The Narnia Code

[Atomic Shrimp]

You didn't change the words. Nobody is saying you changed the words.

You followed the (perfectly-quoted) words with an interpretation that appeared to distort the meaning of the preceding (perfectly-quoted) words.

 

[Mike375]

Exactly. Thats why I don't teach advanced Ballistics to my 5year old grandson. Commonsense not a rejection of science

So what do you tell him if he asks about the ball bouncing?

 

[Rabbie]

How did I change words. Did I selectively (is that a word?) quote, that is, only use a selection of words from Rabbie's postings.

Could you point out the errors so I don't repeat them.

IMHO you put a meaning into my words that was not justified. What is the point of giving a 5 year old who can't read yet a course in Ballistics when all he wants to do is to play "Throw and catch". To blow this up into a rejection of science gives the impression of distorting what was said and meant. Now lets all move on

 

[Mike375]

You didn't change the words. Nobody is saying you changed the words.

You followed the (perfectly-quoted) words with an interpretation that appeared to distort the meaning of the preceding (perfectly-quoted) words.

Can you show me the interpretation I made.

Really, you are crediting me with skills I don't have. Rabbie is an Oxford Dictionary man.

 

[Rabbie]

So what do you tell him if he asks about the ball bouncing?

When he asks I'll think about my answer. In any case I am sure he does not want a degree course in Ballistics yet. The fact he is not asking the how and why questions shows he is a normal healthy kid who I think is great

 

[Rabbie]

Rabbie is an Oxford Dictionary man.

I'll take that as a compliment then

 

[Mike375]

IMHO you put a meaning into my words that was not justified. What is the point of giving a 5 year old who can't read yet a course in Ballistics when all he wants to do is to play "Throw and catch". To blow this up into a rejection of science gives the impression of distorting what was said and meant. Now lets all move on

You were the one who brought science in....I just responded.

 

[Mike375]

I'll take that as a compliment then

There you go.

All is well that ends well

I may have fucked up the wording but you know the expresson.

Beddy byes here in Australia, 11.35pm. A couple of prayers and then to bed

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Can you show me the interpretation I made.

Really, you are crediting me with skills I don't have. Rabbie is an Oxford Dictionary man.

OK.

Rabbie said:

Yes but you still don't need the science. Of course the science is useful - if it wasn't why would we bother.

I can teach my 5 year old grandson to throw and catch but I think i'll wait a few years before teaching him ballistics

You quoted the second part only (no particular problem with that, for the moment, but we'll come back to it...)

And you responded:

Agree. Best to go with the God option to fill in the gaps.

Now, the problem with this is that, whether or not you intended it, it looks a bit like you're saying that Rabbie approves of a god-of-the-gaps approach, and you concur.

A bit further down, you say:

Either way.......tooth fairy or God.......You are the one that has suggested science should be removed.

Now, the problem with this is that Rabbie did not suggest any such thing. Furthermore, if you'd quoted the whole of what he said , it would have been quite obvious he wasn't saying the science should be removed; let's try it - Edited into script form (with no changes to the words) so as to be readable as a conversation:

Rabbie: ...Yes but you still don't need the science. Of course the science is useful - if it wasn't why would we bother - I can teach my 5 year old grandson to throw and catch but I think i'll wait a few years before teaching him ballistics

Mike375: Agree. Best to go with the God option to fill in the gaps.

Rabbie: Why? The tooth fairy pays better and is at least as real

Mike375: Either way.......tooth fairy or God.......You are the one that has suggested science should be removed.

Rabbie didn't suggest science be removed, but you kept on insisting he had meant it - after he had tried to explain that's not what he meant - you even said he wanted to deny what he wrote (when he hadn't actually written it).

Maybe you're doing that all completely innocently, but to many debaters, it will appear dishonest.

 

[Alc]

No, no, no you're not allowed to do that. I asked the question first.

How do YOU account for the popularity of religion in the first place before it's decline.

Okey dokey, I believe that it came about for a number of reasons.

Firstly - back when the various religions started - people knew no better. The majority of people wouldn't have questioned an idea that was given to them (e.g. don't go in those woods alone, or the ogre will get you; there was an eclipse because we angered the gods) and would have jumped at whatever explanation was offered, either out of fear of the unknown or a lack of any reason to question it. If they were told by their leaders - who would often have been assumed to know more than the layman and to have their 'tribe's' best interests at heart - that killing a virgin would bring the sun back, they'd have done it. The leaders ascribed human characteristics to natural events to get people to accept flawed logic and to cover up a lack of actual knowledge.

Secondly, said leaders would have come to power - in many cases - as a result of knowing how to manipulate people. As soon as they realised that telling people such-and-such was the will of God was a nice easy way to get them to do it, they'd have latched onto that technique and used it to either attain their own goals or protect society (depending on their character). If these leaders had already been indoctrinated by previous people, they may well have actually believed what they were saying. Who knows?

Thirdly, there have been many examples of people being punished for openly not believing in a particular religion. From the perspctive of a leader who uses religion to get people to do what he wants, any dissent (e.g. atheism) needs to be crushed before it spreads, and declaring people heretics, infidels, or whatever is a good excuse to kill them. We have no way of knowing if there was a lot more private atheism in olden times, as many people would have been too scared to speak out openly about their beliefs (or lack thereof) if it went against what appeared to be the general consensus. Religion may always have been less popular than we think.

Finally - as you've mentioned - some people will have been curious about things for the sake of being curious. Given that they lacked the knowledge and education that we have today, if they were focussed on finding an explanation for things they will have tended to explain it in terms that they could follow. If you only have a hammer, you see all problems as a nail. They know that they can get angry and break things, so it makes sense if there some higher being that acts the same way. Given the lack of ability to examine things any further using science, religion was a nice safety net to cover all unexplained eventualities. As time has progressed, the percentage of unknown things that fell under the umbrella of 'God did it' has decreased and the percentage falling under 'Scientific explanation' has increased. I believe that as scientific knowldge increases, this trend will continue until gods are used to explain very little at all.

 

[JamesLast99]

I come in on North American time and find that Austrlia and Europe has move the conversatiuon on at a fair rate.

First, Paul, hope the hot date went well.

Now, just to clarify what I was saying - since I don't appear to have been as clear as I intended: I wasn't saying that people don't need to understand stuff. In the example I gave, I was saying that - initially, at least - all that was required was that people knew that certain things happened if they did certain other things. As long as this was the case, there was no need to know how or why they happened. Sure, some people may have wondered, but the need to know didn't exist. If it was inherent to humans as a whole, it would have existed.

As humanity progressed, people had more time to contemplate such things. Some peope started to question how these things happened (in the example, gravity). Some people questioned why they happened. Not everybody did both, and a lot did neither. Again, if the need to know was inherent in human nature, everyone would have been curious.

Cut to present day. We have a far better understanding of how many things work, and of how, from a practical perspective. An awful lot of people feel a need to determine an answer to why they happen, but at least as many are happy to accept that there is no 'why'. Once again, if the need to find a 'why' was inherent to humans, we would all be looking for the answer and we wouldn't be having this conversation now. I don't believe there's a 'why'. Am I the only human lacking this gene or whatever it is?

I have never said that nobody wants to find out the reasons behind things, just that a lot of people don't. I was arguing against the idea that we all somehow have to look for a reason behind events, just because we're human. We don't.

James please Alc - not really - it was an exciting evening - but deeply unsatisfying at the same time. No doubt there will be another date in the future.

 

[JamesLast99]

There you go.

All is well that ends well

I may have fucked up the wording but you know the expresson.

Beddy byes here in Australia, 11.35pm. A couple of prayers and then to bed

Having spent a little time in Australia - beddy byes is about 7.30 or whenever the aussie rules starts. Lots of space to sleep though.

 

[Rabbie]

James please Alc - not really - it was an exciting evening - but deeply unsatisfying at the same time. No doubt there will be another date in the future.

Sounds a bit like Liverpool v Arsenal then

 

[JamesLast99]

Spot on - 38 quid! Bah. It was like being a newcastle fan under Keegan.
Like most of my dates, I think perhaps I paid to much to be taken to the edge of ecstasy only to be told times up!

 

[puzzled]

I thought you were above following someone......Rabbie wants to deny what he wrote. Simple.

But you follow and obviously agree.

Rich said no such thing, he merely made a statement, try reading the small print first!

 

[puzzled]

Yes but you still don't need the science. Of course the science is useful - if it wasn't why would we bother.

I can teach my 5 year old grandson to throw and catch but I think i'll wait a few years before teaching him ballistics

Actually within just a few short years your Grandson will know everything there is to know, we of course are not young enough to know everything

 

[dan-cat]

Okey dokey, I believe that it came about for a number of reasons.

The majority of people wouldn't have questioned an idea that was given to them (e.g. don't go in those woods alone, or the ogre will get you; there was an eclipse because we angered the gods) and would have jumped at whatever explanation was offered, either out of fear of the unknown or a lack of any reason to question it.

An explanation to what precisely? The question why perhaps?

Secondly, said leaders would have come to power - in many cases - as a result of knowing how to manipulate people. As soon as they realised that telling people such-and-such was the will of God was a nice easy way to get them to do it, they'd have latched onto that technique and used it to either attain their own goals or protect society (depending on their character). If these leaders had already been indoctrinated by previous people, they may well have actually believed what they were saying. Who knows?

It's easy to manipulate these people because they are being offered an answer to the question they cannot answer by themselves. That question is why. The manipulators are the suppliers to the demand.

Thirdly, there have been many examples of people being punished for openly not believing in a particular religion. From the perspctive of a leader who uses religion to get people to do what he wants, any dissent (e.g. atheism) needs to be crushed before it spreads, and declaring people heretics, infidels, or whatever is a good excuse to kill them. We have no way of knowing if there was a lot more private atheism in olden times, as many people would have been too scared to speak out openly about their beliefs (or lack thereof) if it went against what appeared to be the general consensus. Religion may always have been less popular than we think.

I don't deny the stick aspect to religion but are you denying the carrot? That religion provides 'answers' to questions.

Finally - as you've mentioned - some people will have been curious about things for the sake of being curious. Given that they lacked the knowledge and education that we have today, if they were focussed on finding an explanation for things they will have tended to explain it in terms that they could follow. If you only have a hammer, you see all problems as a nail. They know that they can get angry and break things, so it makes sense if there some higher being that acts the same way. Given the lack of ability to examine things any further using science, religion was a nice safety net to cover all unexplained eventualities. As time has progressed, the percentage of unknown things that fell under the umbrella of 'God did it' has decreased and the percentage falling under 'Scientific explanation' has increased. I believe that as scientific knowldge increases, this trend will continue until gods are used to explain very little at all.

Indeed that explains why religion has declined in popularity and actually supports the notion that mankind does ask why. There is a thread throughout history that addresses the question. As time goes on, various answers in turn gain and decrease in popularity. But the demand for such an answer has always been very popular.

 

[Alc]

Indeed that explains why religion has declined in popularity and actually supports the notion that mankind does ask why. There is a thread throughout history that addresses the question. As time goes on, various answers in turn gain and decrease in popularity. But the demand for such an answer has always been very popular.

Don't you go all Mike375 on me . That's not what I was arguing.

I've never said that people don't question why things happen. I just dispute the idea that it's inherent in all humans. I also place a different meaning on the 'why' to you. If I say 'I wonder why this ball drops when I let go of it', I'm talking about the physical process behind what causes it to drop, not why it happens from a philosophical perspective.

 

[dan-cat]

Don't you go all Mike375 on me . That's not what I was arguing.

Whoops sorry, didn't mean to do that.

I've never said that people don't question why things happen. I just dispute the idea that it's inherent in all humans. I also place a different meaning on the 'why' to you. If I say 'I wonder why this ball drops when I let go of it', I'm talking about the physical process behind what causes it to drop, not why it happens from a philosophical perspective.

Why it happens on a philosophical perspective was the entire point of the atheist/theist thread I thought and was certainly my point. It's why I kept rambling on about people's reaction to natural disasters and such. If you're going to take that away from my argument then I really don't have much left to stand on. It's fairly obvious that most people don't want to become theoretical physicists.


However my point still remains intact, I think. People in general don't question why a ball drops because it's behavior is consistent. However if it was not, if the ball behaved in a seemingly random manner then I would say that most humans would question why. It is only the robust order of the universe and the ease in which we can perceive it that slips us into this passive mode of not questioning, IMO.

 

[Alc]

However my point still remains intact, I think. People in general don't question why a ball drops because it's behavior is consistent. However if it was not, if the ball behaved in a seemingly random manner then I would say that most humans would question why. It is only the robust order of the universe and the ease in which we can perceive it that slips us into this passive mode of not questioning, IMO.

Okay, so I've worn you down from it being inherent in all humans to 'people in general'

I'd agree that most people would question why, but mainly in a practical sense. They would want to know what had caused it to happen differently and how they could get it to conform back to expectations. If they started applying the idea that a being had caused it happen in a different way, how could they ever place any faith in gravity again? What would prevent this being from doing the same again, whenever the mood took them? Once the idea of such a being is accepted, surely none of the natural laws can be relied upon?