Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason vs. Faith!
Reader Scott Hemmons sends in this photo for you to ponder:
For the record, I don't think faith and reason are mutually exclusive.
|3.30.09 @ 7:58AM|#
Perhaps not mutually exclusive but in what sort of backwater region must you live in order for you to drive by, read that, and say, "Wow, that's so profound! Honey, tell the kids, from here on out: NO MORE THINKING!"?
Adderall Apocalypse|3.30.09 @ 8:02AM|#
indeed... what is the message of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" other than curiosity is a sin?
jtuf|3.30.09 @ 8:12AM|#
Reason and faith are mutually exclusive, but I would not call them enemies. Every time you use reason, you need to have faith in whatever axioms you base your reason on. Faith alone is not enough, unless you want to be an automaton. I can't imagine any clergy would actually want a flock devoid of reason. It would just get annoying to have congregants keep calling to ask for their next instruction.
|3.30.09 @ 8:25AM|#
indeed... what is the message of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" other than curiosity is a sin?
I got the allegory, but I think it's more the fact that Adam and Eve were tempted and ignored G-d's words than the fact that knowledge itself is evil.
|3.30.09 @ 8:33AM|#
Raivo Pommer-estonia-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
SPANIEN banken krise
Caja Castilla krise
Sie hatte am Sonntag bekannt gegeben, die Verbindlichkeiten der
Caja Castilla-La Mancha mit neun Milliarden Euro zu garantieren und
einen Zwangsverwalter eingesetzt zu haben. Hintergrund ist
einerseits ein fehlgeschlagener Übernahmeversuch des Unternehmens,
andererseits machen sich immer mehr die Folgen der Finanz- und
Wirtschaftskrise in Spanien bemerkbar.
Spanien profitierte bis vor wenigen Monaten von einem Kredit
finanzierten Immobilienboom. Er wurde unter anderem ausgelöst von
der europäischen Währungsunion. Sie hatte im Rahmen des
Konvergenzprozesses an den Kapitalmärkten zu zuvor ungewohnt tiefen
Zinsen geführt und auf diese Weise Immobilieninvestitionen
beflügelt. Die einsetzende Eigendynamik beflügelte die Konjunktur
des Landes, sorgte für eine gute Stimmung und verleitete immer mehr
In- und Ausländer dazu, bei steigenden Preisen Immobilien zu
erwerben.
ray|3.30.09 @ 8:33AM|#
Religious people are the greatest enemy that faith has, as long as people in general judge the merits of a concept/topic by the assholes that are it's adherents.
TofuSushi|3.30.09 @ 8:34AM|#
religionists should not be allowed to advertise within sight of a public place. Seperation of church and state is settled law and in black and white in the constitution.
|3.30.09 @ 8:43AM|#
@ TofuSushi:
The Separation Clause applies to objects on display on public
property. The church is (probably) private and, therefore, the
clause does not apply.
OTOH, a few more deep, insightful, highly intellectual zingers on
signs like this one and the faithful will start thinking "And I
have been thinking that this dipshit's advice has value?" all on
their own. Then the Sep Clause will be just something we tell the
grandkids about.
|3.30.09 @ 8:43AM|#
Every time you use reason, you need to have faith in
whatever axioms you base your reason on.
I have faith in a new and different set of axioms each day, just to
keep things interesting.
robc|3.30.09 @ 8:44AM|#
For the record, I don't think faith and reason are mutually
exclusive.
As a baptist, I say ditto. In fact, I think they go together. I
cant have faith in something that doesnt also make rational sense.
Faith goes beyond where reason can get you, but it cant contradict
it.
robc|3.30.09 @ 8:48AM|#
what is the message of the "tree of the knowledge of good
and evil" other than curiosity is a sin?
If you eat this fruit, you become a protector.
|3.30.09 @ 8:49AM|#
"I cant have faith in something that doesnt also make rational
sense."
Does somebody dying for your sins and all you have to do is accept
that sacrifice on faith and you will go to heaven make rational
sense?
|3.30.09 @ 8:50AM|#
The sad fact a lot of these people don't realize is that were it not for people like Martin Luther et. al. exercising reason along with courage, Protestant denominations probably wouldn't exist.
|3.30.09 @ 8:50AM|#
"what is the message of the "tree of the knowledge of good and
evil" other than curiosity is a sin?"
It shows a very insecure god who doesn't want us to know as much as
he does.
|3.30.09 @ 8:53AM|#
"The sad fact a lot of these people don't realize is that were
it not for people like Martin Luther et. al. exercising reason
along with courage, Protestant denominations probably wouldn't
exist."
Luther was also a big influence on Hitler with his
anti-semitism.
anarch|3.30.09 @ 8:55AM|#
The message on the sign is unintelligible at any level without the reader's employing reason.
|3.30.09 @ 8:57AM|#
Well done, TofuSushi. You've gotten intelligent rebuttals from different posters in at least two separate threads, a sign of effective spoof trolling.
The Angry Optimist|3.30.09 @ 8:59AM|#
Every time you use reason, you need to have faith in
whatever axioms you base your reason on.
Why? Isn't it possible that the axioms are self-evident, in that
reliance on them necessarily demands that you recognize them as
valid?
|3.30.09 @ 8:59AM|#
"Every time you use reason, you need to have faith in whatever
axioms you base your reason on."
Not if the reason is based on empiracism.
|3.30.09 @ 9:03AM|#
The message on the sign is unintelligible at any level without the reader's employing reason.
Good point. And also, since reason is all that separates us from "the beasts", that makes me think of the Genesis story on a different level. W/out eating the fruit, Adam & Eve couldn't've been culpable because they couldn't have "known" they were sinning. Their shame came after the fact, making the whole thing a bit of a paradox.
robc|3.30.09 @ 9:04AM|#
bookworm,
Does somebody dying for your sins and all you have to do is
accept that sacrifice on faith and you will go to heaven make
rational sense?
Sure, you have to accept some axioms, probably on faith, but it
follows from them.
I guess they are (simplifying):
Sin requires a blood sacrifice
Sin is the state of separation from God.
Hell/Heaven are permanent separation/togetherness with God
states.
Humans have an immortal soul.
There are probably some more little details, but from those it
pretty much follows.
The Angry Optimist|3.30.09 @ 9:05AM|#
Sin requires a blood sacrifice
Which doesn't make sense at all; the only reason sin requires this
is because God requires it, and he can change his mind at any
time.
|3.30.09 @ 9:07AM|#
Of course, in Genesis, the two were on one level already elevated above the rest of G-d's creatures for some reason (because G-d already knew they were gonna eat the fruit?). Also, since I'm pretty sure progress is impossible without reason, does this make technology the enemy of faith?
robc|3.30.09 @ 9:07AM|#
Art-POG,
Think of Adam & Eve as children and it makes sense. They might
not have realized the consequences of their actions, but they
understood following orders and knew enough right/wrong to obey and
know they were disobeying.
An 8 year old may not understand the consequences of not taking
candy from strangers, but they understand enough the concept of
rules following. And punishment for not following them.
Taktix®|3.30.09 @ 9:09AM|#
Art-P.O.G.,
Careful not type out the word "God" lest ye be smited by the fuzzie
wuzzies, or some such...
The Angry Optimist|3.30.09 @ 9:10AM|#
I'm pretty sure progress is impossible without reason, does
this make technology the enemy of faith?
The sign is actually (and ironically) the logical conclusion of
Christianity: that all things which flow from reason and toil are
unnecessary. See "The Lesson of the Lillies".
robc|3.30.09 @ 9:10AM|#
Which doesn't make sense at all
Its an axiom. Axioms dont have to necessarily make sense.
the only reason sin requires this is because God requires it,
and he can change his mind at any time
Can he? Or are the rules set in stone upon creation?
Actually, since God is outside time (IMO), the phrase "at any time"
makes no sense. Any decision made is made at all time points
simultaneously. Time is a part of the construct of the universe,
God is outside it.
|3.30.09 @ 9:15AM|#
It needs to be said that most religious people would not agree with that sign. Sometimes I'm not sure whether most atheists would agree with a sign saying that faith was the enemy of reason, though.
|3.30.09 @ 9:16AM|#
"what is the message of the "tree of the knowledge of good and
evil" other than curiosity is a sin?"
Once they ate the fruit of the tree Adam and Eve became God like
moral creatures. Before they were merely animals. The point of the
allegory is that the human monopoly on understanding and knowledge
puts us above the beasts but requires us to act morally.
The Angry Optimist|3.30.09 @ 9:16AM|#
Can he?
Contained within the concept of "omnipotence", I would say
"yes".
Any decision made is made at all time points
simultaneously.
God can say "from now on"...he doesn't have to reside out of time
or have his decisions apply to all points in time, if he does not
so choose.
|3.30.09 @ 9:17AM|#
"knowledge of good and evil" == "decision of what is good and
evil".
The latter is a better translation of the Hebrew.
It also makes sense since God obviously didn't think Adam and Eve
being naked was evil, yet they decided it was and did the fig leaf
thang.
economist|3.30.09 @ 9:18AM|#
The Protestant minister finds himself in agreement with Ayn Rand on one point.
economist|3.30.09 @ 9:20AM|#
robc,
I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that an axiom need not
make sense. Isn't part of the definition of an axiom that it is
self-evident and makes sense by its very nature?
|3.30.09 @ 9:20AM|#
Why? Isn't it possible that the axioms are self-evident, in
that reliance on them necessarily demands that you recognize them
as valid?
That's a cop-out. A bible-thumper could claim that the fact that
Jesus died for their sins is "self-evident" too.
robc|3.30.09 @ 9:22AM|#
TAO,
True on both points.
That said, maybe there is a good reason a blood sacrifice for sin
is required. Its clearly a symbolic act (although not for the
specific lamb/dove/goat/Jesus). If I were omniscient, maybe it
would be obvious why. :)
I think that is where faith comes in. This axiom, which is neither
rational nor irrational, may actually be rational if I understood
more.
Heck, as Ive grown older, things that didnt make sense to me in the
past make sense now. That is what knowledge is all about, making
sense of the world, right?
Just because I cant explain why sin requires a blood sacrifice,
doesnt make it not so. Once again, this is the point where faith
comes in.
economist|3.30.09 @ 9:22AM|#
In general, I don't consider faith (or religion), an "enemy" of reason. In any case, the confident assertion that there is no God/higher power/divine principle etc. is in itself a statement of faith, so atheists can't claim a monopoly on reason.
|3.30.09 @ 9:22AM|#
Isn't part of the definition of an axiom that it is
self-evident and makes sense by its very nature?
As judged by whom? 250 years ago it was self-evident to any
European that blacks were inferior. Let's not flatter ourselves
into thinking we alone in history are devoid of biases that distort
our thinking.
The Angry Optimist|3.30.09 @ 9:22AM|#
A bible-thumper could claim that the fact that Jesus died
for their sins is "self-evident" too.
Not if they assert the omnipotence of God, they cannot.
you can't just stretch the concept of self-evident to mean "I can
argue what I want"...it actually has to be self-evident,
or contained within the argumentation or anything you say.
|3.30.09 @ 9:23AM|#
I have a question that people at church aren't comfortable
discussing but it seems relevant to me. Yes, in fact I am a troll
at church as well.
Could Jesus have sinned. Not did he, but could he?
|3.30.09 @ 9:24AM|#
The sad fact a lot of these people don't realize is that were it not for people like Martin Luther et. al. exercising reason along with courage, Protestant denominations probably wouldn't exist.
Hah! Wow. Guess who said "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith
has." That's right, Martin Luther himself.
Here's the full quote:
""Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to
the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not -
struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that
emanates from God" -Martin Luther
|3.30.09 @ 9:24AM|#
Once they ate the fruit of the tree Adam and Eve became God
like moral creatures. Before they were merely animals.
No. God created man in his image before the fall and gave Adam
mastery over all the animals and the power to name them. All before
he ate the forbidden fruit.
economist|3.30.09 @ 9:26AM|#
"That's a cop-out. A bible-thumper could claim that the fact
that Jesus died for their sins is 'self-evident' too."
No, because that is a fact about a specific event that we cannot
know about. It makes intuitive sense to say that an object is
itself and cannot be something that is not itself, that if a=b and
b=c, that a=c, but it is not in anyway obvious that if someone is
crucified, they submitted to it to pay for the sins of all
humanity. That is a statement of faith.
robc|3.30.09 @ 9:26AM|#
Isn't part of the definition of an axiom that it is
self-evident and makes sense by its very nature?
I dont think so. I think an axiom, by its nature, can lead to false
conclusions. But, it itself, doesnt have to necessaryily by
self-evident. It has to be, by its nature, not false*.
I intentional used "not false" instead of true there. All axioms
must be true, but Im not sure they must obviously be true. An axiom
may not be provable, but must not be able to be disproved.
The Angry Optimist|3.30.09 @ 9:27AM|#
That said, maybe there is a good reason a blood sacrifice
for sin is required.
Any reason God would use to justify needing a blood sacrifice is
undermined by his omnipotence; an all-powerful being doesn't
need anything...he can't even desire
anything!
economist|3.30.09 @ 9:27AM|#
Martin Luther didn't preach reason. He preached a different brand of faith.
|3.30.09 @ 9:27AM|#
you can't just stretch the concept of self-evident to mean
"I can argue what I want"...it actually has to be self-evident, or
contained within the argumentation or anything you say.
Who gets to be the judge of what is self-evident though? You're
basically saying that Jesus dying for our sins isn't self-evident
because it isn't self-evident.
(I agree that it's not self-evident, but I also think the very
concept of "self-evidentness" has no place in reasonable
discourse)
economist|3.30.09 @ 9:28AM|#
All this philosophical argumentation gives me a headache. I'm
going to go snipe at TofuSushi.
I'm tired today.
robc|3.30.09 @ 9:30AM|#
Could Jesus have sinned. Not did he, but could
he?
I think so. Im not sure why the discomfort level with this
question. I think the temptation in the desert is proof he could
have sinned. Would the devil waste his time tempting someone who
couldnt sin? Why would the story appear in the gospels if it wasnt
possible?
Even Jesus prayers at Gethsemane(right place?) makes it clear he
had a choice to make - to follow thru or not.
economist|3.30.09 @ 9:30AM|#
On second thought, maybe I'll stay here. Arguing with a spoof troll is as fruitful as LoneWhacker's favorite activity.
|3.30.09 @ 9:31AM|#
"Actually, since God is outside time (IMO), the phrase "at any
time" makes no sense. Any decision made is made at all time points
simultaneously. Time is a part of the construct of the universe,
God is outside it."
I think you are confusing God with Dr. Manhattan.
The Angry Optimist|3.30.09 @ 9:31AM|#
crimethink - like economist said, certain things are
self-evident or we're all just engaging in retard babble.
For one, that we exist is self-evident.
Two, we are conscious beings.
Three, a law of identity is needed, that is A is either B or not B,
not both.
economist|3.30.09 @ 9:31AM|#
robc,
Wait a minute, I thought you were Catholic? Or am I thinking of a
different poster?
economist|3.30.09 @ 9:32AM|#
mantooth,
In the Watchmen graphic novel, Dr. Manhattan specifically denies
the idea that he is God.
robc|3.30.09 @ 9:33AM|#
economist,
I use the word fuck a lot and homebrew beer, so clearly Im a
southern baptist. Duh.
economist|3.30.09 @ 9:34AM|#
AO,
Dr. Ferris says that Robert Stadler's work proved that reason is
obsolete.
The Angry Optimist|3.30.09 @ 9:34AM|#
Im not sure why the discomfort level with this
question.
The Euthyphro problem. Is it sin because God hates it or
does God hate it because it is sin?
One shows that God is not omnipotent (sin exists outside of God,
and that's why it's sin) and the other shows God to be the arbiter
of what is sin and therefore cannot be a sinner himself (because
what he does cannot, by definition, be sinful).
If Jesus = God, and God = arbiter of sin, then Jesus =/= sin.
robc|3.30.09 @ 9:36AM|#
economist,
Except I have friends who are Catholic and do those same
things.
Wooooooosh. Yeah, that was the joke.
The SBC and I have a complicated relationship.
economist|3.30.09 @ 9:37AM|#
AO,
From what I understand of the Christian perspective (of the more
cerebral variety), God is an eminently reasonable being, and thus
is not omnipotent in that He cannot engage in a logical
contradiction, because that would go against His own nature.
Not saying I agree with that view, just putting it out there.
|3.30.09 @ 9:38AM|#
For one, that we exist is self-evident.
Two, we are conscious beings.
Three, a law of identity is needed, that is A is either B or not B, not both.
These are good axioms. I suppose to try to refute any of them leads immediately to paradox.
robc|3.30.09 @ 9:39AM|#
TAO,
But Jesus was also man.
And man has the capability of sin.
Ergo....
I tend to avoid these kind of logic arguments with relation to
these kinds of things because Im not sure we have the tools to
properly encompass the complicated nature of God/Jesus/Man.
|3.30.09 @ 9:40AM|#
Every time you use reason, you need to have faith in
whatever axioms you base your reason on.
I hope not. I would hope that science is as adept at questioing the
axioms as it is in building reasonable conclusions based on them.
Faith is a blind assumption about the nature of the universe in
areas that are unknowable. Where the faithful run into problems is
when they make blind (wrong) assumptions about the universe in
areas that are not only knowable - but well understood by science.
And then hold onto them despite overwhelming evidence.
|3.30.09 @ 9:40AM|#
The Bible has prophesy of Jesus coming and his sinless life. If He sinned, it would negate those prophesies. He may have felt temptation but for Him to live up to the prophesy, sin was not possible.
The Angry Optimist|3.30.09 @ 9:41AM|#
Im not sure we have the tools to properly encompass the
complicated nature of God/Jesus/Man.
And whose fault is that :P ? I never understood why God sets us up
for systemic and categorical failure.
"Here you go, Man, here are some lustful urges which are nigh-on
impossible to suppress...but YOU BETTER DO IT ANYWAY"
|3.30.09 @ 9:42AM|#
For one, that we exist is self-evident.
Two, we are conscious beings.
Three, a law of identity is needed, that is A is either B or not B, not both.
Those are actually definitions of "exist", "conscious", and
"is".
Certainly the axioms libertarianism is based on, e.g. that all
humans are created equal, are not as widely held as those you
offer.
|3.30.09 @ 9:43AM|#
Not that it matters all that much, but I think the sign is
probably fake.
Anyone have a verification / second pic?
Taktix®|3.30.09 @ 9:44AM|#
I'm sorry, but "faith" in this context is mutually
exclusive from reason. In this sense, faith is the willful denial
of reason.
Saying you believe something you can't prove for the sake of
believing is the enemy reason...
|3.30.09 @ 9:44AM|#
Southern Baptists are against pre-marital sex.
They worry it may lead to dancing.
The Angry Optimist|3.30.09 @ 9:45AM|#
Libertarianism doesn't hold that all humans are created equal,
crimethink. Libertarians believe government should treat people AS
IF they were created equal, because to do otherwise would be an
unconscionable and capricious use of force against disfavored
groups and in favor of the group in control.
Those are actually definitions of "exist", "conscious", and
"is".
Just so, but it's useful to state them as sentences...kinda hard to
argue about those definitions if you don't accept them as true,
isn't it? And keep in mind that the "is" is not a linguistic
tautology but a ontological construct.
|3.30.09 @ 9:45AM|#
"I think so. Im not sure why the discomfort level with this
question. I think the temptation in the desert is proof he could
have sinned. Would the devil waste his time tempting someone who
couldnt sin? Why would the story appear in the gospels if it wasnt
possible?"
As if everything in the Gospels is true!
|3.30.09 @ 9:45AM|#
One shows that God is not omnipotent (sin exists outside of
God, and that's why it's sin)
God is still omnipotent. He just delegated his power of free will
to us humans. He could have made humans to be robots who
automatically did as he wished, but instead he chose to create us
with the ability to love (and thus necessarily with the ability to
sin).
robc|3.30.09 @ 9:47AM|#
Why should you never take two southern baptists fishing?
They complain about you drinking beer the whole time.
Who should you never take one southern baptist fishing?
He will drink all your beer.
economist|3.30.09 @ 9:48AM|#
bookworm,
I think robc was arguing that the Christian conception of God is
self-consistent.
The Angry Optimist|3.30.09 @ 9:48AM|#
He just delegated his power of free will to us
humans.
How free is it if you can take it back any time you want?
It's just irrational to try to make sense of the internal "logic"
of the Christian system. An all-powerful God is
bound to sacrifice his Son for the sins (as
defined by God) that humans are destined to commit (because that's
how God wanted it), even though God could just wave his hand and
declare "Sins Forgiven"?
It's nonsense.
|3.30.09 @ 9:50AM|#
An atheist, I know far too many rational, intelligent and deep
thinking folks who are theists to say that reason and faith are
mutually exclusive.
Of course I'm right and they're wrong. They would hopefully say the
same about me.
dhex|3.30.09 @ 9:52AM|#
"And whose fault is that :P ? I never understood why God sets us
up for systemic and categorical failure."
this discussion makes a lot more sense if you think of god as a
very old toddler playing with an ant farm. after a while you'd have
to keep putting constraints on your play or it would get boring and
repetitive. alternately if you pull back a bit, the ant farm was
dropped in the grass somewhere and the ants escaped.
The Angry Optimist|3.30.09 @ 9:52AM|#
J sub - it's not that they are mutually exclusive in individual person "X", it's that they are mutually exclusive systems of thought.
robc|3.30.09 @ 9:52AM|#
The Bible has prophesy of Jesus coming and his sinless life.
If He sinned, it would negate those prophesies. He may have felt
temptation but for Him to live up to the prophesy, sin was not
possible.
Yes, but if we accept
1. God is outside time
2. God gave the prophesies to the prophets
Then it still follows. He already knew that Jesus wouldnt
sin.
This leads back to the whole "An omniscient, omnipotent God makes
free will impossible" argument. To which, my answer is
"bullshit!".
Of course, I dont see free will and predestination as contradictory
either, so there ya go.
Speaking of which, a weird belief of mine: The wave-particle
duality of light was created by God as a metaphor so that we could
understand the nature of the duality of free will and
predestination.
economist|3.30.09 @ 9:55AM|#
For me, the catching of fish is always secondary in fishing. I always think the primary purpose should be to drink and tell off-color jokes.
Jeff P|3.30.09 @ 9:55AM|#
That sign utilizes written language, 24-hour time, use of names
as identifiers, and recognition that faith can be organized and
codified into a religion. It explicitly mentions "training
classes," inplying that knowledge can be conveyed from one entity
to another. The statement itself is based on the concept that two
abstracts can be in opposition to each other. The sign is composed
of stone and plastic, utilizes modern graphics, and I assume it
lights up electrically.
None of the above are the result of faith.
Damning reason is not simply propaganda, it is the height of
hypocrisy. Anyone who firmly and unequivically believes the
statement on that sign does not qualify as a sentient being and has
invalidated their place in the human race.
|3.30.09 @ 9:56AM|#
Theological arguments have always struck me as about as important as argueing whether the 85 bears could have beaten the 72 dolphins.
robc|3.30.09 @ 9:56AM|#
Oops, sorry, misstated my own belief, let me try again:
The wave-particle duality of light was created by God as a metaphor
so that I, robc, could understand the nature of
the duality of free will and predestination.
And people think objectivists are egotists. :)
dhex|3.30.09 @ 9:56AM|#
bears can always defeat any number of dolphins. bears can swim. dolphins can't fight on land worth shit.
robc|3.30.09 @ 9:57AM|#
domo,
Theological arguments have always struck me as about as
important as argueing whether the 85 bears could have beaten the 72
dolphins.
Theological arguments are not nearly that important.
The Angry Optimist|3.30.09 @ 9:58AM|#
domo - that's because you see them as relatively simple, which
is correct but basic truths like "existence precedes consciousness"
escapes most people.
You didn't think "HOPE" was the word of 2008 for nothing, did you?
We have a whole mess of social metaphysicians who are convinced
that if we BELIEVE enough, we can change human nature and repeal
the laws of supply and demand.
|3.30.09 @ 9:58AM|#
How free is it if you can take it back any time you
want?
Exactly. He chose to create us in a way that prevented him from
taking our free will away, ever. Without this it would be
impossible for us to love. (Note that plagues and threats of
hellfire do not take away free will; you still have the choice even
in the face of these things).
|3.30.09 @ 9:59AM|#
"ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all
about, . . . and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round
about" (I Kings 7:23).
pi=3? Case closed.
robc|3.30.09 @ 9:59AM|#
He chose to create us in a way that prevented him from
taking our free will away
More importantly, Yes, God can microwave a burrito so hot that even
he cant eat it.
|3.30.09 @ 10:00AM|#
Speaking of which, a weird belief of mine: The wave-particle duality of light was created by God as a metaphor so that we could understand the nature of the duality of free will and predestination.
Interesting. A neat idea. And I will say that no matter how much science discovers, nature still seems wondrous but this might have a lot to do with the epistemological limitations of the human psyche, but...
robc|3.30.09 @ 10:01AM|#
Team America,
Sigh. Pi is 3, to one significant digit. And really, when a temple
engineer in 4-digit BC need any more significant digits than
that?
One of my higher level math profs declared all constants, including
Pi, to be equal to 1 for the entire class.
|3.30.09 @ 10:03AM|#
TAO - I think it's because I see them as relatively irrellevant. They are simply only because you can't test or prove anything about them, therefore almost anything you can imagine can be true. It's so much mental masturbation.
|3.30.09 @ 10:03AM|#
what about a Bear Holding a Shark? UNSTOPPABLE.
Should be the symbol on Rainbow Puppyland's flag.
|3.30.09 @ 10:06AM|#
It's so much mental masturbation.
I wouldn't dog you for preferring phenomenology to metaphysics.
anarch|3.30.09 @ 10:08AM|#
Fill in the Blanks:
Reading a Hit-and-Run thread about theology is like ______ing a
________ about _________.
Taktix®|3.30.09 @ 10:11AM|#
I think the temptation in the desert is proof he could have
sinned.
Horus was not a sinner, he was the son of Ra!
Oh wait, I'm about 1200 years too early... my bad...
(Yes, many of Jesus's "accomplishments" were attributed to Horus
1200 years previous, such as curing the sick, rasing the dead,
teptation in the desert, walking on water, and virgin birth...)
robc|3.30.09 @ 10:14AM|#
Taktix,
Interestingly, and paraphrased poorly by me, the fact that Jesus
matched many of the God as man mythos was one of the reasons CS
Lewis thought christianity might be true.
EJM|3.30.09 @ 10:14AM|#
I really would like to hear what the pastor at this church would have to say about the (original) Bereans.
anarch|3.30.09 @ 10:16AM|#
robc,
Reading a Hit-and-Run thread about theology is like finding
surprisingly civil liberties.
|3.30.09 @ 10:19AM|#
(Yes, many of Jesus's "accomplishments" were attributed to
Horus 1200 years previous, such as curing the sick, rasing the
dead, teptation in the desert, walking on water, and virgin
birth...)
Maybe Santa knew that Jesus was coming eventually so he influenced
earlier peoples into making up similar stories to discredit the
real one.
|3.30.09 @ 10:25AM|#
"Note that plagues and threats of hellfire do not take away free
will; you still have the choice even in the face of these
things"
Who would knowingly commit or resign themselves to going to
hell?
Also, supposedly God is omiscient. If he could see in the future,
why would he create people knowing that they would go to hell? It
shows that free will is more important to God than keeping us out
of hell. What kind of loving god is that?
|3.30.09 @ 10:28AM|#
"Maybe Santa knew that Jesus was coming eventually so he
influenced earlier peoples into making up similar stories to
discredit the real one."
Believe it or not, that's the very argument the church fathers used
except they blamed Satan istead of Santa or did you mean Satan and
just transposed a couple of letters?
|3.30.09 @ 10:29AM|#
robc:
Malt does more than
Milton can....
Them trappist monks could brew some beer, I tell you what.
Kevin
(Thoroughgoing heathen)
Churchlady|3.30.09 @ 10:31AM|#
Satan=Santa: same letters, ever seen them in the same place? How conveeenient...
|3.30.09 @ 10:31AM|#
"Interestingly, and paraphrased poorly by me, the fact that
Jesus matched many of the God as man mythos was one of the reasons
CS Lewis thought christianity might be true."
That doesn't make sense. Using Occam's Razor, the most logical
explanation is that the people who invented the Jesus myth used
other gods as models for Jesus.
Taktix®|3.30.09 @ 10:32AM|#
Maybe Santa knew that Jesus was coming eventually so he
influenced earlier peoples into making up similar stories to
discredit the real one.
Obviously, it's the God-Santa testing us...
Churchlady|3.30.09 @ 10:33AM|#
Occam's Razor is just a fancy name for what devil worshipers use to shave their naughty bits.
SouthParkFan|3.30.09 @ 10:33AM|#
I expect, of course, that Kyle will rise from the debt and bring about a thousand years of economic prosperity and double-digit growth.
Warty|3.30.09 @ 10:38AM|#
Occam's Razor is just a fancy name for what devil worshipers
use to shave their naughty bits.
No, it's a unique weapon in Fallout 3. Dumbass.
Churchlady|3.30.09 @ 10:40AM|#
warty, obviously your name denotes the problems you are having with your naughty bits. Sinner.
Abdul|3.30.09 @ 10:41AM|#
Once dated a girl who named her breasts Faith &
Reason.
In this context, the sign makes more sense.
|3.30.09 @ 10:53AM|#
"This is an evil generation: they seek a sign."
And what's so evil about seeking a sign? More counter-logical tripe
from the Bible.
|3.30.09 @ 10:58AM|#
Pro Libertate,
Go to the Deathclaw Sanctuary after you get the dart gun. There is
a unique gatling laser in the pool of blood at the bottom. (Bring a
lot of bottlecap mines.)
robc|3.30.09 @ 11:09AM|#
That doesn't make sense. Using Occam's Razor, the most
logical explanation is that the people who invented the Jesus myth
used other gods as models for Jesus.
I think his argument was along the lines of "there are a bunch of
similar stories, IF one is true, isnt it more likely to be one of
the similar ones and not something completely different?" I think
his concept was that all cultures had a connection with God and via
prophecy or whatever would have some essence of the truth, even if
not the complete idea. Enough so they could recognize the truth
when it happened.
Not saying I necessarily agree.
Interestingly, it contradicts the Santa idea above, in that this is
God planting the idea, not to discredit the actual one, but to
grant it more credence.
|3.30.09 @ 11:17AM|#
Spent half my philosophy major in theology classes. What a
stupid waste of time.
Hey let's invent a concept out of thin air then spend our lives
debating the nature of it.
|3.30.09 @ 11:17AM|#
"Just because I cant explain why sin requires a blood sacrifice,
doesnt make it not so. Once again, this is the point where faith
comes in."
But why is it necessary to have faith in that, Robc? Just because
you want to believe it's true or just because you were brought up
to believe it's true?
|3.30.09 @ 11:22AM|#
@robc
"And really, when a temple engineer in 4-digit BC need any more
significant digits than that?"
Bigger sigh.
Even in 4-digit BC, 5% is significant. Also, the fraction should
have been expressed as 31/10, which has the correct
denominator.
30 is simply wrong, even in 4-digit BC, you're going to be off by
more than a cubit every time.
In 2000 BC Babylonians used 25/8. Not only is the value 10x better,
but you also get nice values for semi, quarter and 8th-circles (and
is exactly representable in IEEE-754 floats!).
So, the Bible was wrong AND impractical even in 4-digit BC.
Therefore, the biblical god is a retard.
To paraphrase Obi-wan Kenobi:
Who is the greater retard? The retard or the retard who follows
him?
Case closed.
|3.30.09 @ 11:23AM|#
"I think his argument was along the lines of "there are a bunch
of similar stories, IF one is true, isnt it more likely to be one
of the similar ones and not something completely different?" I
think his concept was that all cultures had a connection with God
and via prophecy or whatever would have some essence of the truth,
even if not the complete idea. Enough so they could recognize the
truth when it happened."
Again, using Occam's razor, it makes more sense that man created
these myths than that a spiritual being without physical neurons
could think and plant ideas in human brains. How does spirit work
on matter?
|3.30.09 @ 11:27AM|#
T A, so to solidify your sarcasm, your paraphrasing a fictional
character from a galaxy far far away.
mmmmmmkay
|3.30.09 @ 11:27AM|#
Admittedly, I didnt wade through all 130+ comments, but just
stopped by to add my 2 cents on what I'm sure has degenerated into
a religious debate. This sign is 100% correct. Reason is the enemy
of faith because faith directly contradicts reason. Faith is the
belief in things you have no proof of. Otherwise it would simply be
"knowing". Any area where there is faith, IMO, it should simply be
admitted that there is not enough information for a conclusion, and
therefore one should not be made.
If you have a reason to believe something, believe it. Otherwise,
don't, or at least admit that you don't know.
robc|3.30.09 @ 11:28AM|#
25/8 is also wrong.
It is less wrong, but still wrong.
I would make the jewish numerological argument but
1. I dont buy it
2. I dont know it well enough to make.
You could probably google it though :)
Also, the fraction should have been expressed as 31/10, which
has the correct denominator.
No fraction is expressed. A measure of the circumference to one
significant digit is given. It is 30. That is absolutely correct
(to 1 sig digit). Considering their measuring tools, I think giving
2 significant digits (31 cubits) would have been, by the methods I
learned, technically incorrect.
Heck, 30 +/- 10 cubits is probably the proper way to list it, and
has the benefit of being exactly right. :)
|3.30.09 @ 11:29AM|#
"I got the allegory, but I think it's more the fact that Adam
and Eve were tempted and ignored G-d's words than the fact that
knowledge itself is evil."
Why would God even have such a rule as not to eat a certain fruit?
Just to have an arbitrary rule?
Taktix®|3.30.09 @ 11:30AM|#
Reading a Hit-and-Run thread about theology is
like...
...beating a retard about
grammar errors.
robc|3.30.09 @ 11:32AM|#
Anyway, I think my point is that those that criticize 30 cubits
would criticize 31 cubits for not being 31 and 2 fifths cubits and
would criticize 31.4 cubits for not being 31.4159 cubits and
etc.
Then again, if the state of IN or where ever decided to declare PI
to be 3.14 I would mock them.
robc|3.30.09 @ 11:35AM|#
bookworm,
Read Perelandra. In it, the "Adam & Eve" of Venus are
forbidden from spending a night on any of the permanent islands
(there are permanent and floating islands - the science of Venus is
way off :) ), It seems to be an arbitrary rule but actually makes
sense later on, but had they violated it, they never would have
understood the reason for the rule.
ed|3.30.09 @ 11:41AM|#
you need to have faith in whatever axioms you base your
reason on
Incorrect. Axioms exist independently of your personal
irrationalism.
|3.30.09 @ 11:43AM|#
"Humans have an immortal soul."
The mind is a product of the brain. When the brain is dead and the
neurons are no longer working to generate thought, how can the mind
continue to exist?
robc|3.30.09 @ 11:48AM|#
bookworm,
I dont see anywhere in the quoted portion mentioning the
mind.
I make no claims of knowledge about the soul, other than the
immortal bit.
|3.30.09 @ 11:50AM|#
If the soul persists, and the mind does not - does the soul know the difference? Why would I care, if my mind does not?
|3.30.09 @ 11:55AM|#
"An 8 year old may not understand the consequences of not taking
candy from strangers, but they understand enough the concept of
rules following. And punishment for not following them."
But Robc, isn't it best to tell people why something is wrong than
to expect people to follow a rule just because "I said so"?
|3.30.09 @ 11:56AM|#
Science discovered a long time ago that the body functions just fine without the help of an invisible life force. Sadly that probably means you aren't going to the great libertopia in the sky.
|3.30.09 @ 11:57AM|#
"I dont see anywhere in the quoted portion mentioning the
mind.
I make no claims of knowledge about the soul, other than the
immortal bit."
What is the difference between a mind and a soul? I think they're
one and the same.
Right Wing Realist|3.30.09 @ 12:11PM|#
I see reason has now proclaimed itself friendly to brain-dead, knee-jerk militant atheist sentiment. How refreshing.
|3.30.09 @ 12:14PM|#
Right Wing Realist,
If they started being all Jesusy how could we tell them apart from
Republicans?
|3.30.09 @ 12:17PM|#
I see reason has now proclaimed itself friendly to
brain-dead, knee-jerk militant atheist sentiment. How
refreshing.
Better that than brain dead, dogmatic, militant puritanism with a
hypocritical moral crusader edge.
John Sabotta|3.30.09 @ 12:35PM|#
Syme smoked thoughtfully, and looked at him with interest.
Gregory went on.
"The history of the thing might amuse you," he said. "When first I
became one of the New Anarchists I tried all kinds of respectable
disguises. I dressed up as a bishop. I read up all about bishops in
our anarchist pamphlets, in Superstition the Vampire and Priests of
Prey. I certainly understood from them that bishops are strange and
terrible old men keeping a cruel secret from mankind. I was
misinformed. When on my first appearing in episcopal gaiters in a
drawing-room I cried out in a voice of thunder, 'Down! down!
presumptuous human reason!' they found out in some way that I was
not a bishop at all. I was nabbed at once. - G.K. Chesterton,
THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY
|3.30.09 @ 12:36PM|#
domoarrigato-
Speak for yourself-I love the '72 Dolphins vs. the '85 Bears
debate. You try telling Jim Mandich, Bob Griese, Larry Little, Jim
Lnager, Paul Warfield, Eugene Mercury Morris, Jim Kiick, Larry
Czonka, Vern Den Herder, Manny Fernandez, Bob Matheson, Curtis
Johnson, Tim Foley, Jake Scott, Dick Anderson, Nick Buoniconni,
Mike Kolen, Earl Morrall and Don Shula that the argument is not
important.
My view? '72 Dolphins. They remain the gold standard for single
season team sports excellence. They did not lose. They did not give
up 38 points in a game as did the '85 Bears to the Dolphins in that
great Monday Night game. The clincher? The '72 Dolphins did it with
a back-up quarterback. That is why the '07 Patriots, in my opinion,
were never going to match the '72 Dolphins.
|3.30.09 @ 12:43PM|#
Pro Lib-
Aren't you a Chicago guy? If you are, good for you for being
objective.
|3.30.09 @ 12:43PM|#
the 72 dolphins were the UNDERDOG going into the bowl - clearly at the time they were perceived as beatable, even if they ended up winning. just to play devils advocate. Since I really dont give a shit.
robc|3.30.09 @ 12:47PM|#
If they started being all Jesusy how could we tell them
apart from Republicans?
The pot smoking. Duh.
|3.30.09 @ 1:00PM|#
@robc
"Anyway, I think my point is that those that criticize 30 cubits
would criticize 31 cubits for not being 31 and 2 fifths cubits and
would criticize 31.4 cubits for not being 31.4159 cubits and
etc."
No. The criticism is that the biblical god doesn't even know pi/4 =
1/1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ... and doesn't let the individuals decide
how many terms are required.
So, e.g. in financial matters, as soon as the difference is less
than a cent, no more terms are necessary.
In the 15th century AD Madhava was able to figure out the formula
using reason.
CASE CLOSED!
|3.30.09 @ 1:05PM|#
I am most assuredly not a Chicago guy. I just went to law school there. Being from Tampa, I'm a Tampa guy.
lunchstealer|3.30.09 @ 1:24PM|#
Faith has sucked ever since Gillespie took over. I'm totally cancelling my subscription.
Anne Keckler | ACSM Certified |3.30.09 @ 1:25PM|#
As a baptist, I say ditto. In fact, I think they go
together. I cant have faith in something that doesnt also make
rational sense.
An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent guy in the sky who
created everything from scratch, can hear our telepathic messages
to him, impregnated a virgin so he could come to earth as a human,
raised someone from the dead, resurrected himself from the dead,
and then rose into heaven, all without leaving any kind of proof
other than the contradictory writings of some cultists a hundred
years later, doesn't sound very rational to me.
Anne Keckler | ACSM Certified |3.30.09 @ 1:36PM|#
robc:
the fact that Jesus matched many of the God as man mythos was
one of the reasons CS Lewis thought christianity might be
true
I guess it didn't occur to him at all that Jesus was just another
myth, like those prior to him?
|3.30.09 @ 1:43PM|#
"If they started being all Jesusy how could we tell them apart
from Republicans?"
A leftist aquaintance of mine once told me that libertarians are
only thinking Republicans.
Anne Keckler | ACSM Certified |3.30.09 @ 1:53PM|#
robc,
Can you define "soul," and tell me how you have knowledge of
it?
robc|3.30.09 @ 2:57PM|#
I guess it didn't occur to him at all that Jesus was just
another myth, like those prior to him?
I guess you dont know much about CS Lewis.
|3.30.09 @ 3:23PM|#
30 is simply wrong, even in 4-digit BC, you're going to be off by more than a cubit every time.
In 2000 BC Babylonians used 25/8. Not only is the value 10x better, but you also get nice values for semi, quarter and 8th-circles (and is exactly representable in IEEE-754 floats!).
So, the Bible was wrong AND impractical even in 4-digit BC. Therefore, the biblical god is a retard.
I don't have to believe that the Bible's mathematical computations
are correct, so it really doesn't matter to me, but isn't it
possible that the object was "round" but not perfectly circular?
Even if it was just barely an ellipse, it's possible that the
"diameter" measurement was actually along the long axis of the
ellipse, which would explain how you could get "10 across and 30
around".
|3.30.09 @ 3:43PM|#
I don't know if a religious person has ever been convinced by rational arguments to stop believing. It's as if they MUST figure it out for themselves at a young age. Believe something long enough and you have to stick with it or feel like you've been played. No one is willing to admit they're wrong about something they argued in favor of for that long.
|3.30.09 @ 3:48PM|#
Nick,
That seems to be the case. I see my conversion to atheism as
inevitable (I was curious especially about science and a heavy
reader anyway; I'd come to the conclusion eventually), but I wonder
how I'd turn out if I hadn't come to it by 8th grade.
On the other hand, many friendly debates with my mother changed her
into an atheist well into her 40s.
|3.30.09 @ 3:56PM|#
To me, the evidence that an argument is rational is if those you argue against do not attack your argument directly on it's merits, but instead attack you, the sanity and behavior of your group, or use self-fulfillment or circular reasoning as their counter argument (my favorite -- the Bible says the Bible is right).
|3.30.09 @ 4:18PM|#
@crimethink
To compute the circumference of an ellipse you'll also need to know
the eccentricity (or the short axis) and the complete elliptic
integral of the second kind.
There are better ways to make the biblical value 'fit':
Earth is (approximately) spherical, so the distance on the surface
of the Earth from north to south pole is half way around so we get
pi=2!
Therefore, for _some_ earthly cubit between 0km and 20.000km, you
will actually end up with 10 across and 30 around!
Of course, this explanation is about as useful as a busted clock
that shows the right time twice a day. And of course you'll also
have to define the biblical 'flat' as 'not flat' to make this an
argument at all, but I'm certain robc can tell you why this is
OK.
CASE CLOSED, DAMMIT!
Craig|3.30.09 @ 4:47PM|#
It shows that free will is more important to God than
keeping us out of hell. What kind of loving god is that?
One that loves freedom more than the nanny state!
|3.30.09 @ 6:33PM|#
To compute the circumference of an ellipse you'll also need
to know the eccentricity (or the short axis) and the complete
elliptic integral of the second kind.
That may be, but we certainly know that it's less than the
circumference of a circle with a diameter equal to the long axis.
So if the long axis was 10, the circumference of the ellipse will
be between 20 and 31.45926... exclusive. It wouldn't take much
eccentricity to drop it to 30, and I seriously doubt how advanced
Judaean quality control was at the time.
Jesus|3.30.09 @ 8:25PM|#
Wow. I've just entered a no pussy zone.
Religious goons, and Libertarians complicating a rather simple
subject. You can't get any further away from a whore house than
that.
|3.30.09 @ 10:41PM|#
Maybe the sign is talking about this website, or Reason magazine....
That's why I would've told Pastor Lindsey to "Drink!" That and I like springing internet/movie drinking game logic on people in real life to mess with them.
Saul of Tarsus|3.30.09 @ 11:44PM|#
No one is willing to admit they're wrong about something
they argued in favor of for that long.
Uh...
perilisk|3.31.09 @ 9:47PM|#
"indeed... what is the message of the "tree of the knowledge of
good and evil" other than curiosity is a sin?"
That even under divine justice, "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit
rea" applies?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245