Re: [LandCafe] Re: FT
> That's literature.
RL: Just-so stories _are_ literature. Before science, religion offered just-so stories to explain by supernatural agency phenomena that science has since explained naturally. The history of religions over the last 500 years, especially the Catholic church, is largely a history of first ignoring the scientific explanations that conflicted with their just-so stories, then denouncing them, then persecuting those who sought to inform their ignorance, then sheepishly changing their tune while never admitting they were wrong. Galileo, Darwin, etc. could inform you on this long thread of church history.
JDK:Copernicus - catholic clericLemaitre - catholic priest, (big bang theory)Mendel - Augustinian (catholic) friarPasteur - third order Franciscan - a lay member of FranscicansCatholic Church has never had a problem with Darwin's theory.As to the Galileo, this was mostly about - peer review. The Ptolemic system was pagan, not catholic in origin. What he was challenging was Aristotle. Church has acknowledged its error in handling, but let's also recognize that many of Galileo's supporting reasons were wrong. e.g.movement of earth around sun causes waves!Was Aristotle a just-so story teller? Was that because he was religious? But all science is wrong, except for the fact that is the best explanation so far.As to your other pronouncements, I didn't know that there were still historical materialists around. Your theory is just another version of Marxist determinism. Hate to break it to you but neither evolution nor history have a direction.jdkOn Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:08 PM, roy_langston <roy_langston@...> wrote:--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:> That's literature.
Just-so stories _are_ literature. Before science, religion offered just-so stories to explain by supernatural agency phenomena that science has since explained naturally. The history of religions over the last 500 years, especially the Catholic church, is largely a history of first ignoring the scientific explanations that conflicted with their just-so stories, then denouncing them, then persecuting those who sought to inform their ignorance, then sheepishly changing their tune while never admitting they were wrong. Galileo, Darwin, etc. could inform you on this long thread of church history.
> There is no Jesuit or nor diocesan nor priest of any order that believes that science is an obstacle to Catholicism. Give me the name and location so I might inquire with his bishop or superior or him personally.I doubt that any great reform ever started anywhere but the fringe.
> We should do this here, because you cannot persuade governments to adopt lvt from the fringe, and I might be a radical but I am not on the fringe of the masses.
As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
> So if you've got some kooky baggage then everybody ought to know about it or you ought to be able to keep it to yourself,
Nonsense. You ask, I'll tell you.
> but quite a few of you have decided you want to lead with it.
-- Roy Langston
Very truly yours
John D. Kromkowski
6803 York Road -- Suite 207
Baltimore, MD 21212
This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading, printing or saving in any manner.
- JDK,Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the "fittest" just describes those who have survived.With regard to your last sentence – Stalin got there first.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:Evolution is not really: the survival of the "fittest" It is just survival of that which survives. Evolution is a way of describing the process of how variation within a population will lead to variation eventually of species. There are plenty of genes along for the ride which are not particularly "the fittest".Yes the survival of the two apostolic lungs of Christianity (Catholics and the Eastern church) despite its massive weakness and in fact embracement of weakness of the god who becomes human and is rejected and put to death is a puzzle and crazy on its face. It drove Nietzsche crazy (well that and syphillus drove him crazy). It also drove the communists crazy too. Massive defense? How many tanks does the church have?Jdk
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:26 PM, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@...
> > wrote:
> > The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy. When it
> > was able to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.
> > It can't now, so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing is
> > ensuring that members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.
> Thanks for sharing this one too. I'm getting better picture of Land Cafe.
> It really is best if we get it all out in the open. It's for the same
> reason I won't hide my background.
> This isn't a cocktail party, where we need to avoid the topic for
> charitable purposes - or at least for the purposes of not interfering with
> mutual love of beer or gin or your choice. I'd still have a beer in
> Baltimore (once), with any of you clowns.
*shrugs* Whatever one thinks of Roy's evolutionary basis for morals, I think there's fairly clearly a pseudo-evolutionary basis for ideas and institutions. Dawkins made this case in his "The Selfish Gene." Basically, ideas are duplicated, with variation, in the minds of individuals; from there, it's survival of the fittest. The conceptual equivalent to a gene being a "meme." Why do religious institutions survive despite being a load of crap that generally act as a drain on society? They're very advanced critters in the world of memes; they've evolved a whole host of defenses to offset their massive weaknesses, such as the notion that it's not polite or even acceptable to question a man's faith, or that without beliefs in these memes, we have no basis for social behavior.
Catholicism isn't necessarily the most egregious case of this sort of memetic virus (that has to go to Scientology, don't you think?), but that's what it is, and all the bottom line of them all is the same: enrichment (both financial as well as emotional) of clergy. Still and all, its senseless and generally ad-hoc opposition to contraception, even in the light of AIDS epidemics, is horrible enough in and of itself to give me a fairly thoroughgoing distaste for it in particular, and I'd pretty much rather not see any meme I deem useful or good to be mixed up with it.
Personally, I think one of the best parts of online discussion is that there's less tendency to hold back one's beliefs; many lament this, saying that the internet just makes everyone rude because they don't fear social repercussions, but I believe there's inherent value there, as it allows for a more rapid evolution of memes. The noise and nastiness comes with the territory, and I think people will just eventually find a new normal.
One common Christian meme is certainly right though: hate the sin, and not the sinner. I agree, I'd have a beer with any of you. It's worth making a conscious effort not to take attacks against our beliefs too personally, because it turns out everyone tends to be wrong quite often.