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

[REVERSEDtjrehselTOSTOPSPAM@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Tilghman Lesher)]

Rubywand (rubywand@swbell.net) wrote:
: Replying to Toby Reiter, Amitai Schlair writes ...
: > 
: > ....

: > >
: > > 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.

My God can beat up your God.

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

True, but only if you accept that (word of God != Bible).

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

:      That statement is, of course, inaccurate.

So, in that case, Limbaugh isn't really a Republican, since he isn't a
"Lincoln Republican," right?  Give me a break.

And Jesse Jackson isn't really a Democrat, since he isn't a "Jeffersonian,"
right?

Shall I go on, or have you gotten the point yet?

: > > > ....
: > > > # 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.

Then again, if the researcher had to "shun wishful thinking", he wouldn't even
have gotten close to solving the problem.

:      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.

Pat Robertson is an extremist of the Christian religion.  Pat Robertson
expresses hate towards the homosexual population.  Therefore, hate is an
ideal of the Christian religion.
 
(By the same logic, of course.)

:  
: > 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.
: >

You've forgotten the other empirical evidence:  if you watch a ship disappear
over the horizon, it disappears from the bottom up.  If the Earth were flat,
it would simply get smaller until it disappeared.

:  
: > >
: > > 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.

Incorrect.  "Everything is relative, even relativism itself" is a
recognized philosophical doctrine.  It's called nihilism, and it
has been attributed to Nietzsche (even though Hegel said it first).

: > 
: > 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.

: 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.

PI = 3.1415926535.........

Of course, if you're a FORTRAN programmer:  PI = 355/113 (close enough).

E = 2.718281828............

:      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.

I have faith in the notion that Oswald cooperated extensively with the CIA,
FBI, NSC, the Cubans, the Russians, the Iranians, the Mafia, and your mother,
in the assassination of JFK.

It's one thing to say, "I hypothesize (have faith in) thus and such" and then
trash the faith when experimentation shows it not to be so.  It is a completely
different thing to say "I have faith that God exists." even when lots of
experiments attempting to prove such a notion have come out in the reverse.

:      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?

Faith in nihilism, of course.

: > >
: > > 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

--
__ __|_) |       |                    
   |   | |  _` |   \   ` \   _` |   \ 
  _|  _|_|\__, |_| _|_|_|_|\__,_|_| _|
          ____/