I understand the presentation is funny, if theologically naive.
Is it laughable or outlandish that a guy got angry and killed people? Or that God can make it possible for one man to kill a thousand (with his bare hands, or a Kleenex)?
I'm not so sure the presentation is theologically naive, as it is a clear demonstration of how silly the original story is. That these stories are accepted by millions of people is a testament to the ridiculous lengths we're willing to go to in justifying our personal myths, when if someone were to tell such stories in a modern context, most of us would question either his sincerity, or his sanity.
My favorite is still probably the saints coming out of their graves after Jesus died, simply for the logistics as outlined by Thomas Paine in his 'Age of Reason'. These are the kinds of scenarios where common sense trumps purely deductive arguments every time. Then again, religion has always required the usurpation of common sense. Get people to believe what they would NEVER believe otherwise.
As a matter of fact, on the way to school this afternoon, my daughter and I were laughing about the part concerning the foxes. Think about it. How long would it take for one guy to trap 300 foxes. Then, why tie their tails together? Wouldn't that be counterproductive? Wouldn't it have been better to tie the brands to single foxes? And why the bother? I mean, how long are these foxes gonna hold out? And how long will the brands remain burning? Plus, isn't this a lot of unnecessary cruelty to the foxes? By the time he got all this shit done, Samson could've simply run through the grain and lit the fires all by himself. It's simply a REALLY goofy story, taking little account of how things actually work.
This all reminds me of the conversation at the beginning of Monty Python's 'The Holy Grail', where the guys in the fortress are cross examining King Arthur about his non-existent horse, and how he got his hands on coconuts. It was an obviously absurd story on Arthur's part, and his retorts to their common-sense questioning were ridiculous, not to mention quite comical (which was the point, naturally).
Also, if the story is so unbelievable, why did the Jews go to such pains to copy it over and over?
It made for a good story, just like Jason and the Argonauts, and One Thousand and One Nights.
As for lacking common sense, that's a judgment call; rather, their understanding of the world was less sophisticated. I mean, really, they thought they had to provide animal sacrifices to appease some sky deity who liked the smell of burning flesh...
I'm sure people several thousand years in the future will look at some of our customs and go "what the hell were they thinking, the poor saps!"
I'd argue that ancients were more ignorant about how the world works, and that lack of information is certainly one factor in the formation of myth and legend. That said, the process of misinterpretation, cultural mythmaking, and historical innacuracy continues. One doesn't have to look back further than the Mormons to see that. But there's no arguing that, generally speaking, the whoppers get bigger the further back you go. We seem to feel more comfortable with what amounts to cognitive dissonance when the source material originates from long ago and far away.
As far as the Jews recording this stuff, well...they were mythmakers. Hell, a lot of modern Jewry acknowledges this about their own stories. The Greeks did it, then the Romans came right along and recycled the same damned stories, simply changing the names. The Egyptians did it. The Babylonians did it. The Sumerians did it. The Polynesians did it. The Aztecs did it. Hell, who DIDN'T do it? LOL!
idle said, "I'm sure people several thousand years in the future will look at some of our customs and go 'what the hell were they thinking, the poor saps!'"
Well, if they have a better grasp of reality (i.e., how the world works) than we do, then I would say they are right. After all, we know that we don't have to make any sacrifices to make the days longer again each year; I wouldn't be surprised if there are realities we'll learn that will make some of our current suppositions seem as ignorant.
One of our goals is to control our environment; ancient peoples hadn't invented that nifty tool called the scientific method. Maybe there will be another nifty tool invented in the future that will be as powerful in understanding and controlling our environment.
Ok, so, if you are right, you are almost certainly wrong (given how much room we have to increase in knowledge in most every field).
On the other hand, if I am right - that there is a God, who reveals real truth to us - then in the future, that truth will still be true. So, if I am right, I will always be right...
"Ok, so, if you are right, you are almost certainly wrong (given how much room we have to increase in knowledge in most every field)."
Wrong about what? Older acquired knowledge doesn't automatically fall by the wayside in the light of new knowledge, unless that new knowledge contradicts or usurps the old (in which case the old knowledge wouldn't really have been knowledge, I suppose; but rather, misunderstanding).
"On the other hand, if I am right - that there is a God, who reveals real truth to us - then in the future, that truth will still be true. So, if I am right, I will always be right..."
Of course, that's the question, isn't it? ARE you right about the existence of your God? Are the origin stories foundational to your belief system best regarded as fair, unbiased reportings of actual historical events? Or are they better seen as products of cultural mythology, rife with superstition and political propaganda?
Also, and depending on what persuasion of believer you are, you have a further burden to prove...that of inerrancy. Serious historians recognize that SOME mythology is built into almost ANY historical document. For instance, the saying 'history is written by the victors' didn't just pop into existence out of thin air. That people tend to make up a lot of their history as they go along is a rock solid premise in historical investigation, and is ALWAYS accounted for as best it can be. This idea is so unarguably true, that anybody who would approach the bible with an eye towards reconciling those writings with an inerrantist position cannot reasonably be called a scholar, nor an historian.
'Why should I believe you?'
It's not about believing any particular person's claims. Rather, it's about a process of self examination. Critical analysis of your own position. Who's arguments make the most sense? Are you rationalizing in a way you'd find to be unreasonable outside the purview of your own belief system? Are you caught in a web of cognitive dissonance, looking for ways to reason around obvious discrepancies in order to salvage your world view? Are you accepting on 'faith' premises which otherwise make no sense, setting them up on your 'shelf' until God deems it the right time to reveal the truth of the matter to you? There are lots of dodges. I've lived them all :)
Off the subject to something really important- I bowled in my first league games last night. I accidentally got there an hour early, so I ordered a beer and chilidog at the bar. The girl asked if I wanted to make it a footlong for a dollar more. I said "sure!". What I got was a roast as long as my arm! LOL! Deluged in chili and long slices of grilled onion. My god, I love my bowling alley!
Believe what? That I think the Samson story is ludicrous (though it may be a good plot for a Mel Gibson movie)? That human knowledge will most likely expand and become more sophisticated over time?
You seem to think I care whether you believe me or not...
The topic at hand was "customs", including value judgments like "ludicrous" and "laughable".
I don't see where you have grounds to make these sorts of claims.
If you want to say g = GMm/rr (as best as we can understand), go for it. But anything outside of descriptions of natural phenomena will require a firmer foundation.
They didn't make much of a claim. They said that this story, based on what we know now, doesn't make a damn bit of sense and it is actually so outlandish (to imagine that happening today) that it is laughable and ridiculous.
Another 'claim' they made was that there will be future knowledge acquired and on certain things we may be completely wrong (in the eyes of the future). This is as close as you can get to a certainty. But, not everything we know now will be proved to be incorrect and/or inadequate in the future. Only some of it. Just like some propositions made centuries ago are still intact today.
Knowledge is never certain and the details are in constant flux. That's the beauty of learning and of discovering. I hardly see this as a detriment or flaw.
Also, we only speak of things as natural phenomena. There is nothing that suggests anything supernatural. It's a bit of juxtaposition to state that anything outside of descriptions of natural phenomena will require a "firmer" foundation when the supernatural has thin air to walk on. Natural phenomena is based on observation and empirical data. We can't get much firmer than that.
Hi shadb, "They said that this story, based on what we know now, doesn't make a damn bit of sense"
That's what I don't get. What do we know now that makes it so unbelievable that a man became angry and killed people and that God can make a man super powerful?
Funny that he hasn't done this in the past several thousand years...
Oh, for the good old days, when men could smite a thousand of their enemies with brittle jawbones and spend the night with a hooker to celebrate, all with divine approval! Think of the money we'd save on the military! (Well, assuming the prostitutes were free of diseases, and all... wouldn't want to trade weaponry costs for healthcare costs; after all, disease is what turned Attila's horde back from the gates of Rome.)
You're assuming God deals the same way with all people at all times. This is a common error (even Christians make it). It is also a major problem with most religions (like Islam).
God deals with different people in different ways at different times.
Is that really hard to imagine? (I'm not even asking you to believe it, just to imagine the possibility)
I also assume that the laws of physics don't change every 3 minutes but that somehow I'm not aware of it. I also assume that I'm not just a brain in a vat in some mad scientist's laboratory. I also assume I woke up in the same bed I went to sleep in last night, and not just one that sort of looks like it. I assume all kinds of things, as do all of us.
Is it really hard to imagine that a man a couple thousand years ago was given superpowers by an invisible superbeing, and slew 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass? No, it's not hard to imagine. Is it really that hard to imagine that someday all the cartoon characters on tv will emerge into the real world and take over as our new rulers? I'm not asking you to believe it, just to imagine the possibility. Of course, you and I know it ain't gonna happen, just like we both know that men don't have superpowers. It's silly, and exists only in the realm of fantasy. And religion, of course.
Can you see the cognitive dissonance at work here? The special pleading? "God deals with different people in different ways at different times". Or, in other words God did lots of magical stuff back then where we can't check, but now, in his divine wisdom, He chooses to manifest Himself in ways that make Him seem not to exist at all. At least, not to a skeptical eye.
This is what I'm talking about when I say that religion short circuits common-sense. It makes us accept stories and concepts that we would never accept in the world we actually live in.
No, it isn't hard to imagine. Imagination, though, is far different than reality. 1,000 men against 1 in a fight to the death? Even with a sword it would be impossible... but with a fragile bone?
There is no possible way for a single individual to win against those numbers but especially with the weapon he had. On first hit, the bone would shatter and he would be left with nothing to fight with (this is where you'll say god made it so that this didn't happen but I have never, ever heard of an occurrence where the laws of physics were suspended even for a moment).
You're assuming God deals the same way with all people at all times.
No, I'm assuming that God is a human construct reflecting the prevailing culture. Modern liberal Christians are all about "their personal relationship with God;" Judeans were all about "God will let us smite 1,000 men with the jawbone of an ass and spend the night with a hooker afterward! Cool!"
I'm imagining that Eddie Vedder is going to leave his supermodel girl friend and seek me out... any day now...
I didn't say anything about truth. We were discussing knowledge. Completely different concepts. Knowledge, I think, is a scale based on a degree of confidence one has in the evidence.
And as for truth being given to us: that would assume that it can be given and that there was something that had this truth to begin with and was able to recognize it as truth. There's a lot of things you would have to prove with that claim there.
Also, Metamorphh didn't state that EVERYONE's common sense was broken, merely the ones heavily influence by religion. A much narrower claim. I'm sure he thinks, as I do, that through common sense, we can tell what's right and wrong.
Just for fun, I'm doing a little math here. Let's see...
If, on top of Hulk strength and apparent invulnerability (I'm assuming those soldiers had weapons), god also granted unto Samson super-ninja speed, let's say Samson killed an average of 12 soldiers per minute, or 1 every 5 seconds. At this rate, it would still take Samson a little over 1hr23mins to slaughter 1000 soldiers. However, common sense tells us that at some point well short of that time, most of the soldiers, witnessing this casual butchery by the obviously magically imbued Samson, would have enough sense to realize the futility of charging over what must have been a quickly growing mountain of dead bodies into the jaws of their own deaths, and run for the hills. Perhaps God also granted unto Samson the speed of the Flash, or maybe Wonder Woman's magic lasso to round them up from where he stood. Green Lantern's ring would probably work just as well, though. As long as the soldiers weren't wearing any yellow, anyway. However, the bible never states explicitly that Samson didn't have help catching them, so maybe Spiderman or Wolverine assisted in rounding up the strays. Now that I think about it, Samson probably did enlist some help; after all, he had a date with a prostitute later that evening.
You seem to be venturing off into another subject here...the question of how we justify our moral instincts. When I said religion short circuits common sense, it was in the context of believing ridiculous stories, the kind we'd never believe in everyday life. We can talk about morality if you like, but it's getting quite a bit off track.
You started by saying the story seems ridiculous, to your intuition/common sense.
I am just saying, our intuition is no indicator of truth (or reality, or right and wrong, no real difference to me).
Take quantum physics, for example. Our intuition in this field is totally useless - and can actually hamper our understanding. But it certainly seems to be pretty close to reality.
Our common sense is driven by our everyday experiences. For those who have not experienced God, this sense cannot develop.
I just don't want to wander too far afield. 'Intuitions' concerning value judgments is one thing, amusement at the incongruity of the crazy kinds of things people accept as factual within a religious context is another, I think.
Tell me, if someone you worked with came to you, and told you he believed the Lord of the Rings story was actual history, what would you think? Would you dismiss the idea out of hand, or would you simply take the null position, since 'our common sense is broken', and 'we cannot know truth'?
I've more to say on this, but I have to run. Take care, folks.
Re. LOTR: Before I was a Christian, I probably would of discussed it (were are the fossil orcs and ents?), just because I liked talking about that kind of stuff...
But, it's not just one guy saying it. We're talking about a large number of people over a long period of time. Many of them are just going with the flow, but - you must admit - there is an awful lot going on to dismiss casually.
Ad populi (is that the term?). The fallacy that because so many people say something is true, means it has to have some credibility.
Many people have believed many things for many years that have been proven to be false. Yet, they often still hold onto that belief.
Maybe common sense is a bit of a stretch to find ALL morality. But, basic morality? Yeah, I think it can be done from something like the following: "Really, would I want someone to steal/murder/lie to me? No, it hurts. Therefore, I should avoid this. And because I have empathy for others, and understand that they too feel this way when this happens, I shouldn't do it to them."
Anyway, I just wanted to clear that part up and now the morality aspect will drop.
Now we're talking! I didn't mean to give you short shrift before, but once a conversation heads down that 'we cannot know truth' road, there's no turning back, and the destination keeps retreating like a mirage in the desert. But what you've said here is on target vis-a-vis the subject matter at hand.
"...(where are the fossil orcs and ents?..."
Indeed. Most peoples' world models include the fact that objects and events in the past ofttimes leave traces of their existence in the present. Relics, like the fossils you mention. Or in the more abstract world of human communication, oral traditions passed down through succeeding generations, as well as written material. Of course, getting our hands on such 'evidence' is just the beginning of the task. What's to be made of this stuff? How does it fit into our picture of reality?
Naturally, we're talking about interpretation here. So, what do we know about the process of written historical transmission? What are the fundamental rules of thumb by which we proceed? Well, one HUGE rule is that written history is seldom, if EVER, completely accurate. Distortion can run from trivial to all-encompassing. How do historians begin to sift through the information to get to the truth? Well, it turns out this is anything but an easy task. It would take far too much time and posting space to even touch on all the interesting angles of historical investigation, so I'll just address the one aspect I have in mind, and that briefly.
I'm referring to genre; or maybe 'class' is a better word. To the historian, types are not created equal. When he finds a grocery list amidst the rubble, he doesn't give it a second thought as to accuracy of subject matter (once established that it's an authentic artifact, naturally). Why? Because it's a friggin' grocery list! It's trivial, and doesn't lend itself to the likelihood of containing false original information, or later tampering.
Now let's move up the chain of complexity, to a letter written by a soldier to his gal back home. Already, we've reached a stage where the possibility of at least a little inaccuracy should probably be assumed. Why? Because the historian understands that people often embellish and otherwise tweak what they tell each other within the context of close emotional relationships. Has he really been true to her? Is the war really going as well as he says it is? Is he really looking forward to coming home to her and settling down on the farm, or has the new, larger reality thrust upon him widened his field of expectations, but he just doesn't want to hurt her feelings...not yet?
I could go on from here, but I think you get the picture. Different subjects, different motives to be less than candid, to purposely distort, deceive, and otherwise put forth less than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Finally, we come to religion and politics, and any SERIOUS historian would tell you that all written material emerging from these sources is fraught with landmines of misinformation. And it gets worse, because in the 'old days', religion and politics were pretty much the same thing! I don't think it takes much of an imagination to realize many of the motivating factors here. Suffice it to say that historical falsification and myth-building is considered a universal fact amongst professional historians, and for good reason.
Ugh, this comment has already gotten too long, and I'm sicker than a dog and have to work at 4:30 in the morning. I wanted to address your comment having to do with consensus, but it'll have to wait 'til later. Also, I really have to tear myself away from this place for a few days and finish up the last bits on my book. Things are in the closing stages, and I'm so easily distracted by shiny objects and blogging arguments...hehehe!
Hi, shadb, and thanks for the input. When I get the chance, I'll try to address what I believe to be a coherent justification for morality from a naturalistic viewpoint. It'll probably expand on what you've just said, though I doubt it'll be quite as succinct...LOL!
“But, it's not just one guy saying it. We're talking about a large number of people over a long period of time. Many of them are just going with the flow, but - you must admit - there is an awful lot going on to dismiss casually.”
Truth by consensus? Hmmm...well, the thing I WON’T do here is accuse you of a logical fallacy, though some certainly would. However, our opinions about reality aren’t by and large the result of deductive syllogisms, and I’ll be the first to admit that consensus- or, general agreement- is one ingredient in the overall inductive method by which we weigh our beliefs against the greater reality.
On the other hand, certainly you’d agree there are other factors involved, the weight of which might serve to override an opinion based upon consensus, yes? In fact, as far as religions go, the general trend is to reject the consensus of all the other sub-groups in favor of our own, isn’t it? Especially when we’re talking about religions claiming exclusivity, like Christianity. Although I’ve noticed an interesting apologetical trend lately of accepting claims of other religious narratives- say, the Greek Pantheon, for instance- while at the same time subordinating them to the ‘One True Faith’ by attributing any questionable claims or manifestations as ‘works of Satan’. I believe this is done to answer the charge of special pleading against the proponents of any particular faith. “Yes, Zeus really did work miracles back then, but Zeus was really the devil in disguise!” Of course, this kind of thing actually has a long history going all the way back to the original church fathers, but it’s only recently that I’ve seen it taken this far with belief systems which have been long regarded by pretty much everyone as purely mythological. Another way to avoid the ramifications of common sense and retain one’s own religious beliefs, in my view.
Anyway, I’ll assume we’re in agreement that consensus, standing alone, doesn’t mean an awful lot. I doubt there’s a person alive who stands by consensus on every issue. Why? Because life experience has taught us that sometimes the majority is wrong. So, what are the reasons for an error in reasoning by the majority? Rather than answer that straight on, I’ll let you ponder the question for a little while, as I plan on addressing this question from the negative spaces in the Mr. G. series...eventually. :)
Also, I don’t want to come off as too pedantic, which is a turn off, and the Mr. G. narrative offers a more relaxed approach, I think. Stay tuned.
That's a lot of Philistines, when you see them all stacked up.
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiosity, what exactly is ludicrous?
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteludicrous
modif.
— Syn. laughable, farcical, ridiculous, outlandish; see absurd, funny 1.
See Synonym Study at ABSURD.
See facetious, fantastic, funny, improper, killing, rich, silly, stupid
I understand the presentation is funny, if theologically naive.
ReplyDeleteIs it laughable or outlandish that a guy got angry and killed people? Or that God can make it possible for one man to kill a thousand (with his bare hands, or a Kleenex)?
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure the presentation is theologically naive, as it is a clear demonstration of how silly the original story is. That these stories are accepted by millions of people is a testament to the ridiculous lengths we're willing to go to in justifying our personal myths, when if someone were to tell such stories in a modern context, most of us would question either his sincerity, or his sanity.
My favorite is still probably the saints coming out of their graves after Jesus died, simply for the logistics as outlined by Thomas Paine in his 'Age of Reason'. These are the kinds of scenarios where common sense trumps purely deductive arguments every time. Then again, religion has always required the usurpation of common sense. Get people to believe what they would NEVER believe otherwise.
As a matter of fact, on the way to school this afternoon, my daughter and I were laughing about the part concerning the foxes. Think about it. How long would it take for one guy to trap 300 foxes. Then, why tie their tails together? Wouldn't that be counterproductive? Wouldn't it have been better to tie the brands to single foxes? And why the bother? I mean, how long are these foxes gonna hold out? And how long will the brands remain burning? Plus, isn't this a lot of unnecessary cruelty to the foxes? By the time he got all this shit done, Samson could've simply run through the grain and lit the fires all by himself. It's simply a REALLY goofy story, taking little account of how things actually work.
ReplyDeleteThis all reminds me of the conversation at the beginning of Monty Python's 'The Holy Grail', where the guys in the fortress are cross examining King Arthur about his non-existent horse, and how he got his hands on coconuts. It was an obviously absurd story on Arthur's part, and his retorts to their common-sense questioning were ridiculous, not to mention quite comical (which was the point, naturally).
Interesting.
ReplyDeleteAre you arguing that ancient people were stupider than moderns? That they lacked common sense, simply because of the date?
Also, if the story is so unbelievable, why did the Jews go to such pains to copy it over and over?
Also, if the story is so unbelievable, why did the Jews go to such pains to copy it over and over?
ReplyDeleteIt made for a good story, just like Jason and the Argonauts, and One Thousand and One Nights.
As for lacking common sense, that's a judgment call; rather, their understanding of the world was less sophisticated. I mean, really, they thought they had to provide animal sacrifices to appease some sky deity who liked the smell of burning flesh...
I'm sure people several thousand years in the future will look at some of our customs and go "what the hell were they thinking, the poor saps!"
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteI'd argue that ancients were more ignorant about how the world works, and that lack of information is certainly one factor in the formation of myth and legend. That said, the process of misinterpretation, cultural mythmaking, and historical innacuracy continues. One doesn't have to look back further than the Mormons to see that. But there's no arguing that, generally speaking, the whoppers get bigger the further back you go. We seem to feel more comfortable with what amounts to cognitive dissonance when the source material originates from long ago and far away.
As far as the Jews recording this stuff, well...they were mythmakers. Hell, a lot of modern Jewry acknowledges this about their own stories. The Greeks did it, then the Romans came right along and recycled the same damned stories, simply changing the names. The Egyptians did it. The Babylonians did it. The Sumerians did it. The Polynesians did it. The Aztecs did it. Hell, who DIDN'T do it? LOL!
There's a lot here... let me focus on one part:
ReplyDeleteidle said, "I'm sure people several thousand years in the future will look at some of our customs and go 'what the hell were they thinking, the poor saps!'"
Are those people right? Are we wrong?
Well, if they have a better grasp of reality (i.e., how the world works) than we do, then I would say they are right. After all, we know that we don't have to make any sacrifices to make the days longer again each year; I wouldn't be surprised if there are realities we'll learn that will make some of our current suppositions seem as ignorant.
ReplyDeleteOne of our goals is to control our environment; ancient peoples hadn't invented that nifty tool called the scientific method. Maybe there will be another nifty tool invented in the future that will be as powerful in understanding and controlling our environment.
"I would say they are right."
ReplyDeleteOk, so, if you are right, you are almost certainly wrong (given how much room we have to increase in knowledge in most every field).
On the other hand, if I am right - that there is a God, who reveals real truth to us - then in the future, that truth will still be true. So, if I am right, I will always be right...
Why should I believe you?
nedbrek:
ReplyDelete"Ok, so, if you are right, you are almost certainly wrong (given how much room we have to increase in knowledge in most every field)."
Wrong about what? Older acquired knowledge doesn't automatically fall by the wayside in the light of new knowledge, unless that new knowledge contradicts or usurps the old (in which case the old knowledge wouldn't really have been knowledge, I suppose; but rather, misunderstanding).
"On the other hand, if I am right - that there is a God, who reveals real truth to us - then in the future, that truth will still be true. So, if I am right, I will always be right..."
Of course, that's the question, isn't it? ARE you right about the existence of your God? Are the origin stories foundational to your belief system best regarded as fair, unbiased reportings of actual historical events? Or are they better seen as products of cultural mythology, rife with superstition and political propaganda?
Also, and depending on what persuasion of believer you are, you have a further burden to prove...that of inerrancy. Serious historians recognize that SOME mythology is built into almost ANY historical document. For instance, the saying 'history is written by the victors' didn't just pop into existence out of thin air. That people tend to make up a lot of their history as they go along is a rock solid premise in historical investigation, and is ALWAYS accounted for as best it can be. This idea is so unarguably true, that anybody who would approach the bible with an eye towards reconciling those writings with an inerrantist position cannot reasonably be called a scholar, nor an historian.
'Why should I believe you?'
It's not about believing any particular person's claims. Rather, it's about a process of self examination. Critical analysis of your own position. Who's arguments make the most sense? Are you rationalizing in a way you'd find to be unreasonable outside the purview of your own belief system? Are you caught in a web of cognitive dissonance, looking for ways to reason around obvious discrepancies in order to salvage your world view? Are you accepting on 'faith' premises which otherwise make no sense, setting them up on your 'shelf' until God deems it the right time to reveal the truth of the matter to you? There are lots of dodges. I've lived them all :)
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteOff the subject to something really important- I bowled in my first league games last night. I accidentally got there an hour early, so I ordered a beer and chilidog at the bar. The girl asked if I wanted to make it a footlong for a dollar more. I said "sure!". What I got was a roast as long as my arm! LOL! Deluged in chili and long slices of grilled onion. My god, I love my bowling alley!
Why should I believe you?
ReplyDeleteBelieve what? That I think the Samson story is ludicrous (though it may be a good plot for a Mel Gibson movie)? That human knowledge will most likely expand and become more sophisticated over time?
You seem to think I care whether you believe me or not...
Deluged in chili and long slices of grilled onion.
ReplyDeleteI hope you slept by yourself last night...
ildi:
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
The topic at hand was "customs", including value judgments like "ludicrous" and "laughable".
ReplyDeleteI don't see where you have grounds to make these sorts of claims.
If you want to say g = GMm/rr (as best as we can understand), go for it. But anything outside of descriptions of natural phenomena will require a firmer foundation.
They didn't make much of a claim. They said that this story, based on what we know now, doesn't make a damn bit of sense and it is actually so outlandish (to imagine that happening today) that it is laughable and ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteAnother 'claim' they made was that there will be future knowledge acquired and on certain things we may be completely wrong (in the eyes of the future). This is as close as you can get to a certainty. But, not everything we know now will be proved to be incorrect and/or inadequate in the future. Only some of it. Just like some propositions made centuries ago are still intact today.
Knowledge is never certain and the details are in constant flux. That's the beauty of learning and of discovering. I hardly see this as a detriment or flaw.
Also, we only speak of things as natural phenomena. There is nothing that suggests anything supernatural. It's a bit of juxtaposition to state that anything outside of descriptions of natural phenomena will require a "firmer" foundation when the supernatural has thin air to walk on. Natural phenomena is based on observation and empirical data. We can't get much firmer than that.
Hi shadb,
ReplyDelete"They said that this story, based on what we know now, doesn't make a damn bit of sense"
That's what I don't get. What do we know now that makes it so unbelievable that a man became angry and killed people and that God can make a man super powerful?
(I'll set epistemology aside for now)
that God can make a man super powerful?
ReplyDeleteFunny that he hasn't done this in the past several thousand years...
Oh, for the good old days, when men could smite a thousand of their enemies with brittle jawbones and spend the night with a hooker to celebrate, all with divine approval! Think of the money we'd save on the military! (Well, assuming the prostitutes were free of diseases, and all... wouldn't want to trade weaponry costs for healthcare costs; after all, disease is what turned Attila's horde back from the gates of Rome.)
Yeah, very believable.
You're assuming God deals the same way with all people at all times. This is a common error (even Christians make it). It is also a major problem with most religions (like Islam).
ReplyDeleteGod deals with different people in different ways at different times.
Is that really hard to imagine? (I'm not even asking you to believe it, just to imagine the possibility)
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteI also assume that the laws of physics don't change every 3 minutes but that somehow I'm not aware of it. I also assume that I'm not just a brain in a vat in some mad scientist's laboratory. I also assume I woke up in the same bed I went to sleep in last night, and not just one that sort of looks like it. I assume all kinds of things, as do all of us.
Is it really hard to imagine that a man a couple thousand years ago was given superpowers by an invisible superbeing, and slew 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass? No, it's not hard to imagine. Is it really that hard to imagine that someday all the cartoon characters on tv will emerge into the real world and take over as our new rulers? I'm not asking you to believe it, just to imagine the possibility. Of course, you and I know it ain't gonna happen, just like we both know that men don't have superpowers. It's silly, and exists only in the realm of fantasy. And religion, of course.
Can you see the cognitive dissonance at work here? The special pleading? "God deals with different people in different ways at different times". Or, in other words God did lots of magical stuff back then where we can't check, but now, in his divine wisdom, He chooses to manifest Himself in ways that make Him seem not to exist at all. At least, not to a skeptical eye.
This is what I'm talking about when I say that religion short circuits common-sense. It makes us accept stories and concepts that we would never accept in the world we actually live in.
nedbreak:
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't hard to imagine. Imagination, though, is far different than reality. 1,000 men against 1 in a fight to the death? Even with a sword it would be impossible... but with a fragile bone?
There is no possible way for a single individual to win against those numbers but especially with the weapon he had. On first hit, the bone would shatter and he would be left with nothing to fight with (this is where you'll say god made it so that this didn't happen but I have never, ever heard of an occurrence where the laws of physics were suspended even for a moment).
You're assuming God deals the same way with all people at all times.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm assuming that God is a human construct reflecting the prevailing culture. Modern liberal Christians are all about "their personal relationship with God;" Judeans were all about "God will let us smite 1,000 men with the jawbone of an ass and spend the night with a hooker afterward! Cool!"
I'm imagining that Eddie Vedder is going to leave his supermodel girl friend and seek me out... any day now...
Ok, good response so far...
ReplyDelete/me picks up epistemology, and dusts it off...
So, how is it that you come to know truth?
Shadb said, "Knowledge is never certain and the details are in constant flux."
This is post-modernism, the rejection of modernism. It is an empty epistemology, saying "we cannot know truth".
I actually agree with this. _We_ cannot know truth. However, we can have truth given to us.
Metamorphh, you are also right that this "short circuits common-sense". Our common sense is broken, it cannot tell us right and wrong.
I didn't say anything about truth. We were discussing knowledge. Completely different concepts. Knowledge, I think, is a scale based on a degree of confidence one has in the evidence.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for truth being given to us: that would assume that it can be given and that there was something that had this truth to begin with and was able to recognize it as truth. There's a lot of things you would have to prove with that claim there.
Also, Metamorphh didn't state that EVERYONE's common sense was broken, merely the ones heavily influence by religion. A much narrower claim. I'm sure he thinks, as I do, that through common sense, we can tell what's right and wrong.
"through common sense, we can tell what's right and wrong"
ReplyDeleteI am very curious to hear how you do this... Do you use common sense to prove that your common sense is right?
Doesn't everyone feel that he is right?
Just for fun, I'm doing a little math here. Let's see...
ReplyDeleteIf, on top of Hulk strength and apparent invulnerability (I'm assuming those soldiers had weapons), god also granted unto Samson super-ninja speed, let's say Samson killed an average of 12 soldiers per minute, or 1 every 5 seconds. At this rate, it would still take Samson a little over 1hr23mins to slaughter 1000 soldiers. However, common sense tells us that at some point well short of that time, most of the soldiers, witnessing this casual butchery by the obviously magically imbued Samson, would have enough sense to realize the futility of charging over what must have been a quickly growing mountain of dead bodies into the jaws of their own deaths, and run for the hills. Perhaps God also granted unto Samson the speed of the Flash, or maybe Wonder Woman's magic lasso to round them up from where he stood. Green Lantern's ring would probably work just as well, though. As long as the soldiers weren't wearing any yellow, anyway. However, the bible never states explicitly that Samson didn't have help catching them, so maybe Spiderman or Wolverine assisted in rounding up the strays. Now that I think about it, Samson probably did enlist some help; after all, he had a date with a prostitute later that evening.
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be venturing off into another subject here...the question of how we justify our moral instincts. When I said religion short circuits common sense, it was in the context of believing ridiculous stories, the kind we'd never believe in everyday life. We can talk about morality if you like, but it's getting quite a bit off track.
It's your blog, we can cover any topic you wish.
ReplyDeleteYou started by saying the story seems ridiculous, to your intuition/common sense.
I am just saying, our intuition is no indicator of truth (or reality, or right and wrong, no real difference to me).
Take quantum physics, for example. Our intuition in this field is totally useless - and can actually hamper our understanding. But it certainly seems to be pretty close to reality.
Our common sense is driven by our everyday experiences. For those who have not experienced God, this sense cannot develop.
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteI just don't want to wander too far afield. 'Intuitions' concerning value judgments is one thing, amusement at the incongruity of the crazy kinds of things people accept as factual within a religious context is another, I think.
Tell me, if someone you worked with came to you, and told you he believed the Lord of the Rings story was actual history, what would you think? Would you dismiss the idea out of hand, or would you simply take the null position, since 'our common sense is broken', and 'we cannot know truth'?
I've more to say on this, but I have to run. Take care, folks.
Smiting 1,000 men with the jawbone of an ass = quantum physics = God
ReplyDeleteGot it, thanks.
Re. LOTR: Before I was a Christian, I probably would of discussed it (were are the fossil orcs and ents?), just because I liked talking about that kind of stuff...
ReplyDeleteBut, it's not just one guy saying it. We're talking about a large number of people over a long period of time. Many of them are just going with the flow, but - you must admit - there is an awful lot going on to dismiss casually.
Ad populi (is that the term?). The fallacy that because so many people say something is true, means it has to have some credibility.
ReplyDeleteMany people have believed many things for many years that have been proven to be false. Yet, they often still hold onto that belief.
Maybe common sense is a bit of a stretch to find ALL morality. But, basic morality? Yeah, I think it can be done from something like the following: "Really, would I want someone to steal/murder/lie to me? No, it hurts. Therefore, I should avoid this. And because I have empathy for others, and understand that they too feel this way when this happens, I shouldn't do it to them."
Anyway, I just wanted to clear that part up and now the morality aspect will drop.
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteNow we're talking! I didn't mean to give you short shrift before, but once a conversation heads down that 'we cannot know truth' road, there's no turning back, and the destination keeps retreating like a mirage in the desert. But what you've said here is on target vis-a-vis the subject matter at hand.
"...(where are the fossil orcs and ents?..."
Indeed. Most peoples' world models include the fact that objects and events in the past ofttimes leave traces of their existence in the present. Relics, like the fossils you mention. Or in the more abstract world of human communication, oral traditions passed down through succeeding generations, as well as written material. Of course, getting our hands on such 'evidence' is just the beginning of the task. What's to be made of this stuff? How does it fit into our picture of reality?
Naturally, we're talking about interpretation here. So, what do we know about the process of written historical transmission? What are the fundamental rules of thumb by which we proceed? Well, one HUGE rule is that written history is seldom, if EVER, completely accurate. Distortion can run from trivial to all-encompassing. How do historians begin to sift through the information to get to the truth? Well, it turns out this is anything but an easy task. It would take far too much time and posting space to even touch on all the interesting angles of historical investigation, so I'll just address the one aspect I have in mind, and that briefly.
I'm referring to genre; or maybe 'class' is a better word. To the historian, types are not created equal. When he finds a grocery list amidst the rubble, he doesn't give it a second thought as to accuracy of subject matter (once established that it's an authentic artifact, naturally). Why? Because it's a friggin' grocery list! It's trivial, and doesn't lend itself to the likelihood of containing false original information, or later tampering.
Now let's move up the chain of complexity, to a letter written by a soldier to his gal back home. Already, we've reached a stage where the possibility of at least a little inaccuracy should probably be assumed. Why? Because the historian understands that people often embellish and otherwise tweak what they tell each other within the context of close emotional relationships. Has he really been true to her? Is the war really going as well as he says it is? Is he really looking forward to coming home to her and settling down on the farm, or has the new, larger reality thrust upon him widened his field of expectations, but he just doesn't want to hurt her feelings...not yet?
I could go on from here, but I think you get the picture. Different subjects, different motives to be less than candid, to purposely distort, deceive, and otherwise put forth less than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Finally, we come to religion and politics, and any SERIOUS historian would tell you that all written material emerging from these sources is fraught with landmines of misinformation. And it gets worse, because in the 'old days', religion and politics were pretty much the same thing! I don't think it takes much of an imagination to realize many of the motivating factors here. Suffice it to say that historical falsification and myth-building is considered a universal fact amongst professional historians, and for good reason.
Ugh, this comment has already gotten too long, and I'm sicker than a dog and have to work at 4:30 in the morning. I wanted to address your comment having to do with consensus, but it'll have to wait 'til later. Also, I really have to tear myself away from this place for a few days and finish up the last bits on my book. Things are in the closing stages, and I'm so easily distracted by shiny objects and blogging arguments...hehehe!
Take care, play nice.
Hi, shadb, and thanks for the input. When I get the chance, I'll try to address what I believe to be a coherent justification for morality from a naturalistic viewpoint. It'll probably expand on what you've just said, though I doubt it'll be quite as succinct...LOL!
ReplyDeleteSounds good. I'll wait for it.
ReplyDelete*cracks whip*
Back to work, you!
nedbrek:
ReplyDelete“But, it's not just one guy saying it. We're talking about a large number of people over a long period of time. Many of them are just going with the flow, but - you must admit - there is an awful lot going on to dismiss casually.”
Truth by consensus? Hmmm...well, the thing I WON’T do here is accuse you of a logical fallacy, though some certainly would. However, our opinions about reality aren’t by and large the result of deductive syllogisms, and I’ll be the first to admit that consensus- or, general agreement- is one ingredient in the overall inductive method by which we weigh our beliefs against the greater reality.
On the other hand, certainly you’d agree there are other factors involved, the weight of which might serve to override an opinion based upon consensus, yes? In fact, as far as religions go, the general trend is to reject the consensus of all the other sub-groups in favor of our own, isn’t it? Especially when we’re talking about religions claiming exclusivity, like Christianity. Although I’ve noticed an interesting apologetical trend lately of accepting claims of other religious narratives- say, the Greek Pantheon, for instance- while at the same time subordinating them to the ‘One True Faith’ by attributing any questionable claims or manifestations as ‘works of Satan’. I believe this is done to answer the charge of special pleading against the proponents of any particular faith. “Yes, Zeus really did work miracles back then, but Zeus was really the devil in disguise!” Of course, this kind of thing actually has a long history going all the way back to the original church fathers, but it’s only recently that I’ve seen it taken this far with belief systems which have been long regarded by pretty much everyone as purely mythological. Another way to avoid the ramifications of common sense and retain one’s own religious beliefs, in my view.
Anyway, I’ll assume we’re in agreement that consensus, standing alone, doesn’t mean an awful lot. I doubt there’s a person alive who stands by consensus on every issue. Why? Because life experience has taught us that sometimes the majority is wrong. So, what are the reasons for an error in reasoning by the majority? Rather than answer that straight on, I’ll let you ponder the question for a little while, as I plan on addressing this question from the negative spaces in the Mr. G. series...eventually. :)
Also, I don’t want to come off as too pedantic, which is a turn off, and the Mr. G. narrative offers a more relaxed approach, I think. Stay tuned.
On the other hand, the way I'm feeling right now I might just crawl into bed and give up the ghost...metaphorically speaking, of course .(
ReplyDelete