NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/callahan/13711

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 10.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!hal.com!olivea!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.claremont.edu!jarthur.claremont.edu!dgreen
From: [e-mail] (David Green)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re:  Science and god:  Are they incompatible?  If so, why?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:46:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The News System)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Lines: 202

In some article [e-mail] writes:
->In some other article [e-mail] (J.P.Gardner) writes:
->What I called bullshit was the standard Christian explanation for why
->so many bad deeds have been performed by Christians:  "But they weren't REAL
->Christians," where the person who uses that excuse either can't or won't
->provide an operational definition of "real Christian."

My response to this is that people are not--and have never been--perfect.  It
is entirely possible to get so caught up in one's zeal that one loses sight
of what it is that one is zealous for.  I can't explain why people do "bad
deeds"--I am not those people, nor will I ever be.  All I can do is to say
that I try my darndest not to do such things.  To reiterate something I said
before relating to this topic: "An idea is not responsible for the people who
believe in it."  To hold me accountable for the actions of Christians in days
long past is ludicrous.  I can't explain why they did what they did--but the
point is that I shouldn't have to.  Judge me by what you see in me.


->Or it might've been the standard
->practice of calling those parts of the Bible that support your position
->literally true and those that would contradict it metaphor, again, without
->providing instructions for telling which are which.  Now, Nighstalker has
->used this particular excuse before, and, as expected, failed to give the
->requested operational definition.

In my case, I read the Bible, and I pray, and I decide for myself what it
is that God meant to say through the Bible.  I can't tell you how you to
read the Bible, should you choose to; that's between you and--as far as I
am concerned--God.
->=He also called him a bigot --
->=presumeably an anti-scientific bigot.
->
->That's an incorrect presumption.  I called him a bigot based on the ample
->evidence he's provided that he believes that being a Christian somehow makes
->one better than if one were not a Christian.  Again, I've asked him to provide
->evidence to back up his position.  No evidence was forthcoming.  Now, if a
->belief, unsupported by evidence, that one's own group (be it ethnic,
->religious, or language) is superior to all others isn't bigotry, what is it?

On the other hand, what sense does it make to go around saying, "Yeah, I
believe in God, but you know, it just doesn't do me much good--I'm just like
everyone else, and I'm not the better for it"?  What good would a faith like
*that* be?  ...And if I do consider myself to be "better" than other people,
it's in the sense relative to my own morals; I have a moral code and I try
to stick to it--this doesn't mean that I can't fail, sometimes badly, but
I never claimed to be perfect.

->=In a broader sense, from STM's many posts, I have never seen him up on a
->=soapbox, I have never seen him admit he is, was, or even could possibly
->=be wrong.
->
->You must've missed my followup to the post I made during an attack of
->hypoglycemia.  I don't usually get up on a soapbox unless I've spent a LOT of
->time thinking about the issue I'm talking about, and discussing it with people
->with a broad range of viewpoints.

The idea behind the soapboxes is that they appear when you find yourself
preaching at the group.  From my viewpoint, the original meaning behind them
has been lost, and people randomly hop up and down on soapboxes, sometimes
not getting them where they'd be appropriate, sometimes standing on them
when they don't have a need to.  Then again, I haven't been elected Vice-
President in Charge of Soapbox Use, either. :)

->=He rarely uses the initials IMHO, and when he does, it is
->=almost always IMNSHO, which really defeats the purpose.
->
->What purpose might that be? To give myself a way of weaseling out of what I've
->said?

No, just to serve as a gentle reminder that, despite what anyone might be
thinking at that point, that what's coming out is still your opinion.  People
tend to state their opinions as facts, and--although it should be reasonably
obvious what's fact and what isn't--I think a lot of heated discussion comes
out of opinion being read as fact because that was what it sounded like.
Myself, I use IMAO (In My Arrogant Opinion) on occasion, about half-humor-
ously, to point out that what I am saying is my opinion, and it's one that
I feel strongly about.  I also use IMHO with some degree of frequency, in
the stead of a reminder.

->=OK -- maybe the
->=first time someone did that it was funny. It isn't funny anymore, it is
->=just arrogant. STM could greatly benefit from a good healthy dose of
->=humility.
->
->In YOUR humble opinion, I presume?

But of course!  (Touche, IMHO. :)

->="The bitter dispute about whether NS was talking about Christianity or
->=all religions was nit-picking.
->
->Here you demonstrate the point I was trying to make:  Even though you realize
->that what NS said was an insult to other religions, you seem to have missed
->the fact that it's just a much an insult to agnostics.

I happen to consider agnosticism (and athiesm) religions in their own rights.
Granted, I still think that Nightstalker's division was quite less than
accurate, but I don't think he was deliberately trying to be insulting with
it.

->=Oh, I agree, if I were an editor of the
->=piece, I would probably tell him to change the title (as he said he
->=considered doing) and make it clear that he was talking about
->=Christianity and not anything else. But come on, people, wasn't this
->=obvious? Well it was to me.
->
->He wasn't even talking about "Christianity and not anything else."  He was
->talking about his own particular brand of Christianity and not anything else.

Are you implying that there are people who believe exactly the same things
out there?  People are individuals, and, as such, are subject to difference
of opinion.  Nightstalker's piece was written from his own point of view,
with regard to his standpoint on Christianity.  There are enough different
'flavors' of Christianity--and 'subflavors,' if you will, within those--that
writing a piece summing the overall view of all Christians would be well-
nigh impossible.

->Yet his article showed pretty strong signs that he wasn't even aware (as he
->was writing the piece) that there are other branches of Christianity.

Those being?  (If StM can demand examples, I think it's only fair that I be
able to as well.)

->="The part in NS's original essay about the woman being raped was overly
->=strong imagery for what was otherwise intended as a scholarly toned
->=article.
->
->It was also either a non sequitur or a claim that religion somehow did some
->good for rape victims, either potential or actual.  As usual, NS offered
->absolutely no evidence in support of this rather strong claim.

Methinks he felt that it was obvious (and it probably was, from his stand-
point) that one could receive comfort from religion in this situation.  IMHO,
you're not reading far enough between the lines.

->=Different religions
->=in different ways, but it is not only in the ways that STM ridiculed.
->
->Could you provide some examples?

Christianity proclaims the love of God to mankind, and that God loves people
no matter what they do, and no matter what happens to them.  Love is a
powerful emotion/feeling/whatever you want to call it, and personally, I
can and do gather comfort from the fact that there are people who care
about me.

->=(But even that way -- by believing it is God's will, and part of a
->=bigger plan does provide comfort to someone who believes that that
->=bigger plan is good.
->
->=Obviously this does not provide comfort to someone
->=who doesn't believe in God, such as STM, however.) (And further: a lot
->=of rape victims do feel guilt. Telling them it is not their fault is a
->=good thing.)
->
->Agreed.  But if you've taught them that unforseeable events are not their
->fault, and haven't told them that there's some father figure in the sky who's
->judging them, why would you need to tell them that that father figure forgives
->them?  What's wrong with just telling them:  It was unforseeable.  It's not
->your fault?

*cough*  What's there to be forgiven for in being raped in the first place?
It wasn't the victim's fault, it wasn't anything that s/he did or caused to
happen.  Therefore (yes, IMHO), it's not a sin.  And there's nothing wrong
with telling them that it was unforseeable and not their fault.  As above,
Christianity also says that someone still does--and always will--care about
them.

->="STM seems to have a lot of arguments against the fundamentalists -- or
->=literalists as he calls them. But what is surprising is that he extends
->=these arguments to all Christians by saying "Well, if you can't
->=believe all of the bible, how do you know what parts to believe?" And
->=thus dismisses _all_ of the bible, using the exact same argument
->=that the literalists use!
->
->So tell me, if some parts of the Bible ARE authoritative and literal and some
->aren't, just how DO we tell which are which?  The Bible may make a good
->starting point into inquiries, but to pick and choose the parts that are
->convenient for your case and dismiss the others as metaphors is the height of
->intellectual dishonesty.  Of course, one useful metaphor is that the devil
->himself can quote scripture to suit his purpose. As long as you let him pick
->and choose what parts are to be believed literally. Christians admit this, but
->a great many of them don't understand that they're using exactly the same
->strategy themselves.

I explained above how I make my decisions on what to believe.  I pray, and I
try to let God guide me to what is right, and what is not.  It's not something
I could write a book on the methodology of; it is rather more of a personal
experience.

Side note: I hope I sounded a lot less rabid in this post than I have been
sounding recently; I finally got through two weeks' worth of exams and papers
and have been feeling a lot less stressed-out lately.  Apologies to anyone I
may have bothered with my admittedly fiery temper earlier.

Ironic note: In thumbing through my dictionary, I came across the entry
    "S.T.M."  It means Master of Sacred Theology. :)
--
[e-mail]                       David "Mishael" Green
            Have you scritched your local Furry today?
************************Who ordered the muon? -- I. I. Rabi*********************
  I have not been appointed Judge, Jury, or Executioner by God.  Just witness.