Re: Roger Ebert comes out of the closet!!

On Sep 10, 12:54 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 8, 2:32 pm, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 8, 3:47 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 8, 8:00 am, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>
"moderate"
theists like ken miller and francis collins believe in cartoon gods as
well, yet any time anybody criticizes those beliefs, you accuse them
of not understanding theology. well go ahead and tell me what i am
missing when francis collins says the virgin birth literally happened.
tell me how i am failing to appreciate some subtle theological point
that has nothing to do with him reading the gospel stories literally.

I've never read either. Why - do they have any interesting insight
into science? I am currently reading "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by
Carrol and "Your Inner Fish" by Shubin. Um, and "Fighting Facts, vol
2" by Loren Christensen.

the point was that people like miller and collins get a free pass to
say any absurd thing they want about the universe, so long as they
still accept evolution. and anybody who criticizes those absurdities
is told to sit down and shut up.

Really? You don't criticize them, nor do Dawkins, or PZed Myers?

of course we do, and we all get told to sit down and shut up, even by
other atheists.


I think if anyone lets their religion interfere with their science
they will hear about it from other scientists. But if their science is
right, there is no reason for anyone to criticize their science. I
don't tell my dentist or auto mechanic they're skills are silly if
they turn out to be Mormon or whatever.

and nobody has criticized their science as far as im aware. we
criticize them when they promote anti-scientific beliefs like
religion. when they say it is ok to form beliefs about the world based
on religion rather than science, they are doing exactly what enables
creationism to exist in the first place.


A Christian mystic who understands that the Holy spirit is a mental
construct, but a necessary one to surrender to, for accomplishing a
goal.

except you couldnt. zen buddhists are following a set of rules on how
to behave. "the holy spirit" is no such thing.

Really?  A Buddhist might say that the Buddha nature is in everything
with a mind. It is the mindful spark of pre-verbal awareness.
Christian mystics might say the same thing. I refer you to Thomas
Merton, or Alan Watts for examples. I am not claiming that there are
gods, except in human minds. You aren't paying attention. I read the
alleged words of Jesus while I was in my teen Zen phase and found them
to be consistent with translations of Buddhist masters. (Not Paul of
Tarsus, though!) In any event, an individual may have emotional,
cultural, or other reasons for not rejecting his childhood church out
of hand (e.g. it might have been fatal 500 years ago), but could find
a way to make it palatable thru mysticism.

or, since we dont kill people for leaving their church anymore (at
least in the modern world), they can cut the bullshit and say what
they really think.

Sure, if they are willing to give up their job, or their blood kin, or
their spouse. I am not eager to judge others in any revolution by
their willingness to sacrifice. I do not know what they have to lose,
nor what it would cost them compared to me. Many of us have suffered
losses.

why would they have to give up their job, blood kin, or spouses?

What planet do you live on? In the US, there are tens of millions of
people who would fire, harrass, or disown their own blood kin over
this. There are hundreds of millions elsewhere who would kill their
own children for it. Perhaps you are willing to judge other people for
not being vocal atheists because you live a sheltered life, I dunno.

but religion isnt really a problem? when francis collins and ken
miller actively promote religion, they arent also promoting this
behavior?

<snip>

those people who think that ki is a real force also believe in things
like acupuncture.

Typically, yes.

this is an actual testable belief. and guess how it
fares on tests?

Not well.

But what does that have to do with qi/ki being a model that gets good
results? I am sure that traditional Eastern martial teachings will
benefit from the eventual synthesis of modern science, and well as
Western training methods and techniques. You agree that there are
folks who have accomplished much using non-scientific models?

ki is a model that produces *dangerous* results. people forgo real
medical treatment to use acupuncture instead.

I wasn't thinking of traditional Chinese medicine.

traditional chinese medicine is based on the idea of ki. if ki is a
real thing, then its interruption would cause bodily problems. and
acupuncture is the alleged way to fix that.


and, if you look at the
actual success of various fighting methods, the top ones are all based
on modern science. when kung fu practitioners step into an MMA ring,
they get destroyed.

MMA. Yup, it's a tough sport. This is the one where (via Wikipedia):
"The following acts are universally considered fouls in the mixed
martial arts world:

    * Headbutting.
    * Eye gouging.
    * Hair pulling.
    * Biting.
    * Fish-hooking.
    * Attacking the groin.
    * Strikes to the back of the head and spinal area. (see Rabbit
punch)
    * Strikes to, or grabs of the trachea.
    * Small joint manipulation (control of three or more fingers/toes
is necessary).
    * Intentionally throwing your opponent out of the ring/cage.
    * Running out of the ring/cage.
    * Purposely holding the ring ropes or cage fence.
    * Grabbing or putting a hand inside the trunks or gloves of the
opponent."

Not to mention it's one on one, no weapons are allowed, the ground is
level, smooth, and soft, clothing is minimal (no armor, no boots, no
weighted gloves).

and you somehow think that the more mystical fighting methods would be
any better with all those extra added criteria? then why do the top
military fighting forces learn things like krav maga and jiujutsu
instead of kung fu?


Guess what techniques were taught in my traditional Buddhist temple
art? All of the above (among many others). It's a rough sport alright,
and we are collectively learning from it, but it's not fighting. It
was closer to fighting in the beginning, but people were getting
hurt...

and im sure you would fare just fine against the israeli army with
their silly western science-based krav maga.


Yes, the global martial arts community is seeing an explosion of
learning, because of the openness of schools, and video, and better
transportation, and sporting events. But be cautious about
interpreting what you are learning here - it wouldn't be scientific to
ignore the differences between the controlled experiments of a sport
and the more open environment of the street or battlefield.



The Christian mystic who believes that he would and should be Muslim,
Buddhist or Hindu in another context. She sees God as analogous to
music, and the path as analogous to a music genre. A musician would
play music whatever culture she was in, and there isn't necessarily
any genre that it more right than the others. But she's gotta play.

so does this "christian mystic" think god created the universe? or
that jesus rose from the dead? if so, wheres the evidence? if not, in
what sense are they christian at all?

Perhaps, it may not matter to him or her. Perhaps not. Jewish scholars
will typically say that whether or not the Talmud is literally true
misses the point.

Do you, like the religious fundies I grew up with, think that
"metaphors" and "myth" are synonymous with "lies"?

The garden of Eden can be seen as a metaphor for the growing
consciousness, and developing theory of mind, in a normal child. You
may think this is not useful, but some folks do.

Metaphors are often the best way to describe internal events or
processes.

Some people find this a hard concept to grasp. And no, I don't have
any pictures of the concept slipping from their fingers. Altho your
response to this may provide a snapshot :)

if its just a metaphor or a myth, then again, why call yourself
"christian?" do these "christians" not read or appreciate any other
metaphors or myths? what specifically makes them "christian?"

What? I am not a Christian! If you mean the general "you", then folks
who do this may do so because it is the path they are familiar with. A
musician from South Carolina may recognize that the genre of music is
arbitrary, but nobody asks him why he plays bluegrass. He may even get
insight from other kinds of music, but still focus on bluegrass. There
would be no pressing need for them to choose another path, if the one
they have at hand works for them. I find churches oppressive, and they
make my skin crawl, but that's perhaps the conditioning from my
childhood fundamentalist experiences. I can see that this wouldn't
necessarily apply to everybody.

your analogy doesnt apply. it would be more like a person who merely
listens to bluegrass music calling himself a "bluegrass musician." the
word "christian" has a distinct meaning,

So does bluegrass musician...

right, and it requires playing music. somebody who likes bluegrass a
lot but has never played it is not a "bluegrass musician."

Ummm... yer point?

my point is that is what these mystic "christians" are doing. they
want to be called christians but they dont actually practice any
christianity.


Most musicians recognize that their choice of musical was to a degree
chosen for them (by accident of birth). Few fundamentalists recognize
that about their religion, but many of the mystics would.



and these mystics you
describe (how many of them are there by the way? 10?)

Hundreds!

wow, hundreds? out of the billions that accept the myths as literally
true?

Obviously I don't know how many, and neither do you, Yes, a minority.
Damn few Pentecostals, but perhaps most Unitarians, B'hai B'rith, and
others whose doctrines explicitly state this.



dont fit the
bill. they are using the label knowing that it doesnt mean what they
want it to mean.

No, they likely think that they have a better or perhaps simply
different understanding of the doctrine than other Christians. Who are
you to tell a Christian that he's not a real Christian if he doesn't
believe in the existence of cartoon gods?

the same person who tells a self-described "bluegrass musician" that
he aint no such thing unless he actually plays music. you can *enjoy*
bluegrass all you like, but until you start *playing,* you arent a
musician. the deliberate misuse of words with understood meanings is
one of the biggest problems with so-called "sophisticated"
theologians.

So what are you saying? If a person calls himself a Christian, are
they supposed to clear it with you first? I was pointing out that a
musician will play one kind of music and not others, but not
necessarily claim that this is the only kind or best kind. There are
also easy-going theists and mystics who have similar opinions about
their religion, and they aren't all deep thinkers.

but thats just the thing, they arent *theists* at all by the way you
describe them.


You obviously can't grasp this. If you claimed that you could, you
would be lying - you would be misusing the clearly established meaning
of the word  "grasp".

what you dont seem to be able to grasp is that "christian" has an
established meaning, and it is rather dishonest to call oneself a
"christian" without adhering to that meaning.




A cosmologist who uses "God" as a metaphor for understanding the math
behind it all.

those cosmologists do not use god to understand math. they use math
courses to understand math. they use "god" as an argument from
ignorance.

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part
limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and
feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical
delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us,
restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few
persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the
prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living
creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a
human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they
have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a
substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.
(Albert Einstein, 1954)

doesnt even mention god, let alone using god to understand math..

[...]

Did I (or Einstein) say it was necessary or even helpful? You see the
word "religion" or "god" and turn it all to the same concrete claims
of cartoon gods. These are two examples of intelligent references to
religious mythology *without* concrete claims for the existence of
gods.

My claim is not that gods exist, but that one can be religious, or use
religious symbolism *without* making such claims. And if one does so,
they are not necessarily making scientific claims.

no, your claim was that they use god to understand math.

No, no. I said "A cosmologist who uses "God" as a metaphor for
understanding the math behind it all."
Read it like this: "A cosmologist who uses the word "God" as a
metaphor which represents understanding the math behind it all."
Not "A cosmologist who uses [God as a metaphor] as a tool in order to
understand the math behind it all."

For a scientist who speak of god as Einstein did, when he says "god"
he is referencing something like the awe he feels when he sees just a
little of the universe; his "seeking god" is  a metaphor for something
like a deeper understanding of the universe.

so why doesnt he just call it that? why use a loaded term like "god"
when he knows what images it will invoke in others?

Perhaps because it *is loaded. Words come with baggage, and that
baggage gives our language it's richness (and others, I assume). But
you will have to ask Einstein that; I can't speak for him. I do know
that he tried to clarify several times that he wasn't speaking of a
literal god. The fundamentalists, the concrete thinkers, never seemed
to understand that.

funny how he insisted the problem was with *everybody else,* not his
misuse of language.


dont you find that behavior a tad dishonest?

No; but then, I wasn't confused by it.

he *knows* that people who hear his words
will treat the word "god" as their cartoon character. he *knows* that
this is not what he means. so why do it?

I suspect that anyone who sees beauty in math or physics understands
him just fine. He seemed frustrated on those occasions when he had to
explain to reporters and such that he was not a theist.

if you find yourself frustrated in trying to explain yourself over and
over again, the problem aint with the audience.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: new job
    ... affairs of other "religions' or belief systems, ... The politics I personally subscribe ... your Christian friends. ...
    (rec.outdoors.fishing.fly)
  • Re: Hitler-Nazis were staunchly anti-Christianity
    ...   In this case, ... Nazis did, by and large, consider themselves Christian. ... the sole, reason for the Holocaust. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution of man
    ... I'm not going to go over each statement you made about what Jesus ... And that was what led me to be baptised by holy spirit. ... Christian to study nature carefully as it reveals God in its every ...   Who wrote the Torah is not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: new job
    ... Churches" (Jewish, Jesus Jewish ie "Christian", Islam and the slew of ... affairs of other "religions' or belief systems, ... The politics I personally subscribe ...
    (rec.outdoors.fishing.fly)