[Vision2020] Fragments of our Lord
Joseph Campbell
josephc at wsu.edu
Wed Dec 31 10:00:19 PST 2008
Thanks again, Wayne.
First, I¹m not surprised that Popper thought that the principle of the
uniformity of nature was falsifiable. And if you can find five contemporary
philosophers of science who still take Popper seriously, I¹ll buy you a hat.
Even if one could prove that ³a certain fundamental Œconstant¹ of nature may
be very, very slowly changing² how would it follow that nature was not
uniform? Change happens all the time. And if it is true that nature is not
uniform, what becomes of our scientific claims? What use is it that the law
of gravity has been ³proven² time and time again if it turns out that nature
is not uniform and tomorrow things might be different? What becomes of
science, of the status of laws of nature then?
It is interesting that you mention Wittgenstein. Here is a nice quote from
On Certainty, where he responds to G.E. Moore¹s suggestion that we can have
certain knowledge of our basic empirical beliefs: ³I believe that every
human being has two human parents; but Catholics believe that Jesus only had
a human mother. And other people might believe that there are human beings
with no parents, and give no credence to the contrary evidence. Catholics
believe as well that in certain circumstances a wafer completely changes its
nature, and at the same time that all evidence proves the contrary. And so
if Moore said ŒI know that this is wine and not blood¹, Catholics would
contradict him.² (239) My own views on this subject were very much
influenced by Wittgenstein.
Further, there need not be a ³ghost in the machine² assumption behind the
doctrine of transubstantiation. The view I argued for below holds that the
substance changes (from bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ) yet
none of the sensible qualities change. The sensible qualities are accidental
properties, meaning none of them are essential to the physical substances;
the qualities might remain the same even though the substances change. After
the change, it appears to be bread and wine but it is not. The view is not
that Christ¹s soul inhabits the bead and wine but that the bread turns into
his body and the wine turns into his blood. The body and blood of Christ,
like the original bread and wine, are physical things not immaterial
³ghosts.² I find it puzzling how you could have distain for a view that you
don¹t seem to fully understand.
I¹m not asking you to believe the doctrine of transubstantiation. I don¹t
believe it. My own views about the nature of the world are pretty close to
yours. Where our views differ is in our epistemological beliefs. You seem to
think that our world view is logically and empirically superior to others
whereas I have my doubts. And I know as well as I know anything that your
overly simplified logical positivist view won¹t work. To the extent that our
view of the world is supported it is supported to a large extent by
pragmatic considerations, like simplicity, and there is no way of reducing
simplicity, etc. to logic and experience.
You might reply that if two things share all of their sensible qualities,
and if there is no possible way to distinguish them, then the ³two² things
are really just one and the same thing. But this strikes me as just another
metaphysical principle given without argument in an effort to prop up
your/our world view and make it look more rational than it in fact is. Given
the principle it seems like the view follows from logic and experience
alone. But since the principle itself is not supported by logic and
experience, things are not as easy as you make it seem.
Lastly, you still seem to think that Christians who hold the doctrine of
transubstantiation are dangerous, even though you have not produced one
shred of empirical data to support your claim. You write: ³If 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.²
Give me a break. What, precisely, is the harmful action that will result
from a belief in transubstantiation? As it stands, this is nothing more than
an unsupported accusation. It is ironic that some of my Christian friends
make the same false accusations about atheists: Atheism leads to harmful
actions, for after all if there is no God what is to prevent you from acting
any evil way that you¹d like? You have given no more reason to believe your
claims than my Christian friends have given me to believe their claims. From
my point of view, both are equally absurd.
I agree that there are instances in which one lets his irrational world
views get in the way and that this might have dangerous consequences. Bush¹s
views about the environment in general, and global warming in particular,
might be a good example. So I¹m not suggesting that pointing out religious
views, or world views in general, should be off-base. Nor am I suggesting
that humor and even ridicule about these matters is off-limits. (I thought
that some of Tom¹s jokes in this thread were pretty funny, for instance.)
But if I¹m going to comment on No Weatherman¹s ridiculous, racist rants
against Muslims and Africans, then I should be willing to say the same
against equally ridiculous claims about Christian doctrines, or Chas¹s even
more ridiculous claim that religion is ³a transitional stage between the
childhood and the adult phases of human development.² A view where one¹s
opponents ‹ and over half the population of the world ‹ come off as
infantile idiots is a little too convenient and certainly worthy of
commentary. Not that I think that I¹ve convinced you or Chas of anything,
mind you!
Best, Joe
On 12/30/08 4:48 PM, "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
> Joe,
>
> 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 don¹t
> 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 <mailto:josephc at wsu.edu>
>>
>> To: Art Deco <mailto:deco at moscow.com> ; Vision 2020
>> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 11:04 AM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fragments of our Lord
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Wayne.
>>
>> Note that I said it wasn¹t 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 don¹t have much of a problem with it. I¹m 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 don¹t 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 don¹t 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 ³religious² beliefs playing a role in the war in
>> Iraq. But what really was the problem in this case? It is Bush¹s religious
>> beliefs or his arrogant, dogmatic attachment to them and the refusal to
>> consider the views of others as being equally meaningful? I¹d say it was the
>> latter, not the former. I really don¹t 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 don¹t 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 ³challenged
>> by evidence and logic.² 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 I¹ve 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
>>> =======================================================
>>
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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/20081231/5e07cf50/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list