<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [Vision2020] Fragments of our Lord</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16788" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Backwards:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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 <EM>New Scientist</EM>
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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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<STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4>*</FONT></STRONG> 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Minor point: Is it wrong to make fun of something just
for the hell of it? You write:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=Verdana color=#0000ff>"If there is some other
purpose — literary merit, dialogue, whatever — I don’t have much of a problem
with it."</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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 s</FONT><FONT
size=2>uch 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I guess we'll just have to disagree on this
point.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>W.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><STRONG><FONT
color=#ff0000>*</FONT></STRONG>Neighbors A & B were having an
over-the-back-fence discussion:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>A: I heard you have a
new kind of powerful watchdog or something.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: Yes, it is called
the Odg.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>A: What does it
do?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: It watches over us
continually and protects us and our property from harm.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>A: I haven't seen
anything. Where is it?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: The Odg is
invisible.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>A: I have heard any
barking or anything.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: The Odg
makes no sound.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>A: You don't have a
fence. How do you keep the Odg in?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: The Odg stays with
us always. It is the loving nature of the Odg to do so.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>A: Your lawn is
immaculate. I don't see any Odg droppings at all.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: The Odg never
eats. Consequently, it makes no droppings. It doesn't slobber or
have bad breath either.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>A: Tell me again what
it does.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: It watches over us
and protects us from all harms. It requires only unquestioning belief,
obedience, and adulation on our part in return.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: Yes, but it must
of been good for us, else the Odg would not have let it happen. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=4>Can you do anagrams?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----<B>From:</B> <A
title=josephc@wsu.edu href="mailto:josephc@wsu.edu">Joseph Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 30, 2008 11:04
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Fragments of
our Lord</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">Thanks, Wayne.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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!<BR><BR>Nor am I anti-science. I just think, like any system of
beliefs, it has its limits.<BR><BR>Best, Joe<BR><BR>On 12/30/08 10:13 AM, "Art
Deco" <deco@moscow.com> wrote:<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">Joe,<BR> <BR>We may all have irrational
beliefs. However, the point Chasuk via Freud was making is
this:<BR> <BR>Part of becoming an adult is to begin weighing evidence
to decide if <B>important</B></SPAN><B><FONT size=5><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px">*</SPAN></FONT></B><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">
beliefs are really true; and to begin weighing the evidence for our
<B>important</B></SPAN><B><FONT size=5><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px">*</SPAN></FONT></B><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">
beliefs when they are challenged by evidence and logic, as in this forum, or
by reflection and/or direct experience.<BR> <BR>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?<BR> <BR>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.<BR> <BR>[Not sent from an
iPhone.]<BR> <BR>W.<BR> <BR></SPAN><FONT size=5><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><B>*</B></SPAN></FONT><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">Beliefs that shape and determine our actions
especially when the outcome of these beliefs affects, directly or
indirectly, other sentient beings.<BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px"><BR>----- Original Message -----
<BR> <BR><B>From:</B> Joseph Campbell <A
href="mailto:josephc@wsu.edu"><mailto:josephc@wsu.edu></A>
<BR> <BR><B>To:</B> Chasuk <A
href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com"><mailto:chasuk@gmail.com></A>
<BR> <BR><B>Cc:</B> vision2020@moscow.com ; nielsen@uidaho.edu
<BR> <BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 30, 2008 7:31
AM<BR> <BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Fragments of
our Lord<BR> <BR><BR>I don't think think it is good to make fun
of people's beliefs - <BR>religious or otherwise - just for
the sake of making fun. All of us <BR>have irrational beliefs
since we have far more beliefs than we could <BR>possibly
support with argument and evidence.<BR><BR>Sent from my
iPhone<BR><BR>On Dec 29, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Chasuk <chasuk@gmail.com>
wrote:<BR><BR>> I agree with Freud, and with
Paul.<BR>><BR>> Paul wrote:<BR>><BR>> 1 Corinthians
13:11-12<BR>><BR>> When I was a child, I spake as a child, I
understood as a child, I<BR>> thought as a child: but when I
became a man, I put away childish<BR>> things.<BR>> For now we
see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I<BR>>
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am
known.<BR>><BR>> Freud believed that religion was a
transitional stage between the<BR>> childhood and the adult phases of
human development; that, as a<BR>> species, we currently see
"through a glass, darkly," but that it is<BR>> now time for us to
"put away childish things."<BR>><BR>> Amen!<BR>><BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List
services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
=======================================================<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving
the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT
face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px"><BR>
<HR align=center width="95%" SIZE=3>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT face="Monaco, Courier New"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10px">=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT
size=2><FONT face="Monaco, Courier New"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10px"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>