> From: Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Behalf Of The Fool > > ... > > > The Bible makes all kinds of verifiably false assertions. So why should > > any one particular absurdity that he is putting forth merit any more > > consideration that than any of the of the other absurdities? People > > don't walk on water without really advanced technology. It's absurd. > > And it fits in with other absurdities, like giants and satyrs. > > I think that the idea of talking dolphins is quite absurd, but that doesn't > mean that I don't appreciate Brin's writings. Uplift may well be > impossible, but that doesn't make the books worthless or dangerous, does it?
Dr Brins works don't promote hate, bigotry, genocide, and slavery. > Morality and ethics don't require literal truth to be communicated. Would > it be irrational to choose to follow the ethics of environmentalism, privacy > and freedom as expressed in "Earth," because it is fiction? Is it > irrational to appreciate "1984" and "Animal Farm" as cautionary tales, since > they are fiction (and the latter has absurd talking animals, darn it!). > > I don't spend much more time worrying about whether or not, or how, Jesus > walked on water than I spend worrying about whether or not, or how, uplift > is possible. > > Spending a lot of time and energy arguing about the literal truth of the > Bible makes about as much sense to me as learning Klingon. It might be > entertaining, a distraction or an intellectual exercise, but I don't believe > it has anything to do with morality, ethics and other metaphysics. I don't think the bible has anything to do with morality. Religion coops the ethics and morality of the people already there, or it withers. Once upon a time it morally OK to sell your daughters into slavery. The bible even dictates how you were to sell your daughter into slavery. So why don't people sell their daughters into slavery in the 21st century? > So, I'd certainly appreciate it if you'd recognize the lack of logic in your > dismissal of all religion based on literalism. It most definitely is a > straw man. I believe that the vast majority of religious people would agree > with me because they are not the literalists you portray. But the article JDG posted didn't deal with non-literal stuff like 'morality'. It dealt only in the literalness of miracles. Apply your thinking here to JDG's article and I think you will find a perfect fit. > It seems quite ironic to find such attitudes in a science fiction community! > But perhaps the phrase "science fiction" is inherently ironic in the way > that "religious truth" is. SP: "trvth". _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
