mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/30/86)
This is a flame, written for amusement value only. There is just something about certain kinds of dogmatic behavior that kindles derision in me.... In article <11900055@uiucdcsb> wsmith@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu types in a lengthy passage without any explanation of why this rambling, psychotic raving is relevant to anything. > The Book of Certitude (Baha'u'llah) Or is it the book of platitude? Should believers be certified nuts? Why is it that Bahais in particular tend to quote so very much with so little reference to any particular subject? Are they certain even though they can't explain it? Well, at least they're not beating around the bush: they come right out and say "these irrational maunderings are the absolute truth: look it says so right in the title." > "IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD, THE EXALTED, THE MOST HIGH. This apostrophe is one of the most ludicrous aspects of the Islamic origin of the Bahais. Translated from Platitudese to English, it says "believe this or we'll behead you as an infidel, and then God will get on your case!" > "The essence of these words is this: they that tread the path of faith, they > that thirst for the wine of certitude, must cleanse themselves of all > that is earthly--their ears from idle talk, their minds from vain imaginings, > their heards from worldly affections, theirs from that which perisheth. Here we have a grain of truth. The best way to engender psychosis is to detach yourself from reality. > "Consider the past. How many, both high and low, have, at all times, > yearningly awaited the advent of the Manifestations of God in the sanctified > persons of His chosen Ones. How often have they expected His coming, how > frequently have they prayed that the breeze of divine mercy might blow, and > the promised Beauty step forth from behind the veil of concealment, and be > made manifest to all the world. Pretty often. But that God guy is just TERRIBLE at keeping appointments. > And whensoever the portals of grace did open, > and the clouds of divine bounty did rain upon mankind, and the light of the > Unseen did shine above the horizon of celestial might, they all denied Him, > and turned away from His face--the face of God Himself. Refer ye, to > verify this truth, to that which had been recorded in every sacred Book. Of course. Sacred books have about as much diversity and imagination as low-grade slasher movies. There are certain features that sell. > "Consider for a moment, and reflect upon that which hath been the cause of > such denial on the part of those who have searched with such earnestness > and longing. Their attack hath been more fierce than tongue or pen can > describe. Not one single Manifestation of Holiness hath appeared but > He was afflicted by the denials, the repudiation, and the vehement > opposition of the people around Him. Thus it hath been revealed: 'O > the misery of men! No Messenger cometh unto them but they laugh Him to > scorn.' Again He saith: 'Each nation hath plotted darkly against > their Messenger to lay violent hold on Him, and disputed with > vain words to invalidate the truth.' > ... > "Reflect, what could have been the motive for such deeds? What could have > prompted such behavior towards the Revealers of the beauty of the All- > Glorious? Simple. They are enraged when confronted by frauds. > Whatever in days gone by hath been the cause of the denial and > opposition of those people hath now led to the perversity of the people > of this age. Right. Intelligence and observation are the cause: but I wouldn't call them perversity. > Not for a moment hath His grace been withheld, nore have the showers of His > loving kindness ceased to rain upon mankind. Right. Drought, pestilences, floods, death, etc. are all his idea of "grace". > Consequently, such behaviour can be > attributed to naught save the petty-mindedness of such souls as tread the > valley of arrogance and pride, ar lost in the wilds of remoteness, > walk in the ways of their idle fancy, and follow the dictates of the > leaders of their faith. Their chief concern is mere opposition; their > sole desire is to ignore the truth. "Don't entertain the idea that they are in any way like you: they're scum. How do you know that? Why because I tell you so!" > Unto every discerning observer it is > evident and manifest that had these people in the days of each of the > Manifestations of the Sun of Truth sanctified their eys, their ears, > and their heards from whatever they had seen, heard, and felt, they > surely would not have been deprived of beholding the beauty of God, > nor strayed far from the habitations of glory. "They're scum, so we're right and they're wrong." > But having weighed > the testimony of God by the standard of their own knowledge, gleaned > from the teachings of the leaders of their faith, and found it at > variance with their limited understanding, they arose to perpetrate > such unseemly acts. "Whereas we have no knowledge or understanding whatsoever, so we can be certain and believe whatever we're told." > "Leaders of religion, in every age, have hindered their people from > attaining the shores of eternal salvation, inasmuch as they held the reins > of authority in their mighty grasp. Some for the lust of leadership, > others through want of knowledge and understanding, have been the cause > of the deprivation of the people. By their sanction and authority, > every Prophet of God hath drunk from the chalice of sacrifice and > winged His flight unto the heights of glory. What unspeakable cruelties > they that have occupied the seats of authority and learning have inflicted > upon the true Monarchs of the world, those Gems of divine virtue! Content > with a transitory diminion, they have deprived themselves of an everlasting > sovereignty. Thus, their eyes beheld not the light of the countenance of the > Well-Beloved, nor did their ears hearken unto the sweet melodies of the > Bird of Desire. "But of course, WE are DIFFERENT!" The Bahais are just another religion with a paranoid explanation for why others don't believe in their prophet's wordiness. Indeed, it's the exact same explanation used by Christians and a number of others: they're scoffing scum, so of course they don't believe. They call on the same "evidence" of their putative god's works. Ah well, we don't expect religions to be rational, especially not syncretisms. -- "Do you want real TRUTH in capital letters? Then search yourself for why you believe the things you do. Don't be afraid to analyze why your religion gives you the high it does. Answer yourself this question: Is TRUTH important enough for me to give up my religion if that is required? Until you answer yes to this you are not being honest with yourself." Dave Trissel on Usenet -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (10/07/86)
On the one hand we have: In article <1169@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >This is a flame, written for amusement value only. There is just something >about certain kinds of dogmatic behavior that kindles derision in me.... >In article <11900055@uiucdcsb> wsmith@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu types in a lengthy >passage without any explanation of why this rambling, psychotic raving is >relevant to anything. >Or is it the book of platitude? Should believers be certified nuts? >Well, at least they're not beating around the bush: they come right out and >say "these irrational maunderings are the absolute truth: look it says so >right in the title." >Of course. Sacred books have about as much diversity and imagination as >low-grade slasher movies. There are certain features that sell. But on the other hand: In article <1178@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >There are perhaps 10 contributors to *.religion.* whose articles strike me as >penetrating. (At least two of them are Christian.) Gary is perhaps the most >erudite of that bunch. Most other contributors repeat tired, old errors that >are generally scoffed at in intellectual circles. Or worse, resort to no >content but derision, as in the above statement. Now this leads to the question: when derision is kindled, what does Mike think should be done about it? Is it OK to deride Bahis for being Bahis, but not OK to deride Gary Bucholtz for expressing his rather idiosyncratic views? I often find Mike's comments penetrating, and sometimes find them annoying, but I would hate to find that they were immune from derision by reason of ineluctable profundity. In other words, if certain views are scoffable in intellectual circles, I want to reserve the right to scoff here as well. I might even want to sneak in a tired literary allusion or two if I am feeling especially dyspeptic. What role does erudition play in protecting us from the scoffers? It certainly makes one harder to deal with. But there are a few very erudite people on the net (Yakim Murillo is the most notable example) who seem to require a little derision even so. There is the question of cogency as well. Gary is certainly erudite, but are his arguments of uniform excellence? I am not quite sure at times what he is trying to say, but something like this is what I have gotten out of it -- To be a real Christian it is necessary that: (1) You have (or at least are working on) a Doctorate in Theology from a major seminary. (2) You must regard Bultmann and Heidegger as canonical, but not the New Testament. (3) You must absolutely disbelieve in the possibility of miracles. As I say, I don't know if Gary really thinks this, but the above strikes me as manifest nonsense and a prime candidate for derision. And people know different things. I doubt if Gary is the most knowledgeable person on talk. religion.misc when it comes to plant genetics, for instance. Or what about astrophysics? I find: In article <663@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> gary@sphinx.UUCP (Gary Buchholz) writes: > You have a really bizzare notion of Physics. For the solar system to > be as stable as it is now, and in the past for as long as men in > recorded history have been making observations the "law(s)" of physics > as we know them (not just gravity) will have had to work the same and > be valid for every nanosecond since the birth of our system. If not, > then the whole mess would have "crashed" by now. Am I allowed to deride the idea that a single nanoseconds suspension of the law of gravity would have lead to the destruction of the solar system? Why not -- it seems like a remarkably silly notion to me. There may be a few people on the net so brilliant and knowledgeable as to be immune from derision (I noticed Bill Thurston posting an article over on net.math, for instance), but in general I find the notion problematic. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "A good punch in the nose IS often effective communication"-- Ken Arndt
harwood@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (10/08/86)
In article <16048@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith) writes: > > On the one hand we have: > >In article <1169@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >>This is a flame, written for amusement value only. There is just something >>about certain kinds of dogmatic behavior that kindles derision in me.... > ... ... > >>Of course. Sacred books have about as much diversity and imagination as >>low-grade slasher movies. There are certain features that sell. > > But on the other hand: > >In article <1178@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >>There are perhaps 10 contributors to *.religion.* whose articles strike me as >>penetrating. (At least two of them are Christian.) Gary is perhaps the most >>erudite of that bunch. Most other contributors repeat tired, old errors that >>are generally scoffed at in intellectual circles. Or worse, resort to no >>content but derision, as in the above statement. > ... ... [G.W.Smith:] > Now this leads to the question: when derision is kindled, what does Mike >think should be done about it? Is it OK to deride Bahis for being Bahis, >but not OK to deride Gary Bucholtz for expressing his rather idiosyncratic >views? I often find Mike's comments penetrating, and sometimes find them >annoying, but I would hate to find that they were immune from derision >by reason of ineluctable profundity. In other words, if certain views >are scoffable in intellectual circles, I want to reserve the right to scoff >here as well. I might even want to sneak in a tired literary allusion or >two if I am feeling especially dyspeptic. > ... ... [omitted; G.W.Smith wondering about Gary B's opinions of scholarly- unwashed Christians: > To be a real Christian it is necessary that: > > (1) You have (or at least are working on) a Doctorate in > Theology from a major seminary. > > (2) You must regard Bultmann and Heidegger as canonical, > but not the New Testament. > > (3) You must absolutely disbelieve in the possibility of > miracles. > > As I say, I don't know if Gary really thinks this, but the above strikes >me as manifest nonsense and a prime candidate for derision. And people know >different things. I doubt if Gary is the most knowledgeable person on talk. >religion.misc when it comes to plant genetics, for instance. Or what about >astrophysics? I find: > >In article <663@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> gary@sphinx.UUCP (Gary Buchholz) writes: > >> You have a really bizzare notion of Physics. For the solar system to >> be as stable as it is now, and in the past for as long as men in >> recorded history have been making observations the "law(s)" of physics >> as we know them (not just gravity) will have had to work the same and >> be valid for every nanosecond since the birth of our system. If not, >> then the whole mess would have "crashed" by now. > > Am I allowed to deride the idea that a single nanoseconds suspension >of the law of gravity would have lead to the destruction of the solar system? >Why not -- it seems like a remarkably silly notion to me. > > There may be a few people on the net so brilliant and knowledgeable as >to be immune from derision (I noticed Bill Thurston posting an article over >on net.math, for instance), but in general I find the notion problematic. > >ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 >"A good punch in the nose IS often effective communication"-- Ken Arndt Maybe we can create an endowed chair for Thurston in *.religion.* (if he will condescend from a transcendental variety of hyperbolic space; Mike already admits it's more profitable to be prophetable ;-) By the way, for the information of logicians like Mike H., the man generally considered to be the most creative living logician, philo- sophical and mathematical, is not an atheist or even an agnostic, but an Orthodox Jew (Saul Kripke, of Kripke modal logic/model theory reknown).
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/08/86)
In article <16048@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith) very adroitly catches me hoist by my own petard: > In article <1169@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > >This is a flame, written for amusement value only. There is just something > >about certain kinds of dogmatic behavior that kindles derision in me.... > > In article <1178@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > >There are perhaps 10 contributors to *.religion.* whose articles strike me as > >penetrating. (At least two of them are Christian.) Gary is perhaps the most > >erudite of that bunch. Most other contributors repeat tired, old errors that > >are generally scoffed at in intellectual circles. Or worse, resort to no > >content but derision, as in the above statement. Ouch. Well, look, I said I was a sinner too, right up front. Doesn't that exhonerate me? No? Shit! > Now this leads to the question: when derision is kindled, what does Mike > think should be done about it? Is it OK to deride Bahis for being Bahis, > but not OK to deride Gary Bucholtz for expressing his rather idiosyncratic > views? I often find Mike's comments penetrating, and sometimes find them > annoying, but I would hate to find that they were immune from derision > by reason of ineluctable profundity. In other words, if certain views > are scoffable in intellectual circles, I want to reserve the right to scoff > here as well. I might even want to sneak in a tired literary allusion or > two if I am feeling especially dyspeptic. I understand now. You're actually the Piranha Brother that uses sarcasm. Well, I'm not going to tear my head off (though I'm tempted.) > What role does erudition play in protecting us from the scoffers? It > certainly makes one harder to deal with. But there are a few very erudite > people on the net (Yakim Murillo is the most notable example) who seem to > require a little derision even so. Yes. Why we both could bear a little derision every now and then too.... :-) I think my problem was that the "Brave new world that has such men in it" quotation was too terse and vague an attack for me to rebut it directly. You know, bumper-sticker thinking. Unless one wants to explore the literary allusions at length, it's hard to show that it's anything more than an ad-hominem show of disapproval. My self-proclaimed flame did at least have quite a few direct points that could be rebutted. In any event, thank you Gene: I stand chastened. -- A tongue in cheek prevents foot in mouth. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh