It doesn't seem to be affecting the other blogspot sites on my agregator...
It's verying annoying because 1.) it only shows me the first line or two of the article, not the whole thing, and 2.) the titles are all blank so there's no link I can click to bring up the whole post.
Well, Haloscan is supposed to track my comments by the title of the post. It's stopped doing that, and now records by post number, so Blogger has apparently done something to the code.
I don't use the "title" function in blogger. It wasn't offered when I started posting, and when they added it, I just ignored it. Perhaps they've modified the code in such a way that I will be forced to use it.
Several problems with this cartoon's assumptions, to name but a few...
1) That world religions are arbitrary, i.e. based on whim, and not based on actual divine revelation or on centuries of observing what works.
2) That there exists within nature some absolute basis from which all rules for conduct should be derived (presumably, the author has direct knowledge of what this basis is). Religion necessarily has no knowledge of this, and is therefore by definition arbitrary.
3) That religion promotes ignorance. This is not only slanderous, it betrays the author's own ignorance of world religions and the evidence of history.
If you read this cartoon from the point of view of an unbeliever, it is utterly hilarious.
That world religions are arbitrary, i.e. based on whim, and not based on actual divine revelation or on centuries of observing what works.
This cartoon comes from the notion, shared by me and many others, that the world religions are based on something other than divine revelation. To believe that they are based on divine revelation, one must first believe in divine revelation. I don't, and many others don't, either.
Being based on "centuries of observing what works" is exactly correct, the observing being done by the shamans du jour who lay claim to the revelations. It's still going on, as watching any televangelist for ten minutes will reveal.
That there exists within nature some absolute basis from which all rules for conduct should be derived
You seem to believe that, if rules for conduct are not based on religion, then this statement must be true. You have written to that extent elsewhere. I don't get it. Why, in detail, do you think this is true?
That religion promotes ignorance. This is not only slanderous, it betrays the author's own ignorance of world religions and the evidence of history.
Religions have not only promoted ignorance, they have often required ignorance under penalty of death. Ask Galileo.
You seem to believe that, if rules for conduct are not based on religion, then this statement must be true. You have written to that extent elsewhere. I don't get it. Why, in detail, do you think this is true?
There must be an absolute basis of reference for morality, or it is mere opinion.
Religions have not only promoted ignorance, they have often required ignorance under penalty of death. Ask Galileo.
Would the two of you please give me some credit. I did not say that religion never promotes ignorance. What I object to is the notion that religion necessarily leads to ignorance.
What this silly cartoon does not address is the fact that modern science is a product of Protestant Christian culture, based on a belief in a universe that operates according to knowable set of rules. Most humanist societies -- China, Cuba, Russia, etc. -- produce very little in the way of original scientific thinking.
"There must be an absolute basis of reference for morality, or it is mere opinion."
There is: survival of the species. Anything that is detrimental to that end is immoral. Past that point, things get a bit fuzzy.
And I think you read a bit more out of that cartoon than was explicitly intended. It was not a slanderous statement. You acknowledge examples exist. Yet "slanderous" was the word you chose.
There is: survival of the species. Anything that is detrimental to that end is immoral. Past that point, things get a bit fuzzy.
Problem is, that just doesn't work. There is nothing in nature that says a species must exist. Nature has wiped out more than 90% of the species that have ever existed on this planet. What makes homo sapiens so special, as far as nature is concerned? But leaving that out for the moment, try making a case for individual rights if survival of the species is the only absolute. One could easily argue -- and people have argued -- that entire segments of the population are detrimental to that cause, and so must be pruned for the survival of the species as a whole.
And I think you read a bit more out of that cartoon than was explicitly intended. It was not a slanderous statement. You acknowledge examples exist. Yet "slanderous" was the word you chose.
It's possible that I overreacted. It's easy to feel persecuted when one argues for one's religion. But do you honestly think that Miller did not specifically have Christianity in mind when he wrote that cartoon?
"There must be an absolute basis of reference for morality, or it is mere opinion."
What makes the basis set by your religion any more valid than the basis set by someone elses religion? Remember, while it is perfectly moral and ethical under Christianity to corral, slaughter and eat cattle, there are religions where it is not moral. Also, while it is immoral (sp?) to arbitrarily lop the heads off of non-believers in Christianity, absent specific orders to the contrary from the Pope for Catholics, it is perfectly moral to do so in other reiligions.
"What this silly cartoon does not address is the fact that modern science is a product of Protestant Christian culture, based on a belief in a universe that operates according to knowable set of rules."
Protestant Christian culture alone? Are you stating that the contributions of Catholic culture are somehow less valid than those of Protestant culture?
I will admit that the first example that sprung to my mind when reading the strip was Anglicanism. Yes, the merry olde Church of England created by Henry VIII ostensibly because the Pope would not authorise another divorce. Admittedly, there was more to it than just the divorce issue. However, it was a religion arbitrarily set up to suit the needs of the founder.
What absolute basis do you prefer? Divine revelation? Absent proof, is that not simply your opinion?
I assume that as an engineer you are familiar with geometry. Geometric proofs are the mother of all proofs, but even geometry is based on assumptions that cannot be proved. Do you reject geometry because you start with unprovable assumptions? If you begin with the demand for absolute ironclad proof of assumptions, then the sad fact is that humankind knows absolutely nothing. Euclidean geometry begins with 10 postulates, one of which we know isn't always true. The other nine we just assume are correct. The test of Euclidean geometry is that we've used it and it has allowed us to accomplish all sorts of wonderful things. The same is true for Christianity. There is lots of evidence for Christianity, but is it 100% ironclad irrefutable? No. It's much more of a personal experience. But take a look at the practical results of Christianity the same way you would look at the results of our knowledge of geometry. It turns out that Christianity has served humankind very well. Everything good in this world, everything modern and progressive, stems from Christianity. The practical results are just as substantial as they are for geometry.
If his target was religion in general, he could not have hit the bullseye any better.
Why single out religion? There is no system of belief that has ever existed that is immune to dogma. Look at secular leftism. This cartoon only works for people who start out with the assumption that religion is bogus.
There is lots of evidence for Christianity, but is it 100% ironclad irrefutable? No. It's much more of a personal experience.
Yup. It's your opinion that it's correct, ain't it?
It turns out that Christianity has served humankind very well. ... The practical results are just as substantial as they are for geometry.
But if I prefer a moral code that is nearly the same and defend it because I think it makes sense and has produced good results for me for decades, it is rejected by you because it is only my opinion?
Go see http://www.garfield.com/comics/comics_todays.html and look for the comic of 04/05/06.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2006/04/more-fuel-for-fire.html (18 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Kevin, now you should know that if you take one side, you won't get flak from that one at least...
What did you do to your RSS feed? The entries are all messed up now...
Nothing. Blame Blogger.
It doesn't seem to be affecting the other blogspot sites on my agregator...
It's verying annoying because 1.) it only shows me the first line or two of the article, not the whole thing, and 2.) the titles are all blank so there's no link I can click to bring up the whole post.
Well, Haloscan is supposed to track my comments by the title of the post. It's stopped doing that, and now records by post number, so Blogger has apparently done something to the code.
I don't use the "title" function in blogger. It wasn't offered when I started posting, and when they added it, I just ignored it. Perhaps they've modified the code in such a way that I will be forced to use it.
*sigh*
Several problems with this cartoon's assumptions, to name but a few...
1) That world religions are arbitrary, i.e. based on whim, and not based on actual divine revelation or on centuries of observing what works.
2) That there exists within nature some absolute basis from which all rules for conduct should be derived (presumably, the author has direct knowledge of what this basis is). Religion necessarily has no knowledge of this, and is therefore by definition arbitrary.
3) That religion promotes ignorance. This is not only slanderous, it betrays the author's own ignorance of world religions and the evidence of history.
What was the point of posting this?
Sarah:
If you read this cartoon from the point of view of an unbeliever, it is utterly hilarious.
That world religions are arbitrary, i.e. based on whim, and not based on actual divine revelation or on centuries of observing what works.
This cartoon comes from the notion, shared by me and many others, that the world religions are based on something other than divine revelation. To believe that they are based on divine revelation, one must first believe in divine revelation. I don't, and many others don't, either.
Being based on "centuries of observing what works" is exactly correct, the observing being done by the shamans du jour who lay claim to the revelations. It's still going on, as watching any televangelist for ten minutes will reveal.
That there exists within nature some absolute basis from which all rules for conduct should be derived
You seem to believe that, if rules for conduct are not based on religion, then this statement must be true. You have written to that extent elsewhere. I don't get it. Why, in detail, do you think this is true?
That religion promotes ignorance. This is not only slanderous, it betrays the author's own ignorance of world religions and the evidence of history.
Religions have not only promoted ignorance, they have often required ignorance under penalty of death. Ask Galileo.
But DJ, those people weren't true Christians, apparently.
Sarah, study some history. Many, many religions have promoted ignorance. Ignorant followers are much easier to lead.
How old was Luther before he first read the Bible? Why did he feel it was necessary to print it in vernacular German?
Why else do you think Leftism is largely in control of our public school systems today?
You seem to believe that, if rules for conduct are not based on religion, then this statement must be true. You have written to that extent elsewhere. I don't get it. Why, in detail, do you think this is true?
There must be an absolute basis of reference for morality, or it is mere opinion.
Religions have not only promoted ignorance, they have often required ignorance under penalty of death. Ask Galileo.
Would the two of you please give me some credit. I did not say that religion never promotes ignorance. What I object to is the notion that religion necessarily leads to ignorance.
What this silly cartoon does not address is the fact that modern science is a product of Protestant Christian culture, based on a belief in a universe that operates according to knowable set of rules. Most humanist societies -- China, Cuba, Russia, etc. -- produce very little in the way of original scientific thinking.
"There must be an absolute basis of reference for morality, or it is mere opinion."
There is: survival of the species. Anything that is detrimental to that end is immoral. Past that point, things get a bit fuzzy.
And I think you read a bit more out of that cartoon than was explicitly intended. It was not a slanderous statement. You acknowledge examples exist. Yet "slanderous" was the word you chose.
You might want to consider why you did.
There is: survival of the species. Anything that is detrimental to that end is immoral. Past that point, things get a bit fuzzy.
Problem is, that just doesn't work. There is nothing in nature that says a species must exist. Nature has wiped out more than 90% of the species that have ever existed on this planet. What makes homo sapiens so special, as far as nature is concerned? But leaving that out for the moment, try making a case for individual rights if survival of the species is the only absolute. One could easily argue -- and people have argued -- that entire segments of the population are detrimental to that cause, and so must be pruned for the survival of the species as a whole.
And I think you read a bit more out of that cartoon than was explicitly intended. It was not a slanderous statement. You acknowledge examples exist. Yet "slanderous" was the word you chose.
It's possible that I overreacted. It's easy to feel persecuted when one argues for one's religion. But do you honestly think that Miller did not specifically have Christianity in mind when he wrote that cartoon?
Sarah:
There must be an absolute basis of reference for morality, or it is mere opinion.
What absolute basis do you prefer? Divine revelation? Absent proof, is that not simply your opinion?
But do you honestly think that Miller did not specifically have Christianity in mind when he wrote that cartoon?
I can't read his mind, so I don't know what he was thinking. If his target was religion in general, he could not have hit the bullseye any better.
Sarah,
"There must be an absolute basis of reference for morality, or it is mere opinion."
What makes the basis set by your religion any more valid than the basis set by someone elses religion? Remember, while it is perfectly moral and ethical under Christianity to corral, slaughter and eat cattle, there are religions where it is not moral. Also, while it is immoral (sp?) to arbitrarily lop the heads off of non-believers in Christianity, absent specific orders to the contrary from the Pope for Catholics, it is perfectly moral to do so in other reiligions.
"What this silly cartoon does not address is the fact that modern science is a product of Protestant Christian culture, based on a belief in a universe that operates according to knowable set of rules."
Protestant Christian culture alone? Are you stating that the contributions of Catholic culture are somehow less valid than those of Protestant culture?
I will admit that the first example that sprung to my mind when reading the strip was Anglicanism. Yes, the merry olde Church of England created by Henry VIII ostensibly because the Pope would not authorise another divorce. Admittedly, there was more to it than just the divorce issue. However, it was a religion arbitrarily set up to suit the needs of the founder.
-Renn
DJ,
What absolute basis do you prefer? Divine revelation? Absent proof, is that not simply your opinion?
I assume that as an engineer you are familiar with geometry. Geometric proofs are the mother of all proofs, but even geometry is based on assumptions that cannot be proved. Do you reject geometry because you start with unprovable assumptions? If you begin with the demand for absolute ironclad proof of assumptions, then the sad fact is that humankind knows absolutely nothing. Euclidean geometry begins with 10 postulates, one of which we know isn't always true. The other nine we just assume are correct. The test of Euclidean geometry is that we've used it and it has allowed us to accomplish all sorts of wonderful things. The same is true for Christianity. There is lots of evidence for Christianity, but is it 100% ironclad irrefutable? No. It's much more of a personal experience. But take a look at the practical results of Christianity the same way you would look at the results of our knowledge of geometry. It turns out that Christianity has served humankind very well. Everything good in this world, everything modern and progressive, stems from Christianity. The practical results are just as substantial as they are for geometry.
If his target was religion in general, he could not have hit the bullseye any better.
Why single out religion? There is no system of belief that has ever existed that is immune to dogma. Look at secular leftism. This cartoon only works for people who start out with the assumption that religion is bogus.
And, with that, I'm afraid I have to bow out of this and all other discussions. I'm just too busy at work.
Sarah:
There is lots of evidence for Christianity, but is it 100% ironclad irrefutable? No. It's much more of a personal experience.
Yup. It's your opinion that it's correct, ain't it?
It turns out that Christianity has served humankind very well. ... The practical results are just as substantial as they are for geometry.
But if I prefer a moral code that is nearly the same and defend it because I think it makes sense and has produced good results for me for decades, it is rejected by you because it is only my opinion?
Sarah:
This cartoon only works for people who start out with the assumption that religion is bogus.
And it works marvelously well. 'Tis a shame you don't see it.
And now for something completely different ...
No, wait. It's the same.
Go see http://www.garfield.com/comics/comics_todays.html and look for the comic of 04/05/06.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>