Subject:
|
Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:52:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3708 times
|
| |
|
|
I thought I had quit this thread, but this note was too cool! I think it would
make an interesting qualitative study of newsgroup dynamics to get the major
participants of a bulky thread to recap the thread in detail. Each of them
would emphasize the parts that they saw as important.
DaveK, I think it's interesting which things you chose to reiterate beyond
count. 1) that you think it's OK for all of us to believe whatever we
believe, 2) that something (God, for one) is beyond the scope of science, 3)
that you love science, 4) that science is a god, etc. And really, none of it
is useful.
1) We all know that it's OK for us to believe whatever. Is it your perception
that we don't think it's OK for you to, and you are thus defensive and trying
to show us the appropriate posture? We _all_ think it's OK for you to believe
in green faeries. But that doesn't mean we aren't going to call you on it when
you attribute this or that to the will of the faeries.
2) I still haven't heard _any_ example of something that science is unfit to
explore. If you believe in green faeries, then either there is evidence of
_some_ kind, or you're delusional. If there is evidence of _any_ kind...ANY
kind, then we can use science as a tool to investigate.
3) There's two parts to this. The first is that it just doesn't matter at
all. You can't cite your love of science as a meaningful argument when
trying to talk about these issues. It doesn't have anything to do with it.
It's an appeal to emotion. Further, the notion that you love science is
frankly dubious. Every time you say that, it seems that you cite some
technology as being really cool. And I agree, the technologies are really
cool! But science is not the same thing as technology. Science is a method of
inquiry and that's all. And you don't seem to understand science (as a method,
or many of the results) very well. Which is fine, there's tons of stuff that
we all don't know about, but e.g. I don't act highly knowledgable about
computer repair.
4) Science isn't a god. Nor a religion. The reasons why have been pointed out
repeatedly. It is tiresom and damaging to the conversation at hand to keep
having this thrown out.
With any of these comments, if you think they have a special relevance, you
need to explain it and be prepared to back it up, not just repeat.
I do have some specific comments below, too.
> Then we start to develop into the discussion, first Chris (replying to me):
>
> "
> > > But there is more to life than just the physical universe.
> >
> > Like what?
> >
> > > Science is *not* the end all of understanding.
> >
> > I have not personally discovered a method of inquiry that stands up to • scrutiny
> > as well as science does. So what do you mean?
> "
>
> Which isn't that bad if his 'Like what' question accepts the annswer,
> "something outside science"
But it won't. That's just restating the assertion. It is the exact equivalent
of my asking you for an example of something that's purple and you, glancing
around the room and stating "well...you know...everything that's purple." I
want you to name, describe, and justify _any_ single phenomenon that is both
a)outside science (and I still don't even know what that means to you) AND
b)not part of the physical universe. I don't think you can do it because I
don't think anything falls into those categories. Not the color purple, not
your preference for it, not the divinity of it, and not God. Those things that
exist can be somehow explored.
Further, since all of the supernatural is a construct of man and an artifact of
psychology, it could be studied through the study of the human brain.
> and Chris again (replying to John):
> "
> > Truthfully, I try not to get into this discussion any more because to me it
> > seems clear that your beliefs are the result of deep programming and • childhood
> > trauma. Only the right combination of luck, education, and intelligence (it
> > seems) helps people to break their indoctrination. Since I believ that a
> > fairly significant wrong was done to you, I feel sorry for you (much as I
> > expect -- as a good Christian, you feel sorry for me :-). But for me to
> > express feeling sorry for you is condescending. So where do we go with this?
> "
>
> Where do we go indeed? 'Only the right combination of luck, education, and
> intelligence (it seems) helps people break their indoctrination.' Meaning
> that those who are 'indoctrinated' are not educated, intelligent (or lucky).
False! Stop misrepresenting people. Your statement does not logically follow
from mine.
There are many Christians who are well educated and intelligent. I've spent
more than 20 years trying to figure out why bright people do stupid stuff (like
buy religion, or use tobacco, or kill themselves) and the answers are way more
complicated than any single factor. _Way_ more complicated! But there does
seem to be a correlation (I haven't done the math) between both intelligence
and education, and the propensity to reject religion. It's just a trend.
Since it's not a one to one correspondance there are obviously other variables
at work. I tossed in "luck" to sort of account as a place holder for all of
those.
My statement clearly suggests that I think only the "right combination" of
factors allows people to break their indoctrination. That's true of others
systems of belief too, not just Christianity.
> Did I reduce the arguement? Did I male that into a straw man?
No, yes. But I think it was a mistake.
> Further, 'Since I believe that a fairly significant wrong was done to you,
> I feel sorry for you'. The wrong being Johns belief?
Only sort of. The wrong was the abusive lies that were told...even if their
origin is ignorance. Our society accepts that negligence is a form of abuse.
> Is faith wrong?
I'm not even sure what this means. If I say yes, then you're tell me I have
'faith' in my senses...which is true. But I also have corroborative evidence.
> Is belief wrong?
Belief in ficticious phenomena is incorrect. Is that what you mean?
> Maybe in green faeries, but if ohn believes there's a God, if
> John has *faith* that there's a God, then there is 'no significant wrong' at
> all, is there?
Look Dave, there is NO DIFFERENCE between the belief in green faeries and in
Jehova. None. Not a tiny little crack of a squirming wriggle. Not a hair's
breadth. Both ideas have absolutely zero real evidence. Zero! So believing
in them is equally plausible. Your expressed stance is one that frustrates me
all the time. I can't count the number of times that I've heard more
mainstream Christians talk about how wacky Christian sect X is. (Where X is
Mormons, Branch Davidians, Coptics, whatever). My response is "look dude,
examine your own superstition before condemning others." There's nothing more
wacky in the notion that David Koresh was the messiah returned than in the
notion that Jesus was the Christ in the first place. They are equally
implausible.
> Chris further demonstrates that he *knows* it's condescending--feeling sorry
> for that person *because* of his indoctrinated beliefs are not intelligent,
> uneducated (and again, not lucky) is akin to saying 'I feel sorry for you,
> you're just too dumb to get what you 'believe' is wrong.
But actually, I just know that people are likely to take it wrong (the way you
have) and that's where the condescention comes in. I _really_ do feel sorry
for people who have to live their adult lives after being abused. I do, and
I'm not ashamed of it. I also realize that I'm defining abuse much more
broadly than our law does, or even should. But that doesn't make it wrong.
> And the first twist goes to (at least the first one I found)(drum roll
> please)... Chris (in response to my post):
> "
> > > What makes the body happy in turn, I think, would also make the soul happy,
> > > and vice versa. Christianity is not about denying the body in favour of • the
> > > soul. Whoever is spouting that brand of whatever hasn't understood the
> > > simple and undeniable idea that God created the body, with all it's ability
> > > to experience pleasure. Where's the problem in experienceing joy, love,
> > > happiness, sensualness, whatever. Where in my Bible does it say to deny
> > > these things?
> >
> > OK, so when Moses (or God, depending on what you believe) tells us not to • covet
> > the neighbor's wife, what do you believe you shouldn't do? Is it a sin to • nail
> > your neighbor's wife? What if she wants you to? What if her husband does • too?
> >
> > There seems to be no lee-way in the commandments.
> "
That's not a twist! You said "what makes the body happy, makes the soul
happy." So I pointed out, and I really can't imagine how this is unclear, that
boffing the neighbor could make the body happy. Instead of explaining how this
fits with your earlier statement, you went on to explain why you wouldn't do
it. Fine. Don't. But it remains clear that the commandments deny physical
pleasure of some kinds.
> I asked 'Christianity is not about denying the body in favour of the
> soul...where in my bible does it say to deny these things (as in pleasure, a
> la happiness, sensualness, etc)'?
But I never asserted, and you know it, that Christianity is about denying all
pleasure. There was a very specific chain through the conversation until you
jumped the tracks with your misrepresentation of what I said. This too is
wearisome. And you were responding to my posts even if you were addressing a
point that you _think_ Richard made.
> > So yes, the bottom line for me is the scientific method is wonderful for
> > investigating that which can be understood by science (i.e. the physical
> > universe). To say it's good for *everything* is making science into a god.
> > That would be my assertion.
>
>
> If we can agree, then we can all go home. I'll even take out the i.e.
> physical universe bit and not try to reduce science to *just* the physical
> universe.
Oh, I'm OK with the "just the physical universe" bit. Because that's all there
is as far as I can tell.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
