Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [DebunkCreation] [OT] Latest Richard Dawkins essay...

Expand Messages
  • Jim Taylor
    ... To clarify: I have no indication that Mr. Williams perceived your comment as maligning him. I perceive it as an entirely unintended slur--on the grounds
    Message 1 of 72 , Apr 1, 2003
      > Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 21:17:08 -0800
      > From: "D. Keith Howington" <ceo@...>
      > Subject: Re: [OT] Latest Richard Dawkins essay...
      > Jim Taylor wrote:
      > > (to R. M. Williams)
      > > So you DIDN'T choose to leave! You have been maligned, sir, and
      > > I apologize to you for believing that slur, which I doubt was
      > > intended by its writer in any case.
      > If Mr. Williams perceived my comment as maligning him or casting
      > a slur in his direction--a peculiar notion indeed--I trust he will
      > make such a statement directly.

      To clarify: I have no indication that Mr. Williams perceived your
      comment as maligning him. I perceive it as an entirely unintended
      slur--on the grounds of my own belief that people who leave this
      list because they are insulted, here, place a greater value on
      their own egos than on the search for truth.

      This is my belief, not yours or Mr. Williams'.

      > > Not that it will or should matter to you, but you have my respect
      > > for remaining, and I'm glad you are still here.
      > We had essentially eliminated his participation here, which was my
      > point.

      That he didn't leave is what matters to me.

      > It's curious that I see your response to his post, but not his post
      > itself. Even on the Yahoo group list.

      That *is* curious, but given Yahoo's performance in delivering the
      mail, recently, I don't find it too surprising that I received a
      message you didn't receive; I frequently see messages replying to
      original messages I never saw.


      "In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"

      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
    • D. Keith Howington
      ... 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.
      Message 72 of 72 , Apr 17, 2003
        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
        of hers.

        > 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@...)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.