Re: Apple II and God (was Re: Notice to Scott Gamon)

[amitai.schlair@usa.net (Amitai Schlair)]

Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:

> Replying to Toby Reiter, Amitai Schlair writes ...
> > 
> > ....
> > > Nathan, you are REALLY annoying me now.  There is no reason on earth that
> > > you should HURT the Apple II community just because you can't live with
> > > the fact that there are other reasons for speaking with another human
> > > thbeing at giving them "facts".
> > 
> > There are indeed other reasons for interaction. (For example, your post
> > was mostly opinion and not a whole lot of fact.) However, these reasons
> > are of questionable merit and minimal usefulness.
> >
> 
>      Such a statement is easy enough to make; but, impossible to defend. The
> purpose of csa2 is to promote the enjoyment of ][ Computing. Transfer of
> factual information about computer hardware and software is just one csa2
> function. Project suggestions, expressions of opinion, speculation, and debate
> are other, very important, csa2 features. 

I must admit I haven't read the c.s.a2 charter, so I'm not prepared to
argue that point. (I'm not saying I _would_... just that I don't know
the facts in this case.)

Sometimes it's fun to simply be with a person one respects; I think most
people's criteria for respect are incorrect, and therefore interaction
with "unqualified" (what a terrible word!) people is not useful.

> 
>      Claiming that just exchanging facts is csa2's only useful interaction
> function is akin to expressing a concern about balancing ones checkbook when
> purchasing a computer and, then, once at home, powering-up the new machine to
> play Tomb Raiders. 

I'm sure this is an apt comparison, but I am unable to decipher its
meaning. After all, isn't playing a CPU-intensive game as good a way as
any to verify the quality and speed of the hardware outside the possibly
subjective frame of the store? ;)

>  
> > >
> > > In fact, it amazes me that a person who is as religious as you seem to be
> > > (from looking at you web page) should have such a literal interpretation
> > > of knowledge. How can you balance your deep-set Christianity with your
> > > obsession with empirical evidence? Empirical evidence would seem to push
> > > anyone away from, for instance, a biblical understanding of history.
> > > However, a non-literal interpretation of the bible would allow one to do
> > > so. I can't see how a person who refuses to see anything other than
> > > black-and-white could possibly use such an interpretation.
> > 
> > There is definitely a contradiction here.
> 
>      Perhaps, not so much a contradiction as an inaccurate 
> characterization and an inaccurate assumption.
> 
>      It is inaccurate to equate Christianity with religion. Christianity is a
> way of life based upon the word of the one true God. A religion is a man-made
> system.

That there is "one true God" -- that there is any God at all, really --
is an assumption that is accepted by some (like you) and rejected by
others (like me). This in itself does not make God a falsehood (there
are plenty of good ideas that people are too stupid to appreciate!), but
the existence of God is [nearly] impossible to argue conclusively either
way. I've wrestled with it for most of my 18 years and have settled upon
the conclusion that it doesn't matter. Since the empirical results of
belief and disbelief are the same, since god-worship dampens the drive
of the human spirit, and since I philosophically dislike the idea of
God/gods, I choose to consider Him/them nonexistent and base my
philosophy on that assumption (among others). I could very well be
wrong; however, based on my decision that the problem is insoluble, I no
longer care whether God exists. If things are as subjective as some
claim, God won't exist for me if I don't believe in Him. (This is of
course bullshit -- God either exists or does not exist -- but it's
always interesting to ponder.)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, of course. (Note the precise
and accurate meaning of the word opinion.) You may very well be right.
But I'm stubborn and am willing to take my chances on the semi-educated
guess that God is a waste of my time.

That's where I'm coming from. Even though you don't agree, do I make
some sort of sense? Please poke gaping holes in any of my philosophical
errors; that is, after all, how one learns.

> 
>      It is inaccurate to assume that acceptance of the word of God is
> incompatible with a desire for factual computer information.  

If one thinks, as I do, that God is not a fact, then acceptance of the
word of God is acceptance of falsehood as truth. From there it is clear
that the simultaneous acceptance of un-facts and desire for facts are
contradictory.

> 
> 
> > .... Whether one follows a strict or liberal interpretation of
> > the Bible, one is still following the Bible.
> >
> 
>      That statement is, of course, inaccurate.

I am not sure of the direction in which you are disagreeing. I'd guess
you mean that there is one true reading of the Bible, in which case I
applaud your rejection of relativism and decry your acceptance of the
Bible. A strange reaction, to be sure, but then again this is a mighty
strange thread to find in an a2 newsgroup! :)

> 
> > > > ....
> > > > # What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
> > > > # Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
> > > > # think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?  -R.A.
> > > > # Heinlein
> > >
> > > This quotation just about sums up some of the problems inherent to your
> > > belief system. "Shun wishful thinking?" If there had never been wishful
> > > thinking, there wouldn't be a wheel, let alone Apple II computers.
> > > Obviously opinion has greater importance than fact--it doesn't matter if
> > > the world is round if no one believes it! ....
> > 
> > Wrong. People who don't know the world is round wouldn't be able to make
> > a rocket orbit properly. .... Facts matter.
> >
> 
>      Yes; the Heinlein quote seems, clearly, to boil down to the advice: "Get
> the facts to the best precision possible." "Shun wishful thinking", etc. must
> be understood within the 'getting facts' context. The statement does not, per
> se, condemn wishful thinking or concern with opinion.
> 
>      As Toby indicates, Heinlein's opinion is subject to challenge. For
> example, it is well established that getting to the facts is often easier if
> the researcher can employ a variety of problem-solving techniques. It is as
> important to be able to fracture a rapidly converging gestalt-- e.g. via
> wishful thinking-- as it is to be able to form one.

I am not familiar with the "gestalt" terminology (could you enlighten
me?). Therefore I cannot respond usefully to your probably interesting
assertion. :(

> 
>      On the whole, it would be unfair to pick apart Heinlein's statement.
> Obviously, it is intended to convey an ideal. It is intended to be extreme and
> to be understood as intended to be extreme.

And that is the beauty of it! Can you picture a world in which this
ideal is in universal practice? I, for one, do my best to adhere to a
similar credo; Nathan, whatever my disagreements with whatever his
religious beliefs may be, does pretty damn well too.

It seems you are drawing an invisible demarcation between "ideal" and
"real," "extreme" and "practicable." This distinction is a perfect
example of the power of the human mind, in that it exists because people
have thought that it exists. If one chooses ideals that are irrational
and impracticable, i.e., religious teachings and their secular
outgrowths of "charity" etc., then obviously one is going to encounter a
sort of peripateia in which this divergence of worlds occurs. It's
entirely self-wrought. Because I reject those ideals, I haven't
encountered any such problems other than the deadening numerical
majority of my philosophical opponents. Sometimes that's hard... but I'm
young and stubborn and I'll make it.

> 
>  
> > I read somewhere a very interesting point: most of us in today's society
> > have no empirical evidence for believing that the world is round.
> > (There's that picture of Earth in the science textbook, but who's to say
> > it's really Earth? etc.) This is indeed true. However, physics makes
> > enough sense to me to justify the belief (opinion, in my case) that the
> > world is round.
> >
> 
>      Probably, you now wish that you had not written the above. A picture in a
> science text or a TV view of Earth from the Shuttle are pretty good empirical
> evidence that the Earth is "round". To seriously question such evidence is to
> believe in a conspiracy of truly amazing proportions.

Not at all; I'm just being extremely literal. I'm pretty sure the Earth
is round, and certainly a conspiracy to make people think the world is
round is immeasurably improbable. Nevertheless, I have not seen the
planet shrink from my view as I recede from the ground in a rocket, so
strictly speaking I cannot be certain. That's all I meant by the example
(originally propounded by George Bernard Shaw, then reexamined by Neil
Postman, BTW).

> 
>  
> > >
> > > I don't believe there actually are any absolute truths, and even if they
> > > did exist, their importance to humanity would not be based upon the extent
> > > to which they were true.  Rather, they would be important to the extent
> > > that a belief in that "truth" was valuable to the person who believed in
> > > it.  This is what makes faith significant.
> > 
> > You've probably heard this before... what you say (that there are no
> > absolute truths) implies that there is at least one, by virtue of your
> > generalization on the subject. But that's insignificant really.
> > 
> > On the other hand, you're saying that one's definition of reality exists
> > for the purpose of validating (or creating) a value system? That makes
> > for a nutty lens on life.
> >
> 
>      You appear to have found something in Toby's statement which is not
> there. He says that beliefs in truths are valuable to an individual-- a
> claim with which it is difficult to disagree.

I don't at all disagree with that reading of his writing. It is terribly
disorienting not to be able to have "faith" in the truth of truth! I
must have read it differently.

> 
>      As for his assertion that there are no absolute truths: it lacks
> clarity. If he speaks of "truth" in terms of statements of fact, then, he
> can claim that any statement is subject to the limitations of language
> and, thus, subject to inexact interpretation. This includes, even,
> mathematical formulations.
> 
>      Possibly, Toby equates "faith" with self-delusion. This line of
> thinking is not altogether unfamiliar. It can be very persuasive; and,
> really, it can be dangerous. It is a trap. It is a lie.
> 
>      Otherwise, it seems illogical to say on the one hand that 'nothing is
> true' and, on the other, that 'faith is important'-- faith in what?

What I tried to write (but clearly didn't explain very well) is that
asserting "nothing is true", one is assuming by use of logic that one's
own statement is true, and therefore the assertion is false. Sort of
like a card which says "the statement on the other side of this card is
true" on one side, and "the statement on the other side of this card is
false" on the other... that's what I meant when I wrote that you've all
probably heard it before. Not a scintillating refutation of relativism,
but it suffices for a quickie. :p

Along the same lines, a brain-teaser:

Is the answer to this question "No"?

> 
> 
> > >
> > > Anyway, I hate cluttering up an Apple II newsgroup with philosophy, but I
> > > really think it's time you, and others thought about the true reasons why
> > > we are all here: because we love the Apple II and _believe_ it can be a
> > > great computer.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Toby Reiter
> > 
> > I'd like to point out that, whatever his religious feelings, Nathan is
> > right about facts. They are elemental to a modern society. If we want to
> > regress to the age of the caveman, the way to get there is to start
> > substituting desires for truths. This does not preclude "wishful
> > thinking," but rather recategorizes it as "not yet true." (The idea is
> > that wishing does not immediately make it so, but volition applied over
> > time does.)
> >
> 
>      Nice. A little philosophy now and then helps make all those facts easier
> to swallow.

Indeed!

> 
>      Still, you have managed to avoid confronting Toby's primary assertion.
> Specifically, he asserts that shutting down Scott's work in providing
> alternative access to Apple FAQ's is hurtful to the Apple ][ community.

I don't know enough about Scott's work to formulate a response to Toby's
assertion. Sorry if you had expected one! (I thought the change in the
thread's subject would help readers.) My response was simply a mishmash
of what I thought were important philosophical distinctions in need of
making.

> 
>   
> 
> Rubywand


-- 
Amitai Schlair
amitai.schlair@usa.net
--











(sorry -- my server sucks so I needed to add more text)