Re: Need More Be Said ???

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 12:22:47 -0700, Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 08:29:55 -0700, Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 18:38:19 -0700, Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

<snip>


If you have any doubt about the role of neoconservatives in getting us
into the quagmire in Iraq, there is a very nice study done on this at:

http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-07092005-000303/unrestricted/Binder1.pdf

Somebody on TV or radio lately, I don't remember where, pointed
out that many of those who helped talk Americans into this huge
mess in Iraq, people like Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, are
still thriving on the pundit circuit. Apparently, some people still
believe what they say, despite their horrible record,



Rumple, if that is really you, welcome back! You have been missed.
Hope you are well. How are your knees?

Have you finished The God Delusion?

Regarding the air time that the neoconservatives are getting, I think
that the press is bending over backwards to give equal time.


My knees are fine. Everybody asks about my knees it
seems, but they're no concern to me at all compared to
losing my second cat. It's been so long now since I read
"The God Delusion" that it took me a moment to
remember it was by Dawkins. Reading Dawkins is like
reading myself because I agree with him so completely.

I ran into an interesting phenomenon after my second
cat died. It's the myth of "The Rainbow Bridge", where
pets go after they die. The pets run around and have
fun at The Rainbow Bridge, but there's one thing missing:
their human owners. After the owners die, they come to
the Rainbow Bridge and meet their pets again, then
pets and owners live happily ever after, together again,
in some never-never land. It's a very tempting myth to
anyone who has lost a pet. I ran across mention of it so
often that it's apparent that a lot of people accept it to
some degree as a means of assuaging their grief over
losing pets. It shows to me the seductiveness of religion
better than the far less appealing myths of Christianity
and other religions which are less appealing because,
antique as they are, they are encrusted with things so
absurd and things so cruel as to make them seem
unworthy of modern belief. It would be very comforting
to believe in The Rainbow Bridge, if one could
persuade oneself of that which is not merely not in
evidence, but even contrary to evidence. The
Rainbow Bridge myth illustrates the continuing pull of
religion on humans, willing to deceive themselves for
comfort. What I still can't really understand though,
is why the ancient religions, so horribly flawed in the
eyes of modern sensibilities, retain their power. I can
only assume that the power of consensus is what
keeps them from disappearing. There's a saying
that "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is
still a foolish thing", but it seems that most of
humanity think that if a million people believe a
foolish thing, it must not be so foolish. Silly, silly,
silly. If humanity were more attractive, one might
pity people for falling into such nonsense.

Ancient religion is not benign, though, unlike
The Rainbow Bridge, as evidenced by all the war
and horrible behaviour toward others that's bred
by the ancient religions. As Stevie Smith wrote in
the conclusion to her poem "How do you see?":

I do not think we shall be able to bear much longer the dishonesty
Of clinging for comfort to beliefs we do not believe in,
For comfort, and to be comfortably free of the fear
Of diminishing good, as if truth were a convenience.
I think if we do not learn quickly, and learn to teach children
To be good without enchantment, without the help
Of beautiful painted fairy tales pretending to be true,,
Then I think it will be too much for us, the dishonesty,
And, armed as we are now, we shall kill everybody,
It will be too much for us, we shall kill everybody.
http://www.strange-attractor.co.uk/stevirel.htm




On pets, I was raised on a farm and have less attachment to pets,
although I will certainly admit to feeling grief when a special pet
dies. Reminds me of a collie that I once bought for my son. A
beautiful tricolor and I bought him from a man who was getting married
to a woman who didn't want the dog. Sad! I swear that the poor dog
grieved for his owner. We had to keep him in a fenced yard or he would
head west, even though his former owner lived a good 50 miles away. I
cannot imagine how he knew. Well, this dog really did not consider
himself to be our dog for several years. Then, he contracted a
particularly nasty skin disease that the vet could not seem to cure.
The poor dog went around with one of those collars to keep him from
making it worse. But, it kept getting worse and the poor dog was in
misery. In desperation, I was considering putting him down when I
thought I would try one last thing. I remembered that we used a
medicine for diaper rash on our children and it worked well. I tried it
and the rash was cleared up in no time. After that, that dog decided
that maybe he should stick with us. He never ran away again. Yes, I
cried when that dog died!

My wife has a special weakness for pets and when her poodle died, she
was devastated. She swore that she would never again place herself in a
position of having only one pet. For about a year she talked about
owning five dogs and did a great deal of research on best breeds, health
issues, etc. After getting the second dog, however, her interests
broadened. We now have two cats, two dogs, 13 chickens and five horses!
At least we have gotten to the point where if a hawk gets one of the
chickens it is not a personal disaster!

Dawkins discusses the issue of which living beings have a soul. Do
animals have a soul? Fundamentalist Christians believe in a strict
separation between humans who have a soul and animals which they claim
do not. But, how do you draw the line? If one believes in evolution
(which some fundamentalists admittedly do not) then at what point do
humans get to have a soul when animals do not? Did Neanderthals? Did
Australopithecus Afarensis? Do Chimpanzees?


The idea in Christianity that humans have a "soul" but animals
do not seems to me a particularly conspicuous flaw. Cats and
dogs have 1/12 the brain surface area, where "consciousness"
resides, that adult humans have, which is maybe more than
human babies have. I know life was tough in ancient times,
and one couldn't indulge in the effete sensibility in which we
moderns luxuriate, but I still don't really see how a human could
come to know an animal without realizing the kinship. Probably
my modern comfort has made inaccessible to me a deep
understanding of just how savage a human being can become
because of hard life circumstances, though. I'm sure Genghis
Khan would have had no patience with me, but would just
have had me shot, or in those times beheaded, as quickly and
neatly as possible.

When I was a teenager, I had a little mantra I used to repeat
whenever anybody mentioned the "soul", that "the soul is the
sum of the psychic functions". That still seems a good enough
synopsis to me. It carries with it the danger that intelligent
humans are therefore more "soulful" than less intelligent ones,
but I realize we can't really afford as a species to abandon
the fiction that "all men are created equal" if we want to
maintain a merciful society that is ultimately in the best
interests of everyone. We can keep the fiction although we
realize it's a fiction though. I think the prefatory comment
in the Declaration of Independence that "we hold these truths
to be self-evident" is tacit acknowledgement that follows will
be fiction.

My mantra of course precludes the idea that the "soul" can
survive the loss of electrical activity in the brain. That's a
concern to Christians and others of such "ilk", I suppose,
but it's no concern at all to me - it's just an acknowledgement
of fact. I don't feel I can be expected to make sense, for the
benefit of Christians, out of things they believe that don't make
sense. A few months ago I was chatting with an old guy,
whom I was glad to see again the other day because I hadn't
seen him in so long that I though he may have died. In that
conversation, he had asked if I was sure about the atheistic
stance I had just taken, and I'd said, "Yes, I'm sure." On
further prompting, I pointed out that a baby really has no
sense at all, a child has more, and an adolescent has
much more. On the other hand, when people become
mentally debilitated, their awareness decreases. If there's a
fixed "soul" that doesn't change, then how can that
unchanging soul be accommodated by a clearly changing
level of awareness? It just doesn't compute. I didn't press
further, after I remembered how much older than myself he
was, and maybe he didn't want to hear this. Similarly,
when people ask where I'll be after I die, I answer that I'll
be the same as I was before I was born.

It is fun being in this group. I have missed it, and you,
but the loss of my cat threw me into too deep an
unhappiness to make me want to, or be able to, feel any
better for quite a long time.



You are absolutely right about the compelling appeal of religion. I
tend to like the meme hypothesis. These beliefs have been evolving for
a very long time and they have very good survival properties.


I'm totally sold on the "meme" hypothesis, though as
someone I read once pointed out, the "meme" hypothesis
is itself a "meme"! (I'm sure Dawkins himself would
enthusiastically endorse that observation.)



Man, I have missed talking to you!


Likewise, as noted above!

Your mention of my favourite philosophical scientist, Richard
Dawkins, prompted me to check if there was anything new
from my favourite scientific philosopher, Daniel C. Dennett,
but there seems to be nothing new since "Breaking the
Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. (2006)" That book
is superb, though it's redundant to add "superb" to anything
by Dawkins or Dennett. My favourite fruits are bananas
and blueberries, by the way, so I was pleased when I learned
that Dennett raises blueberries on his farm in Maine.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion
    ... you are talking 17th century philosophy. ... "The soul is whatever a living being has while ... here is a living dog; ... the dogs do not keep humans as pets. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Spiked Article/Atheists and EcoChristians
    ... I've said that is like a soul at all. ... Jane is demonstrating that bias - humans are more worthy because our ... When I can go to the dog hospital--founded by dogs, ... You continually confuse "moral worth' with moral OBLIGATION. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion
    ... What has all this to do with your claim that a soul exists? ... soul then, as there is no real difference between us and, say, a dog, ... There are quite real differences between humans and dogs. ... I'm not sure why you think a debate about chimps vis a vis humans ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Now Ive Seen Everything! - My Dog Cafe
    ... More pets than people, that doesn't sound right. ... friendly restaurants have a pet menus (like $20 for a dog plate incl. ... their flocks, but with humans as their flocks, they are only together 8-10 ... opinion, if there isn't anyone else home all day. ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
    ... And why is my caring about MY pets... ... you have pets VS humans. ... And most people would consider the idea that a dog, cat, etc., is the equal in importance to a human to be simply incorrect. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)