Comments on: Preach the Controversy! http://blog.darwincentral.org/2006/08/21/preach-the-controversy/ Coniuratio compatiens Thu, 15 Jul 2010 04:02:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: WhatGives http://blog.darwincentral.org/2006/08/21/preach-the-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-176 WhatGives Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:19:10 +0000 http://www.darwincentral.org/blog/2006/08/21/preach-the-controversy/#comment-176 This is a test This is a test

]]> By: DollarAg http://blog.darwincentral.org/2006/08/21/preach-the-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-175 DollarAg Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:05:39 +0000 http://www.darwincentral.org/blog/2006/08/21/preach-the-controversy/#comment-175 I find it hard to imagine that someone could read the sentence that begins this entry and not see where the discussion was going. And yet.... Do you remember the Bashful Bobolink? It was the creation of Al Capp, in the comic strip Li'l Abner. It was the national treasure of Lower Slobbovia, and the distinctive thing about it was that it could not be seen, nor heard, nor felt; the people made long trips to not see it. I recall that the National Review praised Al Capp as a good conservative (which he was; the amazing thing is that NR thought so). I find it hard to imagine that someone could read the sentence that begins this entry and not see where the discussion was going. And yet…. Do you remember the Bashful Bobolink? It was the creation of Al Capp, in the comic strip Li’l Abner. It was the national treasure of Lower Slobbovia, and the distinctive thing about it was that it could not be seen, nor heard, nor felt; the people made long trips to not see it. I recall that the National Review praised Al Capp as a good conservative (which he was; the amazing thing is that NR thought so).

]]> By: Raven http://blog.darwincentral.org/2006/08/21/preach-the-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-170 Raven Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:16:39 +0000 http://www.darwincentral.org/blog/2006/08/21/preach-the-controversy/#comment-170 "Deists, for example, believe the universe had a First Cause, whom they call God." For "whom" the better word would be "which" (not implying personhood): "Deists, for example, believe the universe had a First Cause, which they call God." “Deists, for example, believe the universe had a First Cause, whom they call God.”

For “whom” the better word would be “which” (not implying personhood):

“Deists, for example, believe the universe had a First Cause, which they call God.”

]]> By: Raven http://blog.darwincentral.org/2006/08/21/preach-the-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-167 Raven Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:58:40 +0000 http://www.darwincentral.org/blog/2006/08/21/preach-the-controversy/#comment-167 Typo in the above: "goodhood" should read "godhood". A comma is missing after "any other government". Typo in the above: “goodhood” should read “godhood”.
A comma is missing after “any other government”.

]]> By: Raven http://blog.darwincentral.org/2006/08/21/preach-the-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-166 Raven Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:47:59 +0000 http://www.darwincentral.org/blog/2006/08/21/preach-the-controversy/#comment-166 The futility of arguments about the existence of God(s) is due to the absence of any operational definition. I propose one: a god is something that is worshipped, i.e. has at least one worshipper. This is not a statement of anything's inherent nature (species, size, powers, etc.), but of a relationship -- just as "pet" (whether cat, dog, or other) and "spouse" (male, female, or of any race) declare relationships and not inherent natures. Some people have one or more gods, pets, and/or spouses. Other people are godless, petless, and/or spouseless. Neither group need be compelled by the other group's choices. If you worship the Sun (which exists), keep a pet rock (which exists), or marry a gorgeous whatever, much luck and happiness to you -- but I need not engage in the same relationships. I think this is a sensible, practical "test" of godhood, and it immediately detects goodhood in a number of objects -- the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, idols, emperors -- as well as in abstractions such as imaginary persons, who all exist in the same sense that the Government of the United States, or any other government exists. (Try pointing to a *physically existing* government; recall that people, buildings, equipment, and pieces of paper with ink marks on them, are not governments.) The endless theist/atheist argument about the existence of gods can be laid to rest, with this epitaph: Gods Exist, So What? If I declare that this very real rock, instead of being my *pet* rock, is my *god* rock, because I worship it... well, okay, it *exists*, but what does that have to do with anything else? Anyone's worship of a rock, or the Sun, or Jehovah of the Bible, has neither coercive nor probative value. It doesn't compel you to join in that worship. It doesn't prove any other proposition, such as how the world came to its present state. It offers no causative linkage. But Jehovah made the world, some say? I could claim that my rock made the world, with as much proof. Another could claim the Sun made the world, or at least the planets, with rather better evidence. And what does any of that say about whom we should marry, kill, love, or hate? Deists, for example, believe the universe had a First Cause, whom they call God. They don't believe the Bible was written by that First Cause, or that Jesus had more to do with it than any other human being. And Deists were among the USA's Founding Fathers. (Christians merely lie when they claim mentions of that "God" as referring to their own.) So believing in gods, or even "God" by that name, doesn't require adopting any part of the Bible, such as its rules. Accepting all of the above still leaves factual debates like the existence of evolution, or the details of its workings, unaddressed. Turning back to the physically existing world offers the only hope of common ground. Ethical issues also remain, and there the common ground must be shared values. We can hope to find consensus on rules where we have consensus on values. Where we lack that consensus, perhaps some rules are best left unwritten and uncoerced. The futility of arguments about the existence of God(s) is due to the absence of any operational definition. I propose one: a god is something that is worshipped, i.e. has at least one worshipper. This is not a statement of anything’s inherent nature (species, size, powers, etc.), but of a relationship — just as “pet” (whether cat, dog, or other) and “spouse” (male, female, or of any race) declare relationships and not inherent natures. Some people have one or more gods, pets, and/or spouses. Other people are godless, petless, and/or spouseless. Neither group need be compelled by the other group’s choices. If you worship the Sun (which exists), keep a pet rock (which exists), or marry a gorgeous whatever, much luck and happiness to you — but I need not engage in the same relationships.

I think this is a sensible, practical “test” of godhood, and it immediately detects goodhood in a number of objects — the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, idols, emperors — as well as in abstractions such as imaginary persons, who all exist in the same sense that the Government of the United States, or any other government exists. (Try pointing to a *physically existing* government; recall that people, buildings, equipment, and pieces of paper with ink marks on them, are not governments.) The endless theist/atheist argument about the existence of gods can be laid to rest, with this epitaph: Gods Exist, So What?

If I declare that this very real rock, instead of being my *pet* rock, is my *god* rock, because I worship it… well, okay, it *exists*, but what does that have to do with anything else?

Anyone’s worship of a rock, or the Sun, or Jehovah of the Bible, has neither coercive nor probative value. It doesn’t compel you to join in that worship. It doesn’t prove any other proposition, such as how the world came to its present state. It offers no causative linkage.

But Jehovah made the world, some say? I could claim that my rock made the world, with as much proof. Another could claim the Sun made the world, or at least the planets, with rather better evidence. And what does any of that say about whom we should marry, kill, love, or hate?

Deists, for example, believe the universe had a First Cause, whom they call God. They don’t believe the Bible was written by that First Cause, or that Jesus had more to do with it than any other human being. And Deists were among the USA’s Founding Fathers. (Christians merely lie when they claim mentions of that “God” as referring to their own.) So believing in gods, or even “God” by that name, doesn’t require adopting any part of the Bible, such as its rules.

Accepting all of the above still leaves factual debates like the existence of evolution, or the details of its workings, unaddressed. Turning back to the physically existing world offers the only hope of common ground.

Ethical issues also remain, and there the common ground must be shared values. We can hope to find consensus on rules where we have consensus on values. Where we lack that consensus, perhaps some rules are best left unwritten and uncoerced.

]]> By: kingprout http://blog.darwincentral.org/2006/08/21/preach-the-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-155 kingprout Thu, 24 Aug 2006 04:49:46 +0000 http://www.darwincentral.org/blog/2006/08/21/preach-the-controversy/#comment-155 CR/IDers are fundamentally slothful - they demand to be taken seriously without hving done any of the work. Their strident arguments and harrassment seem very like the antics of Rainbow-Push et omnia generis alia. They are the Right's very own pet entitlement pimps and welfare queens. CR/IDers are fundamentally slothful – they demand to be taken seriously without hving done any of the work. Their strident arguments and harrassment seem very like the antics of Rainbow-Push et omnia generis alia. They are the Right’s very own pet entitlement pimps and welfare queens.

]]> By: Carolinaguitarman http://blog.darwincentral.org/2006/08/21/preach-the-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-152 Carolinaguitarman Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:02:55 +0000 http://www.darwincentral.org/blog/2006/08/21/preach-the-controversy/#comment-152 "The malcontents in this instance are the Biblical literalists, who in effect insist on an empirical foundation for their particular spiritual beliefs—and are enraged science cannot provide such." That is the crux of the issue. The creationists/ID'ers want the imprimatur of science without having to be bothered by the rigor of science. When they realize that science cannot help them, they have to redefine what science is to include the untestable and the supernatural. “The malcontents in this instance are the Biblical literalists, who in effect insist on an empirical foundation for their particular spiritual beliefs—and are enraged science cannot provide such.”

That is the crux of the issue. The creationists/ID’ers want the imprimatur of science without having to be bothered by the rigor of science. When they realize that science cannot help them, they have to redefine what science is to include the untestable and the supernatural.

]]>