laklak wrote:Or maybe it could be just a load of made up bullshit. Let's get that razor out...

Calilasseia wrote:As I've recently said elsewhere, the problems inherent in treating mythology as something other than the product of parochial human imaginations, is that you have to jump through enormous hoops of cognitive dissonance in order to do so.

On the one hand, you have the 'inerrantist' position, which consists of treating every assertion contained in mythology as fact, a position that becomes absurd when this requires you to treat as fact, numerous mutually contradictory assertions contained within the mythology in question. That's before we turn to empirical evidence refuting several mythological assertions wholesale. The only way this position can be maintained, is by insisting that when reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right. See: creationists.

Then, you have the position of accepting empirical evidence about the world, but still trying desperately to shoe-horn your magic man into the gaps, whilst simultaneously trying to preserve core assertions from that mythology in order to prevent it from going 'poof' before your eyes. Core assertions such as your magic man being bizarrely preoccupied with this one tiny corner of the cosmos and this one species of ape, not to mention being interventionist when purportedly required, and doing so whenever the True BelieversTM ask for this. Doing so requires you to erect convoluted apologetic fabrications, to the effect that the mythology purportedly says something different to the actual text - in short, rewriting the mythology to try and prevent it from descending into farce. Which means that you're effectively making up your own religion, using that mythology as a foundation. Hardly a glowing recommendation for that mythology, if you have to rewrite it wholesale in order to continue adhering to it, and have to rely upon external data in order to make the decision when to rewrite it, I'm tempted to ask, "why bother?"

willhud9 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:As I've recently said elsewhere, the problems inherent in treating mythology as something other than the product of parochial human imaginations, is that you have to jump through enormous hoops of cognitive dissonance in order to do so.

On the one hand, you have the 'inerrantist' position, which consists of treating every assertion contained in mythology as fact, a position that becomes absurd when this requires you to treat as fact, numerous mutually contradictory assertions contained within the mythology in question. That's before we turn to empirical evidence refuting several mythological assertions wholesale. The only way this position can be maintained, is by insisting that when reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right. See: creationists.

Then, you have the position of accepting empirical evidence about the world, but still trying desperately to shoe-horn your magic man into the gaps, whilst simultaneously trying to preserve core assertions from that mythology in order to prevent it from going 'poof' before your eyes. Core assertions such as your magic man being bizarrely preoccupied with this one tiny corner of the cosmos and this one species of ape, not to mention being interventionist when purportedly required, and doing so whenever the True BelieversTM ask for this. Doing so requires you to erect convoluted apologetic fabrications, to the effect that the mythology purportedly says something different to the actual text - in short, rewriting the mythology to try and prevent it from descending into farce. Which means that you're effectively making up your own religion, using that mythology as a foundation. Hardly a glowing recommendation for that mythology, if you have to rewrite it wholesale in order to continue adhering to it, and have to rely upon external data in order to make the decision when to rewrite it, I'm tempted to ask, "why bother?"

So the question is: What about the believers who accept the empirical evidence for what it is, empirical evidence, and also accept God as a real and potential sentient being with force fitting said God into gaps on the basis of a faith axiom?

Byron wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:As I've recently said elsewhere, the problems inherent in treating mythology as something other than the product of parochial human imaginations, is that you have to jump through enormous hoops of cognitive dissonance in order to do so.

On the one hand, you have the 'inerrantist' position, which consists of treating every assertion contained in mythology as fact, a position that becomes absurd when this requires you to treat as fact, numerous mutually contradictory assertions contained within the mythology in question. That's before we turn to empirical evidence refuting several mythological assertions wholesale. The only way this position can be maintained, is by insisting that when reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right. See: creationists.

Then, you have the position of accepting empirical evidence about the world, but still trying desperately to shoe-horn your magic man into the gaps, whilst simultaneously trying to preserve core assertions from that mythology in order to prevent it from going 'poof' before your eyes. Core assertions such as your magic man being bizarrely preoccupied with this one tiny corner of the cosmos and this one species of ape, not to mention being interventionist when purportedly required, and doing so whenever the True BelieversTM ask for this. Doing so requires you to erect convoluted apologetic fabrications, to the effect that the mythology purportedly says something different to the actual text - in short, rewriting the mythology to try and prevent it from descending into farce. Which means that you're effectively making up your own religion, using that mythology as a foundation. Hardly a glowing recommendation for that mythology, if you have to rewrite it wholesale in order to continue adhering to it, and have to rely upon external data in order to make the decision when to rewrite it, I'm tempted to ask, "why bother?"

So the question is: What about the believers who accept the empirical evidence for what it is, empirical evidence, and also accept God as a real and potential sentient being without force fitting said God into gaps on the basis of a faith axiom?

A god-of-the-gaps who's a "sentient being" sounds a pitiable creature! Whatever happened to the majestic I AM, God pantocrator above and beyond time and space, no mere being but being-itself, the uncaused cause of all that is and ever will be, to which all things will return at the close of time in a fearsome apokatastasis?

Funny how God's gotten so small of late. Modern religion is truly the mirror of materialism.

If I take on a god I want someone worth throwing down with!

Calilasseia wrote:Oddly enough, one of the hypotheses I've erected here in the past, is that if there actually does exist any genuine god type entity out there, said entity will be so radically different from anything we've experienced before, that the unambiguous appearance thereof will falsify all of our mythologies at a stroke, and leave supernaturalists with even more egg on their faces than atheists.

As a corollary, I've recently thought that if such an entity did turn up, that radical difference from all past experience would leave even the physicists at CERN (who are acquainted with more than their fair share of the bizarre) staring and going "WTF?", let alone the rest of us. Any genuine god type entity would wet himself laughing at our mythologies.

Incidentally, there's a nice piece of writing on the subject of being in a god-like position, in The Mind's I (edited by Douglas Hofstadter & Daniel C. Dennett). The chapter in question is called Non Serviam, and was originally written by Stanislav Lem. You can read it online here. I suspect, given your attachment to Ada Lovelace, you'll find it highly amusing.

EDIT: that link has a garbled version of the text. Probably scanned using low quality OCR software.

laklak wrote:The whole brouhaha is perfectly logical when viewed from the standpoint of (to borrow a favorite phrase of mine from Cali) Stormtroopers For Doctrine. When your position is shown to be totally bankrupt, without any basis in fact, and in fact total bullshit, just change the definition.

"Inerrancy"? Well, not THAT kind of inerrancy, you know, the one that means "inerrant". No, this is a DIFFERENT kind of inerrancy. This one means "sort of maybe true in some bits but possibly not so true in others and I'll tell you which is which".

Or, you can simply deny everything. The world is not 6000 years old. Yes it is. There are two separate accounts of creation in Genesis. No there aren't. Water is wet. No it isn't.

Then there's the SBS, which in this case is not "Special Boat Services", but "Supercilious Biblical Scholar". How do you explain the differing accounts of the resurrection? Well, I could attempt to explain it to you but without a doctorate in Theology you couldn't possibly understand.

Or, as I said before, it could all just be a load of made up bullshit.

Calilasseia wrote:Any genuine god type entity would wet himself laughing at our mythologies.