Jim Taylor wrote:
> > From: "D. Keith Howington" <ceo@...>
> > But I'll keep the rest of this off this list.
> Where are you porting it to, if anywhere?
Actually nowhere... I generally would hold a debate with you with, a,
you actually on the other side of it. ];-)
I do write in other forums, as you know. LiveJournal hosts a number of
communities--of all stripes--and you will find a number of folks that
share your interests, as I have.
LJ is by invitation only, these days. You must have an "invite code"
from a member to be able to get an account, although the account itself
is free. There's no spam or pop-up ads involved. You can get a paid
account which adds a few frills, and LiveJournal is funded by this process.
I would be pleased to welcome you to that "blog" system. It does not
compete with this community; it is instead more of a personal tool. But
there are communities there for thousands of interests among millions of
users. I have a lifetime account; therefore I have a large number of
"invite codes" assigned. If interested, check out www.livejournal.com.
And if still interested, I will be pleased to invite you aboard.
Another alternative I was just reminded of by someone else on the list.
I have a separate little forum, not active, in which we can discuss
topics not active here. And it is topic-based, not strictly time based
as this is. A new entry pops the topic to the top of the list. No
registration is required, and it's free if you do. Registering would
allow you to be notified of a reply.
Start a topic--we can continue there.
You'll recognize my moniker there.
> Also computers. But they don't do philosophy, either.
"All in good time, my pretty. All in good time."
> That could be; yet one of our best residents ever was raised in a
> Fundamentalist family, went to medical school at Oral Roberts
> University. With the exception of Jon Shaw and Chuck Privitera, *all*
> the senior faculty had doubts about this guy; they selected him
> because his interview scores beat everyone else's. Two years later,
> he made the best chief resident we'd had since Carolyn Randle.
I was raised by very religious people, though my parents are not,
overmuch. I kept the good feelings and good intentions.
> Well of course, since the only perfect model of anything is that
> thing, itself!
Not true in some disciplines--mathematics, for example. But we were
speaking of empirical science, where your statement is certainly applicable.
> > And I see no evidence to support the notion that the Buddhist or
> Wiccan views of reincarnation--very different!--are reasonable models
> of this reality.
> Depends on who's doing the modeling, when it comes to Wicca or any
> other Neo-Pagan religion. Gerald Bliss' model of reality never worked
> very well for him. OTOH, Durwydd MacTara's model of reality has
> worked well enough for him and many others that he has found himself,
> without ever planning to or wanting to, leading Wicca's newest and
> fastest-growing "Trad"--or rather, refusing to lead it, but letting
> himself get talked into taking on students, writing new rituals, etc.
> He works harder on this stuff than most people work who get paid for it!
I think that "popularity" does not translate well to "accuracy"--the
fact that DebunkCreation needed to exist evinces that.
> > But at the same time, I know of many people who can believe things
> > logically inconsistent, or mutually exclusive.
> Yup, if you've ever read Cherryh's "Cyteen" trilogy, that's the most
> crucial difference between a Cit and an Azi--even more crucial than
> the fact that a Cit is free and an Azi really isn't.
I should read this. I have read much science fiction, but not yet any
> Actually, in some cases they appear to be, and I personally think that
> they are even more mutually contradictory than Wicca and Buddhism, or
> than mystical theology and fundamentalism.
Ah. Different philosophies, then. ];-)
> > > Yet each paradigm produces processes which work for some people,
> > > for whom nothing else works. For this reason, it's not enough
> > > to select just one paradigm and defend it against all challenges;
> > > you have to defend a great many differing paradigms, if someone
> > > is attacking them, because each one of them may well be the only
> > > cup that fits a given person's hand perfectly. Break his cup,
> > > and he can no longer drink life from it. (this metaphor is not
> > > mine; it's from Ruth Benedict's "Patterns of Culture")
> > > > It is, at least obliquely, pertinent to our purpose here.
> Ah, yes--the oblique approach. Strategos Belisarius, I presume?
For a moment, I thought you were saying something bulgar to me.
> > > It's an excellent clarifying example, but Gould himself knew that
> > > his "non-overlapping magisteria" were oversimplified myths; he
> > > really didn't believe in them; he simply used them as one would
> > > use an inadequate tool, when it was the only tool he had.
> > True enough. Religion seems intent to prove itself by saying
> > things about the universe that are testable by the scientific
> > method. When that happens, most religions get their... hats
> > handed to them.
> Or their asses, on short stakes. <grin>
As opposed to palm fronds.
> > And, inappropriately, I am reminded of the difference between
> > "surplus" and "excess". Never mind.
> Forever doomed to be the straight-man. <sigh!> Okay, what's the
> difference? <grin>
Well . . . a young man described excess as "more than a mouthful."
Surplus? "The other one."
> Actually, extremism is fine, so long as the extremists are people
> who agree with me. Extremists who disagree with me make me quite
> nervous. <grin>
> > And I am as familiar with Scripture as most Christians--more so, it
> seems, than many in my experience.
> I don't doubt that for a second, Keith. But while you may recognize
> its authority over others, how can you recognize its authority over
> *you*, when in fact it has none?
I can recognize the authority of a well-credentialed biology researcher
(the sort of person that, say, no real creationist is) without stating
that such a person has authority over *me*. And I consider a lot of
traditions to be value--many are very much worth preserving. In this,
perhaps, I am rather a sentimentalist.
> > I consider much of the Bible to be sound social code--and much of it
> not. It is useful to be able to pick and choose.
> Actually, it is *essential*, at least if one is to avoid the curse of
> biblical literalism. If every word in the Bible were literally true,
> then the words of Job's friends would be true, and God's statement
> that they were lies would also be true. Doesn't work! <grin>
Your argument nd logic are so breathtakingly obvious that millions of
people would disagree. ];-)
> > There are indeed some socialism influences; not all of these are bad.
> I never thought they were. But when you try to merge two
> incompatible systems, you wind up like that "double-minded man" of
> James 1, and you wind up getting the bad end of both sticks, and the
> good end of neither.
Not *always*. Not *inevitably*. And not *completely* incompatible, either.
===|================/ D. Keith Howington, CEO (CEO@...