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

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

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 being
> > that 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. 

     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. 
 
> >
> > 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.

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


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

     That statement is, of course, inaccurate.

> > > ....
> > > # 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.

     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.

 
> 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.

 
> >
> > 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.

     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?


> >
> > 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.

     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.

  

Rubywand