FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

>From: "Bob (this one)"

>Julian9EHP wrote:
>
>>> From: "Bob (this one)"
>>
>>>> It is as impossible to prove God scientifically as it is to
>>>> disprove God. _You_ can't prove that God _does not_ exist.
>>>>
>>>> I can give some exellent testimonies, including those of some
>>>> important scientists and statesmen. ;-)
>>>
>>> They can't offer proof, either. Their word counts no more than
>>> yours.
>>
>> If testimony is nothing, you invalidate your own testimony that
>> there is no God.
>
>Do us both a favor and try to keep the attributions correct. The way
>you've trimmed all this means that it's no longer possible to
>separate who said what. You have mistakenly assumed that it was I
>who said things that previous posters offered.

No. As you see above, I have kept attributions.

>Nowhere have I said or implied that I think there's no God. What I
>have said is that there's no proof.
>I'm not offering "testimony," I
>made a simple, unarguable statement of logic. You're using the
>vocabulary of the church. I'm not.

Which church?

I am the one using logic. If you say that testimony offers no proof, you
invalidate your own testimony.

>>>>> I think not. A god is a natural invention of our specie. It
>>>>> was the easy way out.
>>>>
>>>> Except that some religions -- most notably many varieties of
>>>> Buddhism -- do not believe in a god.
>>>
>>> Huh? How does this disprove the assertion above, "A god is a
>>> natural invention of our specie[s]."
>>
>> You offer no evidence that it is "natural" -- or what the word
>> natural means.

>Agreed. The thought behind its naturalness as expressed by the prior
>poster seems to be that most societies have some sort of supernatural
>observers/creators/guides. The
>fact of its widespread presence would
>seem to say it's part of our human psyche to try to explain
>*everything*.

How would "widespread presence" explain the reason for gods coming into being?

You're overgeneralizing! In fact, creation stories are relatively unimportant
to some religions. In Greek mythology, the earth is (somehow) created long
before even the Titans take their place, much less the gods. In one American
Indian mythology, people emerge from a successon of holes, finally arriving on
the surface of the Earth. The Earth's own creation is never explained. In the
Norse stories, creation begins with a cow licking a giant into being from the
ice.

> And when we can't, we create *something* to offer a way
>to try to remove some of the terror of the unknown.

You seem to believe religion = something that removes the terror of the
unknown. Again, that is too simple. Again, look at the religions themselves!
The story of Baldur, the pleading of God in the Koran, the romance of Krishna,
are not simple "this is why it happens" stories.

>> "Our species" believes in gods, a God, or none. You were
>> overgeneralizing.
>
>No, I wasn't. That some believe differently doesn't mean that they
>aren't all inventions.

It means that gods aren't "natural," whatever you mean by that. (Do you mean
"inevitable"?) Faith in something may or may not come.

>>>> Easy how? The four major religions of the Western World began
>>>> in the long time before anesthesia. Adversity tests faith.
>>>
>>> Non sequitur.
>>
>> No. "In the past, we believed . . . but now we know . . . "
>> Religious people have faced the circumstances of life. Faith is
>> not easy -- but then, life is not easy.
>
>Faith hasn't demonstrated any pro-survival characteristics. It is
>predicated on the unknowable.

Pooh! Are "pro-survival characteristics" your criterion for validity?

(I would argue that survival is not the *sole* criterion for quality of life.
As a better person has written: if the human race could evolve to live without
any of the so-called finer qualities -- altruism, justice, mercy -- should it?
If yes, why? If no, why not?)

As for that "in the past..." business, I
>can only look to history to state that
>most of our treasured "truth"
>will be found to be wanting, just as those old ones have.

Here I speak from my own faith. Unfortunately, the story of Cain and Abel has
never been invalidated. Men still kill their brothers, with as little reason.
Today our minister alluded to the word of Jesus -- "I come as a thief in the
night" -- and mentioned a break-in in his own household. In other words, in
spite of inventions and alleviation, human life, the life of faith, remains the
same.

>>>>> Otherwise we would have to answer to our actions in this
>>>>> life.
>>>>
>>>> Except that many of those who most wished to improve _this_
>>>> life believed in an afterlife.

>>> Still, no proof of anything.
>>
>> Proof that your generalization is again wrong. Faith is not easy.
>> Some faith is true, but even the true faith is not easy.

>Whether faith is easy or not is no proof of any sort of validity.

It is proof against the assertion that faith is easier than doubt. As you
noticed, I claim the same thing that I claimed above. If you want scientific
proof, you can't get it from faith. (You can't get it from history, as you
claim above. David Hume wrote that miracles were unrepeatable, but admitted
that so is history.)

>It can be
>argued that faith isn't logic-dependent, and there is a good series of
>arguments that can be made for that posture. But the final tally is
>that faith - yours and mine - is utterly subjective with no external
>support.

When did I claim otherwise? You have my words above.

>>>>> By extention, we also had to invent an afterlife.
>>>>
>>>> Again, there are religions which do *not* believe in an
>>>> afterlife. Ancient Judaism seems to have thought the
>>>> personality faded out after death.
>>>>
>>>> You make too many assumptions.

>>> And, still no proof.
>>
>> Proof that your assumptions about the ground of faith are wrong. I
>> have not sought here to prove anything else. And you are proved
>> false.

>Sorry. No. My assumptions about faith are that it's individual,
>unprovable and apart from any logic. Anything else is your invention
>of what I'm saying.

I don't believe faith is separate from logic.
It's an old Christian tradition that God is very logical.

>>>>> So we invent an external force that explains (in a myriad
>>>>> number of ways - take your pick - can any one be right?) our
>>>>> faults and the way to overcome them - all this based on
>>>>> reward/punishment - same as training a dog.
>>>>
>>>> Again, there are faiths which have nothing to do with ethics.
>>>> The Greco-Roman pantheon seems to have taken a long path.
>>
>>> Deities in those societies were cast in very different roles than
>>> modern theology does. Are you asserting that the Spartans didn't
>>> have a developed ethical code? That Greece wasn't the beginning
>>> source of our modern ethical tenets?
>>
>> No. I was asserting that the gods of the Illiad and the Odyssey
>> were not ethical.

>Gods are not ethical by definition. In the bible, there are numerous
>tales about God killing and causing suffering and torturing (if you
>love me, kill your child).

Be precise. Are you now referring to the Abraham story? In fact, God was
giving the faith that stand still _in spite of_ circumstances, that forbids
giving a son. The answer to, "Shall I kill my child?" is precisely, "Don't be
silly. God forbade Abraham to kill his child."

Abraham came from a city of human sacrifice. To him, that must have sounded
like the old gods, back again. It takes just the obedience that Abraham showed
God in order to obliterate human sacrifice forever.

>Gods make the rules for mortals to live by,
>but that doesn't bind them to observe them for themselves.

Even in even the most primative mythology -- whatever that is -- there are
stories of gods obeying their own laws. Cupid fell in love with mortal Psyche.
Thor lost against the giant Time.

>> And it _is_ a long path between the early position and the
>> Spartans, and the Athenian statement that "Father Zeus does not
>> like oath-breakers."

>It's a long path irrespective of the belief set from the tales to the
>rules.

Que?

>>>>> In actual fact this is not a bad idea. It gives those
>>>>> incapable of independant thought or incapable of behavior
>>>>> acceptable to a close knit society an anchor - a base line so
>>>>> to speak - of proper conduct, and it gives the 'proper
>>>>> thinking people' the 'right' to punish transgressors.
>>>>
>>>> Except, again, that many of those who _were_ capable of
>>>> independent thought were most strongly adherent to those
>>>> beliefs.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>> It is so. Zwingli and the Diggers and Dr. King and . . . again and
>> again, some of the strongest protesters against Things As They Are
>> are also religious. If you like, you can take on the words of the
>> early feminist, Christine de Pisan, and say that it is not right
>> to offend people while we challenge them. But it is more than
>> that. These people are devout.
>
>You miss the point. They're protesting the things they are because
>they're devout. The ethical and moral teachings they learned formed
>their characters and the way they look at the daily issues. They
>protest against those things that their faith tells them are wrong.

You're missing the point. They act _through their faith_, not in spite of it.

>Every culture has those same notions, it's just the specific issues
>that vary.

Overgeneralization again: not _every_ culture. The Anabaptists faced strong
opposition when they first asserted that Church and State ought to be
independant.

De pisan seems to contradict the behavior of Jesus when he
>drove the money-changers from the temple.

"And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy;
and there abide till ye go thence." Take on the color of the one who others
call worthy.

>Cannibals are puzzled when told that it's wrong to eat other people.
>They "know" that it's a good thing. Because when you eat the heart of
>a brave warrior, some of that bravery comes into your flesh, they
>believe.

So much for your "all cultures have the same notions" idea. In fact,
cannibalism among the Aztec seems to have been a sign of absolute subjection.
I take power over you: I eat you.

Both the "it's bad" and the "It's good" factions have to rely
>on faith for these views because there's no absolute standard that
>works for all people in all situations.

You're contradicting yourself here.

>>>> John Bunyan was no conformist. He, and other religious people,
>>>> fought _against_ society and its supposed right to punish
>>>> transgressors.
>>>
>>> When there were no other explanations for the natural phenomena
>>> they saw, faith was the major means to any sort of conclusion.
>>> Martin Luther wasn't a conformist, either, but he, too, didn't
>>> prove anything. None of them has.
>>
>> They prove that your assumptions about religion are false. I have
>> not sought to prove more.
>
>Which assumptions of mine have you proved wrong? That there's no proof
>for the existence of God?

Funny, that's my assertion, too. But you seem to believe there is disproof.

That the way we look at the matters of faith
>are likewise unprovable?
That morality is a subjective, culturally
>dependent issue?

The subject peoples moved against the Aztec. Sojourner Truth preached against
slavery and sexism -- and people listened.
Religion is something different, and more, than culture.

That religious thought is absolutely shaped by the
>culture it's found in? I think not.

Then from whence came the Grecco-Roman movement to ethics within religion?
From whence the preaching of Mohammed's daughters? No, religious thought is
not _absolutely_ shaped by culture.

>>>>> Thus we find the correct religious forces of Europe
>>>>> destroying several amazing civilizations in the Americas (The
>>>>> Conquistadores and the Jesuits to name two such forces).
>
>Can't really call the conquistadors a religious group. They certainly
>cloaked everything in religious imagery, but they came for the gold.

Don't phone me! *I* didn't write this.

>>>> And several native organizations -- including some of the
>>>> Indian tribes oppressed by the "amazing civilizations" --
>>>> joined with the conquerors in their fight.
>>>
>>> Come on...
>>
>>> This proves that Indians weren't opportunistic? Or that they
>>> couldn't see which side their bread was buttered on? "If you
>>> can't beat 'em, join 'em."
>>
>> "The amazing civilizations" practiced blood-letting, imperialism,
>> rule by terror. The Inca strangled child sacrifices: the Aztec
>> practiced cannibalism. It's a safe assumption that the subject
>> peoples did not like these things. The "evil invaders vs. good
>> natives" breaks down upon closer inspection.
>
>Sorry. No. The things you list are evil *in your eyes*

They were evil in the eyes of the peoples who revolted against them.

You can't
>seriously be contrasting the new world Indian colonialism with
>European colonialism and saying the Indians were worse.

I can't say it was worse or better for me. I wasn't there. I don't believe
the people wanted cannibalism.

Rule by
>terror, you seem to be saying, is a new world phenomenon.

It occured in the New World, yes.

As for
>blood-letting, what had been happening in Europe and in the crusades
>stands as an exemplar of the process.

And therefore . . . what? There was also bloodletting and imperialism in the
New World. Many of the subject natives there decided to revolt against their
native overlords.

>Humans don't have a good record for humane behavior and ethical
>actions. None of them. No matter what society we're talking about.

Some religions agree with you, my branch among them. Others do not.

>They have all had civil authorities to punish transgressions according
>to their values. Look at the Code of Hammurabi. Draconian by our
>standards today. The fact remains that through all history and likely
>well before it was any way recorded, people have acted selfishly and
>brutally. The Europeans who colonized the Americas and the rest of the
>world have not much to be proud about.

And yet they were not unique.

>Those same Incas and Aztecs had a rather developed technology, strong
>communications links across thousands of miles, sophisticated plant
>and animal husbandry skills, good architectural examples. Those
>destructive Europeans had well-developed art and music, architecture,
>literature, mathematics, etc.

Yes, and . . . ? As I wrote, It is not "bad Europeans" against "good
natives."

>>>>> Thus we find Islam trying to prove (by whatever means
>>>>> possible - including total annialation - sound familiar?)
>>>>> that 'their' way is the 'only' way.
>>>>
>>>> Some Muslims have done so. Some Muslims have not. Is
>>>> "religion" to be damned for the bad and not commended for the
>>>> good?
>>>
>>> I think yes. The bad and the accompanying silence and inertia of
>>> the "good" conspire to create a miasma of evil. The "good" not
>>> standing up to the others creates a basis of suspicion for
>>> *everyone* who espouses that religion.

>> Except that the good (no quote marks) _does_ stand up to the evil.
>> St. Francis protested the crusades: so did many others. Dr. King
>> led the march to Selma. That some of these protests did not end the
>> abuses does not mean that they were worthless. A woman in Iran
>> preaches that Islam is and should be feminst. A woman in America
>> writes a book against slavery. And some people lead their lives in
>> peace and quiet, thus quietly refuting evil. I know a minster who
>> had been the child of an alcoholic, and had undergone violence in
>> childhood. Once he was so angry and frustrated that he went over
>> to a parishoner and, with her permission, threw her china against
>> the wall. Yet he was a good pastor, gentle toward his people. His
>> church was strong and good. I think you ascribe too much evil to
>> faith.
>
>I ascribe *no* evil to faith.

The one who said that "all faith is bad" is ascribing evil to faith.

I simply observe that the faithful don't
>have any better record of advancing ethical and moral presence in
>society than anyone else. Living a peaceful life doesn't refute evil,
>it merely avoids it.

1.) You disagree with many people, from Aristotle through to Dr. King.
2.) Living a peaceful life at the very least deprives those social mechanisms
which enable evil. When combined with activism it is dynamic. When it is not,
it is at the least powerful.

Another way of saying we're all sinners is to say
>we never do anything that doesn't return us some good. Never. Even if
>it's just the good feeling of having done something good by our
>respective standards.

And yet there is much activity which *is* good and yet does not do *us* good.
Witness the almsgiving of Tolstoy.

>>> Religious faith has it's roots in many conditions. Some healthy,
>>> some perverse. The declaration of faith has no more substance
>>> than any other without proof.
>>
>> Your original statement _was_ overgeneralization. The declaration
>> of faith among thinking people proves that thought does not
>> necessarily kill faith.
>
>No one has said it does.

Actually, somebody did, in my original post.

(I just looked up the post of Date: 2004-11-28 05:31:20 PST. You seem to have
taken out _a lot_, without attribution. I don't mind much my deathless prose
being cut away, but you ought at least to have indicated where you cut.
Perhaps an elipsis, as where I cut your post below.)

[ . . . ]

>>>> You seem to have some bigotry toward those who do not think as
>>>> you do.
>>>
>>> Funny how the deeply religious are most like that. Have you been
>>> reading the insanity from Chung?
>>
>> I don't read Chung. I _do_ read you. Yes, your post is bigoted.
>> "No faith is good" is such a sweeping generalization. Let's see .
>
>I've never said that. I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Again, see the post above.

>> . . Would you be willing to assert that an atheistic faith is good
>> -- such as with some Buddhists, or the Ethical Culture? Would you
>> say that good people have a good faith, and bad people have a bad
>> faith? Or you could stand with such Anglicans as Lancelot
>> Andrewes, who said that good people can be saved, even from a bad
>> sect.

>None of the above. Do make a distinction between believing something
>and ascribing faith to it. In this context, "faith" means an organized
>body of spiritual beliefs, a religion. Atheists have nothing like
>that.

Atheists have faith, too! Atheism is the assertion that there is no god.
That's all. As such, there are likely to be atheists in many faiths, such as
Unitarian Universalists (but not all of these), and even in the Anglicans.

They say that there's no God. That ends the process right there.
>No further organized set of ethical or moral beliefs proceeds from
>that. Any person's faith is meaningless to anyone else except as how
>it guides people to behave in thoughtful fashion.

Which doesn't explain faith any more than any other of the above explanations.
In a world where the new Druids started as an attempt to get around a college
regulation (citing Margot Adler), faith can be anything and everything.

>>>>> Any religion that allows for the destruction (through action
>>>>> or inaction) of anyone is a false religion!
>>>>
>>>> What of someone who allows people to destroy themselves? Is
>>>> that evil, or mercy?
>>
>>> Ask the whole question and maybe an answer can be formulated.
>>
>> A person says, "I want to die. I want to be damned." Is it evil
>> to allow this, or is it an allowance of the individual's free will?
>>
>Puhleeze. Why don't you load it up a little more? A person wants to
>die? It's that person's choice and if the notion of free will means
>anything, it must stand. As for wanting to be damned, how silly a
>thing to try to introduce to muddy the issue. But the basic answer
>remains. The person makes a choice, so be it.

It is not silly. I worked, in the past, taking care of Black children. I'm
quoting an online corrispondent: "I'd rather be in Hell than be in Heaven with
a Black." The original word in the quote wasn't "Black." People say, "I'd
rather die" or "I'd rather go to Hell" than be with (circle one) a
Fundamentalist, a Catholic/Protestant/Jew, White Trash, Someone Who Did That
Awful Thing. I say to my sorrow, people sometimes do kill for just that
reason.

>>>>> By that definition there are no (mainstream) religions that
>>>>> do not fall into this catagory.
>>>>
>>>> Again, you don't seem to have read much about religion.
>>>
>>> It's in the papers every day.
>>
>> Ah! There's the problem.
>
>It was a slightly sarcastic comment. The fact is that I've spent more
>than a dozen years in formal religious educational and even
>considered becoming a member of the clergy. I've since read most of
>the sacred texts of the major religions of the world.

And therefore you assumed I was writing seriously? But then, they *do* write
poorly of faith.

>> You wouldn't take your stand on science or art from what's in the
>> papers. With art, you'd go to galleries, talk to artists and look
>> at their work.
>
>I am an artist (with a good scientific background).

So's my mother. Honest! (At least, she's a painter; she's done both portraits
and still-lifes. She'd object if I used the term "artist.")

I used to operate
>restaurants, and if you don't think preparing and serving food is
>essentially art, you don't get it.

:-( It can also be something else. I've read Orwell's _Down and Out_.

I write for a living now and also
>do media work in radio and tv. I have a rather large sculpture in a
>gallery right now, along with some fanciful packaged foods I make that
>I put into unusual containers. I've visited many of the great museums
>of the world and studied art as both undergraduate and graduate student.
>
>> You'd even go to Kenneth Clark -- and to learn to
>> differentiate him from Joe Shmoe.
>
>I've read Clark's work. I find him to be a bit crusty for my tastes.
>His too-strong opinions and rather self-satisfied pronouncements put
>me off him. There are others I like, though.
>
> > In the same way, you should read
>> more deeply about religion, and learn from those who you think are
>> good and true.
>
>I think there are many good and true people of faith. It's the ones
>who think they have an exclusive grasp on what it's about that I can't
>abide. I have small patience for the close-minded and the dogmatic.
>The arbitrary and the exclusive. The ones who believe they have a "get
>out of hell free" card. The ones who know how I should live.
>
>Pastorio

Yet some dogmatism is good. Remember what happened to the City on the Sand.
Or remember the James family, whose father wanted to keep them from being
provincial.

E. P.