Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
From: Wesley Bruce ... I missed the whole show. I'm on the other side of the planet so a few hours of flame war goes unnoticed as I sleep. Sorry if I have caused any friction but I can't see that much excess heat in the war. ;-) You've managed to keep your composure despite my underhanded attempts to put you on the defensive. I like a man who is true to his school. You're an honorable man, Mr. Wesley. And now, back to those fascinating flapping bee wings. Steve Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
Recent exchanges between Mr. Rothwell and Mr. Wesley concerning the topic of Absolute Truth brings to mind a terrible trap I believe we all must be careful not to fall into: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods. Mr. Wesley reminds us that we have recently lived in an age where Atheism used guns to attempt to enforce its will. (Germany, WWII and Nazism, of course, comes to mind.) However, Mr. Wesley goes on to state that Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. ...and I'm not going to let such an arrogant conjecture stand unchallenged. The sword that yields the Knowledge of the Gods is a double-edged one. It's easy to substitute the philosophy of Atheism with any god-fearing brand of religion and, going back through history, find EXACTLY the same despicable carnage performed on others. One of the best PBS TV programs I ever saw that dealt with this issue was authored by the late Jacob Browonski. I'm referring to the The Ascent of Man mini-series, first aired back in the 1970s. The particular installment that comes to mind is titled Knowledge or Certainty. For reference see: http://ronrecord.com/Quotes/bronowski.html From the Knowledge or Certainty, an episode from the 1973 BBC series The Ascent of Man, transcribed by Evan Hunt: Quoting Jacob Bronowski: -- The Principle of Uncertainty is a bad name. In science--or outside of it--we are not uncertain; our knowledge is merely confined, within a certain tolerance. We should call it the Principle of Tolerance. And I propose that name in two senses: First, in the engineering sense--science has progressed, step by step, the most successful enterprise in the ascent of man, because it has understood that the exchange of information between man and nature, and man and man, can only take place with a certain tolerance. But second, I also use the word, passionately, about the real world. All knowledge--all information between human beings--can only be exchanged within a play of tolerance. And that is true whether the exchange is in science, or in literature, or in religion, or in politics, or in *any* form of thought that aspires to dogma. It's a major tragedy of my lifetime and yours that scientists were refining, to the most exquisite precision, the Principle of Tolerance--and turning their backs on the fact that all around them, tolerance was crashing to the ground beyond repair. The Principle of Uncertainty or, in my phrase, the Principle of Tolerance, fixed once for all the realization that all knowledge is limited. It is an irony of history that at the very time when this was being worked out there should rise, under Hitler in Germany and other tyrants elsewhere, a counter-conception: a principle of monstrous certainty. When the future looks back on the 1930s it will think of them as a crucial confrontation of culture as I have been expounding it, the ascent of man, against the throwback to the despots' belief that they have absolute certainty. It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false: tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. [The viewer sees Bronowsky walk directly into the marshlands near Auschwitz where millions of Jews were cremated.] *This* is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality--this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods. Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge or error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we *can* know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to *touch people*. --- While Bronowski's essay was directed in the most immediate sense at the atrocities of Nazism his words accurately reflect the misdeeds any philosophy that subscribes to the Knowledge of the Gods, whether it is based on atheism or theism, can do to mankind. Arrogance is an equal opportunity employer. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. missed that one... really now. pay any attention to people like Bush, who stated that athiests cant be considered patriots, and are a danger to the country? hows about pat robertson, who prays for the death of athiests daily, and wants a national religion imposed with penalties for those who dont proscribe. christians like YOU, perhaps, i dont know what kind of christian you are. christians like ME, definately. but most christians... no. they are quite harmful and hatefull towards others. atheist or non. On 12/6/05, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Recent exchanges between Mr. Rothwell and Mr. Wesley concerning the topic of Absolute Truth brings to mind a terrible trap I believe we all must be careful not to fall into: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods. Mr. Wesley reminds us that we have recently lived in an age where Atheism used guns to attempt to enforce its will. (Germany, WWII and Nazism, of course, comes to mind.) However, Mr. Wesley goes on to state that Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. ...and I'm not going to let such an arrogant conjecture stand unchallenged. The sword that yields the Knowledge of the Gods is a double-edged one. It's easy to substitute the philosophy of Atheism with any god-fearing brand of religion and, going back through history, find EXACTLY the same despicable carnage performed on others. One of the best PBS TV programs I ever saw that dealt with this issue was authored by the late Jacob Browonski. I'm referring to the The Ascent of Man mini-series, first aired back in the 1970s. The particular installment that comes to mind is titled Knowledge or Certainty. For reference see:http://ronrecord.com/Quotes/bronowski.htmlFrom the Knowledge or Certainty, an episode from the 1973 BBC series The Ascent of Man, transcribed by Evan Hunt: Quoting Jacob Bronowski:--The Principle of Uncertainty is a bad name. In science--or outside of it--we are not uncertain; our knowledge is merely confined, within a certain tolerance. We should call it the Principle of Tolerance. And I propose that name in two senses: First, in the engineering sense--science has progressed, step by step, the most successful enterprise in the ascent of man, because it has understood that the exchange of information between man and nature, and man and man, can only take place with a certain tolerance. But second, I also use the word, passionately, about the real world. All knowledge--all information between human beings--can only be exchanged within a play of tolerance. And that is true whether the exchange is in science, or in literature, or in religion, or in politics, or in *any* form of thought that aspires to dogma. It's a major tragedy of my lifetime and yours that scientists were refining, to the most exquisite precision, the Principle of Tolerance--and turning their backs on the fact that all around them, tolerance was crashing to the ground beyond repair. The Principle of Uncertainty or, in my phrase, the Principle of Tolerance, fixed once for all the realization that all knowledge is limited. It is an irony of history that at the very time when this was being worked out there should rise, under Hitler in Germany and other tyrants elsewhere, a counter-conception: a principle of monstrous certainty. When the future looks back on the 1930s it will think of them as a crucial confrontation of culture as I have been expounding it, the ascent of man, against the throwback to the despots' belief that they have absolute certainty. It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false: tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. [The viewer sees Bronowsky walk directly into the marshlands near Auschwitz where millions of Jews were cremated.] *This* is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality--this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods. Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge or error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we *can* know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to *touch people*.--- While Bronowski's essay was directed in the
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
OrionWorks wrote: Recent exchanges between Mr. Rothwell and Mr. Wesley concerning the topic of Absolute Truth brings to mind a terrible trap I believe we all must be careful not to fall into: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods. Good point. I do not think people are capable of knowing absolute truth, and I am not even sure there is such a thing. There is always some margin of doubt, although it is small for things like Newton's laws. Mr. Wesley reminds us that we have recently lived in an age where Atheism used guns to attempt to enforce its will. (Germany, WWII and Nazism, of course, comes to mind.) Actually most Germans in WWII were quite religious, and the soldiers all wore belt buckles engraved with the motto, God is with us. (See the movie Stalingrad.) Some of the German leaders were atheists, but so was Winston Churchill for that matter. At least, he said of himself privately, I am not a religious man. Overall, the war produced a sharp decline in religious belief and church attendance throughout Europe and Japan. - Jed
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
From: leaking pen Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. missed that one... really now. pay any attention to people like Bush, who stated that athiests cant be considered patriots, and are a danger to the country? hows about pat robertson, who prays for the death of athiests daily, and wants a national religion imposed with penalties for those who dont proscribe. christians like YOU, perhaps, i dont know what kind of christian you are. christians like ME, definately. but most christians... no. they are quite harmful and hatefull towards others. atheist or non. Well, Mr. Leak, You still missed it. In fact I think you completely missed the entire context of my post. You imply that I personally stated Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. If you have an issue with the above statement I suggest you take it up with Mr. Wesley as he was responsible for saying it, not me. I really would recommend that you read posts attributed to me more carefully before, figuratively speaking, pointing your accusing finger at me and labeling me as some kind of [a] Christian and lumping my alleged religious predilections with the likes of Bush Jr. and Pat Robertson. You're right about one thing, however. You don't know what kind of a Christian I might be, as I have never stated that I am one. I've also never stated I'm an atheist either. Please read my posts more carefully before labeling me. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
Pardon, buti was responding to Mr. Wesley, as I had missed the thread in which he had made the statement, and was quite sure he would read THIS thread as well. I was not responding to you. Perhaps YOU should read posts more carefully before assuming that something is aimed at you that isn't. You seemed rather eager to take the finger that wasn't pointed at you. On 12/6/05, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: leaking pen Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. missed that one... really now.pay any attention to people like Bush, who stated that athiests cant be considered patriots, and are a danger to the country?hows about pat robertson, who prays for the death of athiests daily, and wants a national religion imposed with penalties for those who dont proscribe. christians like YOU, perhaps, i dont know what kind of christian you are. christians like ME, definately.but most christians...no.they are quite harmful and hatefull towards others.atheist or non.Well, Mr. Leak,You still missed it. In fact I think you completely missed the entire context of my post. You imply that I personally stated Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. If you have an issue with the above statement I suggest you take it up with Mr. Wesley as he was responsible for saying it, not me. I really would recommend that you read posts attributed to me more carefully before, figuratively speaking, pointing your accusing finger at me and labeling me as some kind of [a] Christian and lumping my alleged religious predilections with the likes of Bush Jr. and Pat Robertson. You're right about one thing, however. You don't know what kind of a Christian I might be, as I have never stated that I am one.I've also never stated I'm an atheist either.Please read my posts more carefully before labeling me. Regards,Steven Vincent Johnsonwww.OrionWorks.com-- Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to writeVoltaire
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
leaking pen wrote: Pardon, but i was responding to Mr. Wesley, Ahem. You often top-post and, in the message in contention, you did not include a greeting. That combination is an almost sure-fire way to confuse people regarding exactly to whom you think you're responding, because your response is floating in the air, all alone, at the top of the message with no tag of any sort to indicate the recipient. Since you didn't say Dear Mr. Wesley nor give any other indication that it was Wesley, not OrionWorks, to whom you were directing the words, and since the message to which you were responding was from OrionWorks, his conclusion that he was the antecedent of the YOU in your message does not seem especially unreasonable. In the face of the onrushing night of Unreason the non-holy-rollers in the group should strive dilligently to avoid squabbles among themselves, and keep in mind that the goal should be to work together to retain a few candles with which to negotiate the darkness.
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
then he should of asked before assuming, the same crime he accused me of. On 12/6/05, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: leaking pen wrote: Pardon, but i was responding to Mr. Wesley,Ahem.You often top-post and, in the message in contention, you did not include a greeting.That combination is an almost sure-fire way to confuse people regardingexactly to whom you think you're responding, because your response isfloating in the air, all alone, at the top of the message with no tag of any sort to indicate the recipient.Since you didn't say Dear Mr. Wesley nor give any other indicationthat it was Wesley, not OrionWorks, to whom you were directing thewords, and since the message to which you were responding was from OrionWorks, his conclusion that he was the antecedent of the YOU inyour message does not seem especially unreasonable.In the face of the onrushing night of Unreason the non-holy-rollers inthe group should strive dilligently to avoid squabbles among themselves, and keep in mind that the goal should be to work together to retain afew candles with which to negotiate the darkness.-- Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to writeVoltaire
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
From: leaking pen Pardon, but i was responding to Mr. Wesley, as I had missed the thread in which he had made the statement, and was quite sure he would read THIS thread as well. I was not responding to you. Perhaps YOU should read posts more carefully before assuming that something is aimed at you that isn't. You seemed rather eager to take the finger that wasn't pointed at you. Greetings again, Mr. Leak, Mr. Lawrence has already spoken rather eloquently on this point. However, tell you what. I'll work on my over eager fickle finger of accusation if you try working on your addressing skills. You will note that I often address whom I'm responding to very clearly, usually at the beginning of any post I make. It helps avoid potential confusions as to whom my comments are actually being addressed to. I think you may have missed the fact that I created a brand new subject thread where I quoted a statement from Mr. Wesley. In my brand new subject thread Mr. Wesley has NEVER MADE a direct contribution to it, so how can you assume that everyone would naturally understand that your comments were actually addressed to him? Quite frankly, I would have offered up a sincere public apology had you received both Mr. Wesley's post and mine, AND that both posts were made in the same subject thread. However, as you have stated, at the time of your post you had ONLY received MY follow-up post, and not Mr. Wesley's. That's because Mr. Wesley has, so far, not made any follow-up posts to my new subject thread. Again, how do you assume that everyone would naturally take your comments as directed at Mr. Wesley? I therefore feel justified in repeating: Please read my posts more carefully, and respond accordingly As Mr. Lawrence as already suggested, simply addressing whom your comments were meant for would have alleviated a lot of confusion you are directly responsible for creating. Goodness gracious me! Did I just start a flame war? Gag me with a spoon! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
Good point Steven, I'm willing to plead arrogance as a defence. :-D I was thinking about communism which slaughtered millions for their faith in the soviet union and still does in some places. But your correct to identify Nazism. OrionWorks wrote: Recent exchanges between Mr. Rothwell and Mr. Wesley concerning the topic of Absolute Truth brings to mind a terrible trap I believe we all must be careful not to fall into: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods. Mr. Wesley reminds us that we have recently lived in an age where Atheism used guns to attempt to enforce its will. (Germany, WWII and Nazism, of course, comes to mind.) However, Mr. Wesley goes on to state that Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. ...and I'm not going to let such an arrogant conjecture stand unchallenged. The sword that yields the Knowledge of the Gods is a double-edged one. It's easy to substitute the philosophy of Atheism with any god-fearing brand of religion and, going back through history, find EXACTLY the same despicable carnage performed on others. One of the best PBS TV programs I ever saw that dealt with this issue was authored by the late Jacob Browonski. I'm referring to the The Ascent of Man mini-series, first aired back in the 1970s. The particular installment that comes to mind is titled Knowledge or Certainty. For reference see: http://ronrecord.com/Quotes/bronowski.html From the Knowledge or Certainty, an episode from the 1973 BBC series The Ascent of Man, transcribed by Evan Hunt: Quoting Jacob Bronowski: Snip you all have a copy. Interesting stuff. While Bronowski's essay was directed in the most immediate sense at the atrocities of Nazism his words accurately reflect the misdeeds any philosophy that subscribes to the Knowledge of the Gods, whether it is based on atheism or theism, can do to mankind. I agree but I've seen fewer arrogant Christians than arrogant antichristians lately. No one we know on vort I might point out. Arrogance is an equal opportunity employer. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
Have you hosted Dr. Bruce Cornet's works? -Original Message- From: OrionWorks Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
leaking pen wrote: Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. missed that one... really now. pay any attention to people like Bush, who stated that athiests cant be considered patriots, and are a danger to the country? hows about pat robertson, who prays for the death of athiests daily, and wants a national religion imposed with penalties for those who dont proscribe. Haven't seen the quote from Bush. Remember George Bush is a new convert. I know people who firmily believe the statement. The context is everything in such a statement. I wonder if he's quoting someone? Pat Robinson should not talk on foreign policy. I understand what he meant when he said what he said about Hugo Chávez. It was stupid. Chavez is not a dictator but may go that way. Some in defence ask the question about pre-empting dictatorship. We have the technology they say. We should save lives by acting now. I believe they are wrong. I'm not a fan of tele evanglists. christians like YOU, perhaps, i dont know what kind of christian you are. christians like ME, definately. but most christians... no. they are quite harmful and hatefull towards others. atheist or non. You must have run into some very sad churches. I guess I've been lucky. I'm a Salvo by the way. On 12/6/05, *OrionWorks* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Recent exchanges between Mr. Rothwell and Mr. Wesley concerning the topic of Absolute Truth brings to mind a terrible trap I believe we all must be careful not to fall into: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods. Mr. Wesley reminds us that we have recently lived in an age where Atheism used guns to attempt to enforce its will. (Germany, WWII and Nazism, of course, comes to mind.) However, Mr. Wesley goes on to state that Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. ...and I'm not going to let such an arrogant conjecture stand unchallenged. The sword that yields the Knowledge of the Gods is a double-edged one. It's easy to substitute the philosophy of Atheism with any god-fearing brand of religion and, going back through history, find EXACTLY the same despicable carnage performed on others. One of the best PBS TV programs I ever saw that dealt with this issue was authored by the late Jacob Browonski. I'm referring to the The Ascent of Man mini-series, first aired back in the 1970s. The particular installment that comes to mind is titled Knowledge or Certainty. For reference see: http://ronrecord.com/Quotes/bronowski.html From the Knowledge or Certainty, an episode from the 1973 BBC series The Ascent of Man, transcribed by Evan Hunt: Quoting Jacob Bronowski: -- The Principle of Uncertainty is a bad name. In science--or outside of it--we are not uncertain; our knowledge is merely confined, within a certain tolerance. We should call it the Principle of Tolerance. And I propose that name in two senses: First, in the engineering sense--science has progressed, step by step, the most successful enterprise in the ascent of man, because it has understood that the exchange of information between man and nature, and man and man, can only take place with a certain tolerance. But second, I also use the word, passionately, about the real world. All knowledge--all information between human beings--can only be exchanged within a play of tolerance. And that is true whether the exchange is in science, or in literature, or in religion, or in politics, or in *any* form of thought that aspires to dogma. It's a major tragedy of my lifetime and yours that scientists were refining, to the most exquisite precision, the Principle of Tolerance--and turning their backs on the fact that all around them, tolerance was crashing to the ground beyond repair. The Principle of Uncertainty or, in my phrase, the Principle of Tolerance, fixed once for all the realization that all knowledge is limited. It is an irony of history that at the very time when this was being worked out there should rise, under Hitler in Germany and other tyrants elsewhere, a counter-conception: a principle of monstrous certainty. When the future looks back on the 1930s it will think of them as a crucial confrontation of culture as I have been expounding it, the ascent of man, against the throwback to the despots' belief that they have absolute certainty. It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false: tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. [The viewer sees Bronowsky walk directly into the marshlands near Auschwitz where millions of Jews were cremated.] *This* is where people were turned into numbers. Into this
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
OrionWorks wrote: From: leaking pen Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. missed that one... really now. pay any attention to people like Bush, who stated that athiests cant be considered patriots, and are a danger to the country? hows about pat robertson, who prays for the death of athiests daily, and wants a national religion imposed with penalties for those who dont proscribe. christians like YOU, perhaps, i dont know what kind of christian you are. christians like ME, definately. but most christians... no. they are quite harmful and hatefull towards others. atheist or non. Well, Mr. Leak, You still missed it. In fact I think you completely missed the entire context of my post. You imply that I personally stated Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. If you have an issue with the above statement I suggest you take it up with Mr. Wesley as he was responsible for saying it, not me. I really would recommend that you read posts attributed to me more carefully before, figuratively speaking, pointing your accusing finger at me and labeling me as some kind of [a] Christian and lumping my alleged religious predilections with the likes of Bush Jr. and Pat Robertson. You're right about one thing, however. You don't know what kind of a Christian I might be, as I have never stated that I am one. I've also never stated I'm an atheist either. Please read my posts more carefully before labeling me. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com Calm down everyone. I think your all making reasonable and polite statements. Unless I missed one.
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
OrionWorks wrote: From: leaking pen Pardon, but i was responding to Mr. Wesley, as I had missed the thread in which he had made the statement, and was quite sure he would read THIS thread as well. I was not responding to you. Perhaps YOU should read posts more carefully before assuming that something is aimed at you that isn't. You seemed rather eager to take the finger that wasn't pointed at you. Greetings again, Mr. Leak, Mr. Lawrence has already spoken rather eloquently on this point. However, tell you what. I'll work on my over eager fickle finger of accusation if you try working on your addressing skills. That's a problem I have too, sorry folks. You will note that I often address whom I'm responding to very clearly, usually at the beginning of any post I make. It helps avoid potential confusions as to whom my comments are actually being addressed to. I think you may have missed the fact that I created a brand new subject thread where I quoted a statement from Mr. Wesley. In my brand new subject thread Mr. Wesley has NEVER MADE a direct contribution to it, so how can you assume that everyone would naturally understand that your comments were actually addressed to him? Quite frankly, I would have offered up a sincere public apology had you received both Mr. Wesley's post and mine, AND that both posts were made in the same subject thread. However, as you have stated, at the time of your post you had ONLY received MY follow-up post, and not Mr. Wesley's. That's because Mr. Wesley has, so far, not made any follow-up posts to my new subject thread. Again, how do you assume that everyone would naturally take your comments as directed at Mr. Wesley? I therefore feel justified in repeating: Please read my posts more carefully, and respond accordingly As Mr. Lawrence as already suggested, simply addressing whom your comments were meant for would have alleviated a lot of confusion you are directly responsible for creating. Goodness gracious me! Did I just start a flame war? I missed the whole show. I'm on the other side of the planet so a few hours of flame war goes unnoticed as I sleep. Sorry if I have caused any friction but I can't see that much excess heat in the war. ;-) Gag me with a spoon! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
