[Vision2020] Fragments of our Lord

Tue Dec 30 16:48:44 PST 2008

Re: [Vision2020] Fragments of our LordJoe,

Backwards:

Apparently, I have not meet the same scientists and/or philosophers of science that you have.  Most that I have read or debated with in person (Karl Popper, Herbert Feigl, et al) hold that the so-called uniformity of nature doctrine is a convenient but falsifiable assumption.  In fact, a very interesting article in an issue of New Scientist earlier this year raises the question of whether a certain fundamental "constant" of nature may be very, very slowly changing.  At his point the perceived change may be due to the difference of measurement methods and/or accuracy; again, it may not -- it may be real -- time will tell.

On the issue of transubstantiation:  If no actual "accidental" properties are changed by the mutterings of mumbo-jumbo, what is changed?  I have posted just below a part of a previous post containing a slightly modified quote* from an apostate Catholic, who was a protégé of Wittgenstein, which uses humor to show how ridiculous "ghost in the machine" claims similar to  transubstantiation are.  Just because a "ghost in the machine" claim cannot be disproved, does not mean that it is true and should be acted upon.  Another example:  Mental illness is really caused by being possessed by demons.

Further, not in theory, but obviously in practice, Catholicism is a cafeteria religion.  On many important points of doctrine, many Catholic choose to believe or not, but still consider themselves Catholics.  Philosophically, this is really a linguistic problem and may make for an interesting discussion, but like the question of who is the greatest athlete ever, hardly amenable to agreement on any final answer.  (Catholics are not the only Christian sect with "loose in the cafeteria" members.)

Further, not all Christians view transubstantiation in the same way as Catholics, as Keely pointed out.  Some sects/cults use it in part to con their members into believing they are part of a special chosen few and the eating of the specially prepared flesh of some alleged God keeps them that way or demonstrates their closeness.  I can attest, as can several others on this list, that this belief does influence their behavior and in ways you and I would consider harmful -- racism, sexism, homophobia and its attendant discrimination and denigration, theocracy, etc.  You do not have to look outside the immediate area to find such sects/cults -- there are at least two large ones.

There may be some Catholics/other Christians whose behavior is not much altered by their belief in transubstantiation.  However, many view it a an integrated, non-separable important component of their faith, and as part of the price of their ticket to some alleged eternal bliss, their hope of ultimate destination.  Some of these people use that entire, allegedly integrated faith and/or questions/attacks/ridicule of it to resort to violence, discrimination, etc to defend and promulgate it, and to motivate/justify many harmful acts.

Here's the main point:  If someone actually believes the doctrines of their religious faith, then those doctrines cannot help but influence/guide their behavior.  To the extent that these doctrines are not testable and lead to harmful actions, those doctrines and their basis ought be questioned, discussed, and exposed as bunkum, including using ridicule to do this where possibly effective.

Minor point:  Is it wrong to make fun of something just for the hell of it?  You write:

"If there is some other purpose - literary merit, dialogue, whatever - I don't have much of a problem with it."

Making fun of something is an act at least with some purpose(s), if only for entertainment, etc.  The issue then becomes what purposes are legitimate?  Like the question of who is the greatest athlete ever, it would be hard to find universal agreement on an answer.  Both you and I are likely to agree that making toxic fun of someone's race, sexual orientation, ethic/geographical origin, etc. is not appropriate.  In some cases, I think that we would agree that using humor to show the absurdity of beliefs that result in harmful action is not only OK, but laudable, if effective.

I personally think that religious/social/political/ethical beliefs based on "ghost in the machine" concepts like transubstantiation are harmful in that they cannot be disproven in any way, and can be used to irrationally motivate/justify harmful behavior.  Encouraging such actions based on "ghost in the machine" concepts is encouraging/reinforcing people to act without carefully thinking through the consequences of their actions based on the probable/estimated results of those actions, but instead acting on some nonsensical and/or incomprehensible principle.  Using reasoning and logic to guide behavior is not perfect, and such certainly can result in errors, sometimes grave ones.  However, in my opinion, using that method such gives much better results in the long run than using superstition, ignorance, and nonsense.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point.

W.

*Neighbors A & B were having an over-the-back-fence discussion:

A:    I heard you have a new kind of powerful watchdog or something.

B:    Yes, it is called the Odg.

A:    What does it do?

B:    It watches over us continually and protects us and our property from harm.

A:    I haven't seen anything.  Where is it?

B:    The Odg is invisible.

A:    I have heard any barking or anything.

B:    The Odg makes no sound.

A:    You don't have a fence.  How do you keep the Odg in?

B:    The Odg stays with us always.  It is the loving nature of the Odg to do so.

A:    Your lawn is immaculate.  I don't see any Odg droppings at all.

B:    The Odg never eats.  Consequently, it makes no droppings.  It doesn't slobber or have bad breath either.

A:    Tell me again what it does.

B:    It watches over us and protects us from all harms.  It requires only unquestioning belief, obedience, and adulation on our part in return.

A:    But wasn't your home robbed of everything of value, weren't you badly beaten up, and wasn't your wife taken for and enjoyed a month-long sexual romp by a motorcycle gang a few months ago?

B:    Yes, but it must of been good for us, else the Odg would not have let it happen. 

Can you do anagrams?

  ----- Original Message -----From: Joseph Campbell 
  To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 11:04 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fragments of our Lord

  Thanks, Wayne.

  Note that I said it wasn't a good idea to make fun of beliefs just for the sake of making fun. If there is some other purpose - literary merit, dialogue, whatever - I don't have much of a problem with it. I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud. I think it is fine to poke fun in the midst of serious discussion but I just don't seem much point in the continued jokes about transubstantiation. Back when No Weatherman was making fun of the practices of Kenyans and Muslims I found it needlessly offensive and I would say the same about some of the comments in this thread. I don't see much discussion here or much of a dialogue.

  I agree that some religious beliefs are harmful, as are some non-religious beliefs. Ted had a nice post on this topic a while back where he noted the example of Bush and his "religious" beliefs playing a role in the war in Iraq. But what really was the problem in this case? It is Bush's religious beliefs or his arrogant, dogmatic attachment to them and the refusal to consider the views of others as being equally meaningful? I'd say it was the latter, not the former. I really don't care what people believe but certainly I care what they do. And it is dogma more than anything else that leads to an easy transition from belief to action. All the more reason to preach tolerance, respect, and acceptance of other view points.

  Two other things about transubstantiation (which I never believed, by the way, even when I was Catholic). By your definition it does not count as an important* belief since it rarely if ever is manifested in some action. Some Catholics believe in transubstantiation and some don't and I doubt you could tell the difference by following them around and seeing how they behave.

  Second, it is absurd to suggest that transubstantiation can be "challenged by evidence and logic." What evidence disproves it? According to the doctrine, the substance of the bread and wine changes by not the accidental properties. In other words, the appearance of the bread and wine is exactly the same after it has been transubstantiated. Of course, you might note that the doctrine is not falsifiable but that is another issue. To say it can be challenged by evidence is absurd. And, as I've noted before, science is full of its share of unfalsifiable doctrines (the principle of the uniformity of nature, to name one example), so it has no advantage here!

  Nor am I anti-science. I just think, like any system of beliefs, it has its limits.

  Best, Joe

  On 12/30/08 10:13 AM, "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com> wrote:

    Joe,

    We may all have irrational beliefs.  However, the point Chasuk via Freud was making is this:

    Part of becoming an adult is to begin weighing evidence to decide if important* beliefs are really true; and to begin weighing the evidence for our important* beliefs when they are challenged by evidence and logic, as in this forum, or by reflection and/or direct experience.

    As for making fun of people's beliefs, religious or otherwise, a lot of great literature does just that.  Should we just throw this literature away?  Is it somehow unworthy because it uses humor to make a point about various irrationalities?

    Further, some religious beliefs are very harmful, for example, those that led to the inquisition, those that support clitoridectomy or witch hunts, and those that promulgate racism, homophobia, sexism, ethnic discrimination, theocracy, etc.  If humor can be used as a tactic to emasculate/eviscerate/point out the folly these toxic beliefs, why not?  Humor often works in persuasive discourse when other methods fail.

    [Not sent from an iPhone.]

    W.

    *Beliefs that shape and determine our actions especially when the outcome of these beliefs affects, directly or indirectly, other sentient beings.

      ----- Original Message ----- 

      From:  Joseph Campbell <mailto:josephc at wsu.edu>   

      To: Chasuk <mailto:chasuk at gmail.com>  

      Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com ; nielsen at uidaho.edu 

      Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 7:31  AM

      Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fragments of  our Lord

      I don't think think it is good to make fun of people's beliefs  -  
      religious or otherwise - just for the sake of making fun. All of  us  
      have irrational beliefs since we have far more beliefs than we  could  
      possibly support with argument and evidence.

      Sent from  my iPhone

      On Dec 29, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:

      > I  agree with Freud, and with Paul.
      >
      > Paul wrote:
      >
      > 1  Corinthians 13:11-12
      >
      > When I was a child, I spake as a child, I  understood as a child, I
      > thought as a child: but when I became a man,  I put away childish
      > things.
      > For now we see through a glass,  darkly; but then face to face: now I
      > know in part; but then shall I  know even as also I am known.
      >
      > Freud believed that religion was  a transitional stage between the
      > childhood and the adult phases of  human development; that, as a
      > species, we currently see "through a  glass, darkly," but that it is
      > now time for us to "put away childish  things."
      >
      > Amen!
      >
      >  =======================================================
      > List services  made available by First Step Internet,
      > serving the communities of the  Palouse since  1994.
      >                http://www.fsr.net
      >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
      >  =======================================================

      =======================================================
       List  services made available by First Step Internet, 
       serving the  communities of the Palouse since 1994.    
                      http://www.fsr.net                        
                mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
      =======================================================

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    =======================================================
     List services made available by First Step Internet, 
     serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                   http://www.fsr.net                       
              mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
    =======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081230/7a5f7dad/attachment-0001.html 