Nobel laureate says Bible a bad influence.
Jose Saramago, who won the 1998 Nobel Prize for Literature seems to
think so.
for yourself just how perverted it really is.
Personally I aways thought the whole thing was written by
adults to scare young people into becoming cost accountants.
C
think so.
At the launch event in the northern PortugueseWell the right wing nuts at any rate.
town of Penafiel on Sunday, Saramago said he did
not think the book would offend Catholics
"because they do not read the Bible".
"The Bible is a manual of bad morals (which) has
a powerful influence on our culture and even our
way of life. Without the Bible, we would be
different, and probably better people," he was
quoted as saying by the news agency Lusa.
And if you don't believe him, try R. Crumb's version to see
Saramago attacked "a cruel, jealous and
unbearable God (who) exists only in our heads"
and said he did not think his book would cause
problems for the Catholic Church "because
Catholics do not read the Bible.
"It might offend Jews, but that doesn't really
matter to me," he added.
for yourself just how perverted it really is.
Personally I aways thought the whole thing was written by
adults to scare young people into becoming cost accountants.
C
Advertisement
Bibel?
You may wanna correct the spelling in your title :)
________________________________________________
October 20, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ya Bibel...as in Ish-Ka-Bibel.
C
October 20, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh! In that case...
(Just the rest of what you posted had it spelled "Bible"...) :shrug:
October 20, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
And a typo in 'influence.'
October 20, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
After reading The Chalice And The Blade and The Nag Hammadi Libraries where you see statements referring to Jesus as the thrice male God and a statement referring to Mary and a disciple asking how she, a woman could get into heaven, to which Christ apparently replies that he will make her a man....
After all that you have to know that the translation game of playing operator over 2000 years has allowed many people to place their personal stamp of perception on the story of the Bible.
One night when we were bored... and discussing this whole translation thing we acted out a little experiment. I was God, my friend was a prophet, and my brother sat at a typewriter, a scribe. I spoke something I'm certain was profound to my friend the prophet, he in turn turned and spoke something completely different to my brother, the scribe, and he pretty much typed whatever appealed to him, which often was not at all related to what was said. It was a revelation to us.
Neil Douglas Klotz wrote Prayers Of The Cosmos. He went to spend time with people still speaking some form of Aramaic to see if he could find purer translations of the Lord's Prayer. I have met Neil through his associations with the Dances of Universal Peace and I have this book. It gives several possible alternative translations.
I also was told one day that ANY time I came to a word and was not 100% confident in it's true meaning that I should ALWAYS look it up in the dictionary so that I was not inflecting new meaning into words. I am by no means a stickler but it has shown me how much the exact meaning of one word can have a huge impact.
So putting huge amounts of faith and importance in translations and interpretations of any written work that has been interpreted and tranlated numerous times... can be a bit like watching Fox 'News?'
The parts of the Bible 'stories' that appealed to me were stories of kindness, love, and becoming a better person like Paul. In the church I went to during my childhood there were big gold letters over the arch in the Sunday School that said 'God Is Love'. Those little treasures, I kept. The rest I've left behind as is normal when I read books.
October 20, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good observations, Synch.
As one who is struggling mightily to maintain her belief in God and Jesus in the face of the actions of Christians, I find it necessary to hang on for dear life to "the God is love" part, and pay little attention to anything that goes against it.
October 20, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Jesus is from the Bible, right?
So, to agree with Synch about translations being suspect... and to insist on there being a Jesus... well... seems like that might take some mental gymnastics.
Still... God Is Love seems to sum it up nicely. No Bible necessary for that lesson.
October 20, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
But, for me, in order for Jesus to be NOT real, the whole New Testament has to be a fabrication, and I don't believe that. There are many things that require mental gymnastics (otherwise known as faith, in this instance.) I can't prove the whole Jesus thing is real, anymore than you can prove it isn't.
October 20, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well... I'm not interested in going down this route...
I will say that I'm of the school that says people don't get to make wild claims and challenge others to disprove them. Otherwise I could say, "There's a giant invisible Cyclops living on a planet orbiting Aldebaran. Prove me wrong!" If a person is going to make a claim then it is incumbent upon that person to back it up. IMO.
________________
But I have no intentions of proving anything one way or another...
________________
I was asking how you could affirm Sync's "translation errors" idea... and still insist on believe the product of those errors?
October 20, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nor am I.
What I was trying to say, and will say again, is that I believe that the Bible is open to interpretation because it has been translated and re-translated so many times and from cultures where there are no words to say exactly what was meant. Therefore it can't be taken completely literally.
I do not think that means its whole premise is a lie.
We won't know for sure until we've left this world. I don't expect, nor do I want, for either of us to try to prove or disprove any part of this. It can't be done.
October 20, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
........I will say that I'm of the school that says people don't get to make wild claims and challenge others to disprove them. Otherwise I could say, "There's a giant invisible Cyclops living on a planet orbiting Aldebaran. Prove me wrong!" If a person is going to make a claim then it is incumbent upon that person to back it up. IMO.
---
some definitions of faith
1. belief that is not based on proof
2. a system of religious belief
3 the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. (Christian Theology)
-----
By definition, religious faith will never meet your criteria.
October 20, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough.
But it should be made clear that Faith does not equal Fact. And if one wants to establish their belief as Fact, it is up to them to do so... It's NOT up to others to prove them wrong. IMO.
October 20, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
People of faith "walk by faith, not by sight". Therefore, they are not worried about science which is not fully equipped to measure the soul.
Out of body experiences are examples of rising to heaven, a phenomenon that can't be measured by science or the result of neurochemical changes that haven't been fully defined by science.
Life is the result of the statistical luck of the draw of the correct chemicals being present at the right place at the right time and temperature, or the act of an outside individual.
Lucy was the common ancestor and given nonexistent chimp-like behavior to fit into science's concepts at the time, until she was replaced by Ardi who possessed a true ape-like toe.
Faith is a belief system. Science is a proof system. Both are limited by man's comprehension.
October 20, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
When people of Faith start making rules, teaching classes, and 'running the show' BASED upon their beliefs... then there's a problem.
You are certainly aware of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, right?
If not, please go here and familiarize yourself.
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
If you are already familiar with this letter, then you know what I'm talking about.
For this reason I am simply not comfortable with the idea of letting those who operate on Spiritual Faith be in a position of authority. If they require us non-believers to prove them wrong... If they unwilling to lose their faith even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary... Then they can't be allowed to be in such positions of social responsibility as someone who is fully able to change his/her mind based on new evidence.
I understand that the intentions of the Faithful are "good"... but their insistence on believing so completely in a book riddled with errors and mistranslations... and their seeming inability to let that go in the face of new information... renders them incapable of moving forward. Renders them incapable of progressing. IMVHO.
I "believer" that the intentions of the Scientist are "good"... A scientist may rely upon flawed documents (data) just the same... UNTIL it is shown those data are flawed... Then the scientist will dismiss the previous data in favor of the more accurate data. Although they may be wrong from time to time, their ability to recognize their wrongs and make corrections as a matter of practice qualifies them 100 fold for positions of authority. Their ability to be flexible and move forward. Their insistence on progress. These qualities, IMVHO, are far more desireable.
Religion is the opposite of Science.
Religion and Faith prevent people from moving forward and progressing simply by preventing those of faith from changing their mind...
It's a way to close peoples minds and limit their potential...
...at least that's the way I see it. Perhaps having a Southern Baptist Grandfather and growing up in Kentucky has had a profound effect on me.
October 21, 2009 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never said ANYTHING about God or Jesus being a fact, so I'm not sure where you are coming from or going...I said I'm struggling to maintain my belief, and here we are...
October 20, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really curious about something that I never learned in my Baptist years growing up: Not one word was ever written about Jesus contemporaneously. Not until he had been dead 100 years. That makes it sound more like a lovely myth rather than true observation to me. After all, many faiths that preceded him also have the dying and rebirth at their centers. Like Isis & Osiris.
I'm wondering if you have thought about this, because it is something I just found out about and it surprised me quite a bit.
October 20, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
A LOT of similarities between Jesus and Dionysus too...
And many others...
Watch "The God Who Wasn't There"... although the entire film isn't rock solid and seems deeply personal... There is a part where they list all the other "Gods" that preceded Jesus... and they list the similarities... and there are many! ...and they are striking.
October 20, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen it. I agree with you; interesting but it kind of fell apart in the end with his angry, personal comments.
October 20, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the "life after death" think cam about simply because no one can really imagine their own non-existence. I believe I referred to this in one of my previous blogs. When we try we always survive as observers. We as humans have no previous memory - obviously - of not existing to reference. So subconsciously we are all immortal.
Which means the "death and resurrection" concept would be an obvious thing to come about.
But then we did not exist before we were born and this does not seem to bother most folks.
One could go even further into this philosophically but that would be a long post. Given that the universe is infinite with an infinite number of stars and planets. And it the wave theory people are correct, there could be any number of universes. Which implies that there could also be any number of you and me out there, which one are we.
C
October 20, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice.
I've told people that I must be immortal for very similar reasons... I'd never heard anybody else suggest it before.
But, basically, as far as I can remember I've always been alive... and as far as I'll ever know, I'll always be alive...
I can see where you're coming from and I like it.
October 20, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the universe isn't infinite. It's limited time-wise to 15 billion years, give or take (from multiple parameters like extrapolating the expansion of the universe backwards and also the age of the oldest stars). It's also limited in scope as it's expanding now and was smaller in the past (so if it's getting bigger, it isn't infinite, right?).
The thing is that we can only see so far into the universe. The human, Hubble, discovered both the points above. The telescope, Hubble, has seen further in time and space than ever before, but we still haven't found an edge of the universe or seen to the beginning (as the further away something is in a telescope, the older it is too, since light has a set speed). But just because we haven't seen it explicitly doesn't mean that we can't induct the limits.
In a way, it's like you said about human immortality: since the universe is limited, to itself it's infinite. But to an outside observer, it definitely has boundaries.
October 20, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
(so if it's getting bigger, it isn't infinite, right?).
Wrong.
I suggest you go to this FABULOUS site and search out a fella named Ed.
www.galaxyzoo.org
He's way more qualified and eloquent than I am and he'll be able to explain to you more effectively how your understanding of infinite is not accurate.
October 20, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you believe recent cosmology discoveries, then the universe is basically flat in shape and therefore is infinite. Other observations show that the universe is accelerating and unbounded as well. But other observations in the past and some very recent ones imply that the universe could be spherical, and so finite. So, you are right in 2 out of the 3 cases.
There's a way that astronomers are going to use with Europe's Planck spacecraft that will measure the cosmic microwave background (which crude measurements essentially proved that there was a Bing Bang) 10 times better than before.
Here's a good place to see universe misconceptions.
And here's another interesting page that has info about bounding of the universe's size:
October 21, 2009 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a way, it's like you said about human immortality: since the universe is limited, to itself it's infinite. But to an outside observer, it definitely has boundaries.
If the Universe is all there is then there CAN'T BE and "Outside" observer.
October 20, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course there can. You can even use the cosmic microwave background to see if there's ever been a collision with our universe with others. Some physicists are looking into that now. There's many ideas out there about how universes are just bubbles of particular space-times.
You're using one definition of the word that universe simple means 'everything'. There's other definitions, including ones that others exist. Of course right now it's all speculation, though there are experiments (like above) and people actually trying to figure out the nature of reality. Hell, there's always been people arguing about the nature of reality.
October 21, 2009 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You completely ignored the CONDITION of my sentence.
"IF The Universe is all there is"
And, although they are looking for multiverses, they haven't found any yet. So... We can not assume that they are there, YET.
So... for now... there is only ONE Universe.
Given that fact, there can be no "Outside Observer"
________________________
If there are multiverses... then there's still the problem of someone in one of those universes physically being able to observe someone in another universe. It may very well not be possible....
In this case, there can still be NO outside observer.
October 21, 2009 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
CVille Dem,
Joseph Campbell wrote many very readable books on this theme. A good starting point is "The Hero With A Thousand Faces."
Campbell is great fun to read, and very informative. I first heard of Campbell when Bill Moyers taped a series of interviews with him for PBS, called "The Power of Myth," back in the late 80s. These interviews stand out in my mind 20-odd years later as among the best examples of how to use the medium of television.
Campbell's books and DVDs should be available through Amazon, or at your local library.
October 20, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just about to comment about the "Power of Myth"! What an interesting piece of work. There's books as well as taped interviews...both VERY worthy of looking at.
October 20, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks!
October 20, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have never personally looked into it, C'ville. I have a friend who has, but I didn't pay a lot of attention when he was talking about it. I'll e-mail him and see if any of his research is online and pass it along.
October 20, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that I should add for clarity that for me 'God' or 'All That Is' is Pure Consciousness which I also hold as Love, and Life is God or Pure Consciousness coming to know itself. This helps me to see everything as part of that unfolding.
October 20, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember something way back in my junior/high school days were the teacher passed a note to one student who whispered it to the student next to them. Without the note the next student whispered the message to the next, which in turn whispered it to the next and so on to the last student. And they had to repeat the message. After which, the teacher read out load the original note. What the student said and what the teacher read were worlds apart.
So I have little sympathy for divine revelations. Personally, the bible is nothing more than the owner's manual for the human race and it seems everyone who reads it does so for personal gains, not instructive.
October 20, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And of course Mark Twain had his fun, too.
One of my Favorites!!!
Letters From The Earth
You can read the entire thing here: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm
October 20, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you seen the R. Crumb Bible book?
I like Rabbi Weinstein's book title: 'Up, Up, and Oy-Vey.'
October 20, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not yet. I think it just came out a while ago.
C
October 20, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I bought Crumb's "Genesis" (Not the whole Bible) just this weekend... Haven't had time to read it yet. :)
October 20, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saramago said he did
not think the book would offend Catholics
"because they do not read the Bible"
He screws things up for himself by using the term "the Bible" from getting into a more interesting discussion, and I think, the more important one.
Traditionally, Catholics were discouraged from reading the Old Testament but they were encouraged to listen to a reading from the New Testament at every mass.
Unerstanding this difference really gets at the heart of the perversion of Christianity that is one finds in many fundie Christian beliefs. It's because of their democratic, individualistic attitude about interpreting the text(s.)
Christianity began as a movement where you throw out the old law (the Old Testament) and follow the new one (Christ's teachings in the New Testament.) The whole shebang was about no longer being a Jew following the Old Testament anymore, get it? You know, God sent his only son to earth to straighten some wrong ideas out?
Ok, now go to the growth of the Catholic church-- they make priests as the representatives of Christ to the faithful. They are in charge of telling the members what Christ thinks, hence they use the Gospels. The Old Testament is just an ancient text of interest to scholarly monks to ponder for concordance with the Gospels, not something that concerns ordinary people.
The Reformation reacts against the corrupt power structure those priests eventually became. Many new churches believe in a more democratic way, let the people read the whole Bible, Old and New testament and interpret it for themselves, hire or select their own preachers, etc.
I feel a simplistic attack on "the Bible" really is much less interesting than thinking about the real problem here, something that is far more interesting. It's actually that the more democratic types of religions, where you have no one "in charge" telling the faithful how to interpret their texts, and they do it "grassroots" style, building movements, causes one set of problems, and the big organization dictatorial types of religions, where you have the followers told what to think about in the texts, causes a whole different set of problems.
The Roman Catholic church actually developed an interesting way to deal with this, the holy orders (i.e., Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits...) In the middle ages they would have groups arising around a charismatic leader interpreting the text(s) for themselves. Instead of letting them splinter off into new churches, they bring them under their wing, check out their teachings, try to maintain some control, but let them run their own little religious communes in a way.
October 20, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
After that, then move on to Islam, and how there is no hierarchy, but just anyone who calls himself an imam, and even individual acolytes, interpreting what the Koran tells them to do for themselves.
Yeah, you can blame the texts, just as you can blame any book (or oral cultural tradition) that becomes a popular guide to living. What to do about all that is the thing....book burning or.....
October 20, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
And now you have those on the right who wish to remove "liberal bias" from the bible. One has to wonder how often in the past that this supposed "text of god" has been edited to remove that which these "followers" did not agree with.
Davine indeed.
C
October 20, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but "traditionally" the mass was in Latin and no one was even supposed to understand the words.
October 20, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, AA, that was so informative; I did not realize anyu of this, or the perspective on 'democratizing' Christianity. I saved it to go through a few more times. It's been percolating through my brain for hours since I read it first.
October 20, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you seen "The Invention of Lying", Ricky Gervais' new movie? Excellent commentary on this subject included in the movie. I recommend it to one and all. Find out about "the man who lives in the sky."
October 20, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Loved that movie. Also the church was called "a quiet place to think about the man in the sky."
I guess when you think about it, that movie was making a huge religious statement. Interesting.
October 20, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoop-de-do. Some people think the bible is bad. That's their right to that opinion.
But this guy I guess will say whatever he feels like to sell his book.
It seems like cmaukonen's point per this blog is to demonize people who like to read the bible. That is unfortunate. No one should be criticized for how they choose to practice their own religion.
October 20, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think his point was to have an interesting and intelligent discussion. Too bad you don't seem capable of joining in. You miss out on a lot by having knee-jerk reactions to so many things.
October 20, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really do think MCB should seriously consider trying out for the Olympics. When it comes to jumping to conclusions - he most assuredly qualifies for international competition.
Yes the point of this blog - and most of my others is to get people to think and discuss the subject.
Whether they agree with it or not is not the point.
C
October 20, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/cmaukonen/2009/10/nobel-laureate-says-bibel-a-ba.php#comment-3640880
The link above is to my response, but I somehow didn't post it properly
October 21, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I havn't seen it yet, but has anyone seen the movie "The Man From Earth?"
October 20, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Famous, or infamous, atheist Christopher Hitchins and (to my mind) fundamentalist Christianist Pastor Doug Wilson have a joint blog on Huffpo today. They did a series of debates sometime back, many are available on youtube. They also co-authored a book; I can't imagine what the pay-off was for either of them, but, there it is.
My hair stood on end when I saw the title and authors of the blog; it is rather personal to me.
My husband's nephew went to Doug Wilson's 'college,' maybe taught there, and just married the blond daughter of one of the pillars of the church. It is in Moscow, Idaho, and to call it contovertial would be an understatement. A woman my husband's nephew almost married and I have grown to be friends since we met, and she made some worried noises about this association and religion Wilson either invented or helped to invent. I did some google searches, and spent parts of many days reading about him and his/their credo. Calvinist Southern Reconstruction Trinity church might be an apt name. Douggie wrote a paper about slavery having been not such a bad deal for African Americans. Hmmmph. It has since been deemed inaccessible to anyone but church members.
Here's their blog:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-hitchens/collision-is-religion-abs_b_326673.html
If you want more info on Wilson, google his name and the Palouse; more info than you'd like.
October 20, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Wendy, one could also say that science itself is a religion as a good deal of it is based on faith. As an example; no one has actually "seen" an electron (or proton or neutron for that matter) and yet we "know" or rather believe they exist. But this belief is base not on and observation of these particles but on observations of their effects. When we turn on a light switch - the light goes on. When we walk across the room and touch a door knob we get a bit of a shock.
Even the blue spark we "see" is not the electrons but the effect they have on the gas in the air when they travel through it. We know this because you cannot get a spark, per se', in a vacuum.
And if the Wave Theorists are correct, and I expect they are, we can never actually see atomic particles since they are themselves make up of waves of energy.
I would even be willing to go out on a limb and say the a good part of out interaction with this world is based on faith. That certain things will behave in a predicable manner because of our experience that they have in the past.
We evolved with certain senses in order to survive on the planet and had no need to extend them beyond what we had until very recently in our evolution. So what we cannot actually, physically experience we must take - to some measure - on faith.
C
October 20, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with your contention that science is based on faith. Not actually seeing something but knowing it exists because of reproducible experiments is not the same as faith. When I help out with XRays at work it isn't faith that keeps me from worrying if I have on a lead apron -- I've never seen radiation, but there are plenty of experiments that give relevant info.
Faith is believing in something unprovable. There is much in science that is not proved, but the point is that the proof is still being sought.
October 20, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well belief then. We believe that the xrays will do us harm if exposed to often.
C
October 20, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it is belief based on scientific proof. Radiation sickness is measurable and can be reproduced.
October 20, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is base on a repeatable cause and effect relationship. And according to my understanding it (theoretically) takes only one occurrence when this relationship does not hold true to disprove this relationship.
Yet accordion to quantum theory we can never know precisely what we are observing since the act of observing effects the outcome.
Anyone who has worked in electronics know this. When we attempt to measure a voltage in a circuit, the volt meter, oscilloscope or what ever will effect the circuit because it adds a load to it.
We can get very close. But that is all.
C
October 20, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're trying to understand Quantum, you're going about it all wrong.
October 20, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's more than just that... despite your Quantum argument. If you want to talk Quantum you're going to dip your toe into something smelly. Let's try to keep out of that here... otherwise it's all gonna go straight to Hell... so to speak.
....
We have a LOT of data on X-rays. We know a LOT about the property of X-rays. We can take this data and make some predictions... Theories, if you will. And we can check them out. And verify them. And we can be VERY VERY VERY accurate, especially over time. So accurate, in fact, we can say that we understand how X-rays behave in given circumstances.
If you want to get into "Knowledge and Reality" ... well... again that gets stinky. It's an old Philosophical discussion... and it's a good discussion.
October 20, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
. "We believe that the xrays will do us harm if exposed to often."
And if I don't believe that, the x-rays won't do me any harm?
October 20, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right.
October 20, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, if you believe that x-rays won't do you any harm, that is called "faith," because it is not based on anything provable. Also, Madame Curie didn't KNOW that radiation could kill her, and so she "believed" it was harmless. Well it did kill her.
October 21, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we all learned from that...
If you still believe X-rays are harmless there's something wrong.
October 21, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm lost that this is an answer to what I posted. I was simply letting folks know that that blog is there. I am agnostic on the subject of whether or not god exists (pun intended).
And things not seen can be proven simply by their effects; much of science is that way. Especially space science. And the super-collider will tell science more, though I can't claim I will understand it.
I guess I'm not getting your point. And do forgive me if I don't get back to you if you answer; it seems to be a busy evening here.
October 20, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next pedestrian crossing.
C
October 20, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Mr. Adams. RIP
October 21, 2009 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a big difference between Science and Non-Science "Faith" or "Belief"
"It's not that I have so much faith in Scientists being right as it is I have so much faith in Non-Scientists being wrong." Asimov (paraphrased)
A "Scientific Theory" is based on observations and reasonable conculusions... which can be tested!
IF "X" is true, THEN we would see "Y".
We test it... It's either there or it's not.
Then it's verified by others.
Whether we can see a proton or not, we can certainly show their existence by FIRST theorizing of their nature (what they're made of) and then smashing them and seeing if the right bits and pieces come out.
If the results don't match the theory then that theory is wrong and needs to be looked at closer using the new data.
A scientist is perfectly willing - indeed HAPPY - to find out he/she is wrong! It doesn't destroy them or their ability to do science. It strangely motivates them to pursue a greater understanding.
Compared with a Non-Scientist who is completely beholden to his/her beliefs. They are unable to leave those beliefs behind when presented with evidence to the contrary. They will fight like Hell to do the mental gymnastics necessary to hang on to their belief. (See: Cognitive Dissonance)
Non-Scientist like to use non-scientific "Theories" which is an abuse.
As my friend Kbob pointed out (in one of my previous blog entries) that these people throw the word theory around like it's plastic and meaningless:
"Who damaged your car?"
"I don't know, maybe it was Big Foot!"
Technically that's a "Theory" but it's not a "Scientific Theory". There's a BIG difference.
When scientists speak of electrons and protons and quarks and lots of invisible particles... it's not like they're saying "Big Foot did it". They have carefully studied available data... carefully interpreted that data to see where it leads (with no pre-concieved notions)... and they come up with some honest to goodness Theories. Then they test them. Then they accept the answers they get. And recalculate.
A far more noble enterprise IMHO.
October 20, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep...then some wise guy discovers something totally new and throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing.
I scientist with a closed mind (and believe me a lot of them are) is no better than a religious fanatic or political fanatic.
All we know is what we have discovered up to this point in time. beyond that we know nothing.
C
October 20, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The monkey wrenches insure forward progress. They are good things... they don't ruin anything... Rather the contribute to a greater understanding. That's not a bad thing... and such monkey wrenches don't mean the previous efforts to understand what's going on were made in vain... They were honest attempts at gaining knowledge.
You say, all we know is what we know up to this point... That's good, right? I mean... it demonstrates progress... it demonstrates science's ability to embrace new information and move forward... The opposite of most religious beliefs.
October 21, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are bad scientists to be sure!!! But the good news is: There are LOTS of great scientists. And a cornerstone of science is the ability to reproduce results. Just because 1 scientist claims to have figured something out doesn't mean much. But when multiple scientists reproduce it... well, then it starts to take on meaning.
If the results are irreproduceable, well... then those "bad" scientists are weeded out.
October 21, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U
October 20, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm reminded of an interview I once read in The Journal of Irreproduceable Results (from MIT) (It used to be a good publication).
They interviewed a Nobel Prize Winner... It went something like this:
JIR: May we interview you?
Dr.: Sure.
JIR: Do you have a leather jacket?
Dr.: I live in London and it's often cold and damp. Yes, I have a leather jacket as it is a good idea.
JIR: Do you ride a motorcycle?
Dr.: No. But I have been seen riding a moped around campus from time to time.
JIR: Do you have a tattoo? If so, what is it? If not, why not?
Dr.: No, I do not have a tattoo because that implies I'm not willing to change my mind about something.
And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between a scientist and non-scientist.
October 20, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the closed mindedness of the believers that bugs me the most.
Perhaps my perception is too skewed... perhaps I should recuse myself from this discussion as my upbringing and geographical location have rendered me too biased.
But in all my years I've yet to come across a believer who is able - just for the sake of argument - to imagine there is no God.
Simply can't do it.
There have been those who pretended to imagine this scenario but they were acting "In Bad Faith", if you will.... They really weren't imagining it at all... not seriously.
They ultimately end up telling me, "If there is no God, then what's the point? If there's no God then I could just take money and lie and there'd be no consequences..."
It's such a cynical perspective. And a frightening insight into their "soul". The ONLY thing keeping them "good" is the FEAR of Hell. These people scare me.
But the inability to HONESTLY do a thought experiment. The inability to HONESTLY ask a question. The inability to HONESTLY consider some of the 'answers' you may find...
Well.. that's the definition of a Closed Mind.
A person who simply denies him/herself the opportunity to view the world from a different perspective has a closed mind.
How is this a good thing?
October 21, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much for your many contributions here. I've really enjoyed your comments, and I've found your thoughts very intriguing. I'll be watching out for other posts from you.
October 21, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you :)
October 21, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well my initial intention was to have a discussion about the legitimacy of the bible (or any religious writing for that matter).
In my view taking any written work as being anything more that one or more persons interpretation of the experience of an event is foolish. that does not mean there is no wisdom there. It does mean you have to take a lot of it with a very large grain of salt.
A great deal of what has been written in the bible or qur'an or the I ching was one or more individuals own ideas. And far too often for the sole purpose to advance their personal agendas.
C
October 20, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not know Crumb wrote a comic book of the bible
i would love to read it.
The Catholics have two sermons every sunday and one of them is from the bible and the second for money
Usually it is from the NT. We have feast days. 52 of them plus the holy days of obligation. The missel sp tell you what the reading is for the specific feast day.
I so recall psalms, maybe proverbs from time to time.
WHO THE HELL CARES ANYWAY. I AM WITH HITCHENS ON THIS.
October 20, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the whole Bible. It's just Genesis (all 50 chapters).
I'm gonna tackle it soon :)
October 21, 2009 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I read your post it seemed to poke fun at people who choose to practice religion or read the bible
A person's religion is a very personal thing. Just because one person chooses not to believe in a god doesn't mean they should chastise people who do, and vice versa
October 20, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree in principle. I think for some of us the objections are that there are people who insist that government should be ruled by Biblical principles and dogma. And some trumpet their Christian/Biblical standards while not seemingly practicing what Christ seem to teach. And the idea that religious factions of Christianity pluck out of the Bible which rules to live by, judge by, and hate by. And plenty do dip into the Old Testament when it serves there purpose.
October 20, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure chastise is the right word... but, as I argued earlier, a believers need to believe in something...and their inability to lose that belief in the light of new information to the contrary... renders them with a closed mind.
When those closed minded people are upset that others are critical of them just because they've closed their mind... well... it sounds like false indignation. (or at least unjustified indignation)
I'm sorry... but I can't take you seriously. The opinion of someone who closes their eyes and plugs their ears and insists on believing something no matter what... Who has made up their mind about such things and ain't gonna change it no matter what!! ...well... what do you expect, really?
October 21, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Icky, I don't think I am closed minded. In fact, I have been accused of being so open-minded that my brains are falling out. I constantly re-think every belief I have to make sure they still hold up for me.
I have changed so much since arriving here at TPM it is almost unbelievable (and some don't believe it!) But one thing that has remained constant is my belief in God. I question it almost daily. And every day I come up with the same answer...in the absence of proof one way or the other, I choose to believe. I am not certain of anything, except that my life works better with Him, than it does without (see your post for further comments.)
October 21, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad it works for you. Truly.
May you live a long happy life.
:)
October 21, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cross posted...
____________________
The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
October 21, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Chris. I would not have wanted to miss this.
October 20, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love love love Saramoga's book "Blindness." But...
Saramoga doesn't have a leg to stand on. Human history would be different without the Bible, but there were competing faiths and doctrines that doubtless would have filled the void. Zoroaster, Mani, Marcion, Basilidies, Valentinus, and many others had developed or refined doctrine that were either in part or entirely separate from the burgeoning Roman Catholic Church. For all we know, Leo's entourage could have failed to discourage the Monophysites, and the church itself would be unrecognizeable.
In other words, it isn't just the church, it is the doctrine and interpretation of divine materials. The Bible, in all its translations, versions and edits is a document that is perceived by the human mind.
One thing that has always bothered me is how much people project their human limitations on the words "divinely inspired." I have heard it mean that it is factually infallible, and I have even heard criticism that implies that the book would be pure and beautiful if it were truly divinely inspired.
Neither is true. The Bible is not only impure (there is no one true translation) but riddled with historical and factual inaccuacies. But that in no way impacts the concept of divine inspiraton. In my opinion, the Bible exists as an insight tool into human nature and the discordant recipe of values, class, and perception that drives our existence. If anything, relying on the book as an infallible manual to life deprives you of the very thing that makes the Bible so marvelous: its storytelling.
I believe in Christ no matter whether or not Christ the man existed. I believe in Christ the spirit who speaks directly to the times we live in. Even as a literary figment, his voice speaks with the authority of human truth-- embodied wisdom.
You can believe in a thing that is unreal so long as you understand the matter in spirit. Because spirit is immaterial and is not beholden to material law. There is no scientific theory of love; science can explain how love exists but not the sensation of love in the human animal. To say otherwise is to hold the mechanistic conception of reality, which is a dogma all its own. It allows otherwise brilliant thinkers like Dawkins devolve into poppycock blather about delusion by applying material rule to a spiritual concept. And then turn around and discuss memes, which is as new age a concept as anything these days.
And for those who hold that scientific inquiry is less important than spiritual inquiry, I need only point to those figures who have lived and died for spirit and the mountains they have moved from the abiding love of spirit.
October 20, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Science is a rule for observing the universe. It states that things have consequences. If we have a theory that a thing exists, predictions can be made from this. If the predictions are shown to be false -- our theory is false. If the predictions are true, all we knows is that our theory has not yet been proven false. The more predictions that pan out, the more likely it is that the theory is correct -- corresponds to something in reality.
For example, if I have a theory that applying heat to water will make the water hot, and I do so and the water gets cold, my theory is disproved.
Unless there is some such test available the a proposed theory is held to be meaningless -- if my theory is that if I apply heat to water, the water will either remain the same or get hotter or colder. This is not a scientific theory because there is no means to disprove it.
Faith is almost the exact opposite of science. The theory held by the believers seems to be that there is no evidence which could get me to disbelieve this article of faith.
October 21, 2009 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a big fan of Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins' anti-religion screeds, but I love this. [hmm... hope the photo shows up in the post, cause I'm not seeing it in the preview]
A little more seriously, Martin Heidegger argued that the fundamental question of philosophy is:
Science addresses the question, using quantum field theory to speculate about a state that is the simplest of all conceivable states. It has no mass, no energy, no space, no time, no spin, no bosons, no fermions—nothing. The folks who can do the quantum math (disclaimer: I'm not one of them), say that a state of nothingness is unlikely. Something is a little over twice as probable as nothing.[1]
Or, as Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek put it:
Nothing is unstable! That explains why the Big Bang is attributed to a "random perturbation of the void." A random disturbance originating in nothing.
If you speak the math this stuff makes sense. But it doesn't grip the heart and light up the mind with meaning and purpose. It's pretty thin gruel if mathematics isn't your bag.
On the other hand, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," can inspire a feeling very much akin to saying that the world began with a random perturbation of the void. As in, WTF?
Poets and mathemeticians can have a lot of fun with this. In my own experience, poets come closer to touching the mystery of existence. The scientific method can't be beat for answering what? and how? and when? But it doesn't go to why? and what for? the questions that animate our innermost conversations. Science is physical, not metaphysical, and metaphysics has lost too much ground to physics since Galileo and Newton burst onto the scene.
The appeal for meaning to science, or to faith, can be more unsatisfactory the more one expects of them. For us, there are questions with no answers. Life is uncertain.
For a western athiest, Dawkins has done an okay bad job, with his storefront sign, of approximating the Zen saying...
...with one typically western oversight. Implicit in the Zen aphorism is the long walk that leads one from chopping wood and carrying water, to chopping wood and carrying water. If there's anything implicit in the Dawkins aphorism, it may be more akin to Alfred E. Newman's famous slogan.
Back to the point of cmaukonen's original post. Sometimes it isn't asking questions that gets us into trouble. It's taking the answers seriously.
[1] Thanks to Victor J. Stenger, "Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing," Skeptical Briefs, June 2006.
October 21, 2009 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did something wrong in the previous post. There was supposed to be a photo at the beginning of the blog showing Richard Dawkins looking up at a sign posted above his door that said:
So if what I wrote makes no sense, maybe my failure to insert the photo is the reason why.
If there are other reasons for my incoherence, maybe I'd rather remain ignorant of them...
October 21, 2009 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
My stars, Mr. Planet, that was grand to read! You have me smiling ear to ear!
My Christianist nephew came to us a few years ago; he was in crisis about the Existence of God. We spent long nights questioning him and listening to his answers and history with the subject.
My thing is the end is always: Why struggle over it? You can't Know; you can only believe? Just live your life the way you know you should anyway. I like to say prayers, so I do. It doesn't require that I know there is someone/something on the other end of the receiver.
So he went around the world; when he came back he phoned me and said, "Now I know. God does exist."
I of course said, "That you are now positive about it; that's what has me worried."
He, of course, turns out to require the Absolute Rules that come with his chosen churches. He has no inner life with which to check out his Beliefs.
Anyway, thanks for this!
October 21, 2009 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy,
Remarkable comment.
So many of my formerly Christian family and friends have become Christianists. I think you put your finger on it when you say "He, of course, turns out to require the Absolute Rules..."
That's one powerful response to uncertainty.
Have you read "The Razor's Edge?" It's your nephew's quest, turned on its head.
October 21, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
We may not know who wrote the original bible or any of its plagarized versions but we do know who their likely descendants are. Politicians and car salesmen with a P.T. Barnum, maybe a magician or two and a good old fashioned witch doctor type character.
Of course the bible and none of these is a useful reference if you happen to be looking for a truth of some sort.
October 21, 2009 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink