|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: TICTH Snide, condescending Atheists
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
On the predestination thread in Purgatory, a local shippie atheist offers a standard snide and condescending comment typical of so many atheists online these days.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
SCK, that's where I am, too.
Whoa - pull back guys. Carry on thinking rationally and you'll end up joining me on the dark side!
"Rationalism" is the hallmark they apparently have which we Christians do not. So not true as the history of Christianity will tell you. Or you can put it even more simply for rhetorical flourish.
To be fair, snide condescension by Christians in their history or excessive use of fear probably made them what they are in the first place so they are only responding in kind.
Did you know the first major atheists in Australia in the late 19th century were previously Evangelical pastors that turned because of the doctrine of Hell?
On the one hand its understandable, on the other hand they are just returning tit for tat and perpetuating the cycle which seems hypocritical.
What pisses me off too is that I stoop to their level and become part of the problem.
Damn.
I wish we could move on.
I also consign to hell the power of rhetoric to obfuscate truth.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Oy! People can be dicks regardless their beliefs or lack thereof. It is the essential peopleness of people which makes them so. ISTM, on this site, there are more dickish Christians than atheists, both in number and percentage.
Do we need to start a thread every time someone is mildly rude?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
And here we have it, boys and girls: Evensong standing up for the Ship's greatest and most oppressed underdogs, reasonable Christians who aren't particularly comfortable with Hell.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
And here we have it, boys and girls: Evensong standing up for the Ship's greatest and most oppressed underdogs, reasonable Christians who aren't particularly comfortable with Hell.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidMe:
Whoa - pull back guys. Carry on thinking rationally and you'll end up joining me on the dark side!
If this is snide condescension, I'm a jellied eel. It's an attempt at humour (this much should be evident by the reference to the 'dark side', rather than the 'right side' or the 'right-thinking side').
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Evensong standing up for the Ship's greatest and most oppressed underdogs,
What if everyone, save one lonely voice, agreed with her?* would she then be forced to argue with herself?
*I know, I know; but let's pretend for a moment.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
I should point out contrary to one of Evensong's links (the moveon one) that a lot in various religions does need shaming or rebuking and it should not escape because it is part of a religion. Of course atheistic life stances shouldn't escape criticism either; can we take the followers of Ayn Rand to this hell board?
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Evensong standing up for the Ship's greatest and most oppressed underdogs,
What if everyone, save one lonely voice, agreed with her?* would she then be forced to argue with herself?
*I know, I know; but let's pretend for a moment.
I like this thread.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Of course atheistic life stances shouldn't escape criticism either; can we take the followers of Ayn Rand to this hell board?
So, as many people know, I used to be in training to be a professional philosopher. Now, philosophers are a notoriously fractious bunch; we'll disagree with one another just to have an excuse to argue. We'll change our positions just to avoid agreeing with one another. However, if you want to end a Philosopherargument, no matter what schools of thought, no matter how deep the animosities, just say that Atlas Shrugged changed your life for the better.
You'll find a whole room full of very argumentative people arguing you to death very, very quickly. It's almost entertaining. I'll never forget the time an invited lecturer mentioned Ayn Rand in a positive way and the Grand Doyenne of the faculty walked out, with half the grad students following.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[...] "Rationalism" is the hallmark [atheists] apparently have which we Christians do not. [...]
Problem's arisen with the discovery of evidence that contradicts doctrine. Before, internal logic got you along fine; now there's a conflict, and many believers put doctrine first.
Irony of ironies, the scientific method developed within Christendom, motivated by a desire to understand God's creation. Talk about sowing the seeds of your own destruction!
Christianity is just as capable of rationalism as anything else, if it follows the evidence. Unfortunate, the sort of Christianity that emerges (say the Tillich kind popularized by Robinson and Spong) gets accused of apostasy by many other Christians.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Christianity is just as capable of rationalism as anything else, if it follows the evidence. Unfortunate, the sort of Christianity that emerges (say the Tillich kind popularized by Robinson and Spong) gets accused of apostasy by many other Christians.
Because, of course, it is apostasy. By the way, what "evidence" does Spong follow, other than his own fevered imaginings?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
[QUOTE]
Irony of ironies, the scientific method developed within Christendom, motivated by a desire to understand God's creation. Talk about sowing the seeds of your own destruction!
Didn't it develop more with our Muslim brethren? Also, as has been argued many times, there is no contradiction between Christianity and science for a great many people. You seem to have very strong opinions Byron.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because, of course, it is apostasy.
Appreciate the demonstration!
The very concept of apostasy (along with its justification, heresy) is irrational, in that that it uses the authority fallacy to shut down debate.
quote:
By the way, what "evidence" does Spong follow, other than his own fevered imaginings?
The fruits of two millennia of scientific, political and psychological discovery. To give a common example, the ascension story and creeds presuppose a three-tiered universe as normative.
Spong works to incorporate advances of knowledge into a religion framed in pre-scientific terms, which shows Christianity far more respect that quarantining it inside a premodern ghetto.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Didn't it develop more with our Muslim brethren?
Islamic scholars certainly played a substantial role in its early development, perhaps greater than Europeans.
quote:
Also, as has been argued many times, there is no contradiction between Christianity and science for a great many people. You seem to have very strong opinions Byron.
Hell yeah. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because, of course, it is apostasy.
Appreciate the demonstration!
The very concept of apostasy (along with its justification, heresy) is irrational, in that that it uses the authority fallacy to shut down debate.
It uses definition. If having definitions of words is irrational, then throw away all your dictionaries and stop reading this post.
quote:
quote:
By the way, what "evidence" does Spong follow, other than his own fevered imaginings?
The fruits of two millennia of scientific, political and psychological discovery. To give a common example, the ascension story and creeds presuppose a three-tiered universe as normative.
You can't possibly believe science proves that the ascension story presupposes a three-tired universe as normative. Please tell me you just picked a bad example.
quote:
Spong works to incorporate advances of knowledge into a religion framed in pre-scientific terms, which shows Christianity far more respect that quarantining it inside a premodern ghetto.
He jettisons Christianity and shows respect to his own fevered imaginings, which he gives a Christian-like varnish to make what amounts to miquetoast deist humanism more palatable to a post-Christian audience that still has residual yet largely irrational feelings about the old stories.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I think rationality is overrated anyway.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Why would anyone confuse Tillich's theology of culture with anything Spong says? That's too mean!
Too Tillich, if that was unclear.
I do like Spong, but only when his autobiographical stuff resonates with some of the doubts I've wrestled with. He often concludes in ways that I wouldn't. Plus, I wouldn't accuse him of making use of evidence.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Irony of ironies, the scientific method developed within Christendom,
No, no it didn't. Not unless you are going for a One, True Scientific Method kind of thing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[Apostasy] uses definition. If having definitions of words is irrational, then throw away all your dictionaries and stop reading this post.
Bad analogy. Dictionaries record usage, not dictate it.
quote:
You can't possibly believe science proves that the ascension story presupposes a three-tired universe as normative. Please tell me you just picked a bad example.
Nope, the most rudimentary exegesis does that: Christ rises up to heaven.
What cosmology d'you think the authors of Bible and creeds held? Presumably you'd accept that it's an inaccurate one? If so, then it's reasonable to accept that this inaccurate understanding is represented in the text.
quote:
He jettisons Christianity and shows respect to his own fevered imaginings, which he gives a Christian-like varnish to make what amounts to miquetoast deist humanism more palatable to a post-Christian audience that still has residual yet largely irrational feelings about the old stories.
Who gets to decide that he's jettisoned Christianity? You? Ancient councils? On what grounds?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
On the one hand its understandable, on the other hand they are just returning tit for tat and perpetuating the cycle which seems hypocritical.
What pisses me off too is that I stoop to their level and become part of the problem.
Love the postmodern irony there.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Nope, the most rudimentary exegesis does that: Christ rises up to heaven.
And yet the Christian doctrine has always been that God is omnipresent. Not "only present in the top tier".
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Nope, the most rudimentary exegesis does that: Christ rises up to heaven.
What cosmology d'you think the authors of Bible and creeds held? Presumably you'd accept that it's an inaccurate one? If so, then it's reasonable to accept that this inaccurate understanding is represented in the text.
Not at all. Belief in a literal ascension doesn't require any specific cosmology unless, of course, one happens to have a very one dimensional understanding of the Ascension. Using that logic you'd have to argue that St. Luke believed that the Father literally has a right hand.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Byron, heaven could be absolutely anywhere besides the centre of the earth, and the first bit of the journey would be 'up'. Jesus could be an alien heading back to a cute little planet circling Betelgeuse, and it'd still be 'up'. Rising 'up' to heaven is compatible with a large number of points of view.
Like mousethief said, bad example.
Spong doesn't believe in resurrections because he's decided that resurrections can't happen. He decides this from a lack of everyday examples, not from positive evidence disproving them.
It's about the same level of proof as those people who believe that man can't possibly have walked on the moon because doing so is incredibly rare and difficult.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Indeed. Any pre-modern Christian who thought God lived somewhere that was physically overhead would also have breached the doctrine that God has no physical body, and so 'up' or 'down' are not categories that can apply to Him.
Actually if you want some highly coherent mindscrew about beings with no physical body, then Aquinas' account of the angels, or 'immaterial intelligences', is truly fascinating. If he had presented it as speculative fiction instead of theology, he could have won a string of Hugo and Nebula awards ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: Byron, heaven could be absolutely anywhere besides the centre of the earth, and the first bit of the journey would be 'up'.
Besides Australia.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
You seem to have very strong opinions Byron.
Hell yeah.
Kudos for your passion, but it seems that some of what you believe others believe is inaccurate. I personally have never burned a witch, or an astronomer.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: Byron, heaven could be absolutely anywhere besides the centre of the earth, and the first bit of the journey would be 'up'.
Besides Australia.
There is no journey from here. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
[...] Any pre-modern Christian who thought God lived somewhere that was physically overhead would also have breached the doctrine that God has no physical body, and so 'up' or 'down' are not categories that can apply to Him. [...]
It's not about whether God has the stuffing, but the location of his realm at the time. That said, anyone caught on the specifics is missing the point. Even accepting, arguendo, that the early church didn't view heaven as "up there," we can guarantee that they, along with everyone else on earth, were ignorant of everything from Germ Theory to evolution, and this prescientific worldview shaped their theology.
Orfeo, Spong, and other liberals, don't believe in a physical resurrection because it's rooted in that premodern framework. The gospel authors didn't claim that God suspended the laws of the universe (something Apollo could succeed without, so nice try, no cigar); they had no concept of the universe as a closed system of cause and effect.
Why isn't all this accepted and debated throughout mainstream Christianity, as it is in academia? Why, because the moment someone tries, someone else bellows heretic, and has wistful dreams of the auto-da-fé. If you want to get one over on condescending atheists, stop giving 'em reason to condescend.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Byron
So you are saying that something like resurrection was seen within a completely different world-view, (or whatever we call it), from today's? Weltanschauung!
This seems to impinge on the idea of miracles, doesn't it? I suppose the modern view is that miracles infringe laws of nature, that is cause and effect, and also this involves notions of naturalism and supernaturalism. I wonder also about a difference between pagan views and Jewish views - don't know enough about that.
Naturalism in the ancient Greek world? Again, not enough knowledge, or vague memories of Thales, etc.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Gesundheit!
Weltanschauung sure does impinge on the idea of miracles, which is why so many liberal theologians class them as a construct of the ancient worldview. It's not, as so many outside that camp think, about "disproving miracles," but about viewing sources in their context.
Interestingly, it's not an Abrahamic/pagan split: there's a fascinating argument from Julian the Apostate to the effect that, yes, OK, maybe Jesus of Nazareth did perform miracles and rise from the dead, but so what? To a worldview that accepted spirits and miracles as a fact of life, they didn't, in themselves, prove anything.
The very idea of a "supernatural" realm only makes sense with the rise of naturalism. We all know that Christianity didn't form in a vacuum, but we can underestimate just how alien its origins are.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That chimes in with Vermes' idea that Jesus was one of a number of Jewish miracle workers, or what he calls the charismatic Hasidim, who healed people, did exorcisms, preached, and so on.
So maybe there is a kind of Christian retro-engineering of these stories about Jesus, so that they become a unique sign of divine favour, when in fact, they are not unique at all?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Unhellish as it may be to say, couldn't agree more. The gospels are theological works designed to frame Jesus in the right way, and his uniqueness is a front and center. They put much effort into subordinating his contemporary rival, John the Baptist.
We know there were folk preachers who had a much greater contemporary impact than Jesus of Nazareth: Roman troops had to be dispatched against Theudas, and the Egyptian tried to lead thousands in a coup d'état against the Roman garrison in Jerusalem.
Liberalism's guiding star is to examine sources without a confessional lens.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
So what you are saying is that to the ancient mind miracles were widespread and didn't prove anything, and that the Evangelists attributed miracles to Jesus in order to prove ... er ... something?
Or are you just saying that attributing miracles to Jesus was supposed to show he was divinely favoured but not necessarily God? In which case I agree with you, but I think you are arguing against a strawman.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
(Because obviously if Christians thought 'does miracles = God', then we would also have to believe Elijah and Elisha and St Paul were God, which we don't.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
So what you are saying is that to the ancient mind miracles were widespread and didn't prove anything, and that the Evangelists attributed miracles to Jesus in order to prove ... er ... something?
Or are you just saying that attributing miracles to Jesus was supposed to show he was divinely favoured but not necessarily God? In which case I agree with you, but I think you are arguing against a strawman.
I'm saying that hiving Christianity off into a supernatural ghetto is a distinctly modern phenomena. The religion didn't being with special pleading: it simply applied worldviews of the time.
Magic and spirits were viewed as normative in the ancient world: Rome had laws against using harmful magic; the gospels famously attribute mental illness to demons. Clearly, the gospel authors were trying to argue that Jesus' miracles were signs of God's favor; what they weren't doing is arguing that God had overturned the laws of nature, 'cause they didn't know they existed.
The natural/supernatural split isn't upholding ancient Christianity: it's trying to reconcile irreconcilable worldviews, instead of doing the hard work of demythologization.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Dude. I'm a liberal and I haven't the foggiest what you're on about.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Liberalism's guiding star is to examine sources without a confessional lens.
As for this. Nice try but no cigar. Everybody has a lens and a confession that they see through.
But traditional liberalism is rather stuck in the modern era.
But we've moved on baby. We're now postmodern.
[ 26. July 2014, 13:18: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Orfeo, Spong, and other liberals, don't believe in a physical resurrection because it's rooted in that premodern framework.
Few things irritate me more about modern people than their inbuilt assumption that ancient people were all stupid.
Because, you know, back then they all saw at least a couple of resurrections a year and it was no big deal. It's not like you'd write a book about one or anything...
[ 26. July 2014, 14:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Clearly, the gospel authors were trying to argue that Jesus' miracles were signs of God's favor; what they weren't doing is arguing that God had overturned the laws of nature, 'cause they didn't know they existed.
That's a bit stupid.
The only reason to marvel at someone walking on water is because you know that normally people can't. The fact that they wouldn't necessarily phrase it as "it is a law of nature that people cannot walk on top of waves" doesn't mean that they didn't know that it just doesn't happen.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought that Byron was saying that Jewish holy men (hasidim), were believed to carry out healings, exorcisms, and miracles. I sometimes think of India today, where holy men are reputed to do such things.
I don't know how much the ancient world thought in terms of laws of nature, but presumably they thought that certain people were favoured by God, and could do such deeds. A commonly cited example is Honi the Circle Drawer.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Few things irritate me more about modern people than their inbuilt assumption that ancient people were all stupid.
Because, you know, back then they all saw at least a couple of resurrections a year and it was no big deal. It's not like you'd write a book about one or anything...
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
That's a bit stupid.
The only reason to marvel at someone walking on water is because you know that normally people can't. The fact that they wouldn't necessarily phrase it as "it is a law of nature that people cannot walk on top of waves" doesn't mean that they didn't know that it just doesn't happen.
Ignorant, not stupid.
This is basically N.T. Wright's "common sense" argument. "Fine, they didn't know jack about discoveries we take for granted, but look, I studied Greats, and I'm telling you, they knew people didn't rise from the dead! It happened because I say it happened. Disagreeing with me will not do. Now accept Christ and pass the port."
What this harrumph ignores is the difference between "unusual" and "impossible." No, ancients probably hadn't seen someone rise from the dead (although in the days before modern medicine, this was far from unknown), but the concept didn't violate their worldview in the way that it violates ours.
We've never walked on the moon, but even the conspiracy wackos accept that it's possible. Likewise, people who feel it necessary to have laws against witchcraft accept the possibility of magic.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that Byron was saying that Jewish holy men (hasidim), were believed to carry out healings, exorcisms, and miracles. I sometimes think of India today, where holy men are reputed to do such things.
I don't know how much the ancient world thought in terms of laws of nature, but presumably they thought that certain people were favoured by God, and could do such deeds. A commonly cited example is Honi the Circle Drawer.
Exactly. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Magical thinking permeated antiquity. Even a scholarly work like Josephus' Jewish War assumes history to be driven by providence.
This doesn't make the ancients "stupid," as the straw man has it; it makes their frame of reference alien to ours. Our notions of common sense weren't theirs.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Just a point of order, "straw man" doesn't mean wrong, it means false construct.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
And there are still people in the world today who use magical thinking, aren't there? I mean tribesmen who think that they can affect nature through their rituals; sympathetic magic it used to be called. I think Honi drew a circle and asked for rain inside it, which duly came.
I wasn't referring to US evangelicals!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
But really, it is conceit to think there is a difference between the world is magic and all the magic resides in one being.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And there are still people in the world today who use magical thinking, aren't there? I mean tribesmen who think that they can affect nature through their rituals; sympathetic magic it used to be called. I think Honi drew a circle and asked for rain inside it, which duly came.
I wasn't referring to US evangelicals!
Absolutely, along with the millions who keep a bead on their horoscope and treat prayer like ordering up a pizza.
What separates us and the ancients is a competing naturalistic worldview. The rain example gets to a crucial point: with the info at their disposal, a magical worldview was rational.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But really, it is conceit to think there is a difference between the world is magic and all the magic resides in one being.
Interesting point. I suppose the former is more diffuse, isn't it?
I find it interesting that things like paganism and shamanism are having a regrowth in the West, as if the world has been overly disenchanted. You can be your own spell-binder now, and have your own power animal.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
This doesn't make the ancients "stupid," as the straw man has it; it makes their frame of reference alien to ours. Our notions of common sense weren't theirs.
And ours are, of course, infinitely superior.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
This doesn't make the ancients "stupid," as the straw man has it; it makes their frame of reference alien to ours. Our notions of common sense weren't theirs.
And ours are, of course, infinitely superior.
In areas based on increased knowledge, it is, vastly so.
To the ancients, it was common sense that disease was a punishment from the gods, to be avoided by offerings and righteousness; to us, it's common sense that it's caused by bacteria, and can be avoided via sanitation.
To the ancients, it was common sense that some people deserved to be enslaved; to us, it's common sense that slavery is an atrocity.
Doubtless there's many areas in which we'll end up on the wrong side of history, but we shouldn't underestimate the progress we've already made.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
To the ancients, it was common sense that disease was a punishment from the gods, to be avoided by offerings and righteousness; to us,
So, modern theists do not pray for assistance?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Magic and spirits were viewed as normative in the ancient world: Rome had laws against using harmful magic; the gospels famously attribute mental illness to demons. Clearly, the gospel authors were trying to argue that Jesus' miracles were signs of God's favor; what they weren't doing is arguing that God had overturned the laws of nature, 'cause they didn't know they existed.
I don't think the two halves of this paragraph go together. If people didn't know about laws of nature, why should they think Jesus' healings were a sign of God's favour rather than just 'what happens'? Presumably if a doctor healed by bleeding or leeches, that would not be God's favour but the application of medicine, which implies they were able to distinguish between miraculous healing and medicine.
As for the idea that they had no idea of natural laws - bollocks. They had some strange ideas of what those laws were, yes, but why else do you think they developed those theories of bodily humours and four elements? Have you ever read Galen or Aristotle?
And if early Christians saw Jesus' miracles as merely a species of magic, why do some of the Church Fathers expend so much energy on refuting magicians as deluded, illogical or fraudulent? Hippolytus on magicians.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
