? - after all, the protagonists are all long-gone.
As to examining each part, that's either hopelessly vague or a vapid truism, it doesn't answer the question either.
Tsk.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 12:17 AM
"Fool of a theist, if you can't be bothered to take the care to identify yourself as anybody other than "anonymous" while citing FCCing wikipedia in support of a claim."
Well bitch I could have pulled out the book "Politics of Jesus" , and manually wrote it out myself, or refrenced Walter Wink, but the wikipedia article on the subject was good enough, and convient, as well as cited.
"don't expect anybody here to rouse themselves to give you the sound slapping about the head and face you deserve for such thoughtless effrontery."
Well, i doubt some dweeby atheist is going to slap me on head and face, but yea you go ahead and keep believing that.
Posted by: Lynna | May 14, 2009 12:25 AM
I wanted to repost here wheatdogg's post #284 from the "Death by religious ignorance" thread:
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 14, 2009 12:26 AM
Well bitch I could have pulled out the book "Politics of Jesus" , and manually wrote it out myself, or refrenced Walter Wink, but the wikipedia article on the subject was good enough, and convient, as well as cited.
Oh, gosh, I didn't know it was the esteemed historicyst hithesh was posting as "anonymous."
"bitch?"
Are you sure your name isn't Cartman?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 14, 2009 12:31 AM
Do you have a ouija board handy? Because the only person who can tell your their intent is the writer. Anything else you can provide is likely to be incredibly biased and therefore invalid.
Though I believe there were plenty of answers to those questions which didn't lead to the conclusion of the literal existence of Jesus and the bad performance art that your lot call the crucifixion/resurrection. Sadly, the church decided very early on that those answers weren't correct, and that not accepting their ruling on what things meant was a somewhat serious offence - to the point where they killed thousands of people for the 'crime' of heresy.
Yeah, but none of them are trying to justify their belief in the otherwise unverified supernatural that is the basis for an institution founded on credulous self-delusion.
If it turned out that historians were wrong and Julius Caesar didn't exist? Bad, but not life-changing. Shakespeare's play would still be brilliant.
It turning out that Jesus, on the other hand, didn't exist? The collapse of the entire Christian religious industry. Not to mention a whole lot of non-Christian people - I'd imagine the Jews in particular - experiencing the most profound sense of schadenfreude you can possibly imagine.
Posted by: TwinIonEngines | May 14, 2009 12:47 AM
"Well bitch I could have pulled out the book "Politics of Jesus" , and manually wrote it out myself, or refrenced Walter Wink, but the wikipedia article on the subject was good enough, and convient, as well as cited."
Is he the one to blame for that blatantly moronic post-facto rationalization? It doesn't bear a moment's scrutiny. Turning the other cheek does absolutely nothing to prevent an aggressor from hitting you in the face with the back of his right hand again, bitch.
Maybe Mr. Wink has some sort of disability that impairs his ability to visualize simple spatial relationships. What's your excuse?
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 14, 2009 1:06 AM
(wikipedia)
The model of a bad Wikipedia entry. Under WP policies, it should have said "According to Walter Wink, ...", leaving it to the reader to evaluate the validity of the claim after reading that "Prof. Dr. Walter Wink (born 1935) is Professor emeritus at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City. His faculty discipline is biblical interpretation". Heh heh.
Posted by: Stu
|
May 14, 2009 1:29 AM
Secondly, the Gospels incorporate facts and fiction, but this is the nature in which biographies were written in the Greco-Roman world
Thank your for admitting that the Bible is equivalent to the Iliad. I think we're done here.
I mean even if we had a contemporary historians mention Jesus, how would u determine if he didn't make it up?
You, yourself, in another thread I linked, said that you dealt in comparative probabilities of things being true (paraphrased, you encased it in a metric fuck-ton of apologist diarrhea).
And then you say this? And expect to be taken seriously?
You are a joke. I am done with you.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 14, 2009 2:05 AM
Well, perhaps by asking questions, and examining each part. You'd be hard pressed to find single historian in the pre-modern world who didn't incorportate facts, and fiction into their accounts, if we didn't have some methodology to determine which events are more probable than not, than we'd be fairly clueless.
And by applying that methodology, it is clear that you are clueless and your claims are BS.
I mean even if we had a contemporary historians mention Jesus, how would u determine if he didn't make it up?
This is of course a bassackwards and grossly dishonest question. If contemporary historians had mentioned Jesus, he might not have existed, but that there isn't any such mention makes it much more likely that he didn't exist.
Dan Dennett talks about the parallel between memes and the fluke that invades ants' brains, takes them over, and makes them limb up grass stalks where they can be eaten. Here we have a laboratory where we can observe the function of the religion fluke in specimens like Cartman.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 14, 2009 2:23 AM
In this case, we can observe Cartman being crushed under a loud, feculent load of elephant dung, from Curly's end of the post that started this thread.
Posted by: Kel | May 14, 2009 4:33 AM
I don't believe it, but that's the tibetan buddist belief. I was distinguishing between an atheist and a buddhist by virtue of believing in magic. You called the Dalai Lama an atheist, to which I protested.Posted by: Kel | May 14, 2009 4:59 AM
On the historicity of Jesus:
Does it really matter if there was a historical figure who started the process? All that does is validate that there is a historical figure at the start of the process. That Jesus is God does not follow in any aspect of reality or even in logic. God cannot be Jesus and still be a separate entity. A can't simultaenously be B and not-B. All accounts of Jesus are anecdotal (at best) and it's on the anecdotal evidence that we believe that someone walked on water, miraculously healed the sick, rose the dead, turned water into wine, and then conquered death himself? It's one impossibility after another and the best evidence for it is a few tales?
And this is being generous, there's no reason to assume that there is a single eyewitness account in the gospel, that the testimony of the resurrection was added to the earliest gospel centuries later, that the earliest secular historian had his writings tampered with, and that each gospel author has his own agenda in the way they write about Jesus. It simply doesn't matter though because the kinds of evidence are not strong enough to support Jesus being God even if we had thousands of independent witnesses all writing exactly the same thing. After all, we don't believe that aliens are abducting humans despite the millions of UFO sightings and the thousands of independant abduction reports where people who have never communicated are reporting the same kinds of experiences... oh those aliens love to probe us.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 14, 2009 5:19 AM
Does it really matter if there was a historical figure who started the process?
It's hard to maintain that there are elephant wings in the absence of an elephant. This operates on a different level than the fact that elephant wings are inherently absurd.
(Ha ... #1000)
Posted by: Kel | May 14, 2009 5:35 AM
True, though I don't see how that stops theists. We now know Adam and Eve to be absurdities, but there still exists the prevailing belief in original sin - even among those who aren't biblical literalists.
I guess my point is that even if there were a historical Jesus, the claims are just so implausible that there's no foundation for belief. Whether there is a historical figure behind the legend is irrelevant in rejecting the legend as legend.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 14, 2009 8:07 AM
Hithesh still doesn't get it. The bible is a work of fiction, unless he has some physical evidence to the contrary. Which has not been presented. Logically he should start with physical evidence for his imaginary god, for without a god, the whole question of the bible is moot.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 14, 2009 8:14 AM
Hithesh the Conceited,
FWIW, and without having studied the matter more than very superficially, I think it more probable than not that there was a real person on whom the Jesus of the gospels is based, and that he was crucified. But it is certainly far from established that this is the case - the fact that there are no contemporary accounts is enough to make that impossible for someone who was, if he existed, a very obscure figure during his lifetime. Nor, as a non-Christian, do I regard this as a matter of any importance.
As to the supposed astonishment of the Pharisees at his teachings, hooey. Who was there recording the encounters? Where can we see the videos? Pharisees such as Hillel the Elder, whose teachings preceded the supposed lifetime of Jesus by several decades, were already stressing the importance of love for one's fellows over formal adherence to the law.
The growth of Christianity after Jesus's death (assuming he was a real person) is certainly interesting historically, but far from unique. I have already pointed out the growth of Mormonism and Scientology; one could add many other examples. In the Roman Empire there was certainly a "vacancy" for a new religion: Graeco-Roman paganism was in decline, as shown by the cults of deified emperors and the importation of eastern religions to Rome. We know, of course, very little about the first century or so of Christianity's growth - scholars cannot agree on the relationship between Jewish and Gentile churches, what the 1st and early 2nd century church believed about the nature of Jesus, etc. Here for your edification I present The Parable of the Tadpoles:
Lo, it came to pass, that a certain gullible person named Hithesh placed a large number of tadpoles in an otherwise empty tank. Tadpoles, as is well-known, are cannibals. Hence, growing hungry, the tadpoles began to devour one another. Returning after a few days, Hithesh found just one large, fat tadpole:
"Wow!", he exclaimed. "This must be one special tadpole!"
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 14, 2009 8:32 AM
Christianity started at just the right moment in history. The Pax Romana was only a generation old and would last until 180 CE. While there was war on the periphery of the Empire, the Mediterranean area and environs remained largely untouched by warfare. The Pax Romana was an era of relative tranquility in which Rome endured neither major civil wars, such as the perpetual uprisings of the third century CE, nor serious invasions, such as those of the Second Punic War three centuries prior. During this time, Roman commerce thrived, unhampered by piracy or marauding enemies.
As a result, it was possible for religions to spread. Paul could travel from the Middle East to Rome with nothing to worry about except the occasional storm or government official.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 8:43 AM
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 14, 2009 12:06 AM
"At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.
Well that certainly is overwhelming evidence. Oh, not for Jesus; for the argument that whoever did write the stories knew about behaviors at the time the story was set. Congratulations - you've proved writers are capable of research.
[Clap, clap, clap.]"
Ah, let's follow this through. So we have a writer who these ideas belong to, who wrote all these parable and sayings of irony, frustration of expectations, reversals of fortune, such as the shrewd manager, the good Samaritan, love you enemies, the render unto caesar", a writer who turned Hillel passive do not do unto others, into an pro-active do unto others, a writer who turned hillel's claim to the greatest commandment being love your neighbor as yourself, to a claim that love of God and like unto it the love of others is the greatest commandment, and they are inseparable. We have a writer who wrote of not inviting your friends to dinner, but the poor. We have a writer who wrote love you neighbor as yourself, because even the pagans love their neighbors.
And you would like us to believe that it's more probable that this dude just sat somewhere and wrote, never spoke these things to anyone, and his familiarity with judaism, and teaching that operate within it, doesn't make it more probable that he was a jewish teacher?
Come on, let's put the hand clapping aside, and i want to see that brain of your work some magic.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 14, 2009 8:46 AM
They have done really well,havent they.Managed to
poisoninfluence life on Earth for 2000+ years now.Unbelievable,really.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2009 8:49 AM
Now that is hilarious coming from you.
Posted by: Kel | May 14, 2009 9:06 AM
And now for my next trick, I'll turn water into wine. If you think David Cofferfield does some freaky shit, you should see the trick I do where my heart is stopped and I'm hidden in a cave. I'll give you a hint, it'll raise more than a couple of eyebrows...Sigh, godbot still doesn't get it.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 9:11 AM
Knockgoats: "As to the supposed astonishment of the Pharisees at his teachings, hooey. Who was there recording the encounters?"
Well, my use of those passages of where the Pharisees and such were astonished at Jesus' teaching wasn't to establish these events as historical, but rather to show that his teaching weren't a peripheral part of the person of Jesus, in fact they were forefront of it. You can't paint a picture of Jesus, of just Jesus the magical wine maker, water walker, demon caster, and exclude the elephant in the room, Jesus the teacher.
And we do know, that even today it's not just the followers of Jesus who have an admiration for the teacher, but individuals as diverse as Thomas Jefferson: "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man" The Dalai Lama, Richard Dawkins, Einstien, Spinoza who claimed that Jesus communicated with God mind to mind, a claim he only affords him, Gandhi, etc......
""Returning after a few days, Hithesh found just one large, fat tadpole: "Wow!", he exclaimed. "This must be one special tadpole!""
I despise projection, so leave it home. The purpose of even my use of the opinion of Jefferson and other, is not to peddle to you that Jesus was so awesome, but that Jesus the teacher is at the forefront of the narrative, the basis on which the narrative is built, and that's the elephant in the room that needs an explanation if someone likes to peddle a mythicist view.
Views like CJO which he claims to spend a significant amount of time on, that leaves the elephant out, go straight to the dung heap, and barely even worth a thought.
Posted by: Kel | May 14, 2009 9:17 AM
The Jesus Myth Hypothesis is a valid school of thought, even if you disagree with it. To learn how these myths begin, to separate history from legend, this is something that has value and can only increase our ability to learn about the origins of the bible - in the way that self-critical analysis does. Whether the elephant is in the room or is a metaphysical construct of a deluded mind, the point remains that by discussing the evidence then there is something to learn from it.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 14, 2009 9:30 AM
Hithesh the Conceited,
I don't think "projection" means what you think it means - whatever that is. How about answering the point of the parable - if you are capable of grasping it?
Personally, I don't admire a loony who thinks he's divine, and goes about driving pigs off cliffs, and cursing fig trees for not bearing fruit outside the fruit-bearing season. Nor the arrogant bully who threatens that those who do not accept his authority will be "cast into everlasting fire" (Matthew 18:8). Nor do I admire the hypocrite, slaveowner and rapist Jefferson.
Posted by: Kel | May 14, 2009 9:34 AM
But you forget Knockgoats, Jesus died for your sins! Sure if God were truly forgiving, then there would be no need for blood sacrifice. But he still did it anyway, that's how much he loves you...
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 14, 2009 9:36 AM
BTW, Hithesh the Conceited, saying that someone "peddles" a view, rather than, say, "advances" or "propounds" it, adds nothing to your argument. It just makes you look silly.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 9:45 AM
Twins: "Turning the other cheek does absolutely nothing to prevent an aggressor from hitting you in the face with the back of his right hand again,"
And again, is not about preventing the aggressor from hitting you, but if he's going to hit you, demanding to be hit as an equal.
"the alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality (wikipedia).
If I turned the other cheek you're not gonna be able to slap me with a back hand, at least not without some awkward maneuvering, or an awkward semi-slap punch to the nose. First the attacker would be confounded by the fact that you offering the other cheek to be hit as well, and if that's not enough to leave him confused, when he becomes aware of what the other alternative to hit him would be, he'd get it.
Obery Hendricks tells a story a black woman walking with her children on a South African street "when a white man suddenly spat in her face. Instead of responding with anger, the woman turned to the scowling man and responded, "Thank you. And now for the children." His assertion of power thwarted, the offender hurried away without another word, confused, and perhaps ashamed."
Even Gandhi, unaware of the historical context of the passage, was well aware of what it implied:
"[Y]ou must show courage, be willing to take a blow, several blows, to show that you'll not strike back, nor will you be turned aside. And when you do that it calls on something in human nature, something that makes his hatred for you decrease and his respect increase. I think Christ grasped that and I have seen it work. "
It's the reversal of expectations, used to bring about a change in one's adversary, not by means of violence, but creativity.
And this sort of pattern of thought, in the parables, and sayings, belong to somebody, and the only name given to that fellow is Jesus.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 14, 2009 9:47 AM
Kel,
Well that was very nice of him I'm sure, but actually, I am without sin*.
*As of course is everyone else, since a "sin" is an offense against "God", and there is no such entity.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 14, 2009 10:01 AM
Gandhi, now - there's an idiot if you like! Wanted India to abandon modern technology, accepted caste divisions, and proposed non-violence as a response to the Nazis. The British, of course, were delighted to have him to deal with rather than someone who would have organised effective resistance against them.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 14, 2009 10:01 AM
Hithesh wrote:
And you would like us to believe that it's more probable that this dude just sat somewhere and wrote...
Wait, what? You think that what I wrote meant that another single person who wasn't Jesus came up with everything attributed to him? Are you really that stupid?
Writers, dipshit. All of the documentation of material attributed to Jesus was done by committee; they simply gathered all the parables and stories and metaphors and hippy touchy-feely crap together and cited Jesus as their source (a bit like Walt Disney I guess) and inventing a narrative to string it together.
The kind of thinking he espoused was not new, and had existed throughout Asia well before any upstart carpenter's son got himself nailed to anything.
It's one of the things I hate most about Christianity - accepting it means diminishing some of the greatest achievements of human social evolution. We fucking well earned the right to be altruistic; we didn't get it handed to us on a platter by some pissant mangod looking to have his ego boosted.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 10:06 AM
Kel: "The Jesus Myth Hypothesis is a valid school of thought, even if you disagree with it."
Well, Kel the folks over at the Discovery Institute, and AiG feel the same way about their positions. They definitely consider themselves a valid school of thought, still belong to the fringes. There way of thinking is no different that 9/11 conspiracy theorist, ID proponents, global banking conspiracy nuts, they all believe their ideas belong to a valid school of thought. And think that just by claiming that, the others are going to take them seriously.
Such nutcases don't address their concerns to the historical community, but play on the gullibility and naivety of the masses, who eat their shit up. The foaming atheist looking to believe whatever he can find to rid the world of christianity, will even resort to believing and peddling delusions to do so.
It's an embarrassment to thinking atheist, and an amusing spectacle to individuals such as myself, who get a comical kick out of it.
So far, we had one individual (CJO) brave enough to claim a working a hypothesis, the only problem was his blaring omission, that reveals his hypothesis wasn't valid at all, and even silly. No one, including him has attempted to pick up that hypothesis again, all we've heard so far from the crowds are "hey hithesh, though what we have to say is silly, please treat us like we're a valid school of thought"
When you have a valid hypothesis, that takes into account the elephant in the room, you let me know. If you don't want to be regarded as atheist equivalent of creationist, give me a hypothesis that should be regarded as more valid than theirs, otherwise save yourself the embarrassment.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 14, 2009 10:18 AM
Hithesh the Conceited,
Do stop peddling the elephant in the room. Pray for some new metaphors, you crashing bore.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 14, 2009 10:30 AM
Except that in this situation, it is you who are the Discovery Institute and AiG, since you are making claims for which you have no evidence - i.e. that Jesus performed miracles - and that magic exists.
So how, exactly, are we in the same position as them? That you can't see the difference between unpopular because of the inability to support claims and unpopular because of the combination of a couple of thousand years of tradition, political exploitation, fear (justifiable, considering the Church's treatment of the non-crime of heresy) and credulity is just another indicator of just how stupid you are.
What elephant? Your claim appears to be this: because the bible contains parables about how to live life in a more altruistic way, Jesus existed and was, as he claimed, the son of a god? The only thing an elephant is useful for in this situation is as a yardstick against which to measure the massive holes in your argument.
Trust me, hithesh, any elephant Christianity might have had left the room a long time ago.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 14, 2009 10:36 AM
Wowbagger:
Hear hear.
The notion that the teachings embodied in the narratives containing the character Jesus were so magically nutritious that they could not possibly have been fictional, or could not have been the composite teachings of a group of writers, a seminar if you will, or could not even have been the product of a human being, because the monologues attributed to the character are so amazingly profound that they are the compelling evidence for the divinity of the character, is a load of elephant dung.
After all, if there's one thing we know about people for suresies, it's that people are incapable of making shit up that just ain't so, so we're forced to conclude that the things that you're liable to read in the Bible, they am necessarily so.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 10:39 AM
WowIvebeenteabagged: "Wait, what? You think that what I wrote meant that another single person who wasn't Jesus came up with everything attributed to him? Are you really that stupid?"
Ah even more brilliant, so one writer wrote the "turn the other cheek" and another wrote the bit about "go the extra mile" and another wrote "handing over your cloak as well", another wrote the parable of the Good Samaritan, another wrote the story about the "shrewd manager".
I think i'm enjoying myself too much.
And you would like us to believe these things that I've mentioned (and noticed I never claimed everything attributed to him), more likely are the parables and sayings of several people, than just one?
And you're also claiming that these several writers most likely just wrote this stuff down when most people couldn't read any way, back than, and didn't actually go preaching the parables and sayings?
"The kind of thinking he espoused was not new, and had existed throughout Asia well before any upstart carpenter's son got himself nailed to anything."
Very few of our thoughts are new, most of the if not all the ideas we have running around are head are influenced. Dawkins own writings, are influenced by individuals like Bertrand Russell, but who would dare accuse the God Delusion of being a plagiarism of Russell's work? Though Dawkins ideas are influenced, they're unique. Jesus teachings, parables, and sayings may not be annexed from his historical setting, or the culture and ideas that surrounded him, but their still unique.
Jesus may have used Hillel's passive "do not do unto others" as the inspiration for his own take on it, that made it an active one of "Do unto others" but it's still uniquely his.
In order for the mythicist position to work, it's not by claiming Jesus's ideas were influenced, by rather reveal a sort of pre-modern copy and paste, that we have several sources at the time, attributed to other individuals, which can reasonably show that the writers of the text copy and pasted these parables and sayings into their own text. Now, I've seen mythicist attempt to do this, it's quite funny actually. And if that's what you believe, then please provide the material so we can judge ourselves.
"It's one of the things I hate most about Christianity - accepting it means diminishing some of the greatest achievements of human social evolution. We fucking well earned the right to be altruistic; we didn't get it handed to us on a platter by some pissant mangod looking to have his ego boosted."
Dude, you're foaming, wipe your chin.
:) who said anything about a pissant mangod looking to have his ego boosted being the source of altruism?
The rabid atheist, is as amusing as the rabid theist on TBN.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 14, 2009 10:47 AM
Dude, you're foaming, wipe your chin.
When they can't argue for shit, they usually go for the Cartman routine.
Posted by: Walton | May 14, 2009 10:49 AM
Does this elephant have wings? :-)
Posted by: Stu
|
May 14, 2009 10:54 AM
Okay hithesh, time to move your goalposts once again. Say that there was a dude called Jesus.
Did he or did he not walk on water, etc.?
Was he, or was he not, the son of God?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 14, 2009 10:54 AM
Hithesh the conceited, you aren't proving your god/jesus postulate, since you aren't providing any physical evidence for either. You appear to be trying to make yourself the final arbiter of the philosophical evidence, which is what a con man does. You are running a con. Either pony up the physical evidence from legitimate sources outside of yourself, or just go away.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 10:56 AM
Wowbagger: "Jesus existed and was, as he claimed, the son of a god? "
"Except that in this situation, it is you who are the Discovery Institute and AiG, since you are making claims for which you have no evidence - i.e. that Jesus performed miracles - and that magic exists."
Haha, I love how we just go from an argument about if Jesus existed, to if he was the son of God, or if he performed miracles, and magic. Do you think when non-believing Historians like Bart Ehrman claim that Jesus existed, he is also claiming he performed magic?
Silly rabbit tricks are for kids.
Mythicist, like proponents AiG, and DI go about challenging the already established view that Jesus existed of the historical and scientific communities, basing their claims or naive and far fetched assumptions, and deluded understandings of the mediums they critic.
The argument is if the gospel based their narratives on a historical person at the center of it or not, a teacher, the teller of the parables, and sayings, that reveal a distinctive style, or irony, reversal of fortune, frustration of expectations, or not. And if so, if he more likely died by crucification or by other means.
Notice what's not being argued is if he was the son of God or not.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 14, 2009 10:58 AM
"Dawkins own writings, are influenced by individuals like Bertrand Russell, but who would dare accuse the God Delusion of being a plagiarism of Russell's work? Though Dawkins ideas are influenced, they're unique. Jesus teachings, parables, and sayings may not be annexed from his historical setting, or the culture and ideas that surrounded him, but their still unique." - Hithesh the Amazingly Stupid
Erm, there's a bit of a difference here. There is no dispute about Dawkins existing, as a single individual, nor about his authorship of the books appearing under his moniker. The situation with the alleged teachings and parables of Jesus is the exact opposite: these are among the very points at issue. BTW, "annexed" does not mean what you think it means, and it should be "they're still unique". I recommend a remedial literacy course.
Posted by: Stu
|
May 14, 2009 11:00 AM
Haha, I love how we just go from an argument about if Jesus existed, to if he was the son of God, or if he performed miracles, and magic.
You arrogant, dumb liar... the entire point is that it DOES NOT MATTER IF JESUS EXISTED OR NOT.
Let me say that one more time, because you are truly one of the dumbest wankers we've had here for a while.
It. Does. Not. Matter. Whether. A. Guy. Called. Jesus. Existed.
It does not prove he was divine.
It does not make the Bible true (or useful, or sane).
It does not prove the existence of a God.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 11:04 AM
Stu: "Okay hithesh, time to move your goalposts once again. Say that there was a dude called Jesus."
Stu you fucking coward, you and your buddies are the ones that questioned Jesus existence, and kept pestering about me responding, even though I offered to move it to another forum. Now you wanna accuse me of moving the goalposts for answering the questions you raised?
You're a dishonest piece of shit dude. :).
What a deluded bunch you guys are, I don't know who is worse Nerdy who accused me or proselytizing for answering Walton who asked me why I believe Christianity is true, or you.
Posted by: Stu
|
May 14, 2009 11:13 AM
Stu you fucking coward, you and your buddies are the ones that questioned Jesus existence, and kept pestering about me responding, even though I offered to move it to another forum.
Okay, I phrased that poorly. We did question it, because there is no proof one way or the other. You've proven over and over again that you have absolutely nothing conclusive, just arguments from authority, arguments from assertion and lots and lots of boring droning.
I'd like to move on, simply because it's a useless discussion. Do you turn in 50,000 word essays on the existence of Ayn Rand?
So again, I ask, what if a dude called Jesus existed? Do you think he was the son of God? Do you think he performed miracles?
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 14, 2009 11:14 AM
Notice what's not being argued is if he was the son of God or not.
Nobody gives a rat's ass what it is you think you're arguing, Cartman, because your story changes every time you tell it, on top of your being incapable of composing an intelligible sentence, let alone advancing any sort of coherent thesis. We're reduced to playing guessing games as to what the FCC you think it is you're saying that's got us all presumably on the run. Meanwhile, watching your story change as you lunge from one point and careen toward another, laughing at us like a panel truck full of Judge Doom's Weasels, has got me waiting patiently for you to laugh yourself to death. Cuz, lemme tell you, if there's one image that always rewards my contemplation, it's the prospect of cartoon death.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 11:18 AM
FuckGoats: "There is no dispute about Dawkins existing, as a single individual, nor about his authorship of the books appearing under his moniker. The situation with the alleged teachings and parables of Jesus is the exact opposite: these are among the very points at issue."
And if I see writing on the bathroom stalls there really no dispute that someone wrote it, and not that an imagery being wrote it. If it's the mens bathroom, it's even more likely that a male did it, than a female. And if there are several pieces of writings all on the same stall, or on the surrounding stalls revealing the same distinctive patterns and style, of parables and sayings, all with the name Bob written under it, it more likely that these sayings belong to one person than several.
"BTW, "annexed" does not mean what you think it means, and it should be "they're still unique". I recommend a remedial literacy course."
Ah, yes I've always appreciated the kind fellow who corrects my English, thanks friend, and hope you did it out of the kindness of your heart. May the FSM bless you.
Posted by: Stu
|
May 14, 2009 11:37 AM
FuckGoats
That's the best you can do? Really? You must be quite the man on campus.
And if I see writing on the bathroom stalls there really no dispute that someone wrote it, and not that an imagery being wrote it. If it's the mens bathroom, it's even more likely that a male did it, than a female. And if there are several pieces of writings all on the same stall, or on the surrounding stalls revealing the same distinctive patterns and style, of parables and sayings, all with the name Bob written under it, it more likely that these sayings belong to one person than several.
Yes, and it's all just make-believe ranting from a shithouse.
Perfect analogy.
You previously posited that the Bible is fiction, and now you've posited it's literally full of shit. Good work! Or was that not what you meant to do?
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 11:40 AM
STU: "Okay, I phrased that poorly. We did question it, "
So you admit that I didn't change the goal post here, but that you all raised the question? If so, I appreciate the honesty in confessing that.
"because there is no proof one way or the other. "
There's no proof for evolution either, history like science does not give proofs.
"You've proven over and over again that you have absolutely nothing conclusive, just arguments from authority, arguments from assertion and lots and lots of boring droning."
Well, I rarely used arguments from authority, what I've spent time arguing from is the parables and sayings, I didn't even bother using extrabiblical sources or whatever else have you. Evolution is almost entirely based on circumstantial evidence, something even Richard Dawkins confesses, but it's still pretty conclusive for most of us. If we desire to be overt skeptics than nothing can ever be conclusive. There isn't a single worthwhile argument in the mythicist arsenal, like creationist that play on strands of doubt, rather than creating more probable scenarios.
Creationist will run with the fact that evolution is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, and mythicist will run with the fact that there is no contemporary historians account of a Jesus whose period of significance where for a short three years, though there's nothing odd about this, like there's nothing odd as to why we only have a fraction of the fossils evidence.
"So again, I ask, what if a dude called Jesus existed? Do you think he was the son of God?"
Sure, I believe he was the son of God.
"Do you think he performed miracles?"
Sure, why not.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 14, 2009 11:40 AM
"all with the name Bob written under it" - Hithesh the Amazingly Stupid
Wow! You have signed copies of the parables of Jesus???
Look you moron, none of the supposed parables and teachings were even written down until decades after Jesus's supposed death. Moreover your claims of "distinctive patterns and style" are just that - claims. You do know, don't you, that scholars still disagree about whether some plays should be attributed to Shakespeare? Even though in that case we have a large body of undisputed work to compare them with.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 14, 2009 11:52 AM
"There's no proof for evolution either, history like science does not give proofs." - Hithesh the Ignorant
Wrong! What empirical investigation cannot prove is universal generalisations. With existential propositions, it has no problem at all if the evidence is sufficient. Evolution, of course, can be and has been observed.
" "So again, I ask, what if a dude called Jesus existed? Do you think he was the son of God?"
Sure, I believe he was the son of God.
"Do you think he performed miracles?"
Sure, why not." - Hithesh the Slippery
OK, so unpack these claims for us a bit. I'm betting they won't turn out to mean what most Christians would mean by them: that Jesus had no human father, being born of a virgin mother, and that he performed feats that violated normal physical causality.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2009 11:58 AM
Because it's pure circularity.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | May 14, 2009 12:07 PM
"Sure, why not?"
Wouldn't a better question be, "Why would I?"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 14, 2009 12:14 PM
Hithesh, we don't have to convince you of anything. You have to convince us you are right. No evidence or argument you have presented to date will do that. Circular reasoning, which we have seen so often by godbots, is your argument. So, either pony up the physical evidence or let us decide your claims. Big fail on your part so far.
Posted by: Stu
|
May 14, 2009 12:31 PM
So you admit that I didn't change the goal post here, but that you all raised the question?
Of course. I actually asked you to move the goalposts. Much later.
Evolution is almost entirely based on circumstantial evidence
Which we can observe. From dozens of disciplines and millions of actual things we can see. What, pray tell, is the circumstantial evidence, outside of the Bible, that Jesus performed miracles or was the son of God?
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 2:13 PM
Knottedup: "Wrong! What empirical investigation cannot prove is universal generalisations. With existential propositions, it has no problem at all if the evidence is sufficient. Evolution, of course, can be and has been observed."
In the words of our very own Jadehawk: " science doesn't "prove" things; it either disproves things, or provides evidence for things."
Or in the words Karl Popper: "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur"
"OK, so unpack these claims for us a bit. "
read my post #756.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 14, 2009 2:27 PM
Hithesh the imbecile, we are still waiting for the hard evidence, versus your already discredited opinion, that you are right. I think we will still be waiting fifty years from now. You have no evidence, but you can't acknowledge that fact. It just makes you look weak and illogical.
Science has millions of peer reviewed papers with hard physical evidence to show it is correct. You need the same degree of hard evidence, focused through the same degree of skepticism. God doesn't exist until proven otherwise. We are still waiting...
Posted by: CJO | May 14, 2009 2:32 PM
So far, we had one individual (CJO) brave enough to claim a working a hypothesis, the only problem was his blaring omission, that reveals his hypothesis wasn't valid at all, and even silly. No one, including him has attempted to pick up that hypothesis again
I've been busy, you nattering pest.
As far as I can tell, sneering illiterate, my "blaring omission" (bwahaha) is a supposed failure to account for the teaching tradition. You seem to have staked a claim to the historical Jesus as wisdom figure, or Cynic Sage, as others have done. But this raises more questions than it answers. First, why are our earliest sources, Paul and other 1st c. epistolatory material, utterly silent on this tradition? There are many instances in the genuine Paulines where Paul is at pains to press an issue explicitly addressed in the Q material and yet he never appeals to the authority of an earthly teacher figure, either attributing the authority of his gospel to god or to revelation from the risen christ. Not a parable, pronouncement or beatitude is found in any of this literature, nor is a single logion attributed to Jesus as a teacher figure.
Then there's the unmistakable similarities between early teaching material (Q1, Thomas) and Greco-Roman Cynic philosophy. This material is clearly hellenistic in nature, and contains very little that we would expect coming from the mouth of an apocalyptic Jewish sectarian. It's also easily explained as the output of a school, not a single individual. As the tradition grew, and as the apocalyptic material came to be layered onto it (Q2), it would not have been unusual to attribute the corpus of sayings and admonitions to a single authoritative source, in this case the legendary healer and miracle worker, Jesus.
It's a much better explanation than a single historical figure, really, because the earliest traditions are so divergent. It's not a mystery why there are so many versions of the supposed historical Jesus in the literature. "Jesus" was whatever a community needed him to be in the early part of the century. It's not until the synoptics that we have the syncretic combination of apocalyptic, miracle working Christ with the humble hellenistic teacher of radical wisdom. And it's obvious also that by the end of the century, the teaching tradition is still being freely adapted and added to. Much of the so-called M and L material (unique to Matthew and Luke) is parables and other teaching material invented by those authors to address the problem of "delayed parousia" and various other perceived shortcomings in Mark and the Q tradition. The glaring contradiction between Matthew's and Mark's explanation of the use of parables alone is enough to show that nothing was authoritative; none of this teaching material was being treated as if it had a single, historical source. It was altered or invented at need and attributed to a legendary teacher figure, a perfectly common and acceptable practice among Greco-Roman authors and redactors.
In short, the claim that the teaching material, as presented in the gospels, absolutely requires a single, historical source, and that no other explanations are plausible or anything other than "silly," is just unsupported bluster on your part. Examples abound of this sort of accumulation of wisdom materials and later attribution to a revered figure. Your beliefs, however, require Jesus to have been sui generis. Only the weight of traditition, and special pleading on that tradition's behalf, leads anyone to embrace such an unlikely view that is completely undocumented in contemporary sources, to boot.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 2:40 PM
Knockgoats: "Wow! You have signed copies of the parables of Jesus???"
Ah, who said Bob signed it? I didn't, I said that Bob's name was written under it. An individual quoting bob could have wrote it. Just like in the Gospels the parables and saying are quoted to Jesus.
"You do know, don't you, that scholars still disagree about whether some plays should be attributed to Shakespeare?"
Let's think about this, you said some plays, not all the plays. Just like when referring to Pauline epistles some of them are considered not to be written, some are disputed, and some are considered authentic. Or when we look at certain books of the bible and realize with little room to doubt that some of the books are written by more than one author.
What sort of process do you think determines this?
"Moreover your claims of "distinctive patterns and style" are just that - claims. "
Well, I already revealed what the distinctive pattern was : irony, reversal of fortune, and frustration of expectations, that ties those saying and parables together, I picked the parables and sayings that are not even disputed by scholars, the one deemed as authentic, not even the ones deemed probably authentic. These saying and parables are not even disputed to be from multiple sources, but one source, no different that who the play of Shakespeare deemed to be authentic belong to one source. Scholar may disagree on some sayings, just like scholar disagree on some plays of Shakespeare, but I've only presented the one that are not disagreed upon.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 3:10 PM
CJO: "There are many instances in the genuine Paulines where Paul is at pains to press an issue explicitly addressed in the Q material and yet he never appeals to the authority of an earthly teacher figure"
And you would like me to believe this just because you said so? I know how this tactic works, in my discussion with Rook Hawkins, he was all dewey and confident that the writer or Mark was mimicking Homer's Odysseus, based on a book by Dennis R. MacDonald. He was so confident in this that he went around claiming, the he made the bold assertion that every critical (not even some or even most) agreed with this. When I asked him to provide some of these actual similarities he refused to do it. After I went ahead and explored it on my own, it wasn't long before we saw how silly these comparison are. One was, “Hero and men eat supper, including wine”, omitting the fact that the passage in Mark used for comparison takes place during the passover, when every mofo in Jerusalem is eating meat and drinking wine.
So please don't be offended that I'm reluctant to take whatever you say on word alone, back that shit up.
So if you're going to say this: "Paul is at pains to press an issue explicitly addressed in the Q material."
I want to know what the material and passages you're basing this on is, that Paul was in pains to press and issue, and that that issue was explicitly addressed in the Q material. If you want to make a persuasive arguments from silence, and not engage in the fallacy this is what exactly you need to do.
So put up, or shut up.
Then there's the unmistakable similarities between early teaching material (Q1, Thomas) and Greco-Roman Cynic philosophy.
Again, put up or shut up. Provide the quotes from the material, and where you're deriving them from.
And are you claiming the "authentic" sayings and parables of Jesus (according to the Jesus Seminar) can be found in Greco-Roman Cynic philosophy?
"Much of the so-called M and L material (unique to Matthew and Luke) is parables and other teaching material invented by those authors to address the problem of "delayed parousia"
Yep, turn the other cheek, love your enemies, go the extra mile, hand over your cloak as well, the good Samaritan parable, the parble of the shrewd manager were invented to deal with a delayed parousia right. What a idiot.
"In short...."
In short a whole a lot of bullshit on your part, and totally without substance.
Posted by: CJO | May 14, 2009 3:16 PM
I've only presented the one that are not disagreed upon.
Given the assumption that a historical figure existed at all. Abandoning that assumption, all you've got is a scholarly consensus that the few sayings you're putting forward are early or belong to the most primitive layer of Q. That doesn't establish provenance, just primitive character. If the whole corpus of sayings (and the similarity of style and content you're adducing as further evidence) can be explained as well or better by corporate authorship by like-minded members of a hellenized philosophical school, then an assertion that a given logion is "genuine" begs the question. You're assuming up front what "genuine" means, and that's the very issue in dispute.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2009 3:24 PM
around and around we go
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 14, 2009 3:32 PM
The following is a list of recent godbots trying to convert us who haven't used circular reasoning:
*Crickets chirring*
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 3:38 PM
For CJO, and the other mythicist dopes:
And let's not forget the dumb shit interpretations mythicist give to explain away passages in Paul that do reference a historical Jesus:
"before your eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? (Galatians 3:1)"
Paul claims that Jesus was born of a woman (Gal 4:4)
A descendent of King David (Rom 1:3)
Forbid divorce (1 Cor. 7:10)
Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
Jesus died at the hands of earthly rulers (1 Cor 2:8)
He went through abuse and humilation (Rom 15:3)
Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus' death. (1 Thess. 2:14-16)
He died by crucifixion. (2 Cor. 13:4 et al)
He was physically buried. (1 Cor. 15:4)
Came in the likeness of a man (Rom 8:3)
Yes, we know you would like us to believed that Paul believed all this took place in some spiritual realm that practiced the roman form of execution, that practiced the Lord's supper, and this purely spiritual being Jesus, had to be spiritually born by a spirt woman as well, and couldn't just keep his spiritual body, but had to be in the spiritual realm in the likeness of man, and composed of flesh instead of the typical fairy dust.
What absurdity.
And I mean who would have ever of thought that histories most remembered messiah claimant was also the only non-existent one. I mean it's bad enough those early Christians wanted to sell a a dude who died a humiliating death reserved for the vilest of criminals as the messiah, but to top it all of he didn't even exist! That's some crazy shit dude.
Are you sure this is the picture you want to present to us as most likely?
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 3:38 PM
For CJO, and the other mythicist dopes:
And let's not forget the dumb shit interpretations mythicist give to explain away passages in Paul that do reference a historical Jesus:
"before your eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? (Galatians 3:1)"
Paul claims that Jesus was born of a woman (Gal 4:4)
A descendent of King David (Rom 1:3)
Forbid divorce (1 Cor. 7:10)
Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
Jesus died at the hands of earthly rulers (1 Cor 2:8)
He went through abuse and humilation (Rom 15:3)
Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus' death. (1 Thess. 2:14-16)
He died by crucifixion. (2 Cor. 13:4 et al)
He was physically buried. (1 Cor. 15:4)
Came in the likeness of a man (Rom 8:3)
Yes, we know you would like us to believed that Paul believed all this took place in some spiritual realm that practiced the roman form of execution, that practiced the Lord's supper, and this purely spiritual being Jesus, had to be spiritually born by a spirt woman as well, and couldn't just keep his spiritual body, but had to be in the spiritual realm in the likeness of man, and composed of flesh instead of the typical fairy dust.
What absurdity.
And I mean who would have ever of thought that histories most remembered messiah claimant was also the only non-existent one. I mean it's bad enough those early Christians wanted to sell a a dude who died a humiliating death reserved for the vilest of criminals as the messiah, but to top it all of he didn't even exist! That's some crazy shit dude.
Are you sure this is the picture you want to present to us as most likely?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2009 3:45 PM
Are you sure that's the line of argumentation you want to present to us?
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 3:47 PM
CJO: If the whole corpus of sayings (and the similarity of style and content you're adducing as further evidence) can be explained as well or better by corporate authorship by like-minded members of a hellenized philosophical school, then an assertion that a given logion is "genuine" begs the question. You're assuming up front what "genuine" means, and that's the very issue in dispute."
Authentic, until theirs reason to assume otherwise. But like I said put out, or just shut the fuck up.
I've heard these fairly tailed assumptions promoted by mythicist too many time to ever be taken seriously. If you can provide the evidence, quoting these Hellenistic sources to reveal that the deemed "authentic" saying are better explained by like-minded members of a hellenized philosophical school, I want to see that shit.
But I'd wager you don't have a fucking clue, you heard some other dude parroting the same shit, and thought it'd be cool if you parroted it to, and no one would call you out on it. I'd wager that you haven't read one thing from these supposed hellenized philosophers, but you're too cowardly to admit that shit, and avoid providing the evidence I requested, because you don't have it.
But prove me wrong, and make me eat my words.
Posted by: CJO | May 14, 2009 3:48 PM
Yes, we know you would like us to believed that Paul believed all this took place in some spiritual realm that practiced the roman form of execution, that practiced the Lord's supper, and this purely spiritual being Jesus, had to be spiritually born by a spirt woman as well, and couldn't just keep his spiritual body, but had to be in the spiritual realm in the likeness of man, and composed of flesh instead of the typical fairy dust.
You seem to be confusing me with someone else whom you'd rather be arguing with. Perhaps I should leave the two of you alone to work out your differences?
Posted by: JeffreyD | May 14, 2009 3:53 PM
Ken Cope at #940 - I only got back and saw the Elvis link just now. I love it! Thanks.
Ciao
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 4:09 PM
CJO: "You seem to be confusing me with someone else."
Well, I did say CJO and other mythicist. but since you claimed that Paul didn't believe in a historical Jesus, without ever telling us what you think Paul actually believed, i was left only to assume that you took the popular mythicist view of jesus being crucified in some supposed neo-platonabaloney realm, that i hear so often. But if you want to provide an alternative view, you let me know.
CJO: "Perhaps I should leave the two of you alone to work out your differences?"
Dude, stop trying to take the veiled way out. If you wanna bow out, cuz you've been shown to be a phony, you just go ahead and do that, but don't be shady about it.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 4:09 PM
CJO: "You seem to be confusing me with someone else."
Well, I did say CJO and other mythicist. but since you claimed that Paul didn't believe in a historical Jesus, without ever telling us what you think Paul actually believed, i was left only to assume that you took the popular mythicist view of jesus being crucified in some supposed neo-platonabaloney realm, that i hear so often. But if you want to provide an alternative view, you let me know.
CJO: "Perhaps I should leave the two of you alone to work out your differences?"
Dude, stop trying to take the veiled way out. If you wanna bow out, cuz you've been shown to be a phony, you just go ahead and do that, but don't be shady about it.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 14, 2009 4:10 PM
Sure, why not
Why not, indeed. Why not belive that I have performed mircles for that matter? Or that the gentleman emailing you from Nigeria will send you millions if you just pay the costs of unfreezing the account?
O wait I remember. Believing unlikely stuff without adequate evidence is fucking stupid, that's why. Oh and because for a miracle to count as such it has to be so unlikely that the evidence would need to be mind-blowing. In fact it's very difficult to imagine what would count as sufficient evidence for a (rightly-so-called) miracle, since "I've just gone bugfuck insane and am hallucinating this" will always be the more plausible explanation.
I new there was a reason.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 4:12 PM
CJO: "You seem to be confusing me with someone else."
Well, I did say CJO and other mythicist. but since you claimed that Paul didn't believe in a historical Jesus, without ever telling us what you think Paul actually believed, i was left only to assume that you took the popular mythicist view of jesus being crucified in some supposed neo-platonabaloney realm, that i hear so often. But if you want to provide an alternative view, you let me know.
CJO: "Perhaps I should leave the two of you alone to work out your differences?"
Dude, stop trying to take the veiled way out. If you wanna bow out, cuz you've been shown to be a phony, you just go ahead and do that, but don't be shady about it.
Posted by: CJO | May 14, 2009 4:32 PM
you've been shown to be a phony
That's rich, asshole. Put words in my mouth and act like you've "shown" a single damn thing other than your own dishonesty.
I'm not bowing out of anything, but this shit takes time, dude, and, as I already said, I'm busy.
Posted by: triple post | May 14, 2009 4:32 PM
triple post
triple post
triple post
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | May 14, 2009 4:32 PM
Hithesh, I don't really get your point. Is this all to establish that some people who wrote long after the fact thought that Christ existed? OK, so what? That still doesn't make him the messiah or divine or anything else. And the point still stands: no contemporary evidence of any kind. Paul never even met the dude. After the fact, highly colored and biased records based on at best second-hand accounts.
Is that really all you've got? Sure, I grant you the odds are probably in favor of xst existing. But so what?
He's not trying to bow out - he's pointing out that you're doing what so many theists do: arguing with a straw-man of your own invention. Assuming CJ said something he didn't just 'cause you've had bad experiences elsewhere doesn't help your case.It just makes you look dumb. Like maybe you're not reading what people are sayin'.
Think it over.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2009 4:32 PM
hitesh.
READ THE FUCKING MESSAGE WHEN YOU GET THE SUBMISSION ERROR.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2009 4:32 PM
Were you trying to submit a comment?
If you were, please don't submit your comment again.
The system often gets asked to submit more comments at one time than it prefers to handle, so instead of pushing you through to the original post, it sometimes takes your comment and then stops paying attention to you (no offense intended). Hit the back button and refresh the page to see if your post made it through -- odds are good it did (but that's assuming the blog you're commenting on has unmoderated comments).
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 4:51 PM
"Sure, I grant you the odds are probably in favor of xst existing. But so what?"
:)
It's odd that all of sudden people ask me why I'm arguing that Jesus existed. I'm not the one who raised the question. When it was raised by a few, I suggested we move it to another forum somewhere, but that wasn't good enough for them. They wanted the discussion here, and that's what they got.
Prior to all this, it was a question of the resurrection experience of what happened after Jesus crucification that empowered the hope of his early followers. And individuals got to implying that I can't ask this question, because jesus probably wasn't crucified or existed, and hence why we're here now.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 14, 2009 4:57 PM
Are you really that stupid?
Um ...
Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2009 4:58 PM
Funny, that's exactly how we feel about the nonsense you're spewing...
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 5:10 PM
Rilke's"He's not trying to bow out - he's pointing out that you're doing what so many theists do: arguing with a straw-man of your own invention. Assuming CJ said something he didn't just 'cause you've had bad experiences elsewhere doesn't help your case."
Well, it's no different than what atheist do. You claim you're a theist, and people make all sorts of assumptions before you give any other reason except that you're a theist to do so. How many times do i get the "god impregnated a woman, so he could conceive himself, so he could kill himself", so he could forgive humanity because some dude was hungry and ate an apple., as a view that I hold.
The notion of events of Paul's Jesus taking place in a spiritual realm, is the popular notion spread by mythicist, CJO for some blaring reason claimed that Paul didn't believe in a historical Jesus, but omitted to letting us know what Paul did believe in. I wanted to confront this supposed omission from Paul, as false as we can see with the numerous times he does reference a historical Jesus, and confronting the only argument I'm aware of that attempts to explain this away.
If CJO has his own unique and entirely different view on this he is more than welcome to present it, but my comment still stands for other mythicist who hold that view.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 14, 2009 5:14 PM
Hithesh appears to be trying to prove god by proving jesus. Which is assbackwards of the proper way of doing it, where first god is proven. After all, no god, no resurrection. So proving god with physical evidence should have been his first priority. Still waiting for that evidence...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 14, 2009 5:17 PM
Once upon a time, four blind men were walking in the forest, and they bumped into a hithesh.
Moe: It's a brick wall!
Larry: It's a man made of straw!
Curly: It's a bunch of bullshit!
Ditchkins: Sure glad we didn't step in it!
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 14, 2009 5:20 PM
Yes, I'm sure your version is much more nuanced and completely not-a-load-of-shit.
You know how those of us interested in truth use the scientific method to get around the problem of misinterpretation?
We have fucking evidence.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 5:28 PM
Brownian: "You know how those of us interested in truth use the scientific method to get around the problem of misinterpretation?
We have fucking evidence."
So when reading a book, in interpreting the meaning of passages, the morals of a story or whatever else you resort to the scientific method, and this rids us of misinterpretation?
If i want to get an arcurate intepretation of the Gospel narratives, the parables, sayings, etc. it's by using the scientific method right? And if I used it correctly, I should have the correct interpretation of the passage while other interpretation would be incorrect ones, right?
Posted by: pwl100 | May 14, 2009 5:28 PM
I have to admit that's an impressive piece of writing there PZM.
Maybe you'd lighten up with how you treat people and alter your hyper aggressive site policies against those who say things you don't like to hear.
All the best.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 14, 2009 5:40 PM
pwl100: What are you referring to? Censorship? Banning? You've got to be kidding.
I mostly read non-fiction.
Again, if we're talking fiction, then do whatever you want. As for the nature of Jesus relationship to Mary or the colour of Hansel and Gretel's witch's shoes, it's totally up to you.
But then I wouldn't be so upset about others' misinterpretation of your interpretation.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
May 14, 2009 5:51 PM
No, child... Now you're just being silly.
Apparently you can't understand the difference between whether Jesus actually exists as a historical fact, and whether the stories about him have been so embellished over hundreds of years as to make the question of his existence irrelevant. The bottom line is this: the Jesus of the Bible is a fictional character, regardless of whether there was an actual person or not. The events and actions attributed to him--most notably the resurrection--do not pass even the most cursory reality check. They are fables (and not even original fables) and did not actually happen. That's what the scientific method tells us. That's what history tells us. That's what common sense tells us. The Bible is Bronze Age mythology, nothing more.
Of course, this destroys the entire foundation of Christianity, so it's no wonder that generations of believers have fiercely, even violently, attacked skeptics and critics. You're just another tiny link in that long chain of reality deniers, clinging to your warm, childhood superstitions, desperately hoping that your Christian god and his surrogate son aren't just a figment of your imagination.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 14, 2009 5:57 PM
Actually pdferguson, I wasn't even going as far as all that.
Just that if you belong to a religion with over 30,000 fucking sects based on doctrinal differences, you kinda lose the right to be tetchy when someone's not all that fucking interested in how you've added to the grand fucking field of theology with your undoubtedly ground-fucking-breaking and unique interpretation.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 14, 2009 6:04 PM
Further, given membership in just one 1 of said 30,000, that you think an accurate interpretation of such narratives even exists, let alone is known by you, is simply hubris beyond belief.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | May 14, 2009 6:10 PM
hithesh,
That's not actually what you said. You asked if it was reasonable to hold your opinion about the resurrection event and its impact on some folks lives.
Whether or not Jesus was a historical figure has no bearing on that: it is not reasonable for you to hold that opinion, unless you argue that it is also reasonable for all Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Confucionists, etc. to hold the opinions that they have. Reasonable beliefs (as opposed to simply whackdoodle nonsense) are based on evidence.
The evidence for the divinity of Christ is, in a word, lousy.
Posted by: Kel | May 14, 2009 6:12 PM
Of course they feel that way, and if you look at what the DI has done, their pushing of ID has made scientists focus on the mechanisms that they say are divinely created. By pushing their position, it brought knowledge forward. Just like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who in part helped their be an extensive investigation into the collapse of the towers.There is value in speaking out against issues, it rallies evidence. It may be that there was a historical Jesus, personally I side on the idea that there was a cult leader around 2000 years ago who began the whole process. But my point is this: what evidence is their for Jesus period? Which of the 7 foreskins that are claimed as being Jesus' are real? Which of the 4 chalices of Christ was his? Because when you look at the historical evidence for Jesus, it is scant. All you have is a few books of mythology and a couple of historians almost a century later referencing him. And this is meant to be God-incarnate. God came down to earth and the best we have is a few contradictory tales and a couple of historical references?!?
But whether there is a historical figure behind the legend simply doesn't matter. The fact remains that you believe that Jesus is God-incarnate and all you have to support it is a few stories written by a superstitious people. If someone came up to you in the 21st century and said that he was a follower of the 2nd coming of Christ, that he had escaped Iran because he was persecuted along with all other followers of the Man-God, would you believe him? What about if it were not a direct follower, but someone who heard the story from that follower and wrote it down 70 years later (which is a very conservative estimate for the time of writing John), would you still believe it?
The fact remains that you believe in the impossible and you justify it with history. You have nothing beyond a collection of quasi-historical myths. And that's what you believe?!? Go to an alien abduction convention and hear the personal tales of those who were abducted by aliens, thousands of eyewitness accounts experienced first hand. Do you think that is enough to get over the implausibility of aliens ever finding earth given that the universe is so huge and we are so small?
Posted by: windy
|
May 14, 2009 6:15 PM
So these acts, like turning the other cheek, were actually subversive acts of defiance? Can you see that this is inconsistent with what you said before, that slaves did not have "any sort of faith in reality", only in the "unseen, a grand mystery, it's a faith in power transcendent to reality, since reality itself doesn't do it." Were they trying to accomplish something real with these acts or not?
Posted by: pdferguson
|
May 14, 2009 6:16 PM
And theists get particularly grouchy when you summarily dismiss all 30,000 sects. They really get bent out of shape by that, as our little friend here on this thread has demonstrated. Apparently, it's one thing to dismiss 29,999 of them, but that last one, hoo boy, watch out! Then the attacks really jump into high gear, although they invariably follow the same lines as countless before it (I'm always amused by the fact that theists never seem to realize how many times their discredited arguments have been made before when they trot them out yet again.)
Posted by: AJ Milne | May 14, 2009 6:18 PM
There's also that fact that it's such a free-floating load of BS, after all. Y'know... it's a bit like you're talking to the ranting street wino who believes in magical flying elephants that run a shadow government. And then you make the mistake of assuming he was the one who figured the elephants' tutus were pink...
Turns out that's heresy, see. They're purple, fuck! What kind of heathen do you take him for...
And then he's got a 200 page tome on why they just have to be purple. All roughly as coherent as was the elephant was in the first place... But my my, what a philistine you were for assuming...
It's one of the root issues with religion, really, y'ask me. That logic and evidence-wise, there really are no rules, and shit like that is epidemic wherever it's been. It's sorta like playing tennis without a net, to borrow a phrase. Does kinda make it likely a certain variety of spectacularly insipid argument is going to break out--not to mention promoting the development of a certain species of wanker whose only actual talent is for such spectacularly insipid arguments (looks around innocently). I mean, sure, there are fights over everything, with or without rules, but those ones, damn...
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 6:19 PM
Brownian: "Again, if we're talking fiction, then do whatever you want[....]But then I wouldn't be so upset about others' misinterpretation of your interpretation."
A belief that every interpretation even when it comes to fiction is equally as valid is a silly one to make, this wouldn't be much different than the silliness of claiming that all interpretations of scientific data are equally as valid.
If we all were locked in separate rooms, and given all the data used to validate the ToE, without any prior exposure to what others had to say about it, we'd have all sorts of weird interpretations of what it means.
Evidence doesn't speak for itself, I can take the totality of evidence used for evolution, and purpose all sorts of interpretations for what it means, but we judge the interpretation by how well it takes into account the various data that goes into it, how reasonable it is, if the situation painted by it, if it seems more accurate that other alternative interpretations of it.
In dealing with biblical interpretation, interpretation of passages, it's not much different. We judge an interpretation by how it takes into account various factors, such as the historical setting in which it was written, the culture and ideas that surround the text, the conditions of their day to day life, their concerns, how well an interpretation of a particular portion of a text fits in with the text as whole, etc.. and judging which interpretation contribute to a more coherent total picture.
If you ever sat through an English class, that finished the reading of a particular novel, and was having a discussion on it, some people make way off the mark interpretation of some parts of it, some may even make reasonable ones, that you don't necessarily agree with, but still see the reasonableness of their views. We're not dealing with ink spots but with thoughts and ideas.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 14, 2009 6:20 PM
If one is reading fiction, as the bible is, the only interpretation is for grins. There is nothing of consequence there. First you must lose the presumption that the bible is real, and show evidence that it is a real history book, especially for Jebus, for you to take your attitude. As usual, there has be no evidence presented other than your belief that the bible is history, but since we have already discredited you, your belief is irrelevant to the truth of the matter. So it is fiction until you show the physical evidence otherwise. We are still waiting...Posted by: Kel | May 14, 2009 6:28 PM
Hey people, what do you think the true meaning of Gollum biting the ring off Frodo and slipping into Mt Doom meant? Was it an expression that when it comes down to it, luck is what it takes to defeat evil? Or was it a cautionary tale of the dangers of obsession (to the point where one doesn't take in their surroundings)? Or was it nothing more than a means to drive the plot forward? Remember, not all interpretations are equal...
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 14, 2009 6:29 PM
Further, given the existence of any number of competing religions making similar claims, what reason have you given us to believe your truth claim over theirs? That you believe in it? As Rilke's Granddaughter pointed out, a Buddhist, Muslim, Confucian, and Zoroastrian would all make the same claim about they're own beliefs? Are you really so poorly-educated that you think your god is the only one to have miracles attributed to him? What argument do you use to claim the ones attributed to Jesus are true whereas all others aren't? He's got slightly more followers than Buddhism? His are more (or less) plausible?
And isn't that in itself a little odd? That a god who cares so much about our mortal souls that he wants us to believe in him so much would send into a world populated by parlor-trick charlatans a man to convince us of his divinity by performing parlor-tricks?
Of course there's no point in pointing out the oddities of some particular mythology to a believer, as they'll equally use plausibility and implausibility as some sort of argument for their 'truth'.
Posted by: Kel | May 14, 2009 6:32 PM
The one true God writes a message to earth and it needs to be interpreted? To me, that's a sign that there was no deity behind the process. It's a man-made doctrine.
Posted by: hithesh | May 14, 2009 6:34 PM
Rilke: That's not actually what you said. You asked if it was reasonable to hold your opinion about the "resurrection event" and its impact on some folks lives."
You stand corrected, I said "resurrection experience" as evidence in post #818, #834, #846.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 14, 2009 6:35 PM
That's the least true thing I've ever read. An indisputable fact about the history of the theory is that so many independent lines of evidence led so many individuals to similar conclusions. Not only did Darwin and Wallace both independently conceive of the theory, but it so quickly gained widespread acceptance largely because so many other independent investigators read it and said, Aha! That's the only sensible way to explain all these data.
Stick to talking about Jesus; when it comes to evolution you haven't got a fucking clue as to what you're talking about, kid.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
May 14, 2009 6:37 PM
Nice one, Kel.
And remember, the only way into heaven is to accept Frodo as your lord and savior!
Posted by: Kel | May 14, 2009 6:38 PM
The book that gives enough evidence to suggest that a human conquered death needs to be interpreted?!?
Posted by: Kel | May 14, 2009 6:42 PM
I'm a LOTR revisionist. It talked of the great friendship between Frodo and Sam, but really if you read the text just right it spells out that it was Sam who betrayed Frodo to Sheilob for a small fee. Feeling guilt he went back to rescue Frodo and ventured into Mordor to atone for his sins. We must always remember the story of redemption that Sam gave and not the unbridled story of friendship in the Gospel of Tolkien.Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | May 14, 2009 6:46 PM
OK. The point remains that whether or not Christ was a historical figure, your belief in the resurrection experience is not a reasonable one.Posted by: pdferguson
|
May 14, 2009 6:54 PM
Blasphemy! Blasphemy, I say! You will surely burn in HELL for this! I've a mind to send you there right now, you infidel! For it is written in the holy LOTR that Sam NEVER betrayed his friendship with Frodo. NEVER! A curse upon you, may Balrogs flay your skin for all eternity!
Posted by: brandon | May 14, 2009 7:01 PM
What the fuck is a resurrection experience? A new ride at Disney?
Posted by: pdferguson
|
May 14, 2009 7:06 PM
No, it's a popular attraction at the Creation Museum, with a sign at the entrance: "You must be this tall to be resurrected."
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 14, 2009 7:34 PM
hithesh wrote:
EPIC FAIL!
Your grasp of science and how it works is evidently as poor as your grasp of how the bible was compiled.
Science is about constantly examining and re-examining the evidence, and when new evidence is discovered the old is discarded. Can you say that about religion? No. In religion nothing the 'official' church has ever said about everything has ever been 'wrong' - it's just a different kind of 'right'.
So, eventually, all the rooms filled with scientists would result in them reaching the same conclusion. They can do this because the evidence for the ToE is still available to us.
Christians, on the other hand, don't seem to be able to agree on very much at all. When they eventually come out of their rooms and talk to each other it's usually only when one of them has decided there's yet another interpretation of the bible and wants to go and have a room of his/her own.
That, or to try and kill those who have a slightly different interpretation.
Funny, you'd think that if the gospels were so obviously the result of the teachings of one man - be he son of god or not - there couldn't possibly be so many different ways to interpret what he allegedly taught.
At least that's what you'd think if you had an ounce of intellectual honesty.
But religion, unlike science, is the antithesis of consensus - because you've got nothing concrete upon which to base your beliefs, only speculation and conjecture based around an ancient folk mythology.
Heck, you Christians can't even decided on what conditions are required to even be called Christian!
Posted by: windy
|
May 14, 2009 8:04 PM
It was an expression of a transcendent hope in the hopeless, a grand mystery, a faith in power transcendent to reality. And this power, we calls the Precious. Yes, we does.
Posted by: Erl | May 14, 2009 8:40 PM
It's the reversal of expectations, used to bring about a change in one's adversary, not by means of violence, but creativity.
FWIW, Hithesh, it's possible to use this on the internet, with those who disagree with you, even/especially when they use rude terms and aggression. Compliment them on what they want to be seen for--very effective. But tit-for-tat it ain't. No problem with you being an imperfect human, but don't try to claim insulting people back is turning the other cheek.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 14, 2009 9:15 PM
Ichthyic wrote (about hithesh):
I wouldn't even go that far - he should stop talking about Jesus, since he doesn't have much of a clue about what did or didn't occur in that alleged person's supposed lifetime either.
No-one does. The only material we have is the product of extraordinarily untrustworthy sources - namely the Church, who we know from actual history (rather than made-up history) murdered and quashed alternative explanations and interpretations of scripture; that they wouldn't have destroyed documentation which didn't support their official doctrine wouldn't be much of a leap in terms of speculation.
So, all the hand-waving and tapdancing in the world doesn't change the fact that all they got is a bunch of documents written well after the events in question and selected for a purpose (maintaining power) and in which fact cannot (by anyone intellectually honest, at least) be differentiated from fiction with any consistency.
Elephant in the room? Buddy, at best you've got a badly-drawn picture of an elephant. Done by a two-year-old. In crayon. And used by said two-year-old to wipe his nose on after he moved onto something more interesting.
Posted by: cicely | May 14, 2009 10:34 PM
Hithesh, I don't understand why you keep going on about offering to take the discussion elsewhere. Why does the where matter? And we're all right here already.
pdferguson @ 1075:
Which doesn't prevent those who want to believe from behaving just exactly as if it were true. Just as people in denial about the loss of a beloved family member may act just as if that person wasn't really dead, or the lover or spouse who left them will walk back through their door any day now, all with complete conviction and vehement objections when others try to point out the contrary. It's all about the warm-fuzzies. They don't want to have to give up the warm-fuzzies.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 14, 2009 11:02 PM
that line is so pricelessly stupid, It reminded me of a whole bunch of things:
1)I remember once reading about an (accidental) anthropological experiment of a British woman who tried to explain Hamlet to an African tribe. Every time she presented the standard Western explanation for a scene, the elders would laugh at her, tell her she's silly, and then tell her what the scene REALLY means. The interpretation was completely different from hers, but it was fully consistent with the tribe's world-view. it was fascinating.
2)When interpreting fiction, the only time you can parse the "correct" meaning is when you have a direct statement from the artist (and some post-modernists would argue that point, too); without that statement, all interpretation, as long as it's self-consistent, is equally valid. for example, there's a pretty large consensus that Georgia O'Keefe's art was yonic (like phallic, but female), what with the vagina-flowers, the bleached cattle-skulls looking like the uterus/fallopic tubes etc. seems pretty obvious, doesn't it? BUT we know from Georgia O'Keefe herself that she never intended the art to look like female genitalia... so now what?
3)Reinterpretation of fiction is an art in-and-of itself: modern literature like The Red Tent, or Mists of Avalon; post-colonial reinterpretation of colonial art; the hundreds of different and steadily evolving versions of medieval tales such as the Tale of Robin Hood; etc.
Even biblical times aren't strangers to this custom, what with the Noah myth really being a reinterpretation of the flood in the Gilgamesh Epic; and as for Jesus... well, not only is a lot of the story-line stolen from other mystery religions and cults, we know that multiple interpretations existed all through the history of Christianity, the oldest such alternative versions being the Gnostic interpretations, and the Gospel of Judas, for example.
Posted by: cicely | May 14, 2009 11:03 PM
Wowbagger @ 1097:
Because, sooner or later, every franchise needs a reboot. You know, when the continuity is just too burdened down by the weight of its inconsistencies, or when it has gotten too stale and no longer attracts customers into the theaters.
Posted by: Amos | May 14, 2009 11:38 PM
I'd never heard of that, so I looked it up. It's "Shakespeare in the Bush" by Laura Bohannan. And it's fascinating.
Posted by: Kel | May 15, 2009 4:04 AM
No, it is you who will face the wrath of Sauron. The Gospel of Tolkien, while admirable for it's meticulous accounts of events and storytelling, does not properly tell the tale of Eru. Now through divine revelation by Eru the story can be properly interpreted, much in the same way that Bilbo's account of how he obtained the one ring was revised by Gandalf in the Gospel of Tolkien. When it comes down to it, on the one hand you have a 2nd hand eyewitness account that is the synoptic gospel of Tolkien, and on the other you have divine revelation (where there is a lot more blaspheming against the Jews.) When quasi-historical accounts say one thing and the one true creator of the universe says another, which one are you going to trust?Heretic ;)
Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2009 4:39 AM
alter your hyper aggressive site policies against those who say things you don't like to hear
We remember you and your massive trolling, you pathetic liar.
Posted by: Saucerianonymous Fan | May 15, 2009 5:04 AM
Disclaimer: I love paranormal stories but am a total naturalist.
I participate in paranormal boards hosted on 4chan and 7chan.
A few days ago I came across this guy calling himself Saucerianonymous who claims he had experienced contact with aliens throughout his life.
His stories are quite fantastic and I enjoy reading them like any other fiction.
There are two surviving threads with his stories:
https://www.7chan.org/x/res/2718.html
https://www.7chan.org/x/res/3059.html
The thing is, I linked him with this Elephant Wings story and got this Elton John story as a reply in https://www.7chan.org/x/res/2993.html:
Saucerianonymous!!V4ZmLlLJLj 09/05/12(Tue)08:24 No. 2993
A responce to:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/elephants_wings.php
----------------------------------------------
Once upon a time, 3 scientists were walking in a dark forest and on the trail standing in front of them they could see the shadowy outline of a Snuffleupagus with what appeared to be a glittering man riding it.
An argument quickly developed between the three concerning what they had just encountered yet could not see clearly.
Be said "it's a weather balloon!"
Bop said "this is a lucid dream!"
Lula said "Wait! Remember that Sagan said science is "a candle in the dark"? Well, I have a candle and a Zippo lighter!"
Lula took the Zippo and candle from his pocket and shouted "let there be light"!
It was at this moment that three realized they were standing at the rear of the Snuffleupagus who immediately shot forth an incredible burst of flatulence which hit the flame of the candle; torching the three scientists.
The rider of the Snuffleupagus was none other than Sir Elton John who exclaimed maniacly "Or like a candle in the wind?! Crispy critters ooh! ooh! Jocky.. Er.. Jocko Homo Heavenbound!"
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 15, 2009 5:49 AM
Hithesh@1042,
Whatever Karl Popper, or even Jadehawk, say, proofs, in the everyday sense of the word, most certainly do occur in science. (It's along time since I read Popper, but IIRC, he - wrongly - limited science to hypothesising and testing "natural laws", which are universal generalisations.) It has, for example, been proved that marsupials once lived in Antarctica - the fossils have been found. It has been proved that heavier-than-air machines can fly - I invite you to look up when you hear the noise of a powerful engine from above. It is (or should be) blindingly obvious that if disproofs occur, so do proofs, since you cannot disprove P without proving ~P. Of course if you restrict "proof" to the mathematical sense, such proofs do not occur in science, but there is absolutely no justification for doing so. The word has long been used in legal contexts: the phrase "proved beyond reasonable doubt" may possibly be familiar to you.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 15, 2009 5:53 AM
Hithesh the Intellectual Coward,
Your #756 is just emotive babble, and says nothing about any factual beliefs about Jesus and miracles you hold. As I expected, you evade the question.
Posted by: John Morales | May 15, 2009 6:54 AM
Saucerianonymous Fan, Saucerianonymous attempts to imitate the style of PZ's allegory, but fails dismally to discern its form and substance (e.g. elephants exist, scientists proceed scientifically, and most importantly it evinces a distinct thesis). The result is mere absurdism, lacking pith.
It is, however, quite amusing to see the effort.
Posted by: Saucerianonymous Fan | May 15, 2009 7:30 AM
To John Morales #1110
It is pretty lame, I know. It made me facepalm.
But other than his anti-science babel, he chronicles fantastic stuff that has merit outside of science. It has merit within the arts (or at least in a participatory culture BBS like 7chan's Paranormal Images Board)
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | May 15, 2009 8:23 AM
Not so. In the uberskeptical epistemology of science, there is always the possibility (no matter how remote) that there is another hypothesis, Q, that hasn't been thought of yet. In fact, the false dichotomy of disprove Darwin, therefore Goddidit is one of the chief fallacies in the creationist toolkit.Posted by: Knockgoats | May 15, 2009 8:29 AM
Sven, ~P simply means "P is false". So if you disprove P, you prove ~P - that's what "disprove" means. I know I'll never get most people here to drop the particular species of bollocks that is embodied in "Science never proves anything", but I'm not going to stop trying!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 15, 2009 8:37 AM
prove it
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | May 15, 2009 8:41 AM
Ah. Yes, of course, point taken.
Do you have a problem with "Science never proves a hypothesis true"? Because that's what is meant by the more succinct version.
Posted by: hithesh | May 15, 2009 8:42 AM
hithesh: "A belief that every interpretation even when it comes to fiction is equally as valid is a silly one to make,"
Jadehawk: "that line is so pricelessly stupid, It reminded me of a whole bunch of things:"
Is it really? SO when fundie's claim that the certain passages in the bible lay claim to the world was round, that the writer of Genesis meant the days to be equivelent to thousands of years, rather than literal days, because the writer believed the world was millions of years old. Or when fundies claim that Bohemeth was a description of a dinosaur.
You don't consider these to be silly interpretations, but valid ones? perfectly reasonable ones?
If we were to take the parable of the Good Samaritan, and one person said the meaning of the passage is that we should tax the poor and beat their wives, and another said that the meaning of the passage is that we should show compassion even towards those different than us, when we find them in need, we should be willing to help them, putting ourself interest aside. Are you going to claim that both interpretations are equally as valid, and reasonable?
Is one interpretation a silly one? Is one interpretation a rather poorly reasoned one?
So are all interpretation equally as reasonable or not?
Posted by: hithesh | May 15, 2009 8:49 AM
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 15, 2009 8:29 AM
"Sven, ~P simply means "P is false". So if you disprove P, you prove ~P - that's what "disprove" means. I know I'll never get most people here to "
Well, the gripe with "proof", is the same gripe individuals had with me over my use of "complete trust" and "absolute trust".
"What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 15, 2009 9:11 AM
Hithesh, still no physical evidence that your imaginary god exists, or physical evidence that your bible is not a work of fiction. Here at Pharyngula it is a work of fiction until you show evidence otherwise. Which you have failed to do time and time again. At what point can we conclude you don't know what you are talking about. About your third post.
Your textual analysis doesn't mean anything until you show the bible is real. Still waiting...
Science deals with evidence. If you think science is wrong, write a paper using scientific principles and send it to be published in a peer reviewed primary scientific journal. Your unsubstantiated opinion about science isn't even worth the electrons used to write it. And quit talking about science and how it works. You show your ignorance everytime you try to talk on the subject.
Posted by: Kel | May 15, 2009 9:15 AM
Who cares that you can't prove in science? It is hardly a relevant point. It may be inductive reasoning, but every single person here is sitting on a computer. This is a device that uses semiconducters that work on the properties of quantum physics in order to turn electricity into logic - and does so at a rate of billions of calculations per second. Now we can't prove that the laws of physics are there, but we can and have demonstrated them time and time again. And we continue to demonstrate them every second of every hour of every day of every week and so on... My desk is an absolute mess right now, but it relies on the assumption that gravity will remain valid tomorrow so that my shiny new monitor doesn't fall to the roof and smash.
Whether we can or can't prove in science is nothing more than splitting hairs over semantics. The fact is that through measurement of the universe using the scientific method we have built: computers, artificial satellites and aircraft. We have electricity and global communications networks in all homes, and food is shipped into large urban areas from sometimes thousands of kilometres away to feed the population. We have eradicated smallpox, stopped the spread of infection diseases. We have sent craft beyond our solar system and found hard evidence of water on Mars. We have observed back 13.7 billion years and seen galaxies over 13 billion light years away. Through farming practices we can now feed billions. And this is only a tiny amount of the achievement the scientific method has brought.
So what is this talk about proof? It's a semantic waste of time. What matters is the practical knowledge we can derive from the process. Whether it's proof or not, one simple fact remains - science works! And to deny otherwise on the internet is to be a hypocrite.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 15, 2009 9:19 AM
This is fine, in theory. In practice, in science, how often do we know, with 100% confidence, that we have disproven P? What concept of falsifiability are you referring to, first off?
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 15, 2009 9:19 AM
Do you have a problem with "Science never proves a hypothesis true"? Sven DiMilo
Yes. Before marsupial fossils were discovered in Antarctica, it was hypothesized that they had lived there. When marsupial fossils were discovered there, that hypothesis was proved.
Hithesh,
You'll hear scientists talk about "proof" all the time, when they're not wearing their "I'm-a-good-Popperian" philosophy of science hats - as, you will note, your quote pretty much admits. Now it's true that something might be announced and accepted as proven scientifically - and then turn out not to be. But surprise surprise, because we are not infallible, the same can happen in mathematics: The four color theorem. Another case is Euclid's proof that the angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees. In this case, there was no error in the reasoning, but it turned out that one of his axioms could be changed, giving theories [mathematical sense] in which triangles exist but their angles do not sum to 180 degrees.
Oh, and no, this has sod-all in common with your burblings about "complete trust".
"I know I'll never get most people here to drop the particular species of bollocks that is embodied in "Science never proves anything", but I'm not going to stop trying" - Me
prove it - Rev BDC
OK, you got me. I lied!
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | May 15, 2009 9:26 AM
I have to agree with hithesh on this one: in fact NOT all interpretations of any piece of fiction are equally valid, and that's just a fact. Accepting that Dante was talking about his laundry list in "Inferno" for example is genuinely wrong. If for no other reason than it's not what the author intended. On the other hand, that's not what he claimed, nor implied. You're projecting again.Posted by: Kel | May 15, 2009 9:29 AM
The argument over proof beyond all else is nothing more than a red herring. We don't need someone to prove 100% that something exists for it to be reasonable to believe in it, or even to say that they know it to be the case. But to spend so much time arguing semantics detracts from the notion that providing positive evidence increases the likelihood of something being true. It is this point that we should be hammering home, that the lack of evidential support is a greater problem than the lack of proof.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | May 15, 2009 9:37 AM
hithesh, the problem remains. You asked if it was reasonable for you to hold a certain belief. Our claim is that it is NOT reasonable, because there is no good, empirical evidence for it, and what little evidence we have is the very worst kind of historical documentation.
As someone upthread pointed out, the idea that a carpenter turned rabbi named Joshua (or something like that) was wandering around Judea in the days of Tiberius Caesar and got axed and later deified by his followers is better than zero.
That the Christ described in the Bible existed is not reasonable.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | May 15, 2009 9:42 AM
Kel @1123
Good point.Part of the problem is that if we allow religiously charged, non-witness accounts to serve as 'evidence' then we have to allow any other set of sacred texts that follow similar lines. 'tis a slipperly slope.
Posted by: Chris Hayes | May 15, 2009 10:15 AM
lol, the other day Eagletosh told me young ants have wings, how ridiculous.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 15, 2009 10:16 AM
Or, to amplify Rilke's Granddaughter's point in dialect humor,
You can't get theyuh:
From Heeyuh:
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 15, 2009 10:20 AM
Besides, "He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy."
Posted by: Josh
|
May 15, 2009 10:21 AM
Kel is going to yell at me for splitting hairs, but I would be remiss if I didn’t address this (I would also argue that a shared vernacular is the cornerstone of science and arguments against us trying hard to get on the same sheet of music with respect to terminology miss the point):
My good Goat--I love your comments; you always get me thinking, which as far as I'm concerned is the point of this blog. The above statement, however, is a poor example to use when arguing this point. It's false.
It absolutely has not been proven that marsupials once lived in Antarctica, if "proof" here is taken to mean an assumption of being True (which is how I interpret "this hypothesis has been proven"*). We have really good evidence that marsupials once lived in Antarctica (i.e., we have so far failed to disprove this hypothesis), but I don't think that any scientist should go further with it.
For this hypothesis to be proven (and again, I am basing this entire comment on the presumption that a proven hypothesis equals an assumption that the statement representing it is true (i.e., that you just accept it as a fact that there were marsupials in Antarctica at one point), we would have to (at least...):
A. absolutely know what a marsupial is and that this concept is chiseled in granite. In reality, this is not true. Species are fairly plastic entities; higher-level clades are much more so (and are additionally problematic in lacking uniform characteristics of definition). Whereas it is probably highly unlikely that marsupials are a "weak enough" clade to be completely thrown out**, the idea that we could never overturn "what it means to be a marsupial" is simply false.
B. absolutely know that these fossils are those of marsupials. In reality, this isn't true. There is always the possibility that a fossil has been misclassified. It's usually not an idea that's out-to-lunch, either. Taxonomic assignments for fossils are not facts. Even ignoring the discussion in point A above that clades are plastic, fossils get re-classified all the time***. The idea that any taxonomic assignment equals truth is a poor one.
C. absolutely know that the rocks in which these fossils were found were deposited in what is currently thought of as "Antarctica" (i.e., that we know that these sediments were not deposited elsewhere and then later accreted against the geological body that we currently think of as Antarctica). In reality, this is untrue. The idea that we've conclusively identified all of the thrust sheets in an area that is as poorly mapped as the bedrock of Antarctica is way off.
These are just three sources of uncertainty acting on that hypothesis that I came up with off the top of my head. I don't think it would be hard for us to quickly think of some more. Even if you had convinced me that there are hypotheses out there that lack uncertainty, this one would not be among them.
___________________
*I also think this is how most people view "proven."
**Redefined/reorganized/something to enough of a degree that the word marsupial doesn't really mean anything anymore. Reptilia used to be meaningful; not really a particularly useful concept anymore.
***For example, in the late 1970s, certain dinosaur remains from Madagascar were thought to represent a herbivorous ornithischian dinosaur:
Sues, H-D, 1980, A pachycephalosaurid dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous of Madagascar and its paleobiogeographical implications. Journal of Paleontology 54:954–962.
Sues, H-D & P Taquet, 1979, A pachycephalosaurid dinosaur from Madagascar and a Laurasia-Gondwanaland connection in the Cretaceous. Nature 279:633–635.
This is no longer thought to be the case. This same material is currently thought to belong to a genus of predatory saurischian dinosaur:
Sampson, SD, LM Witmer, CA Forster, DW Krause, PM O’Connor,
P Dodson, & F Ravoavy, 1998, Predatory dinosaur remains from Madagascar: implications for the Cretaceous biogeography of Gondwana. Science 280:1048–1051.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 15, 2009 10:26 AM
And who says we call agree on everything?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 15, 2009 10:29 AM
call?
son of a bitch
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 15, 2009 10:32 AM
needs more bacon.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 15, 2009 10:41 AM
Josh,
That's tosh.
(Generally I like your comments, but really, it is. Look through a few of the 3,470 google scholar references you get when you type in "Antarctic marsupials". It's not a case of a few dubious fragments. Mammalian fossils are classified primarily by their teeth, and many of the fossils found in Antarctica can be identified at much finer taxonomic levels than the infra-class Metatheria.)
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 15, 2009 10:44 AM
@1129: would you agree that the planet earth rotates on its axis? If so, where does the hyperskepticism kick in? If not, what _would_ you agree to? :)
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 15, 2009 10:57 AM
All this hyperscepticism reminds me of Inspector Rene "Doubty" Descartes - a Monty Python invention:
"It's this "Beyond reasonable doubt" nonsense that has bedevilled police procedure ever since the days of that woolly pragmatist Peel."
The Inspector always insisted on starting by doubting his own existence, and so never got anywhere with solving crimes. Of course in practice scientists don't behave like the "vulgar Popperians" common around here - as I say, it's only when they're pretending to be philosophers of science.
BTW, Josh, the first of your grounds for doubt - that the definition of marsupial might change - has no bearing on the matter. It would still be the case that marsupials as currently defined once lived in Antarctica.
Posted by: Rudy | May 15, 2009 11:07 AM
John Morales,
I took a look today at where the thread went, and I'm sorry to have missed out participating in the "interpretation" subthread (and I have to apologize to Nothing S., who I see now clearly wanted me to keep posting). Taking the chance that Ken will mock me again for posting here, I decided that you asked me a direct question, so I think I should answer.
John, I didn't leave because I didn't want to defend my position, though I admit it was late and I had been online a long time, and my thinking was getting fuzzy. It was just for the reason I said, Nerd was angry at me, was shouting at me (figuratively speaking) to shut up, and I don't like people making people mad.
More generally:
Thinking it over, later, I also realized I was getting tired of the bad language (maybe a greasemonkey script would fix this, as someone else suggested on another thread, to filter out people like me and Hittesh possibly :) ). I don't think that sexually-loaded invective is evil, but it's toxic to me, for entirely personal reasons, and it was hard to mentally filter out. (it looks like it subsided a bit later on)
Hittesh, by the way, I'm sure that this language is against your values, I advise you to avoid it, as tempting as it is when you're being baited with it. Read the Epistle of James.
I really was enjoying the mind/body/ stuff, and though I think I have nothing really deep to bring to such a discussion, I'd welcome a suggestion by Nothing Sacred or anyone else as to a forum where I could read, and discuss, these topics in a less heated way.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 15, 2009 11:25 AM
I've been on both sides of proven and disproven divide, and what I like is the careful phrasing of Gould here, defining what is meant by a a scientific fact:
I doubt that Josh is withholding his provisional assent that it's been satisfactorily confirmed that marsupials once roamed Antarctica, I'll charitably interpret his remarks to be a demonstration of how many ways it might have been shown not to be a fact. The reason any assent is provisional is that more information may change the way we view what is presently regarded as a fact, but only by doing a better or more complete job than our present understanding. Without having to be a naive Popperian, it is a scientist's job to look at the world working out ways to test for how we might not be entitled to all of what we presently regard as facts.
A theist, on the other hand, is a cafeteria naturalist, disregarding anything that challenges their mystic pareidolia, that whatever they glean from pareidolia and divine inspiration from fairy tales can never be anything other than confirmation of how right they are.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 15, 2009 11:27 AM
Rilke's Granddaughter wrote:
I agree with this. This isn't hithesh's problem though; his problem is that he's trying to argue that there's an interpretation of fiction that makes it magically become fact - and he's not getting very far.
If there is any kind of elephant in the room, hithesh has his head stuck in its ass.
He writes:
Why are they any more 'silly' than your interpretations? Because we now know how wrong they are? When they wrote it they believed in was true, just like the bits of the bible you aren't so embarrassed by that you've discarded were considered true at the time they were written down. And yet you still believe in those bits.
That science has shown much of the bible to be wrong should be an indicator to you that none of it can be taken seriously without other, real-world evidence to support it.
It's back to that same old tapdance routine where the Christian points out that the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, except for those few parts they did actually manage to get right. How do we know which parts were meant to be taken literally? Oh, that's easy; those are the parts where the stories match reality.
What they're asking us to accept is the equivalent of them being allowed to pick lottery numbers after the numbers are drawn - but claiming that those were the ones they'd have chosen anyway.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 15, 2009 11:46 AM
Thanks Ken. Your statement @#1137 tends toward what I was trying to get across. Basically, one of the main things they tried to beat into my head in graduate school is the concept of: "pretty much whenever you, as a scientist, think that you've got it all figured out, you're probably standing close to the edge of going wrong." As scientists, we're supposed to be searching for the holes and the weaknesses in ideas (i.e., the uncertainty). Not how are they right, but how they can possibly be wrong. Perhaps that makes me hyperskeptical.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | May 15, 2009 11:49 AM
I am done even pretending to be a philosopher of science.
I will say, though, that IMO "Reptilia," or at least "reptiles" is still a useful concept, even if it's not a valid monophyletic taxon. I feel the same way about algae, monkeys, fishes, etc.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 15, 2009 12:18 PM
Taking the chance that Ken will mock me again for posting here
Rudy, in reviewing the thread, after referring to you as an Eric wannabe (and I'm not sure whether that's better or worse than a hithesh wannabe), I think I can safely say you were not mocked by me at all. You haven't deserved a fraction of the abuse heaped appropriately on hithesh. There's at least one theist on this forum who has a Molly, the first to win one, actually. Your ideas were challenged, but no more harshly than anybody challenged Josh's just now. You said you had internet callouses. If you interpret a response to ideas that differ with your own as mockery, you had perhaps better grow some new callouses. I asked you honest questions about how the world would look if dualism were correct. I've not been online as much as I might because I've been white knuckling over finals and homework (symbolic logic, joy), so I haven't engaged your posts as much as I might. Both good ideas and bad ones are catnip-soaked playthings that get banged up pretty good around here. Ideas about Mysterians and quantum platonists and dualists vs. physicalists get batted around quite a lot on this forum. Occasionally claws should have been sheathed, but complaining about persecution does not merit much sympathy, especially if the ideas under assault aren't very well defended.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 15, 2009 12:55 PM
You wrote that deliberately because it rhymed, didn't you? :P
You and I have gone around on this subject before, and we've never managed to see eye to eye, but I remain hopeful (whether you end up pulling me or I end up pulling you doesn't concern me; I just really want to understand this all better).
But that's my point. Here you're essentially qualifying your previous statement to account for the uncertainty in it, thereby increasing how accurately it describes the "real" situation.
First iteration:
Second iteration:
Do you agree that the second iteration describes the "real" situation more accurately than the first iteration, if only just slightly?
If you do agree that the second version of the statement is slightly "better," then how is it possible for the first version to be true? If you have to subsequently modify the statement to more accurately represent what's really going, then how can the original version be the true representation? The second version isn't the same hypothesis. It's more sophisticated. It hasn't "proven" the same thing, because it's accounting for stuff that the first version isn't. So which version is true? Which hypothesis has actually been proven?
Or, if you say that the original is true at one level of accuracy, and that the second is true at another level of accuracy, then what good is calling either of them true? Do either of them describe the "real" situation? I would say no, since neither version accounts for the uncertainty of whether or not the rocks in question represent an accreted terrain, for example. So you could modify the hypothesis again. This third version would be better, but does it describe the "real" situation*? How do you know? How can you ever know that you have accounted for all of the uncertainty? If you don't know exactly how well your statement describes reality because you can't be certain you've accounted for all possible uncertainty, then what have you proved?
________________
*We haven't even touched on convergence or plasticity within dental characters.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 15, 2009 1:55 PM
oh fine, I should have said "internally consistent and referring to the object being interpreted"
other than that, you're still bullshitting. we're talking about interpreting FICTION, so you can't pull out fundies who treat the bible as NON-FICTION, for which completely other rules apply: there's nothing wring with personally interpreting those stories that way, it is however incorrect to claim that 1)this was the original writer's intent, and 2)it has any sort of FACTUAL basis
Posted by: Rudy | May 15, 2009 2:26 PM
Ken, no, you misunderstood. I was treated just fine on the thread, except for Nerd; my skin isn't that thin. Please take me at my word about why I left the thread (i.e. Nerd's anger).
My remark about your "mocking" just related to the rude remark you made to/about me after I said was signing off the thread (then again when I posted aferwards). Otherwise, no problem.
The "bad language" thing is just me, nobody else should worry about it.
Good luck with your finals.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 15, 2009 2:37 PM
I really was enjoying the mind/body/ stuff, and though I think I have nothing really deep to bring to such a discussion, I'd welcome a suggestion by Nothing Sacred or anyone else as to a forum where I could read, and discuss, these topics in a less heated way.
If that's what you call heated, I'd suggest finding some books at the library instead of venturing out online where people might disagree. Reading online is also nice:
http://consc.net/chalmers/
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettd.htm
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-23-penrose.html
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/index.html
http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 15, 2009 2:48 PM
My remark about your "mocking" just related to the rude remark you made to/about me after I said was signing off the thread
You exhibited scarpering behavior, a frequently seen move. People show up here all the time with various flavors of twaddle, twaddle gets treated like twaddle, people cry we're being mean and besides, we're wrong, it isn't twaddle, and off they go to pout and it's all our fault because people are using naughty language.
Oh dear, was that mocking again? FCC me, I can't help it. I provided a few links for you, but since there were more than two, it's being held up for moderation, so it might not show up for a bit and then it may mess up post numbering when it does.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 15, 2009 2:54 PM
I was treated just fine on the thread, except for Nerd
You would do well to think about how you might address Nerd's challenge. Don't take it personally, but if someday, somebody treats his objections seriously, they'll be taken much more seriously.
Posted by: Rudy | May 15, 2009 3:09 PM
Ken, OK, you've got me laughing. That's a good sign. Shouldn't you be studying though :)
Ken, please though take me at my word. Nerd said he wanted me to stop. Maybe he talks like that all the time (NS suggested as much) and I should have just ignored it. Probably right, and I did *want* to keep talking/posting, though I don't know where that leaves Nerd. And, as I said, I was tired, and didn't want to deal with N. of R., and thought that things were kind of wrapped up, except for reading over posts. I guess that's not how it looked to you or John.
I didn't say complain about bad language until this post today, when I was trying to answer John Morales. It's just a mismatch between me and the forum.
Thank you for offering links, I look forward to them.
Posted by: Cara | May 15, 2009 4:48 PM
I, however, have ABSOLUTE confidence he is. ;) I win by virtue of the Hithesh Faith Hypothesis.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 15, 2009 5:20 PM
Josh, proof is not synonymous with assumption, so whatever it is you're trying to say in #1129 is lost in your complete failure to get even close to properly using epistemological terms. You might have said, as many on this blog have said, that proof is deductive, a matter of logical necessity. That's wrong, but at least it's coherent. Proof as logical necessity is a reasonable standard when applied to analytical claims (although is still problematic because the process of acceptance of an alleged deductive proof is not itself analytical), but it cannot be a reasonable standard for empirical claims and is not in fact how the word is used by normal language users -- and thus isn't what it means.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 15, 2009 5:32 PM
I wouldn't agree to that because it's blatantly false. The two statements have exactly the same semantics; "as currently defined" was simply a response to your playing silly sophistic games, claiming that there's doubt because "marsupial" might mean something different some day. Philosophers have a standard response to that sort of foolishness: they relabel one of the two uses of "marsupial" , say as "marsupial*", or "marsupialMay 15, 2009". Whatever "marsupial" may mean some day, "marsupialMay 15, 2009" will always mean the same thing -- what it currently means.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 15, 2009 5:39 PM
Do you have a problem with "Science never proves a hypothesis true"?
I have a problem with people being so ignorant and unobservant as to believe such nonsense. What science doesn't prove is theories, because theories are predictive, and so to prove a theory one much prove an empirical universal, which isn't possible because the universe can always fail to cooperate (see Hume). But science proves specifics all the time. If I had predicted that California wouldn't fall into the sea this morning, I would have been proven right.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 15, 2009 5:54 PM
because theories are predictive
What I should have said is that theories make classes of predictions, so no matter how many instances of the prediction actually occur, the general case is never proven. The claim "you can't prove a negative" is wrong and silly -- we can prove that the sqrt(2) isn't rational, that there is no greatest prime, that the sun isn't a billion miles away. The correct claim is that you can't prove an empirical universal -- e.g., all swans are white, no raven is white -- but you can disprove a universal by giving a counterexample -- that's falsification.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 15, 2009 6:09 PM
absolutely know that these fossils are those of marsupials. In reality, this isn't true. There is always the possibility that a fossil has been misclassified.
When people start putting "absolutely" before "know", you know that they've taken a dive into the pool of sophistry. As Knockgoats pointed out, we don't even "absolutely know" that the four-color theorem is a theorem. You don't "absolutely know" that your brain isn't in a vat, being fed inputs that have no correspondence with reality. This sort of skepticism isn't intellectually honest, has no place in normal discourse, and cannot serve to refute quite straightforward factual statements like "It has, for example, been proved that marsupials once lived in Antarctica - the fossils have been found."
Posted by: buttershug | May 15, 2009 6:14 PM
Hitesh;
Is there a fundamental difference between intrepreting the Bible and Aesop's fables?
Posted by: Kel | May 15, 2009 6:57 PM
You're the scientist and I'm the layman, split away. It was more for the argument with Hithesh, and in there it makes no sense to get hung up upon semantics as it just means he can weasel his way to putting forth his faith as a reasonable position. It should be hammered home each time he brings it up that he believes that a God came down to earth to participate in a blood sacrifice in order to forgive mankind for thier sins. It's freaking absurd from start to finish and that to me is what any conversation should be on - asking him for the evidence that supports such an extraordinary claim.Posted by: John Morales | May 15, 2009 7:08 PM
Rudy, I guess what puts you off is what appeals to me; Pharyngula discussions are not for the thin-skinned and can be very direct.
Wow, such power Nerd has! :)--
PS Less than 1200 comments and the browser is struggling to page up to copy quotes. Yuck.
Perhaps this thread (which seems alive and well) could be continued in a new post?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 15, 2009 7:15 PM
Yeah, my work computer struggles with this thread too... When did I get any powers? My cyberpistol is still in the mail...Posted by: Ken Cope | May 15, 2009 11:41 PM
Two (perhaps eventually redundant) links on cognition for Rudy:
http://consc.net/chalmers/
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-23-penrose.html
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 15, 2009 11:55 PM
Two more links for Rudy:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettd.htm
I've had the privilege of having spoken with Marvin on more than one occasion (at SIGGRAPH in the 80s, and Game Developers Conference more recently), and worked on the VR project for Walt Disney Imagineering on which Marvin was a consultant (which the late Randy Pausch documented in his famous last lecture), and had a blast because we were the only ones who knew what we were talking about, on Disney's dime, discussing our preference for the position that consciousness was parallel rather than linear, while everybody else was dweebing Danny Hillis, whose Connection Machine we did not use. Gotta recommend Fourth Horseman Dennett's recent book, Breaking the Spell, and his Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and should also tell you I'm enjoying reading Hofstadter's I am a Strange Loop.
Posted by: Rudy | May 16, 2009 6:36 AM
Ken, thanks for the links. I've been fond of Minsky's "Society of Mind" book for a long time (it's one of my touchstone books, along with Alexander's "A Pattern Language", "Walden", John Woolman's "Diary", "The Voyage of the Beagle", and, umm, [whispers, embarrassed at own geekiness]... "The Lord of the Rings" .... ) I'm especially fond of Minsky's argument there that low intelligence is caused by early intellectual trauma, which is a profound insight that should be better known in the education community.
I have read "Darwin's D. I.", and some of Dennett's earlier books. I've skimmed "Strange Loop" and liked it, though for some reason couldn't read it straight through. Maybe it needs to read non-linearly...
After following and digesting the arguments at the links you suggest, and installing an FCC-Approved Firefox addon for the language :) I'll be ready to wade into another Pharyngula debate...
I thought I had answered NofR's challenge, in the sense of answering him with what I thought (that I have no physical evidence for God, and that it doesn't matter to me). In the direct sense of meeting his challenge to produce convincing scientific evidence for God, well, we'd ALL be shocked if that happened. I think that would make news headlines, not just a stir on Pharyngula... ...unfortunately the fools making claims like that right now (the ID'ers) do get news headlines... sigh.
Posted by: Tom Jones | May 16, 2009 12:20 PM
This talk of elephants reminds me of an amusing cartoon I once saw. Two men are riding an elephant and two others see them and say "hey! look at the two A-holes on that elephant!" The men on the elephant promptly stop and examine the rear end of the elephant, not realizing the "two A-holes" being referred to were in fact themselves. I admit, it does lose quite a bit in translation but it seems on-topic.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 16, 2009 4:18 PM
Hi Rudy. You're a decent fellow, but a word of advice: go back and look at your first post in this thread, and your parenthetical in the second one. If you wanted a friendly intellectual exchange or debate, and not to be reflexively lumped in with godbotting trolls with early intellectual tramas, that was not the best way to do it.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 16, 2009 4:20 PM
Hmmmm, "trama": I think my brain merged "trauma" with "drama".
Posted by: Rudy | May 16, 2009 5:41 PM
NS, I'm sorry my first few comments were so caustic. Thanks for implicitly giving my later posts more weight in judging my character on Pharyngula. I guess I've learned (again) that first impressions count.
PZ dropped in, twice, to correct my misinterpretation of "Eagletosh" (I wasn't the only person on the thread at that point, either in favor of PZ's story or not, to make this mistake. PZ had, after all, been going after Eagleton in a recent blog entry). His first "correction" wasn't a correction at all. That's what prompted my exasperated parenthetical remark. But I had no reason, except idiocy, to snidely criticize the blog. I had lost track of that message, but consider this an apology to everyone here.
Posted by: Rudy | May 16, 2009 6:45 PM
What makes me even more upset, is that rereading the beginning of the thread, I *do* seem to be the first person to conflate "Eagleton" and "Eagletosh". Ummm... the apologies keep coming... this time I owe PZ the apology. I'd better quit rereading and hope that people gradually just forget... or change my online name to Rudtosh, no one will figure that one out. :(
Posted by: cicely | May 16, 2009 8:11 PM
Rudy,
At least you can console yourself that a guy who requests more cephalopods can't be considered all bad! :)
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 16, 2009 10:45 PM
I had some random thoughts after the recent argument here over science proving/disproving/not-proving/proving false .... whatever. I don't promise that it will be anything new, but I did want to get it written down, at least so as to have something that reflects my reflections, and which I can revisit if I think of something else. And maybe some of those with a better grasp of the philosophy of science can comment. Those who find the philosophy of science dull might well want to give this a miss.
I have not yet read Popper or Kuhn (although I have Kuhn, on my huge to-read list), but the first place my mind went when thinking about the word was the linguistic aspect: "prove" derives from the Latin word probāre: "to test, to examine, to put to the proof, to approve, commend, to authorize, sanction, to prove, demonstrate," (from the OED).
Indeed, that last word, "demonstrate", also reminds that mathematical proofs are ended with Quod Erat Demonstradum. "This is what we wished to show". And this also reminded me that more than a few scientific papers I have looked at include, in their abstracts/summaries, the phrase "Here, we show...". And a scientific paper should indeed be a demonstration of something.
[ As an aside, do other languages make some sort of a distinction between a mathematical proof and a scientific demonstration? ]
Of course, all that having been said, it seems wrong, or at least a captious sophism, to argue only from linguistics. After all, if mathematical proofs and scientific demonstrations really are sufficiently distinct concepts, then perhaps we should indeed encourage the use of distinct words to refer to them. Or at least, emphasize strongly that a scientific proof is something distinct from a mathematical one.
That got me thinking, though: What is a mathematical proof? There are probably more formal ways of phrasing it (as already done by far more formidable philosophers and mathematicians than myself -- I certainly have not yet read the Principia, or anything like that), but I think it's reasonable to begin with something like this: A mathematical proof starts with basic, conceptually atomic concepts (axioms involving number, equality, non-equality, etc) and operations as a mathematical system, and tries to find what follows from those axioms and operations. Some operations are defined as forbidden (or undefined), because they lead to contradiction and inconsistency in the system -- division by zero being the obvious one. And contradiction, I suppose, means something that negates the very concept of one of the original axioms. Division by zero thus leads to "results" like 1=2 (as in the famous false "proof"), which negates the concept of equality.
While there's probably more that could be said about mathematical proofs, I don't want to spend too much time on it right now, because I also want to think about scientific demonstrations. Does science have axioms?
One line of thought that occurred to me is that science does share at least some of the axioms of mathematics, and the axioms of mathematics arise from what might be called a basic set of observations in the real world. Would we even be able to create mathematics without empirical experience with discrete quantities, and basic operations on them? Would not mathematical contradiction of some scientific hypothesis serve as disproof of it?
Another way of thinking about it, though, is that if mathematics takes axioms and tries to see what follows from them, then science might be considered as going about it in going about things in the opposite direction, as it were: science has as its only axiom that the natural world is internally consistent and non-contradictory, and is engaged in discovering what the conceptually atomic axioms of the natural world in fact are, based on constantly examining the real world, and rejecting that which is contradictory and internally inconsistent -- that is, that which is proven false.
Hm.
Of course, it also may be worthwhile to point out that something that is apparently inconsistent on its face may be consistent with a broader and more powerful theory, or a better understanding of the theory with additional data. Something that came to mind during all this pondering was something from Feynman's Six Easy Pieces. As I recall the point that he was arguing against was the use of "repeatability" as being necessary for science. The example he gave was doing a certain experiment in two different cities (I think he used Oslo and Berlin as examples), and getting very different results; that is, the experiment in one city is not "repeatable" in the other (I think he undermined his own point a little, since the results were repeatable in each city respectively). The experiment was a freely-rotatable pendulum, and the "non-repeatable" results were differing times for the pendulum to make a full rotation. My point in all this, though, is that the apparent inconsistency is explained by the broader theory which takes into account that the experiment is being done at different latitudes on a rotating sphere, and this broader theory in fact can predict exactly what the rotation period will be at any arbitrary latitude.
I think that that's as far as I've gotten thus far.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 17, 2009 12:11 AM
I have not yet read Popper or Kuhn (although I have Kuhn, on my huge to-read list)
I urge you to first read A.F. Chalmers' "What is this thing called Science?", and perhaps David Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality", at least his section on induction.
And contradiction, I suppose, means something that negates the very concept of one of the original axioms.
A contradiction is of the form "P and not P". Deriving the negation of an axiom from a set of axioms would be one example, and would show that the axioms are self-contradictory.
Does science have axioms?
Measurements/observations are axioms of science: every observation claim is taken as a given. Sometimes the results contradict our expectations (which are inferences from other observations) and demand that we go back and examine the measuring apparatus and possibly discard that observation claim / axiom.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 17, 2009 12:18 AM
Rudy, like I said you're a decent fellow, and you show it again. Don't get hung up on feeling bad; feel good about yourself for your self criticism and humility.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 17, 2009 12:29 AM
What makes me even more upset, is that rereading the beginning of the thread, I *do* seem to be the first person to conflate "Eagleton" and "Eagletosh".
Nah, Eric was the first @ #51. But your #68 and #220 fairly strongly associated yourself with him.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 17, 2009 9:20 AM
"Do you agree that the second iteration describes the "real" situation more accurately than the first iteration, if only just slightly?" - Josh@1142
No. See nothing's sacred@1151.
"This third version would be better, but does it describe the "real" situation*? How do you know? How can you ever know that you have accounted for all of the uncertainty?"
Why is "real" in scare-quotes? How do you know (I suppose "knowing" is something of an altogether higher quality than merely "knowing") that there isn't an evil demon tricking you into believing 2+2=4 when really, 2+2=17.37? How have you eliminated this form of uncertainty?
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 17, 2009 7:31 PM
Is not this some old, stale can of worms that is long since past its expiration date?
Do we eliminate the prospect of demon trickery via metaphysical, or methodological, naturalism? Howzabout I wait for evidence of demon trickery before incorporating the possibility of demon trickery into my fiendishly exacting calculations when I consider grouping two twos and calling the result four? Isn't my result just the way things work in Demon Haunted World, even though that's just what the demons want us to believe?
Posted by: Josh
|
May 17, 2009 7:57 PM
Look, I get it, okay? You guys, and NS in particular, didn't like what I wrote. And NS apparently couldn't figure out my point because I didn't use terminology that he liked. Fine. I've been working on a response, but as the assumption appears to be that I'm playing playing silly sophistic games rather than simply failing to successfully communicate a point, I'll decide whether or not I want to finish it.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 17, 2009 8:06 PM
It's my admittedly amateurish opinion that anybody still paying attention here are mostly in vigorously violent agreement, in search of a pithy summation?
For want of a punchline...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 17, 2009 8:30 PM
Bite me, NS. "California will not fall into the sea tomorrow morning" is nothing like a scientific hypothesis.
If you and KG want to define "prove" to mean "demonstrate to my satisfaction," or to the satisfaction of all right-thinking people, or whatever, go ahead. I quit the philosophy thing.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 17, 2009 10:42 PM
But you can't absolutely know it.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
May 17, 2009 11:31 PM
NS apparently couldn't figure out my point because I didn't use terminology that he liked.
Nice ad hominem. Here's one in return: you're out of your depth; don't waste your time on that response.
Bite me, NS. "California will not fall into the sea tomorrow morning" is nothing like a scientific hypothesis.
Are you going out of you way to be dense? It's a specific empirical claim about the future, which is what the context demanded. It was just an example; feel free to substitute any other specific empirical claim about the future, and the point still stands.
Posted by: hithesh | May 17, 2009 11:45 PM
Wowbigger: "I agree with this. This isn't hithesh's problem though; his problem is that he's trying to argue that there's an interpretation of fiction that makes it magically become fact - and he's not getting very far."
When did I present an interpretation of fiction that become "magically" fact? Do you care to back that up with something i said? Or would you like to retract that statement?
"That science has shown much of the bible to be wrong should be an indicator to you that none of it can be taken seriously without other, real-world evidence to support it."
And this is your delusion, your superstitious belief that our scientific sort of inquiry is biologically inherent inclination, rather than culturally produced, and arising out of tools of the scientific age that allowed us to contemplate the world in that fashion.
This is just yours and other atheist anachronistic belief. That somehow the purpose of the creation story is to fill the void before the ToE came on the scene, what the idiot doesn't get that even in our modern world, very few people care about the hows as much as the privileged, those who can devote their time to pondering and exploring such questions in the leisure. Travel to a poor country, see how much they care for the mechanics of life, the how questions. The questions at the heart of the premodern world are ones of meaning. What is the meaning of all this, what is meaning of these historical events, not what time did Jesus eat breakfast.
They may have accepted certain parts of their story as literal as default, like believed Adam and Eve to be actual persons, but these were periphel beliefs, and not how fundies preceive them as forefront of them.
When I was child I used to love the greek myths. And when I used to read the genesis story my appreciation wasn't much different. These sort of appreciation wasn't the result of me being a child knowing that the modern world rejected such stories as being literal, but would have been the sort of appreciation of persons reading the text in the pre-modern world as well.
Certain varieties of fundies pick up the text and explore not for the meaning of them, but the "hows", the science of them, not their poetic expressions, this devolment in some parts of christian thinking, rose with the rise of the age of science, when people were swept away with the means in which science allowed us to explore world, the new questions it aroused and answered, and some parts of christian thinking attempted to ride this wave, by portray their text as feeding this strictly modern arousal as well. It's a sort of nebulasim scientism, a trait they have more in common with atheist here, than they do with me, or most of the world past and present who have little interest in question that have little bearing on their lives.
You don't find in the premodern world the fruits of fundie literalism, such as attempts to reconcile the four gospel accounts as one literal whole, claims of Jesus that said all four different things on the cross. You dont find the ancient hebrews asking how do we reconcile the two different creation accounts found side by side in genesis 1 and 2. You don't find ancient polemics of individuals in the premodern world arguing which one their creation myth is the factual one, the one that really happened.
Telling me that my sense of appreciation for the text, and how I understand it, is not how it would have been read in the past, is a joke, in fact a common superstition among these parts about what's inherent in human nature. I don't have a masturbatory relationship with science as the Dawkins and PZ Myers type here do, nor does much of the world, but our middle class liberal rationalist doesn't get this.
Posted by: hithesh | May 17, 2009 11:56 PM
Rilke: "On the other hand, that's not what he claimed, nor implied. You're projecting again."
Well, that was he implying then? I wrote in the previous post he respond to that there are reasonable interpretations, that there even be more than one reasonable interpretation, and their are unreasonable interpretations of them as well. And I asked a series of questions to have him clarify, that was it.
Posted by: Malcolm | May 18, 2009 2:27 AM
Wowbagger @1138
I think the Hithesh's problem is that he can produce a wall of text like #1179 without actually making a single coherent point.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 18, 2009 2:33 AM
oh yeah.... humans are inherently incurious, never try to figure shit out, and prefer myth to discovery. which is why we're still living the way we did 10.000 years ago, but with more interesting, meaningful stories.
*facepalm*
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 18, 2009 2:56 AM
hithesh, #1179
tl;dr - feel free to try again.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 18, 2009 3:41 AM
tl;dr
What I wish I could have said about the bible. Good thing there are so many good books that are so much more worthwhile and rewarding to read, especially when contrasted with the bible's earnest, but altogether pathetic narrative, its plots and characters full of bad AI--which is to say, the story only works so long as any of the characters are either assholes or idiots.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 18, 2009 5:53 AM
"If you and KG want to define "prove" to mean "demonstrate to my satisfaction," or to the satisfaction of all right-thinking people, or whatever, go ahead." - Ken Cope
Substitute "reasonable" for "right-thinking" and that's just what it does mean - that is, how people actually use it, including those who insist otherwise when they've got their philosophical hats on - in empirical contexts such as science, history and law. My point about the evil demon was that if you're going to say "proving" requires removing all conceivable forms of doubt, it's impossible even in mathematics.
Posted by: Kel | May 18, 2009 5:58 AM
When you argued that Jesus is magic.Posted by: Knockgoats | May 18, 2009 6:00 AM
Telling me that my sense of appreciation for the text, and how I understand it, is not how it would have been read in the past, is a joke
Are you really stupid enough to think you, any more than a rationalist or a fundie, can somehow think yourself into a premodern "appreciation for the text"? Yes, I think you probably are.
I don't have a masturbatory relationship with science as the Dawkins and PZ Myers type here do - hithesh
No, you save that for your own ego.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 18, 2009 11:19 AM
KG @1185, I am Oly, that was Sven.
I just like any excuse to talk about those darned demons. My favorite attraction at Disneyland when I was little was Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, where your car goes into a train tunnel, you see the train headlamp and there's a big crash sound and you end up in hell, with a big blast of steam and faux flames, surrounded by a buncha little rubbery red guys with the pointy horns, tails and pitchforks giggling and wiggling.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 18, 2009 11:30 AM
Hithesh still has no idea. Philosophy/textual analysis doesn't cut the mustard. Hard physical evidence does. But his acquaintance with physical evidence is minimal at best...
Posted by: Watchman | May 18, 2009 11:49 AM
Shorter Hithesh: "I am in love with the premodern world."
Posted by: CJO | May 18, 2009 1:14 PM
You don't find in the premodern world the fruits of fundie literalism, such as attempts to reconcile the four gospel accounts as one literal whole, claims of Jesus that said all four different things on the cross.
Fool. Both Augustine and Origen penned a Harmony.
You dont find the ancient hebrews asking how do we reconcile the two different creation accounts found side by side in genesis 1 and 2.
Here's a hint: they weren't always "side by side."
You don't find ancient polemics of individuals in the premodern world arguing which one their creation myth is the factual one, the one that really happened.
You're kidding, right? And if 5th century Christians hadn't destroyed so much pagan literature, I imagine we'd see a lot more.
Posted by: Pluto Animus | May 18, 2009 2:04 PM
I Hereby declare PZ Myers to be the "Fifth Horseman" (along with Dawkins, Dennett, Harris & Hitchens). Since Death, War, Pestilence and Famine have been taken, PZ can be... oh, let's say, the Heartbreak of Psoriasis.
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 18, 2009 3:08 PM
Thanks for the recommend. I did a bit of skimming of Chalmers, and I think he might address the things I'm thinking about.
Right, although I think it might be argued that that only works well when the proposition is very well defined and understood. If it's not, I think it's possible to get apparent contradictions that result from poor or fuzzy definitions or things that are not well understood, which can be made non-contradictory by way of a better and more precise definition and understanding.
The real world is more continuous than we might realize, and while we can and do refer to it in discrete terms for the sake of simplicity, I think it is important to realize that that is sometimes arbitrary, and can result in apparent contradictions.
An example that came to my mind was something like: "frogs are fish (P), and frogs are not fish (~P)". That's the simplistic and discrete phrasing, which is directly contradictory, while the more careful and detailed phrasing would be something like: "frogs are the evolutionary descendants of organisms that we would recognize as being fish, in that those ancestors had the characters of fins, gills, and scales, but since frogs today do not have scales or gills in their adult forms, and the adult form has well-defined limbs with digits rather than fins, they can be considered to have lost a sufficient number of characters that fish have such that frogs should be considered as distinct from fish".
Another example of wrestling with the continuous/discrete problem is the proposition that parts of the mind exist outside of the brain. Is writing (and similar memory aids and artifacts of thought) a form of the mind's external storage? I don't have an answer, but I thought it was an interesting idea when I first saw it — and it's not immediately obvious to me as being self-contradictory or empirically contradicted.
I don't think I understand this. If an observation is discarded, than was it ever "axiomatic"? Is it correct to call a potentially discardable observation an axiom to begin with?
I just skimmed the Wikipedia article on "Axiom", and I see the classical definition that I had in mind ("considered to be either self-evident"; "a claim which could be seen to be true without any need for proof") is there. But I see that there are additional definitions that are rather more complex.
I need to ponder this a bit more.
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 18, 2009 3:16 PM
Chaos.
(Who left the band before they became famous.)
(Some of us read the classics.)
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 18, 2009 3:27 PM
PZ Myers, the Pete Best of atheism.
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 18, 2009 4:10 PM
Well, it seems to me that Josh was trying to emphasize and express the principle of falsifiability, there. "If you were wrong, how would you know?". And I think that the "skepticism" part of empirical skepticism does need emphasizing now and then, especially when one's knowledge is partial. And is not knowledge always only partial?
And your counter-example (2+2=17.37) is, I think, rather unfair. If (as suggested above) the axioms of science are potentially discardable, then something like the self-evident axioms of basic math are exactly the wrong analogy to use for them.
That having been said, I do think my point above @#115 might be germane: Whatever new theory is made to account for some new observation that falsifies the older observations, will nevertheless have to be cumulative and consistent with those older observations: The old observations were wrong because of X, but they are explained as special cases/understood variations of X. Or something like that.
Posted by: Rudy | May 18, 2009 6:21 PM
Lucretius' "On the nature of things", that ancient skeptic classic, was preserved only because the Church found it useful for its skepticism about the Roman gods. I think Lucretius argues for an eternal universe, but my memory on this is shaky. That should count as at least one (of many, I'm sure) attack on ancient creation myths.
There was also a school of materialist philosophy in ancient India, around the time of Buddha I think. I would assume they didn't believe the Veda's Going even farther back, my Penguin copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh mentions archeological findings of graffiti jokes about the epic; I guess that doesn't quite count as skepticism but it's interesting anyway.
I can't find Hittesh's post about this, just the response, but I thought I would contribute some specifics.
I wondered whether PZ's inclusion of elephants used in warfare in his story was a shout-out to Lucretius, who devotes a section of his poem to a description and condemnation of using elephants in warfare.
Posted by: Dr Michael Koch, Sweden | May 18, 2009 6:41 PM
I am a Swedish epidemiologist and physician and book author with great interest in your issues.
I have enjoyed the elephant story and parts of the following discussion (to 1189 on May 18). I would like to send PZ Myers an e-mail with a question and an enclosure, how can I do that?
I am just writing a book about atheism and Islam and it is quite obvious that your discussion in the Islamic realm would lead to mutual killings after some dozen comments. Fine that you replace that with humour and irony. That is a significant feature of today's Western ideologies, a feature threatened by all pit-bull religions. But isn't it crucial to cumulate some interim conclusion of what you found out, make some statements about the necessary logical methodology and then stick to them? In so case it would help to include the linguistic philosophy stretching and growing from Ernst Mach, Wilhelm Ostwald (2 Nobel laureates), Rudolf Carnap and the whole 'Vienna Circle', up to Wittgenstein, Russell and Popper - which was the only really helpful (effective) step for philosophical discussions with irrationalists, e.g., by the introduction of the trichotomy 'right' (correct), 'wrong' and 'meaningless', widening and saving the right-wrong dichotomy by a necessary precise amendment and saving it as trichotomy in a more strictly defined sense. The meaningless, of course, does not qualify for the notions of right or wrong. Only this way one can force any extremist believer (both Christianists and Islamists) to expose and admit the weakest points of their belief.
Posted by: Rudy | May 18, 2009 7:50 PM
There are logics in mathematics that make the true/false distinction more formally like "provable/disprovable/not proved or disproved". I.e., just because something is not provable doesn't mean it's disprovable.
(Someone else might correct me on the last part; I'm thinking of intuitionistic logic. I'm not sure it's technically a trichotomy, just that you don't have "A or not A" available. There is modal logic with more than two truth values but I don't know anything about it.)
Wittgenstein moved on to a perspective very much at odds with the Vienna Circle, and at odds with the view of religious language as meaningless, though he never quite became religious himself.
Posted by: Owlmirror | May 19, 2009 3:10 PM
Really? Where did you see that specifically given as the reason?
I am pretty sure that an eternal universe is indeed part of Lucretius' ancient Epicurean thought, and of other philosophical schools as well.
The ancients, not having a systematic way of determining the age of things, basically had to guess the age of everything. While "eternal" is far longer than the ~13 billion years that we have figured out, I think that "eternal" is a better guess, given the weak human grasp on large timescales, than a few thousand years.
And the ancients may be vindicated, perhaps. While our universe itself is of finite age, there are current cosmological conjectures that there are physical structures dimensionally outside of our universe -- "branes" -- that give rise to universes by colliding. Might branes be eternal? I dunno. But it seems like a reasonable inference that either something physical is indeed eternal, or causality is less rigorous outside of our universe than it is inside it (there's also a conjecture that universes can give rise to daughter universes which can give rise to the parent itself -- don't ask me how that's supposed to work).
The Cārvāka.
See the "Contact" link on the menu above.
I thought that there was more to it than that -- "provable/disprovable/not proved or disproved (that is, unknown)/not provable or disprovable (that is, unknowable)/paradoxical".
But I may be wrong about all of those being indeed distinct formal categories.
Posted by: phi | May 19, 2009 3:48 PM
Herein lies the straw man;
First, as a philosophical diagram, the story illustrates little more than the built-in preconclusions that its author is manifesting by invalidly precluding that no non-empirical insights could possibly contain any more truth than elephant feathers.
Second, the presumption that no non-empirical insights could possibly be true, could never be empirically proven, and so is itself an unsubstantiated faith position.
Third, these blind men learn a lot about the elephant, but nothing about its purpose.
Fourth, the empirical investigation of these blind men yield a lot of information about the elephant, but that infers nothing about non-empirical possibilities of a metaphysical universe, unless that reality is conveniently limited to some absurd claims about winged elephants. Hence; the straw man.
Fifth, just because some fool erroneously says the elephant has wings, does not mean that there may not actually be some creature that does have wings.
Sixth, that the fool even knows of such things as wings and feathers to claim for this elephant is itself evidence (judicial, not empirical) that feathers and wings do exist.
Finally, the condescending inference that only a fool could believe what I don't, unmasks the prejudicial hate typical of Myers and the other scientists com philosophers of this pseudo-philosophical movement and its obsessive need to disparage insights they don't embrace.
-phi
Posted by: Steve_C | May 19, 2009 3:56 PM
Hahahaha. Metaphysical universe! I love it! What else you got? Unicorns?! I love Unicorns! Dragons too???
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 19, 2009 4:13 PM
Poor Phi, doesn't grasp that science works with evidence and adds to and confirms itself each little bit of information. So, at the end of the day, an accurate and usable description of something is available using the scientific process.
While metaphysical musings may be fun, without using evidence to ground them, they amount to mental masturbation. Just flights of meaningless fancy.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 19, 2009 4:13 PM
cute, except no. it says that pulling things out of your ass and claiming them to be true is mental masturbation and a waste of time. besides, what the fuck is an "non-empirical insight"? are you building your philosophy on brain-farts now? "non-empirical" would imply that it is in no way connected to tangible reality... so why would anyone take such air-castles seriously?
"purpose" is a human invention. the elephant has no purpose, but the discoveries the three men make leads to them creating purpose for the elephant. there's no such thing as innate purposeagain with the baseless speculation which we're supposed to take seriously... again: why should we take people's brain-farts seriously?
which would be discovered... wait for it... empirically, not by baseless speculation about them.
so santa is real? Sauron is real? the tooth fairy is real? you don't know how human brains work, do you... we take things that we're familiar with, and extrapolate and make up shit. gods are extrapolations from humans (anthropomorphizing), magic is extrapolated influence on our everyday world. all this "non-empirical insighting" you're proposing are evolutionary side-effects of a brain trained to see patterns, understand other humans, and learn to influence its environment to its advantage. a brain-fart, in short.
except you don't have insights, you have brain-farts. nothing so far presented by woo-ists has helped humankind one bit, but it does a real good job at hindering progress and real help for humans. you're just one more person who needs to watch the Open-mindedness video
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 19, 2009 4:31 PM
To Josh @ 1142: You seem perilously close to arguing that if I tell you today that I live in Britain, and tomorrow that I live in _Oxford_, that one of my claims must be wrong. That would be problematic, no?
We "know" that marsupials lived in Antarctica with rather better certainty than we know, for example, that I had a twenty-times-great grandfather; I certainly couldn't find any of _those_ bones for you. :)
Posted by: Josh
|
May 19, 2009 5:10 PM
If it seems that way then I have failed. That wasn't at all what I was trying to say.
I 100% agree with you on that point. But to say that the hypothesis that marsupials once lived in Antarctica is proven implies that we are certain that marsupials once lived in Antarctica. It suggests that we know it; it's over; it cannot be falsified. So far, no one here who is giving me shit about holding this position has said "well, of course it can still be falsified." And if you don't think that it can be, then I think you're asking rather more of the data than they really show, especially for the Cenozoic in a place as poorly mapped as Antartica. Even ignoring the fact that taxonomic assignments are not facts, to say that we know that those sediments were part of what we call Antarctica when they were deposited is risky. Demonstrate to me that there aren't any thrust sheets and we can talk. I'm simply uncomfortable removing qualifiers like "we know it with rather better cetainty" in such situations. That was really all I was advocating. I was only talking about this specific hypothesis. If that makes me hyperskeptical, well fine.
Posted by: CJO | May 19, 2009 5:23 PM
So enlighten me. What is the purpose of an elephant?
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 19, 2009 5:58 PM
So enlighten me. What is the purpose of an elephant?
To engage the attention of blind men, ensouled humans for whom the universe, and everything in it, was created. Duh.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 19, 2009 6:06 PM
@1206: at what point _do_ you feel justified in using the word "know"? There has to be some level of certainty at which you feel comfortable dropping the caveats- for example I cheerfully claim to know my home address and phone number and every day I seem to be right.
Posted by: Kel | May 19, 2009 6:19 PM
When does a hypothesis become theory? It seems the same kind of question.Posted by: Rudy | May 19, 2009 6:36 PM
Owlmirror,
The notion of the Church preserving copies of Lucretius for the reason given, came from the intro. to my old, prose Penguin edition of Lucretius. I'm pretty sure that I'm remembering it right, but since I haven't actually had my hands on it for a couple of decades, ... I do have a copy of Lucretius but it's the much more recent verse translation that's popular now (can't remember the translator, but the cover's beige!) and it's boxed up anyway.
I think it stuck in my head (along with the elephants for some reason) because of the irony. I think the provenance of existing copies, along with Church Fathers' use of quotes from Lucretius had something to do with the translators' statement (IF I am remembering things right).
As far as the intuitionistic (also called constructive) logic is concerned, I think it's just the three categories. If a statement leads to a paradox, that should make it disprovable; it's opposite is not thereby proved, though (in constructive terms); that is, only direct proofs count.
In standard math, though, it is extremely common to prove something exists by first assuming that it doesn't, then deriving a contradiction. This shows existence, without giving you a procedure for actually finding "it". In constructive mathematics, you must actually give a procedure.
Posted by: El | May 21, 2009 7:19 AM
For an Italian translation of the story, see here
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 22, 2009 3:11 PM
They certainly could be! But if they're wrong, how can we find that out?
The only test for falsehood is comparison to reality. There is no test for truth (outside of math and formal logic).
What makes you think it has a purpose? Why don't you think that's a category mistake?
What is a metaphysical universe, and why do you assume one exists?
Posted by: Sam Mazzotta | May 23, 2009 12:53 PM
Amusing story, but incomplete. Dr. Myers forgot to mention the fifth blind man, Dar Wine, who was able to reconstruct the unobserved pre-history of the elephant from observations made by himself and the other blind men, describing in detail events that occurred in the life of the elephant and its remote ancestors.
"No, the elephant does not have 'quantum wings'," argued Dar Wine, "There is no evidence for that. But do you notice the folds in the beast's skin? My research indicates that they are vestigial wings. Clearly, this elephant is descended from a giant bat-like creature that lived 137 million years ago."
Dar Wine's simple and elegant approach accounted for all the sensory data in a way that was most satisfying, and he soon won the other blind men, including Eagletosh (who nonetheless held on to his belief in quantum wings, claiming to be able to reconcile them with Dar Wine-ism) over to his point of view.
Yes, the discoveries of Dar Wine illustrate beautifully the central axiom of modern observational science - that the empirical evidence literally speaks for itself. Propositionally.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 23, 2009 3:20 PM
Ah, but the story doesn’t end there, for Moe, as surly as ever, is not satisfied at all with the fifth man’s pronouncements and insists on doing more research. He enlists the aid of Curly and Larry who, after a quick poke in the eyes, a pull of the nose, and a “Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk,” are also persuaded that further investigation is needed. The three of them set about reconciling what they know with Dar Wine’s weirdly skewed conjectures of vestigial wings, while Ealgetosh sits in the shade mumbling to himself.
In an attempt to apply the scientific method rigorously, Moe invents a ladder made of limbs and vines (an unwieldy apparatus that is surprisingly hard to manage and that flails about dangerously, resulting in much unintended but comical mayhem and bruising), and Moe and Curly and Larry climb up onto the back of the strange, multi-faceted animal, where they have access to hitherto unexamined parts.
What they find is unsettling: no evidence of bat ancestry at all!
Deeply suspicious of Dar Wine’s credentials, Moe disembarks off the animal’s back, and after picking himself up off the ground, steps up to Dar Wine and says, “Ah, wise guy, eh?” while giving a robust tug on old man’s beard. To his astonishment, the beard comes off in his hand! We see that the fellow, Dar Wine, is an imposter! He is actually a young man living with his parents, who is simply pretending to be learned, but possesses no actual knowledge at all! His intent is merely to bedevil the scientific endeavor and spread misinformation and discord!
As if on cue, a loud voice is heard from the jungle path behind them, and the young man’s mother steps into the clearing and takes him by the ear and tugs him along behind her. Soon they are out of sight, and the only sounds to be heard are Eagletosh’s bizarre ruminations and the young upstart’s wailing of “Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow . . . Mom!”
Moe, having shown, once again, that science is self-correcting, climbs back up the ladder and suddenly realizes that the height to which he has ascended has given him a measure of control over the hulking beast of our story. He quickly learns that with the proper input and guidance, the mysterious animal is ambulatory and will transport them wither they would go in half the time as normal!
And thus, our story ends, with Eagletosh running after them on foot and admonishing them for their failure to use perfectly good quantum wings, or some such thing, but the scientist are too busy unraveling further mysteries to listen.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 23, 2009 4:05 PM
Oh, I left out the part where they meet Dar Win in their travels, the person so maliciously impersonated by the young miscreant, and he then teaches them much and recovers his fine reputation, but this thread is over long, anyway.
Posted by: radco | May 24, 2009 2:15 AM
The real question is, if the elephant told the 3 blind scientists that its color is gray (or even if a presumably sighted passerby told them so), should they report it in their dissertations?
Posted by: O.L | June 2, 2009 2:12 AM
Excellent!!!
Posted by: uggs outlet | December 23, 2009 3:36 AM
Th Brzln hs bn lnkd wth mv t Brcln n th Jnry trnsfr wndw nd hs dmttd tht h wll sk tlks wth Mncn t dtrmn th nw mngr's plns fr th clb.
Cty ffclly nvld thr nw bss n Mndy, wth Mrk Hghs sckd fllwng Strdy's 4-3 vctry vr Sndrlnd.[rl=http://www.shscn.cm]rnnng shs[/rl]
Mncn hs plcd Chmpns Lg qlfctn t th tp f hs [rl=http://www.ggststr.nt]gg bts fr sl[/rl] mbtns fr th ssn.
H s ls kn t bld brdgs wth sm f Cty's bggst nms, wth nmbr f frst-tm plyrs xprssng thr dsppntmnt t Hghs' dprtr.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/gliHhkAGzZjv4pJ6APLeSSJYi.3WZTwN4Wq6Dld5eLc-#19961
|
October 30, 2010 7:14 AM
Fantastic post!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/ZyDU9tRwjdYxs1E6KDIi8HEequ1B0UzklwcQ#64549
|
May 14, 2011 1:39 AM
It is a nice story. I completely enjoyed it. It is really a good perception.
Watch Bridesmaids Online