I get a lot of emails informing me that I’m going to hell. But this is the first email I’ve received that says I’m going to heaven:
Good evening Brother Daniel,
I can call you this because I don’t believe you will EVER lose your salvation…. So no sweat my Brother, I KNOW I’ll be seeing you walking hand in hand with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Love you and you are always in my thoughts and prayers….
LOVE YOU ANYWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SEE YOU WITH OUR FATHER!!!!!!!!!
It’s kind of creepy when strangers say they love you, but I admit, it’s a lot nicer than telling me they hate me and I’m headed to hell.
From a Calvinist? I figured such a proclamation would have to come from a universalist.
I think that is slightly more scary than being told I’m going to hell, I think I’d prefer that to a stranger professing their love for me…a little creepy…but funny also!
Sounds annoyingly like my mother, insisting that because she had me baptized when I was two, I can never be anything but a christian.
I’m going to venture to speculate that you won’t be seeing him with the lord.
I had a huge discussion with a [moderate] christian friend the other day about this, I asked her if her believing in God meant I’d be forced to participate in the afterlife too? I find this rather rude. In my version she wont notice a difference anyway (she’ll be dead. she wont notice not having an afterlife, not being actually able to notice things at all) but in her version, I’ll have to keep on living. Because she wants to believe.
For some reason I was pretty damn insulted by this. Very selfish of her. She even said that she didn’t want me to die without an afterlife, even though I wouldn’t want it for myself, and she admitted the entirely selfish motifs.
They cant wait to get the trinity up their ass.. ;)
Reminds me of a time I was in college and taking part in a Day of Silence demonstration (basically standing around in silence wearing all black and holding up signs about persecution of non-straights) and one of the university’s IVCF members (inter-varsity Christian fellowship) came up to me and said, “Jesus loves you anyway”.
I don’t know which offended me more: the “Jesus loves you” or the “anyway”.
Weird. I maybe sense either an air of sarcasm, or reverse psychology there.
I like how he acts as if you are concerned about your afterlife.
“So no sweat my Brother”
This smug “knows what god wants” twit will go to hell, as will you Daniel. You would not know it though since you be …well DEAD…
Its snowing here… I like snow.
That email you got clearly tries to apply reverse psychology :D Love your blog!
Isn’t there something lacking in the sanity (and grammar skills) of people who use more than one exclamation point?
@arkonbey
Hmm.. I like to stick to the rule of a maximum of three exclamation points when necessary. Anything more is definite crazy territory.
Congratulations.
But do watch your back, will you?
From a Calvinist? I figured such a proclamation would have to come from a universalist.
I thought the same thing at first. But I sort of hazily recall that some Calvinists (or maybe some other variety of determinist) believe that the elect, once they believe, are incapable of losing that status. Maybe that’s what’s going on here.
Reminds me of a time I was in college and taking part in a Day of Silence demonstration (basically standing around in silence wearing all black and holding up signs about persecution of non-straights) and one of the university’s IVCF members (inter-varsity Christian fellowship) came up to me and said, “Jesus loves you anyway”.
Geez. OK, I get that gay sex is supposed to be a sin. It’s stupid, but I accept that this the case within the fundy belief system. But saying that gays should be allowed to live in peace is also a sin? Or maybe she assumed you were gay (which you may be; I don’t know you) ‘cuz like no straight would ever stand up for their fellow human being, right?
“I’m Daniel Florien. I was a passionate evangelical Christian for over a decade.”
Now you are passionate about science, logic, and reasoning.
Yet most of what you are now believing in takes just as much “faith” to follow as does relying on something that is greater than what we can understand or explain.
I think worship is the real issue here.
We worship something in every moment of our lives. When we are kids it can be toys, cartoons, parents etc.Then as we get older our worship is directed to such things as the opposite sex, entertainment, material things like I-pods, cell phones etc.
Then eventually, we worship status, money, education, a marriage, a relationship, knowledge, anything you can possibly think of that will eventually break, get lost, die out, lose interest in us, cheat, lie, and consume most if not all of our time, energy and resources.
When we direct our worship to something that has the potential to let us down we set ourselves up for failure.
Mr. Florien, I don’t pretend to know why you went from non-believer to Christ follower then back. I am sure you have perfectly good reasons. We change , our affections change, our lives are in constant change, God however is unchanging.
And you know what? I like that. I really feel peace in believing in something that is unchanging regardless of the economy, the weather, or the time of the month.
I love to sit here and read your blogs and the countless comments because it shows that people are still working out what it all means. It also saddens me to see some folks defend their beliefs by being so critical, rude, and angry. I apologize for that. It really makes us look like ignorant buffoons.
Take Care.
-B. Rodriguez
I can call you this because I don’t believe you will EVER lose your salvation….
Reminds of a few years ago, I ran into an old friend from (gung-ho evangelical) university days. When I told him I’d abandoned the faith, he launched into a spiel about how I was still saved, ‘cuz when I accepted Jesus into my heart a transaction occurred in the heavenly places that could never be reversed, yadda yadda….at this point I could feel my eyes glazing over and I thought but didn’t say: Why on earth do you think I would give a tiniest flying fuck about my imaginary status in a non-existent afterlife? Can you really not see that from my POV, it’s the very nadir of irrelevance?
@ Elemenope
Yeah. You nailed it. Point 3 of the five points of Calvinism would be “perseverance of the saints”, colloquially described as “once saved always saved”.
@ Arkonbey
I am so glad I’m not the only one who cringed at that. It may sound pretentious, but if someone is communicating with lots of CAPS and !!!!!!!!, I immediately rush to judge regarding their intelligence.
B. Rodriguez, your comments show that you’ve either read this blog very lazily or have extremely poor reading comprehension. Understanding the natural processes of the natural world through the scientific method is NOT faith, so you can immediately cease and desist using that tired, worn out canard. It’s a logical fallacy, employed by those who insist on the unproven existence of their deity (or deities) in order to try to place their illogical beliefs on the same playing field as that of scientific discovery.
Further, your attempt to place trust in the scientific method as “worship” is equally illogical and stems from your inability to imagine a world or even an individual who does not cling to a belief in an imaginary sky friend like some psychological baby blankie.
@ wade
“perseverance of the saints” is point 5, point 3 is limited atonement. TULIP
By the way ROSE is a better way to handle scripture.
Roger you beat me to the punch on B. Rodriguez’s comments. I doubt he understands that science doesn’t come up with an idea then says it is a fact. B. Rodriguez if you think it is faith to believe in science remember that with science you can test and retest to your hearts content or until you run out of money. That isn’t faith it is doubt that leads to testing, trying to prove a theory wrong.
B. Rodriguez how can you worship knowledge? It is nothing more then words that explain.
I don’t have as much of a problem with that either.
I do like some tolerance. (And if you read my posts on the other subject pages, you can tell exactly where I have no tolerance!)
I had a wonderful boss – I think he would have preferred to be called the maintenance manager and someone I worked with. In reply to someone’s conversation, he said, “Everybody I know’s going to heaven!”
Even if you don’t share the belief system, as I don’t, he was such an easy-going, competent, pleasant person, you’d have to be an obnoxious, intolerant boor to attack that.
Does anyone else skip over the long-winded posts like I do?
I don’t read them when they ramble on like a filibuster, so they defeat their purpose.
@nbphotographix
You have a strange definition of “worship.”
I don’t worship money, power, status. And I certainly don’t worship invisible sky people. If I give deference to science and the scientific method it’s because it works.
When faith works as well as science does in explaining the world, I’ll buy it. Until then I’ll stick with the lab boys.
@ Barry,
What is ROSE? I googled and didn’t get anything.
Geez peeps. I already bought a philosophy book this week-end so I could follow the conversation better. I can’t keep up!
@ McBloggenstein on Exclamation Points:
I’m glad someone said this too – although I’d add that multiple exclamations should only be used after a sentence ending in a single exclamation mark.
More than three does start to cross a line.
@ Metro,
We are all worshipers, it is to the thing that we devote ourselves to. It is the thing we honor and cherish above all, it what we make sacrifices for. Our guiding principle for decisions we make. We dedicate our time, talents, and treasure to it. The things we cannot live without, It is what defines us as individuals. So for some its sports, for others its little gods in a corner of their homes. For others its Politics, for some even religion. For you it may not be money, or the others you mentioned. But there is something that defines who you are. You know what it is.
I’m not here to bash anyone or bring anyone down. I am not here to bash science. I am just participating in the conversation.
Just simply stating my opinion.
@Val
Yes, I do the same thing. By this time we pretty much know what they’re going to say so I get the glazed-eye syndrome and move on.
@nbphotographix
“I’m not here to bash anyone or bring anyone down. I am not here to bash science. I am just participating in the conversation.”
Nope you are here to preach … at least be honest about what you are doing. Oh and try and come up with something original instead of typing a paragraph or two of meaningless tripe — that would help.
“Just simply stating my opinion.”
Which of course you’re allowed to do but that doesn’t mean all opinions are equally and so far your reached the David Icke level.
@nbphotographix:
Hiding behind the other worn canard, “I’m simply stating my opinion” will not save you from strict scrutiny, or excuse you from an assessment of said opinion as being wrong at every level of conception.
That said, your argument about worship is…well, again, utterly wrong. I suspect that the reason you’re hammering at some notion of humans (even atheists) “worshipping” something to the point of distorting what “worship” means is due to your desire to invalidate the claims that atheists and agnostics make (e.g., the lack of verifiable proof or evidence of a deity or deities). Again, *you* cannot conceive of humans not worshipping something, so you distort the word so that a person who really, REALLY likes chocolate chip ice cream is someone who “worships” it.
You’re not the first person who I’ve seen make that weak argument, and it never, ever works, primarily because the person making said argument has to engage in tortured mental gymnastics in order to *try* to make it work.
Okay, for those who are interested.
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH01/07d.html
http://timmybrister.com/2008/10/13/steve-lemke-on-timothy-george-and-roses/
Radical Depravity
Overcoming Grace
Sovereign Election
Eternal Life
Singular Redemption
@ Jabster and Roger
I don’t disagree that nbphotographix’s argument (is it even really an argument? just seemed like a bad attempt to finagle a definition) is poorly thought through. But is it really necessary to imply that because he’s throwing it out there that he has ulterior motives to attempt to convert us all or launch an attack on Atheism?
Sometimes people make a comment just to make a comment. Something occurs to them, and they post it. Surely his thought can be criticized without reading intent into what seems to be a thoroughly innocuous musing.
Just throwing that out there.
@elmenpope
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck …
@Elemenope:
If I hadn’t seen that same kind of argument trotted out time and time and time again on these kinds of blogs, I might agree with you. However, I don’t read anything innocuous in those kinds of comments. Indeed, I find them rather insulting. And, in the context of his original comment–which referenced Daniel’s bio line about having once been a “passionate evangelical Christian,” I do read his comment as a form (albeit allegedly benign) of proselytizing/witnessing.
Fair enough. It just seems that people are all on hair triggers around here. Makes me jumpy.
@nbphotographix
Worship has a definition. You may want to read it.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/worship
You will find that your version does not match the actual meaning of the word. In this case, you may want to adjust your opinion of people worshipping science or money or whatever. The word simply does not fit. Now that you know this, assuming you are an honest person, you will come back and admit that what you said was wrong. Perhaps you will find an opportunity to clarify it. If you were taught this by some preacher or religious leader, you should speak to them and correct their mistake.
If you come back with this flat out wrong definition of Worship, we will know that you have been informed of the proper definition and are trying to deceive. If you are an honest person you will admit this error and try to rise above it.
To All:
Just wanted to say that I respect, all of your opinions, and no I am not here to preach, or witness, any more than you are here to do so for what you do not believe in. I am a not a religious scholar, or a preacher, or a philosopher , or a theologian, I am just a guy with a different opinion that’s all. I honestly did not feel offended by any of the reactions to my thoughts, in fact I am happy they are being responded to as I seek others views to gain a better understanding of what atheists believe.
Thanks
@Aor
You are right, I was wrong in using my own definition of the term based on this Dictionary definition and I was wrong in trying to apply it to anything else in life.
Which one of these are you refering to?
-Excellence of character; dignity; worth; worthiness.
Honor; respect; civil deference.
-Hence, a title of honor, used in addresses to certain magistrates and others of rank or station.
-The act of paying divine honors to the Supreme Being; religious reverence and homage; adoration, or acts of reverence, paid to God, or a being viewed as God.
-Obsequious or submissive respect; extravagant admiration; adoration.
-An object of worship.
-To respect; to honor; to treat with civil reverence.
-To pay divine honors to; to reverence with supreme respect and veneration; to perform religious exercises in honor of; to adore; to venerate.
-To honor with extravagant love and extreme submission, to adore; to idolize.
-To perform acts of homage or adoration; esp., to perform religious service.
I see a lot of this in sports, when thousands upon thousands fill temple like stadiums every day to -To honor with extravagant love and extreme submission, to adore; to idolize their team, and in politics, and Hollywood, The Music industry.
Some tend to spend countless hours in front of the TV, and now in front of the computer screen. I can go on, but I wont., I still think we are always worshiping something or someone at all times. That is all. No more no less…
nbphotographix –
In some of those senses I will readily admit that some people worship something.
But that’s a far cry from your first claim, which was “We are all worshipers, it is to the thing that we devote ourselves to. It is the thing we honor and cherish above all, it what we make sacrifices for.”
Many people simply don’t feel strongly enough about anything to properly characterize their orientation to any given thing as “honoring with extravagant love and extreme submission”.
“There is some X that is Y” is a far cry from “All X are Y”.
@ nbphotographix
Even if you continue to pretend that there is some form of valid analogy to be drawn between ‘supporting a sports team’ and ‘believing in a supernatural being for whom there is not a shred of evidence’; it is, I think, important to note that your comment provides not a jot of actual evidence for the existence of your supernatural being
I agree with Roger’s comment – why not stop playing semantics and come back with a single piece of *verifiable proof or evidence of a deity or deities*
go on – just one ?
nbphotographix:
You literally just mean that people devote their time and energy to things? Well, that’s trivially true. But it’s not the same as “worship”. Right now, I am devoting a good eight hours a day to the company that I work for; and yet I would never say that I “worship” said company. I think it’s safe to say that everyone knows, informally, what “worship” means, and that it isn’t what you’re claiming it is.
I enjoy watching Lie to Me on TV; I don’t worship Tim Roth.
If worship means “to show reverence for”, I think we worship rather little. I don’t think people worship sports stars the way they used to (too many falls from grace, A. Rod, for example). Maybe there are still tweeners who worship pop stars but past that age, I don’t see much worship. Sitting in front of the TV for 20 hours a day could be attributable laziness or apathy, it isn’t necesarily worship. (I don’t think you can make time = worship.) I don’t even see many religious people worshipping their God except for in church song or ritual.
Heh, I had forgotten this but my former pastor had chastised me for inauthentic worship because I didn’t raise my hands during church songs. I remember thinking that I must not know what worship means.
“Fair enough. It just seems that people are all on hair triggers around here. Makes me jumpy.”
How dare you say that? You can just go to hell, you monster.
I enjoy watching Lie to Me on TV; I don’t worship Tim Roth.
Especially after seeing Rob Roy. Roth was just downright creepy in that. Puts a damper on that whole worship thing.
Lie to Me is a pretty good show, though, isn’t it?
How dare you say that? You can just go to hell, you monster.
LOL. I’m a meanie. :)
@nbphotographix:
You say, “I still think we are always worshiping something or someone at all times.”
Just because you think such a thing doesn’t make it true. I think that in the center of the Milky Way galaxy is a chocolate being made composed of creamy nougat and caramel.
Now, tell me what’s wrong with that argument.
And such a slippery “definition” of worship as devotion to things that one loves…come on! A person who’s devoted to growing prize petunias doesn’t necessarily worship them. Be more specific, since how you’re using “worship” is a gross distortion of what it means–especially as you are connecting worship to belief in/devotion to supernatural deities *or* science (that was, after all, your original point).
It is very important for certain religious people to believe that everyone worships. I used to be of that group. It allows you to believe that no one just plain doesn’t believe in god, it’s just that they’ve allowed something else to take his place in their hearts.
There aren’t really any atheists. There are just people that worship money, or sex, or power. They put those things in god’s place.
It’s important to believe this, because your religion is constantly telling you that everyone has a spiritual need. We need faith, and worship, as much as we need food. Even more. So it is a complete violation of that worldview if you accept the idea that there are people who don’t worship anything. Who have no spiritual need.
The thinker who comes closest to arguing that humans should “worship” or bring into greater concern and esteem things other than God or religious concerns…is Nietzsche. And where he goes with the idea, I can’t imagine a theist much liking.
From Ecce Homo:
“These trivial details–diet, locality, climate, recreation, and the whole casuistry of self-love—are inconceivably more important than everything men have hitherto considered essential. It is just here that we must begin to learn afresh. All the things men have valued with such earnestness heretofore are not even realities; they are mere fantasies, or, more strictly speaking, lies arising from the evil instincts of diseased and, in the deepest sense, harmful natures—all the concepts, “God,” “soul,” “virtue,” “sin,” “Beyond,” “truth,” “eternal life.” …And yet man sought in them for the greatness of human nature, its “divinity.” …All questions of politics, of the social order, of education, have been falsified from top to bottom, because the most harmful men have been taken for great men, and because people were taught to despise the “details,” more properly, the fundamentals of life.”
So far it is. But I think the pilot was the best episode yet, and I’m not convinced it can last 20 episodes without becoming too formulaic, so I don’t want to get too attached to it for fear of becoming too disappointed in its eventual decline.
Or maybe that won’t happen and it’ll reach new heights of awesomeness. Who knows?
@ Elemenope
“And where he goes with the idea, I can’t imagine a theist much liking.”
You know me I always have to be so damned opposed to everything…. ;)
I actually agree with much of what Nietzsche says in that quote.
That’s why I’ve always loved the mystics like Brother Lawrence, Henri Nowen, Thich Nhat Hahn, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, even Chesterton. They always seem to find those things (of which Nietzsche spoke with such scorn) in the “details” that so many others “were taught to despise.”
@nbphotog
All apologies, but I believe Emerson waxed a little more eloquence on this issue than you or I ever could…
“A person will worship something, have no doubt about that. We may think our tribute is paid in secret in the dark recesses of our hearts, but it will out. That which dominates our imaginations and our thoughts will determine our lives, and our character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are becoming.” — R.W. Emerson
I actually agree with much of what Nietzsche says in that quote.
That’s why I’ve always loved the mystics like Brother Lawrence, Henri Nowen, Thich Nhat Hahn, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, even Chesterton. They always seem to find those things (of which Nietzsche spoke with such scorn) in the “details” that so many others “were taught to despise.”
Fair enough. Nietzsche was, I think, rightfully complaining that concerns with “transcendent” ideals interfered with reasonable appreciation of the mundane elements of which life is composed. I think he would agree that they don’t *necessarily* interfere (esp. in viewing that he thought the concept of necessity was fictitious), only that they tend to.
In many ways the men you mentioned were attempting to overcome the fear that seems to be endemic to Western religion generally that if we look too closely at the mundane stuff, we won’t find space for anything else. It is doubly odd, in viewing that, that medieval religious authorities of all stripes place Aristotle in such high esteem…or would be odd, if they hadn’t taken him as “received wisdom” rather than a suggestion of methodology.
So far it is. But I think the pilot was the best episode yet, and I’m not convinced it can last 20 episodes without becoming too formulaic…
Agreed. It’s a wait-and-see sort of thing.
@ elemenope
In many ways the men you mentioned were attempting to overcome the fear that seems to be endemic to Western religion generally that if we look too closely at the mundane stuff, we won’t find space for anything else.
I can only speak to Teresa of Avila, not the others Wade mentioned, but I think her view on it was that one could find the divine through performing the mundane.
@ cello
I like your style.
@ Elemenope
I like yours, too.
I can only speak to Teresa of Avila, not the others Wade mentioned, but I think her view on it was that one could find the divine through performing the mundane.
That sounds like what I remember. My thing has always been, if you believe God created the World (and that what God does is by definition ‘good’), how can you be so damn scared of the world? There have been occasional religious voices in the wilderness on this one (Like Chesterton and T of A), but the dominant paradigm still seems to be the neo-Gnostic “spirit = good; matter = BAAAAAD!”
It’s discouraging.
Wade, I dig your style as well. Cello, too.
It’s nice to run into some mellow folks, up for chatting about this stuff. It’s rare, because for some reason (that I try to understand but can’t quite fathom) this stuff usually gets people really ticked off.
“The craving for a strong faith is no proof of a strong faith, but quite the contrary. If one has such a faith, then one can afford the beautiful luxury of skepticism: one is sure enough, firm enough, has ties enough for that.”
@ Elemenope
“It’s nice to run into some mellow folks, up for chatting about this stuff.”
That’s funny, because I’ve been banging heads with Aor on another thread. He doesn’t believe in the devil, but I’m quite sure if he did, I’d be a prime candidate.
Like that quote by the way… Where’d that come from?
That’s funny, because I’ve been banging heads with Aor on another thread. He doesn’t believe in the devil, but I’m quite sure if he did, I’d be a prime candidate.
LOL. Most people confuse being a frustrating person with being a high-strung person. Of course, the most frustrating is the devastating attack launched from perfect serenity.
I think this is why a lot of people find Buddhists annoying. :)
Like that quote by the way… Where’d that come from?
It’s from Nietzsche’s “Twilight of the Idols”. I believe it’s the part where he’s making fun of Thomas Carlyle.
@nbphotographix
I pointed out you were using the word improperly, its not my responsibility to put meanings to your words. I merely want you to understand what the words mean when you use them. Brainyquote.com is not a dictionary by the way, and you had to skip a couple actual dictionaries to get to that site. In the future, you should see that as a sign. When you find yourself having to skip actual dictionaries in order to get a self serving definition, that means something… and not something good.
Words have meanings, and if you want to be understood you have to use those accepted meanings.
@Wade
I don’t think you are the devil, just another believer who is afraid to be open and honest. I have been challenging you for days to demonstrate you understand a quote you brought out yourself, and you have declined multiple times. This is what I expect of believers. They don’t concede points, they resort to deception when pushed to explain themselves, they try to shift responsibility and blame to others. If you decide to be honest and respond to my questions, you should do it on the post where it began.
That is assuming you aren’t just a parrot with a keyboard.
I find these kinds of reply even more creepy…
But… Um… I guess good for you Brother Daniel, & good for Hitler as well, since I’m assuming this poster is promoting “once save always saved” idea.
Perhaps the meaning that nbphotographix was searching for in the word ‘worship’ could be interpreted in the following manner…’wherever your treasure is, there will your heart be found also’.
Whatever we treasure, value, yes love will have a high priority in our lives, we will be devoted to it, them, care for, cherish it/them. In this sense, we are all worshippers.
Think about what you think about most? What takes your money, your time, your…heart? What has your attention? What are you devoted to? Devotion is one of the definitions of worship in the noun, #4/Websters.
We all give ourselves to some…thing or some…one. Even if we are narcissistic we worship…self. We can worship money, possessions, TV, vocations, people, alcohol, sex, addictions, you name it, we become hopelessly ‘devoted’. I realize you resent the term ‘worship’ because it infers a religious connotation but Jesus wasnt referring to ‘religion’ when He made the statement that ‘wherever our treasure is, there will our heart be found also’.
I realize you dont like the word ‘heart’ either but I think for discussions sake we can agree on the general meaning there of the word ‘heart’.
I think this is what he was getting at, perhaps he will chime in and affirm or not.
JC
@Elemenope
It’s from Nietzsche’s “Twilight of the Idols”. I believe it’s the part where he’s making fun of Thomas Carlyle.
Cool… I have that book on my shelf right now. Read it in college. Don’t know how I missed that gem. Thanks!
@ Elemenope… (again)
Sorry, but you have got to read the last few comments here…
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/01/31/girl-exposes-atheism/
I was on the verge of tears (laughter) after reading the second to last post.
John C –
I guess my only issue of the usage above is that the English language (in particular) is a very strong and expressive language precisely because its many synonyms possess subtle shades of meaning. On some level, sure, ‘worship’ can mean the same thing as ‘devotion’, it can also mean ‘obsession’, ‘celebration’, and ‘idolizing’. While technical synonyms, each carries with it some semantic baggage. Devotion is a fairly context neutral term; obsession tends to have more negative connotations, as does idolizing (with the latter generally implying that the object is not worthy of the attention); celebration has a lighter-hearted feel; worship usually carries with it religious overtones.
The only way the English language retains its expressiveness is if people that use it are mindful of the implications of these words, their subtle differences in meaning and contextual sense. Most native speakers of a language do this instinctively, and only go against this sense when they are intentionally trying to jar a listener’s/reader’s perspective into a different frame. In this, the commenters above are justified in complaining that using the word “worship” for this general sense of devotion unnecessarily imports with it a bunch of religious baggage that is otherwise unnecessary for discussing what is being discussed..
I realize you don’t like the word ‘heart’ either but I think for discussions sake we can agree on the general meaning there of the word ‘heart’.
What’s wrong with ‘heart’? It’s a metaphor…not that complicated or scary. At least, I don’t think it is. :)
@Wade
Sorry, but you have got to read the last few comments here…
I missed most of that thread, so I went back and read it all. Man, that was nearly physically painful at times. Aor and Jabster really have a roiling hatred of philosophy. (“But what does it mean?! You can’t tell me? It must not mean anything!!”) What a weird thing to hate.
I was on the verge of tears (laughter) after reading the second to last post.
Reading a text for meaning is haaard. Seriously, the metaphorical meaning of the quote is pretty obvious; Teleprompter got it pretty much immediately.
A professor of mine once told me (after I had made some intemperate comments about Karl Popper) that to assume that the major figures in any given field are idiots is always a mistake. Even (nay, especially) when you disagree with their position, or their position seems silly. The fact that they are still taken seriously in the field is a strong indication that there is more to glean there than is apparent on the surface, and you’re the one who’s missing it. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with them, or even eventually come to the conclusion that their contributions are valuable, but you have to earn the ability to say that by considering deeply and after a decent amount of reflection.
@Elemenope
Actually I asked Wade many times to give us any interpretation rather than ‘its metaphorical, dude’. In the real world, the proper understanding of a concept is often displayed by rephrasing a statement. If he wants the right to declare people who don’t agree with an interpretation to be ignorant, then I expect him to be able to come up with an interpretation when repeatedly challenged over the course of days. This is called intellectual honesty. Please look into it. Perhaps it wasn’t taught in philosophy class.
@elemenope
“Aor and Jabster really have a roiling hatred of philosophy.”
… and you decided this exactly how in my case? There are very few things I hate especially in a “rolling” manner (of course of you think you know me better than I do please just post that). If you wish to read “hatred” into my comments then feel free but I would suggest you think about what was actually posted without your preconceived ideas of what it means.
Philosophy has lots of useful things to say but then again I also happen to like:
“Philosophy is the art of assigning grand names to simple ideas.”
“A University head said (possibly) that he hated the engineers as they were always asking for expensive equipment, the maths department was better as all they wanted was pencils, paper and wastepaper baskets but the philosophy department was the best as they didn’t even want wastepaper baskets.”
@nbphotographix:
I have trouble with the whole concept of worship as practised by Christians. How does singing, clapping, holding ones’ arms up and swaying back and forth with eyes closed glorify God? There doesn’t seem to be any feedback that says he enjoys it or requires it – and I spent my childhood and young adulthood as a genuine believer, doing exactly that, and didn’t understand it then, either. And yet every worship leader I’ve ever seen seems to think that by doing these things I’m really doing something God will appreciate. I’m really curious to see if you have an answer.
Incidentally, “The Bible tells me so” is not an acceptable answer. If it was, it would have been when I believed that Bible was relevant to my life. It wasn’t.
@John C: I don’t see any reason to accept that well-adjusted people become hopelessly devoted to anything.
@Aor
What, you expect him to explain the entirety of Kierkegaard to you so you can situate the comment properly in its original context? I find the counter-demand “Go read Kierkegaard” to be more reasonable than this demand.
And that’s saying something.
@Jabster
In re-reading the thread, it seems I unfairly assigned to you a hatred of philosophy, when a more accurate claim would be that you were just being kinda pissy about an implied argument from authority (which I didn’t see Wade actually make).
All he said was that if you haven’t read Kierkegaard, you are not likely to understand what he’s talking about. A prerequisite, so to speak. Interestingly enough a person (Teleprompter) who was willing to engage by hypothesizing, rather than trying to psychologize Wade, did fine in working out basically what Wade was trying to say, and also managed to make contributions to the actual conversation.
I jumped the gun a bit because I have seen a inordinate amount of impatience with/distrust toward/hatred of philosophy in general around here, and on some pretty ridiculous bases to boot, mostly from people who admit no actual familiarity with philosophy as it is studied.
It’s like calling the quark-gluon theory of baryon structure wrong because it “sounds silly”.
Philosophy has lots of useful things to say but then again I also happen to like:
“Philosophy is the art of assigning grand names to simple ideas.”
“Simple” ideas, when actually rigorously analyzed, usually turn out to be not as simple as they originally seemed. This, for example, is the story of the entire history of the sciences. Why would you expect objects which are not traditional objects of science to be any different in this regard?
@elmenope
“In re-reading the thread, it seems I unfairly assigned to you a hatred of philosophy, when a more accurate claim would be that you were just being kinda pissy about an implied argument from authority (which I didn’t see Wade actually make).”
Well I always think it’s best to actually check what someone has said before accusing them of “rolling hatred” so I’m glad that you agree. With reference to Kierkegarrd what he actually said was:
“Kierkegaard was an interesting guy. He was a genius. I remember reading somewhere that his IQ is estimated to be in the 180 range … It’s a method that only a genius could engage himself in.”
I’m not entirely sure how you equate that to “All he said was that if you haven’t read Kierkegaard, you are not likely to understand what he’s talking about.” but if you read the thread again you will see that my problem was when Wade insulted someone and then claimed that was not what he meant and then later said … er yes I did actually mean that.
“Interestingly enough a person (Teleprompter) who was willing to engage by hypothesizing, rather than trying to psychologize Wade, did fine in working out basically what Wade was trying to say, and also managed to make contributions to the actual conversation.”
Again please read the thread to see what I actually posted because my “being kinda pissy” was not directed at the above.
““Simple” ideas, when actually rigorously analyzed, usually turn out to be not as simple as they originally seemed. This, for example, is the story of the entire history of the sciences. Why would you expect objects which are not traditional objects of science to be any different in this regard?”
Have a look into the theory of comedy I’m sure you’ll find it most enlightening.
@ elemenope
My thing has always been, if you believe God created the World (and that what God does is by definition ‘good’), how can you be so damn scared of the world? There have been occasional religious voices in the wilderness on this one (Like Chesterton and T of A), but the dominant paradigm still seems to be the neo-Gnostic “spirit = good; matter = BAAAAAD!”
If the first item on your theological billboard is “Total Depravity” in an attempt to describe the human condition, I can see how the world and everything in it becomes a scary place. I always found it interesting that Jewish religious thought does not have the same fallen world metaphor that Christianity has. It does view the world as basically good. When I started to look at God from a Jewish perspective (the OT was their scripture first after all), that was when Christian theology, as it is predominantly taught, started disintegrating for me.
With reference to Kierkegarrd what he actually said was…
No, that’s the first thing that he said. he said many other things on the topic of Kierkegaard, esp. in relation to the quote of Kierkegaard’s at issue.
You and Aor also both failed to grasp (or didn’t care to make) the distinction he was making later on, re: Pearls and swine, between stupidity and ignorance. Of course, in cases of willful ignorance, it is admittedly difficult to separate the two.
Have a look into the theory of comedy I’m sure you’ll find it most enlightening.
I don’t find cute ways of articulating a flippant denigration of a discipline to be funny. I guess that makes me just a big ol’ stick-in-the-mud, eh?
Compare your statement about philosophy with:
“Physics is the art of assigning big math problems to tiny objects.”
Wow, that sounds stupid, doesn’t it? Not even remotely funny.
If the first item on your theological billboard is “Total Depravity” in an attempt to describe the human condition, I can see how the world and everything in it becomes a scary place.
So true. I’ve always found the doctrine of total depravity to be both unsupportable by the text and pretty clearly demented.
I always found it interesting that Jewish religious thought does not have the same fallen world metaphor that Christianity has.
Good point, although I find the Jewish obsession with ritual cleanliness (Kashrut) to lead in a practical sense to a very similar conclusion.
the OT was their scripture first after all
I always thought it a good policy to assign more weight to the Jewish interpretations of OT language than Christians, on the basis that:
1. They’ve been at it longer
2. They have tended to be more methodical about it
3. It situates the text in as close to its original context as we can hope to get these days
@Moog
If your “Christian” worship was limited to singing songs, you were misinformed and pretty much missed out on the point of what real worship is. The songs are a very small portion of the big picture. I guess the model comes from when Paul & Silas were in prison , and yet they praised and sang songs out in the midst of the crisis.
I blame churches that focus on “Music” as the worship time. Instead of teaching that worship is what we do 24/7 unto God or whatever else we make of it by the way we live our lives. It is no wonder so many people end up denying any existence of God. A ton of churches are pretty much pointing people in to the wrong direction to begin with.
I’m glad you mentioned that.
@Mogg
Sorry just realized I misspelled your screen name.
Two of my closest friends are former philosophy majors. One got her masters in philosophy at Oxford. They are both extremely intelligent, and I’ve had many enlightening discussions with them. I don’t have any bones to pick with Philosophy.
But one of them admitted to me once, “Philosophy majors have to take themselves very seriously, because they know no one else will.”
I think that unless you are just trying to impress people with the size of your diction, then making arguments based on philosophers you know your audience isn’t familiar with, then retreating to ‘you need to read them to understand’ is frankly just obfuscation. It is just a fancy way of saying, “I know more than you.”
Explain it, or drop it. Don’t retreat to authority appeals.
“I blame churches that focus on “Music” as the worship time. Instead of teaching that worship is what we do 24/7 unto God or whatever else we make of it by the way we live our lives. It is no wonder so many people end up denying any existence of God. A ton of churches are pretty much pointing people in to the wrong direction to begin with.”
Wrong, but thanks for playing.
Do you honestly think that music oriented churches are the reason for the growing agnosticism of the world? Really?
My church was all about bible study. Hours of bible reading and study every week. Lots of study of the bible languages. We sang the occasional song but it was a tiny percentage of the total time spent.
My atheism came from the fact that none of it is true. Not the effing songs.
Do these things you say even make sense to you? Or is this a stream of consciousness sort of thing?
It is just a fancy way of saying, “I know more than you.”
Well, no. It’s an actual way of saying “an effective way to respond to X is what this philosopher said”. Since bloody when has it been true that a person can legitimately demand a thumbnail sketch of a vastly complicated theory/hypothesis/explanation/whatever (which is guaranteed to introduce distortions, and such, into the sense of the response) when discussing an issue?
Things have prerequisites. No, you can’t talk reasonably about complicated problems in physics until you’ve studied calculus, relativity, and quantum mechanics. In a trivial way, I suppose that’s equivalent to saying that “a physicist knows more than you”, but that’s only because it’s obviously true when talking about physics.
Every discipline is similar in this regard. Philosophers have a similar problem when trying to explain ideas to an audience that has no foundation in them. What makes it worse in some disciplines than others is the *seeming* simplicity of what is being discussed. Often, a person who has no background has a “common-sense” orientation to the topic, causing them to think that a given philosophical analytic exercise is damn silly. Of course, common-sense would make a person think that most discoveries in science to be damn silly, too. Thankfully for scientists, we live in a science-normalized society, where science is taught, and scientific discovery is reinforced as respected. Makes it easier for them to say “well, just trust me on this one”.
@elmenope
“No, that’s the first thing that he said.”
Yes but he did say it didn’t he?
“You and Aor also both failed to grasp (or didn’t care to make) the distinction he was making later on, re: Pearls and swine, between stupidity and ignorance. Of course, in cases of willful ignorance, it is admittedly difficult to separate the two.”
Yes I’ve noticed that recently.
“I don’t find cute ways of articulating a flippant denigration of a discipline to be funny. I guess that makes me just a big ol’ stick-in-the-mud, eh?”
May I suggest you read the canon of Byrne, Bailey and Brand. I would post some quotes but I’ll only be asked to explain them – how most unfair.
May I suggest you read the canon of Byrne, Bailey and Brand. I would post some quotes but I’ll only be asked to explain them – how most unfair.
Not really unfair. I never claimed to be an expert on humor, nor made normative claims about what should be funny or how funny things are constructed. I only commented on how I found a certain thing [not] funny. If you have a greater background in the canon of arguments on the subject, then more power to you.
Part of the greater problem is that nobody here is really informed about what anyone else’s level of knowledge on any given subject is. Blog comment sections are notorious for encouraging people to talk past one another for this reason.
I would say that if a person brings something up, they have a duty to make it clear. The reader has a consummate duty to attempt to understand the statement being made. A person can be absolved of his relative duty by evidence the other party isn’t holding their end up. In the conversation on the other thread, it was pretty clear that Aor was making next to no effort to actually try to understand what Kierkegaard was saying with the quote, choosing instead to read it superficially and dismiss it on that superficial basis. This absolves Wade of the moral duty to attempt to explain further, since he has warrant to believe that such effort would be a waste.
One of the first things I learned in philosophy class (logic and critical thinking) was to make phrases more accurate, more precise. Remove any vagueness. Use definitions that are neither too narrow or too broad. For example, this quote “if you label me you negate me” could be rephrased as “in some cases a certain labels can be a limitation for some people.” It may not be complete but it is more clear, more precise, and more accurate. By becoming more precise, the pithy quote factor is lost. More accurate, less quotable. Less vague, more realistic. This is the fair and honest way of dealing with claims from all sources, be they philosophers or sandwich artists (a related profession, I hear).
I challenged Wade many times to interpret this unsourced Kierkegaard quote. I don’t need to know all his writings. This is a cop out, putting the responsibility on countless readers rather than the person who brings out the quote. I don’t expect people to know all about physics when I raise that topic, and I would never dare say that they had best read all those physics texts just so I don’t have to clarify something I have said. If I mention a topic in biology, I don’t respond to doubters with a refusal to explain further. If I mention an issue in history I don’t state that it is the readers responsibility to read history books. That would be both arrogant and deceitful. If I raise an issue, I do it in my own words and am willing to rephrase things at the drop of a hat if necessary. This is how honest people behave. Nothing is beyond question, nothing is immune to a rational and skeptical analysis.
I have met more than a few people who care deeply about philosophy, and the ones that truly care tend to be open to critical analysis of any and all statements. The ones that are not, in my experience, tend to prefer the vagueness because it gives them room to move around wthout having to take a firm stance on meaning.
I don’t see vagueness as an asset. If a statement can be improved (made much more clear and accurate) with simple rephrasing then that is the way to go. Parrotting quotes from philosophers and declining the chance to clarify the meaning is not an approach that will convince rational people.
I have to agree with Aor. If you can’t explain it, then don’t bring it up.
I’ve had any number of discussions with physicists (I live near the Los Alamos nuclear labs, and a number of my friends work there). I’ve yet to see a topic that could not be streamlined or simplified enough for the layman to grasp, even in that incredibly complex field.
And in discussions with my very educated philosopher friends, not once have they resorted to, “you need to read everything I’ve read to understand.”
It does indeed read like a cop out.
I’ve yet to see a topic that could not be streamlined or simplified enough for the layman to grasp, even in that incredibly complex field.
There’s a huge difference between “Particles behave as though they have indeterminate position/momentum” and “the mathematical behavior of the Schrodinger equation is [X]“. The first explanation may serve for some contexts, while the latter may be required for others.
It’s an old problem of distinguishing knowledge-of from knowledge-how. For example, I know qualitatively how a gasoline-powered car works: an atomized spray of gasoline and air is sprayed into a chamber, where a spark ignites it which provides the force to move a piston which is angled so as to turn a crank-shaft when the piston is moved, which is connected to gears that transmit that kinetic energy to torque an axle, to which the tires are attached. That’s “knowledge-of”. However, *none* of that is at all helpful in me being able to actually fix/build a functional car. I am not a mechanic, and so even though I understand the knowledge-of in decent detail, I lack the “knowledge-how”, which is a distinct and entirely more complicated, more detailed, and more quantitatively-oriented set of information.
The problem is that the context of knowledge which determines its utility is determined primarily by the person doing the simplifying. So it’s pretty hard to be in the position of the layman and decide effectively when a particular topic is really too hard to reduce effectively or whether the person is simply “copping out”.
Sometimes the qualitative sketch just doesn’t do it.
Also, I suspect your physicist friends would be less inclined to explain anything to you if you reacted to their initial attempts by calling them vague, silly, or wrong. Which is the sort of c**p that philosophers must put up with that physicists generally don’t because as I mentioned earlier, we are a science-philic culture and predisposed to accepting authority arguments from scientists.
@Ty
“I have to agree with Aor. If you can’t explain it, then don’t bring it up.”
In the thread, I linked to an introduction to Kierkegaard and his methodology that I had written a few years back. If that is not a sincere attempt at explanation, then I don’t know what is. If Aor, or anyone else, read this, they made no indication to me that they had, and yet still had questions.
The truth is, some people understand these posts without having them spoon-fed. And it’s not just me and Elemenope. Cello and Tele as well as others seem to delineate the gist of what is posted without problem. I gain valuable perspective from Elemenope’s posts, so why should I be deprived of that, just because some can’t understand what she is saying without a 40 page dissertation?
I believe it would be much more beneficial if we were to follow Wittgenstein in practicing the inverse of your proposal.
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
So if someone doesn’t understand a post enough to expound on it, don’t bother replying.
As Woody Guthrie paraphrased my favorite thinker….
“…’ems got eyes, let ‘em see; ‘ems got ears let ‘em hear.”
…just because some can’t understand what she is saying without a 40 page dissertation?
[Ahem]. What *he* is saying. Not that you would have any prior indication either way. :)
It’s weird; this is the third time using this nickname on three different sites that the working assumption has been that I’m female. Is it something about the name, or the way I write, or what?
@ elemenope
It is the LMNOP thing. When you say it out loud, it sounds like a female name. Like Penelope.
Yeah, it ‘sounds’ feminine when read aloud.
“Also, I suspect your physicist friends would be less inclined to explain anything to you if you reacted to their initial attempts by calling them vague, silly, or wrong.”
I’ve often started with ‘that doesn’t make any sense’, though I agree that this is less inflammatory.
But there is something condescending (or at least reads that way to me) in dropping a lot of obscure philosophy references into a forum where there isn’t an expectation that the other readers will know them. I actually DO know them, and it still comes across that way to me.
I imagine that a physicist dropping a lot of complex math into threads would read the same way to me.
I’ve often started with ‘that doesn’t make any sense’, though I agree that this is less inflammatory.
Much less inflammatory. :) It’s no sin to say that something doesn’t jive with one’s own understanding. It’s quite another to follow that with snide and/or insulting dismissals instead of to follow with questions *for which the interlocutor actually is interested in the answer*.
But there is something condescending (or at least reads that way to me) in dropping a lot of obscure philosophy references into a forum where there isn’t an expectation that the other readers will know them. I actually DO know them, and it still comes across that way to me.
But that’s the thing; Wade’s reference to Kierkegaard wasn’t particularly obscure, and he even provided links for people to help understand what he was getting at. That they wanted to make fun instead of, you know, read what was in the links, kinda tips the arrogance/condescention scales in their direction, instead of his.
It is the LMNOP thing. When you say it out loud, it sounds like a female name. Like Penelope.
[...]
Yeah, it ’sounds’ feminine when read aloud.
Makes sense, I guess.
Ah, well. Nothing I say really changes if you envision me as a chick. May in fact make it more pleasant, depending on your orientations! :)
@nbphotographix
I missed the point? As Daniel has pointed out numerous times, many of the people who comment on this blog were genuine Christians. So was I, to the test of any scripture you would like to throw at me. I didn’t hang around for nearly 30 years because I thought it all pointless. This is just one aspect of Christian practice that I found ranged from baffling, through irritating, to slightly offensive. I am somewhat musical – enough to sing in a choir and play a bit of piano, but I was never going to be a great musician. So it’s not that I have no musical ability. I enjoy singing, but I never got “worship” singing.
So what is the point, then? Every church I’ve ever been to (ranging from Anglican to independent semi-cult) had a “worship” session as part of the service, and usually as part of small groups, bible study sessions and even formal administration meetings.
I know about the bit about everything I do in life being worship. I interpreted this as meaning that I need to live honestly and consistently, giving due consideration to others, the world around me, and to myself as part of “creation”. I find that this is actually easier and more consistent in practice now that I don’t believe in God, or at least not as Christianity portrays him/it.
“[Ahem]. What *he* is saying. Not that you would have any prior indication either way. :)
It’s weird; this is the third time using this nickname on three different sites that the working assumption has been that I’m female. Is it something about the name, or the way I write, or what?”
Well if it means anything to you, at first I assumed you were a guy. Then I saw where someone (mistakenly) referred to as a “she” and I guess you just didn’t catch it at the time. I, not knowing that it was a mistake, beat myself up a little for being so shallow and chauvinistic. Now, it turns out I was right all along. Though, it was probably still a shallow and chauvinistic assumption, to begin with. All the well, I stand (re)corrected, so grab a beer, mow the lawn, lets share hardy hand-shakes and go play golf.
@Ty
“But there is something condescending (or at least reads that way to me) in dropping a lot of *obscure* philosophy references into a forum where there isn’t an expectation that the other readers will know them.”
Yeah, I never really thought of it that way. When I hear “obscure philosophy reference” I think Heraclitus, Parmenides, Goethe, Frege or Husserl. But I assume to an average person the philosophies of Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein and others are probably a little more obscure than I realize. Not that this is a bad thing. As point of reference, I couldn’t tell you Watson or Crick’s first name off the top of my head. It’s kind of sad that basic modern philosophy isn’t taught in schools. Even in High School, students study modern art, literature, and science. Yet we never hear anymore than a few coined phrases from Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates. Even in College, intro to ethics or logic 101 is about as far as core curriculum goes. Philosophy (epistemology, especially) being the cornerstone of every other academic discipline, you’d think it would get a little more consideration.
It’s hard out here for a philosophy nerd.
Yes. I agree.
The biggest hurdle (in my experience) most philosophy majors have to jump over is realizing that not everyone is a philosophy major. :)
And it isn’t their (your) fault, but the exacting language, emphasis on semantics, and network of practically mystical references that philosophy students use often comes across as ‘talking down to people’, even when it actually isn’t.
A person well versed in philosophy simply can not talk to someone who isn’t as if they were. It is just frustrating to both parties. Especially in a forum environment where no one can read body language or tone.
Which is not at all to say that I disagree with you about the value of philosophy. I learned that lesson the hard way. I was a scoffer until I educated myself a bit more about it.
But, as you point out about our school system, unless a person deliberately sets out to learn those things, they won’t get much exposure to them.
But, as you point out about our school system, unless a person deliberately sets out to learn those things, they won’t get much exposure to them.
I imagine that it would be difficult in the US only because philosophy skirts dangerously close at several points to criticizing sacred cows of influential groups in the public. (Oh, who am I kidding. Philosophy can be downright subversive.) Imagine trying to teach Nietzsche or Russell or Foucault in a public high school. They have a hard enough time convincing people that evolution and sex ed is OK to teach.
@ Elemenope
Haha, I understand the frustration you’ve experienced with your name.
My other pseudonym on-line is “Player Piano” and at least five different times on a few blogs, people have asked questions directed to “Piano Player” about my posts. ;)
If only more people had experienced the wonder that is Kurt Vonnegut…
Conan the Barbarian was my first exposure to Nietzsche.
My other pseudonym on-line is “Player Piano” and at least five different times on a few blogs, people have asked questions directed to “Piano Player” about my posts. ;)
The best part about that is that even if Vonnegut’s tale had never been written, a ‘player piano’ is a real, honest-to-goodness thing. I chalk up some of the confusion to English being sometimes terribly sloppy (and painfully uncreative) about its internal metaphors (We park in driveways and drive in parkways? WTF?!).
If only more people had experienced the wonder that is Kurt Vonnegut…
My personal favorite of his was “Cat’s Cradle”.
Conan the Barbarian was my first exposure to Nietzsche.
LOL! :)
So funny you guys mention Vonnegut. I’m about to pop my KV cherry. I came at him all backwards and yuppie-like by starting with Chuck Klosterman, moving on to David Sedaris, and now I hear Vonnegut is the next logical step to awesomeness. I’m about to pick up Slaughterhouse Five as soon as payday hits. Any good reason I should start with another?
I’m about to pick up Slaughterhouse Five as soon as payday hits. Any good reason I should start with another?
No, that’s a good place to start.
I read “Slaughterhouse Five” and wasn’t all that impressed. I’m hoping his other stuff is better, but I haven’t gotten around to trying more yet. Then again, it could be I’m not refined enough to enjoy his writings. It’s been known to happen before. :)
Oh, and Wade, why not use the library? My reading intake increased by about 10,000 pages a year once I started using it instead of buying all my own books. If I REALLY like a book, I still buy it, but most things I only read once.
@ Daniel Florien
Your blog is excellent, so I’m willing to forgive you for not liking Slaughterhouse Five…for now. ;)
One of my friends read it after I recommended it, and his first comment to me after finishing it was, “why couldn’t he just write a regular book about WWII, that I would’ve been fine with.”
ARrrgghhh! Sorry, but that was excruciating to hear.
I would definitely start with Slaughterhouse Five, though Cat’s Cradle is also good. I really liked Slapstick, too, though I’m not sure I would start with that one.
Seems to me this thread calls for this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF2RYhNhBdw
Matthew 16:16-18?
I’m pretty sure that’s the only actual test for being a Christian that the Bible advocates, and yet very few Christians actually take it…
@ Daniel
Yeah, I’ve become a fan of the public library, lately. The good thing about Vonnegut, though, is even if I buy it and hate it, people will still think I’m cultured if it’s sitting on my shelf. ;)
@wintermute
Well played, sir.
People simply have to back up their quotes. If a quote comes from the bible, I expect it to be analyzed using the same techniques as if it came from a philosopher, and vice versa. One approach, the skeptical one, applied to all people equally. If a theologian brings a biblical quote, that quote should be dissected using the actual meanings of the words. Once the theologian states that its all a metaphor, push them to interpret that metaphor and come to some kind of explanation that is not metaphorical. Just because a quote is declared to be metaphorical doesn’t mean that intelligent people cannot and should not phrase it in a non-metaphorical way. The meaning of the quote can only be made clearer. Resistance to a finding a clear interpretation is a dishonest approach to searching for meaning, and I would have thought that the search for meaning would be imporatant in philosophy.
“Its metaphorical” tends to be used when words and meaning are unclear. Rather than say “I don’t know what it means, its not clear” people say “its metaphorical, and I know exactly what it means, but I won’t explain it or justify my interpretation.”
Its a cop out. Whether its done by a theologian or a philosopher, its a cop out.
If a theologian brings a biblical quote, that quote should be dissected using the actual meanings of the words.
The point of a metaphor is to approximate the conveyance of a concept that resists non-metaphorical expression. For a fun exercise, try to define ‘love’ non-metaphorically in a way that will satisfy *anyone* familiar with the concept.
All words’ definitions are chronically underdetermined; anyone knows that from just looking at a dictionary. Each word has several definitions, and each definition is composed of nothing but strings of other words.
Words only become actually meaningful when they are situated in a context; a word in a sentence, a sentence in a paragraph, a paragraph in a larger work, written at a specific place and time, by a person who has certain perspectives and specific personal properties.
Your desire for non-metaphorical clarity is not only usually unachievable, but does a great deal of violence to what many people are actually trying to communicate with their words; an existential sense behind the literal or descriptive sense. People form sentences to relate internal experiences, inseparable as they are from perspective and emotion. The attempt to minimize this works in certain narrow fields (like, say, descriptive science), but is fairly useless pretty much everywhere else.
@wintermute: I think you mean Mark 16:16-18. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending how you look at it), any Christian stupid enough to believe Jesus about that is now dead.
Personally, I think it was just a joke to rid himself of stupid disciples. :)
Elemenope, if a concept cannot be described clearly then how can anyone claim to understand it clearly? Vagueness is simply not an asset. It should be eliminated as much as possible. Metaphors do not gain value by being unclear, they do not gain meaning by being unclear, then can only lose meaning and value. Put simply, accuracy and precision are ALWAYS better than the alternatives. Case closed.
Personally, I think it was just a joke to rid himself of stupid disciples. :)
LOL. Many textual scholars think that that section was added at a later date than the original writing of ‘Mark’.
Haha… I actually thought he was talking about coming to a personal understanding that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God; as Peter did in the Matt. passage. How naive of me to miss the snark.
@Elemenope
My advice to you would be to let it go. I’ve already been through this with him. Trust me, it’s a dark alley you just don’t wanna go down. Read his last post again, but replace the word “case” with “mind”.
@Elemenope
My advice to you would be to let it go. I’ve already been through this with him. Trust me, it’s a dark alley you just don’t wanna go down. Read his last post again, but replace the word “case” with “mind”.
You’re probably right but I…just…can’t…resist…urge!
Elemenope, if a concept cannot be described clearly then how can anyone claim to understand it clearly?
Because realms of understanding overlap and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If what we say is granted meaning partially (if not entirely) by the frame in which it is said, then people who interpret the frame differently are going to extract a different amount and even different type of information from it.
For example, any child who has played with a microscope at length realizes quickly that, for example, surfaces which appear and act smooth in the macro-world are anything but smooth in the micro-world. Most science teachers, betraying their reductive prejudice, will tell the incredulous child that the micro-view is ‘really’ how the surface is. The child’s incredulity, however, is justified, for the object is smooth in the macro context. The ridiculousness of the teacher’s statement can be exposed by simply changing magnification; with a sufficiently powerful microscope, the child would be able to see that the surface which was smooth to the touch and rough under modest magnification is in stronger magnification a fairly chaotic amalgam of molecules that does not easily admit to either adjectival description, being mostly empty space; the teacher’s assertion that the earlier rough surface is ‘how the object really is’ is defeated by the new frame. All three frames, and many others beside, are all legitimately ‘how the object really is’; all that changes is which frame of the object the child participates in.
To describe the difference of frames, we are required to employ metaphors. It’s no accident that physics is perhaps the most prone to the use of metaphors to reify abstract mathematical descriptions of entities, because they have to deal with the concept of spatio-temporal frame most directly. Sure, the equations are precise *and* accurate. Without the metaphors that describe their integration, they are also *completely useless* to human beings.
Consider the metaphors of “charge” and “color” in particle physics. They are ways of describing, in the first case, two mutually exclusive properties, and in the second case, three mutually exclusive properties. The actual mechanics of those properties, described directly by the mathematical systems we call quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics, are unbelievably complicated. But they describe behaviors in a way that human beings are literally incapable of conceptualizing; so, physicists use this handy linguistic tool we call a ‘metaphor’ to condense these dynamics into easily framed notions. A reductive non-metaphorical description is fairly unhelpful to aiding human understanding of those systems.
Does this introduce the possibility of confusion? YES! There is always the danger that a literally minded person will actually become confused by a quark being described as being “red”, mistaking the metaphorical notion of color for the literal experience of visual light. A person could confuse the notion of an electron having a “negative” charge, with a literal concept of arithmetic subtraction. We use such tools regardless because they help to frame things in ways that humans can manipulate in their mind.
Case closed.
Nice metaphor. You could mean many things by it, but one thing’s for sure: it sure is succinct!
@Elemenope
Charge and color in the physics sense are not metaphors. Not at all. They are precise terms that describe precise attributes. In fact, in all my years of physics I have never heard a professor say that physics relies on metaphors or that color and charge were metaphors for anything. Does physics occasionally use metaphors out of convenience? Sure. Relies on metaphors? Absolutely not. In fact, if you do think color and charge is a metaphor then perhaps you would be inclined to give a description of how and why they are metaphors.
I think you may not understand the physics involved or the origin of the terminology.
This does not refer to a clearly described concept in any way. I said nothing about mutual exclusivity, I said nothing about overlap of realms of understanding. Those are irrelevancies. I wonder even why you raise them. It does not matter if a clearly described concept overlaps a variety of fields. How could it? It is still clearly described so what field it falls in does not matter in the slightest. It makes me wonder if you understand my words or if you are simply looking for a way to not accept the value of precise terminology and just want to muddy the waters.
I made a simple statement: If a concept cannot be described clearly then it is not understood clearly. Do you dispute this, and if so state exactly why. If we truly understand something then we can describe it. If we cannot describe it, we do not understand it. If you can find an example of something that we understand clearly and yet cannot describe clearly, bring it. If not, don’t get caught trying to defend that position.
But I think you are simply missing the point. I never said metaphors are useless. Never, not once! Don’t take that straw man position. My point is quite clear: metaphors take a back seat to more accurate and more precise ways of stating information. Metaphors are a second rate and unclear way of delivering information because they allow a variety of interpretations. When we have the opportunity we find better ways of stating things. Clearer ways with less room for misinterpretation.
If you want to take the position that metaphors trump accurate and precise statements, you will need to state that clearly. I don’t think you feel that way, but you do seem to be taking that position out of a desire to contradict me. My position, like I have said many times before, is the opposite: Precision trumps vagueness. Sure, metaphors are handy now and then when we can’t find a better way of saying something. Does that mean we should stop trying to find a better way? Hell no. Should we be satisfied with imprecision and never try to do better? Hell no. Completely unacceptable. The search for knowledge would be utterly pointless to a person who chose vagueness over precision. That is the anti-intellectual approach. Don’t take it.
Lets put this in yes or no questions, so you can see exactly how this works.
Is precision better than imprecision?
Is accuracy better than inaccuracy?
Is vagueness better than clarity?
Is a metaphor better than a clear and accurate statement?
For your information, the answers are yes yes no no. If you disagree with any of those answers, please state exactly why.
Now, if you and Wade are going to take the anti-intellectual stand then you should make that clear. If you want to claim metaphors trump precise terminology, say that once and for all and live with the consequences. If, on the other hand, you accept that precision is highly valuable and imprecision is highly detrimental, that clear terminology is vastly superior to unclear terminology, then you should come forward and admit that also.
@Wade
If you are unwilling to speak to me, then kindly stop trying to be a prick. You called me ignorant and then ran away from the opportunity to back that up. When challenged, you ran away. Repeatedly. All you had to do was come up with one simple and clear rephrasing of one quote! Just that! You not only declined, you attacked me for challenging you. Those behaviors are commonly associated with deception. This pattern is visible in your other comments on the same thread. Its not too late. That old post is still available. You could still go back there and make some effort to defend a position once you take it.
I think you should start to show a little more intellectual honesty if you expect to engage in these kinds of discussions. Considering how you opened your conversation on the topic in question with concern trolling and by referring to a circle jerk and the typical “I’m taking my ball and going home” chatter, I wonder just how much honesty I can expect of you even at your best.
I don’t get the impression that you are open minded in the slightest but you still want to pretend that it is the rest of us who are closed minded.
I’ll quote Baka for this part:
Now, if you and Wade are going to take the anti-intellectual stand then you should make that clear. If you want to claim metaphors trump precise terminology, say that once and for all and live with the consequences. If, on the other hand, you accept that precision is highly valuable and imprecision is highly detrimental, that clear terminology is vastly superior to unclear terminology, then you should come forward and admit that also.
Your either/or mindset is so cute and cuddly! :)
In some contexts precision is what we value. In other contexts, we value expressive power, or emotive moment, or some other function for which we use language, and are willing to sacrifice *precision* for *power*. And since we’re being all exacting about words, I’m kind of shocked that you’ve been using “precision” and “accuracy” interchangeably. Sometimes, we sacrifice one for the other, depending on what we’re doing and why.
And if you don’t understand how “charge” and “color” are not metaphors in the physics context, you need a refresher on the definition(s) of metaphor. It ain’t rocket science.
I brought up differing frames as just one of many ways in which descriptions are
1. (partially) irreducible
2. consequently bound up with metaphor
Whereas you earlier argued that it should be possible (and would be preferable) that we could reduce descriptions to non-metaphorical description. You in fact said “Once the theologian states that its all a metaphor, push them to interpret that metaphor and come to some kind of explanation that is not metaphorical. Just because a quote is declared to be metaphorical doesn’t mean that intelligent people cannot and should not phrase it in a non-metaphorical way.”
So, I wasn’t building a strawman to knock down. I was working from your very clearly stated normative claim.
Ultimately, you are arguing that one should be able to use a hammer to drive both nails and screws, and inappropriately assigning Wade and I the position that we believe you can use a screwdriver to drive all nails and screws. In fact, I think whether you should use a hammer or a screwdriver depends on whether you’re dealing with nails or screws, and I imagine from what I know of Wade that he would agree.
(That, BTW, was a metaphor.)
@Elemenope
Sorry, but precision and accuracy are quite different. You can look that up, or you can read this next paragraph.
Imagine a dart board. Three darts, clustered tightly but not near the bullseye = precise. Three darts, centered in a loose group around the bullseye = accurate. Three darts in a tight cluster centered on the bullseye = precise and accurate. I expect that you will be willing to concede this point. In fact I know you will because you used the words in a sentence earlier. Why did you somehow forget? Who knows, maybe you are stuck with being contradictory.
Color and charge in physics are labels for properties. They are not symbolic (symbolic of what I wonder), they are not figures of speech. There is no implicit comparison between color in nature and color in the particle physics sense. They are simply convenient labels. They could be Liberty and Justice and the meaning would be unchanged. Perhaps you should read your own definition of metaphor, or if you won’t take my word for it just walk into a physics class and tell the professor that color is a metaphor. Bring earplugs, the laughter might be rather loud. I expect you to concede this point too, eventually.
This is me:
You seem to read that as saying that there is always an alternative phrasing something metaphorically. My meaning was that just because someone says something is metaphorical doesn’t mean it can’t be improved by precise terminology. Simply stating that something is a metaphor is not enough. It is a common cop out from theologians. They declare something metaphorical and cease all thought.
I asked you questions. Why aren’t you answering them?
Why are you unwilling to state that precision is better than imprecision? Why avoid the chance to respond to a simple question?
Oh, and your last paragraph was actually an analogy.
Sorry, but precision and accuracy are quite different. You can look that up, or you can read this next paragraph.
Yeah, I know. That’s why I wrote “And since we’re being all exacting about words, I’m kind of shocked that you’ve been using “precision” and “accuracy” interchangeably. Sometimes, we sacrifice one for the other, depending on what we’re doing and why.
I was shocked because they aren’t interchangeable concepts. You’ve been pretty sloppy up-thread demanding at first “precision and accuracy” and then talking exclusively about “precision” even in areas where accuracy would be the more, ahem, precise term.
There is no implicit comparison between color in nature and color in the particle physics sense. They are simply convenient labels. They could be Liberty and Justice and the meaning would be unchanged.
Uh, wrong, actually their *utility* would be reduced, because the concepts “Liberty” and “Justice” do not have the same internal structural relationship of concept that the notion of primary colors does. Physicists originally used the convenient metaphor of colors so as to indicate valences of a property which differ from each other *in an analogous way* to the way that humans compartmentalize primary colors.
From Wiki: The “color” of quarks and gluons is completely unrelated to visual perception of color; rather, it is a whimsical name for a property which has almost no manifestation at distances above the size of an atomic nucleus. The term “color” itself is simply derived from the fact that the property it describes has three aspects (analogous to the three primary colors), as opposed to the single “aspect” of electromagnetic charge.
Aesthetic Color Theory: three fundamental primary colors (when mixed equally, are colorless)
Color Charge: three fundamental valences (when co-existent in the same particle, are neutral)
Huh, looks like a metaphor to me.
And your snark about analogy is empty. Metaphor, in the technical grammatical sense, is a large class of analogies. In the sense that *we* have been talking about metaphor, metaphor and analogy are entirely isomorphic.
Lets put this in yes or no questions, so you can see exactly how this works.
Yes or no questions are rarely actually true disjunctions. Usually, there are actually four (constructive) possible answers to a well-framed “yes or no” question: Yes, No, Sometimes, Possibly.
Is precision better than imprecision?
Is accuracy better than inaccuracy?
Is vagueness better than clarity?
Is a metaphor better than a clear and accurate statement?
Sometimes, sometimes, sometimes, and sometimes. Oh, I’m sorry, am I being too vague? I would have thought that these answers were pretty damn clear in what I wrote: by my metaphor (it wasn’t a non-metaphorical analogy; it used one class of things (tools) to describe different approaches to ways of constructing linguistic sentences (metaphors and non-metaphors) and another class of things to represent two different classes of application (those in which metaphor is more useful, and those in which metaphor is not more useful). *Sometimes* a metaphor is more effective, *sometimes* direct description is more effective. Since most metaphors are not reducible, one is not merely an imprecise secondary set of the other, as you seem to claim.
I also like your effort to backtrack on “Just because a quote is declared to be metaphorical doesn’t mean that intelligent people cannot and should not phrase it in a non-metaphorical way” and my personal favorite “My point is quite clear: metaphors take a back seat to more accurate and more precise ways of stating information. Metaphors are a second rate and unclear way of delivering information because they allow a variety of interpretations.”
In other words, metaphors suck compared to non-metaphors, and metaphors can always be reduced by “intelligent people”. That is literally what you are claiming in those two passages. Then you whined when I pointed that out and said that “My meaning was that just because someone says something is metaphorical doesn’t mean it can’t be improved by precise terminology.” Really? How on Earth do you jive this statement with the two earlier ones?
Then I demonstrated in a trivially easy way that metaphors are often irreducible, and also that they are indispensable. And you responded by ignoring the first (OMG, strawman!, you said, in a flaming non sequitor) and making fun of the second (by wriggling away from what, exactly, a metaphor is and claiming you know what physics professors would say to a particular description that hasn’t been posed to them). “It’s just a property”, you say. Well, yeah, it’s just a property whose practical interactions are explained in terms borrowed from aesthetic color theory. It’s. A. Metaphor.
I finally would like to point out that you never even tried to touch my original example. Please, tell us (demonstrate) how “more precise terminology” or “non-metaphorical” constructions will allow you to construct a definition of “love” that would be accepted by anyone familiar with the concept.
@ Elemenope
Part of me wants to tell you to stop because it’s only going to frustrate you. And another part of me really gets a kick out of watching him pitch a fit. I’ve never appreciated Kant so much. This is what philosophy class discussions must have sounded like before Critique of Pure Reason.
Part of me wants to tell you to stop because it’s only going to frustrate you. And another part of me really gets a kick out of watching him pitch a fit. I’ve never appreciated Kant so much. This is what philosophy class discussions must have sounded like before Critique of Pure Reason.
I never truly appreciated Kant until I re-read the Prolegomena to help out a friend of mine who was doing intro to modern, and got the part where he says (paraphrased) “if you can’t understand these distinctions…well, maybe philosophy just isn’t for you and you should go do something useful in the sciences instead”. Sometimes, ever so rarely, I feel like saying that to a guy.
If we slip up, why not just admit it?
Nagging discourse is less entertaining than disturbing.
None of us know everything; not even Kierkegaard or Kant, haha.
But if someone else is right and I’m wrong, then I should probably own up (or at least avoid the subject, hehe).
Dogmatism isn’t useful in these discussions, something in which I feel a non-religious person should see the utility.
@Elemenope
If you have a situation where I used precision and accuracy interchangeable, quote it. If you can find one where it alters the meaning of my point in a significant way, quote that too. At this point I won’t just accept blanket claims from you. I hope you understand.
False. I studied physics for years. Their utility would be entirely unchanged. In fact, I think you may want to find a physicist who agrees with you and give a source for this as well. I could go through some of my old textbooks and replace the words and I assure you the students would understand the concept exactly as well.
If you think precision may not be better than imprecision, give an example of how when where and why. The same for the rest. I stand by what I said about metaphors. They are less accurate and less precise than possible alternatives. People who are serious about knowledge do their best to eliminate vagueness in all ways. Vague knowledge is inferior. You are just playing games.
My words:
Those three quotes do not contradict each other. Try to show exactly how and where they contradict. Precise examples please.
As for ‘love,’ as I mentioned before, I never at any time declared that metaphors are useless. Stop pretending otherwise. This is the straw man I mentioned earlier.
Oh, and as for snark.. let me ask you another yes or no question. Was your last paragraph in the comment in question an analogy or not. Forget that analogies are part of a general class of metaphors, just answer that question. This is an important question, really. When I said it was an analogy, was I correct or incorrect.
Oh, and in this quote..
I believe the word you are looking for there is ‘accurate.’
Has anyone got any popcorn as I seem to have finished mine?
Seriously what’s the point of this … not everyone views things the same way* but at the moment all I’m seeing is lots and lots of I’m right no I’m right — it doesn’t make for the most interesting reading you know and before anyone say something yes I’ve done it before to a lesser extent.
p.s The whole dart board thing needs to be changed as you don’t aim for the bullseye but treble twenty :-)
* Think of the Jack Nicholson’s speech in Mars Attacks
There never was much point in this at all. It began with me trying to get a theist troll to not toss out quotes without being willing to back them up, but now its just tossing the same words back and forth. At the very least it should have been left on the thread where it began.
That being said, the day will never come that scientists will believe that metaphors are equal or better than precise terminology. I’d hoped that repeated attempts would get Elemenope to accept that metaphors are generally not the most effective way of conveying information, but all it is doing is making him more and more resistant to conceding that simple point.
@Aor
“That being said, the day will never come that scientists will believe that metaphors are equal or better than precise terminology.”
They can be useful when talking to a wide audience but I do agree that precise terminology is what should be aimed for in most contexts. The biggest problem I have is the just chuck out a quote without expanding on what that means to the person using the quote. It’s fine sometimes but when it’s used as a crutch — “I’m right because person A said this” — it does smack of not being able to contribute in a more meaningful way, the phrase monkeys and organ grinders come to mind! So I suppose the point I’m really trying to make is the quotes are fine to support a point of view but should not be the point of view. As Blackadder once said:
Blackadder: “Thinking for yourself is so important Baldrick so what do you really think.”
Baldrick: “My lord I think thinking for yourself is so important.”
One of my Christian friends told me that she thinks I might not be going to hell after all. Because I was once a Christian (hence, saved) I will always be saved and go to heaven. The saved cannot be unsaved. Plus, she also thinks that if I’m meant to be a Christian, then I’ll find god in my own time :/
It’s nice of her, but it makes no sense b/c that means that God is the great puppet master and essentially couldn’t punish people that aren’t Christian if he calls on some people to be his children (or something along those lines or something r/t determinism).
Dude i dont think your going to hell its even better than John 3:16 read John 5:24 NLT if possible its so clear. If you view that verse with the sin of death or the unpardonable sin mathew 12-31 John 5 :24 pretty much is the key and the answer. i honestly feel bad for all does lost muslimgs tho. They claim that their god is God and he is not becuase if he was God his son would be Jesus ya konw? so pray for the muslim comunity Old and new palestine should be a Free Open Nation United IN peace Jerusalem. UIPJ. So much more but to much to write….