 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Non-religious Christianity
Re a previous thread: a couple of articles in the (UK) Guardian today which support the supposition that Christianity in the UK, unlike that in the US, is lagely a matter of culture and history rather than of religion or belief. First, a poll about religion in Britain: "Most people have no personal faith, the poll shows, with only 33% of those questioned describing themselves as "a religious person". A clear majority, 63%, say that they are not religious - including more than half of those who describe themselves as Christian." (In case you skated over the significant point, re-read that second paragraph.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1978045,00.html (Put what credence on this you will. It's not a large poll. The article says "ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,006 adults aged 18+ by telephone between December 12 and 13. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules." I'm biased, anyway, because the poll supports what my observation suggests is the case.) Secondly, this, from an article about Edward Burne-Jones's angels, which seems to me to be exactly the position of many UK agnostics, atheists and Pagans today: "Burne-Jones was not himself a Christian. Although he had once been intended for the church, like so many young intellectuals of his generation he had lost his faith and despised the church establishment: "Belong to the Church of England? Put your head in a bag!" But he did not lose his love of what he termed "Christmas carol Christianity", its directness and its clarity, its colour and its joy."  SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ > Re a previous thread: a couple of articles in the (UK) Guardian today > which support the supposition that Christianity in the UK, unlike that [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Christianity", its directness and its clarity, its colour and its > joy." Yup. The poll fndings sound about right. I first discovered atheism when I was about 16. I did resent the fact that its existence had been concealed from me throughout my childhood, but I've always been pleased that I was able to take part in much Bible-reading and hymn-singing before my blinkers were removed. In general I'm relaxed about the whole religion thing. Our daughter was Mary in the nativity play last weekend. :) To my mind, the old churches in Britain belong to the people. Our forebears built them, and even though our worldview is different, we still want our churches. Adrian >To my mind, the old churches in Britain belong to the people. Our forebears >built them, and even though our worldview is different, we still want our >churches. I suspect the worldview of those forebears was just as different from the worldview of present-day Christians, too. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ On 23 Dec 2006, Adrian Bailey wrote >> Secondly, this, from an article about Edward Burne-Jones's >> angels, which seems to me to be exactly the position of many UK [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Our forebears built them, and even though our worldview is > different, we still want our churches. We just watched the (previously-recorded) Xmas edition of QI. (It amuses me; well-done fluff. So sue me....) Daira O'Briain was on, and made a crack about taking an atheist girlfriend to an art gallery and having to answer questions like "Who's the guy on the sticks?" and "Was that the same guy they showed in the shed?" There's a valid point there: you don't have to *believe* in Christianity to understand the history of western art and culture, but if you're not conversant with it, you're nowhere. There's something in there about the reasonable logic of the poll's findings. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van HVS ... > > To my mind, the old churches in Britain belong to the people. > > Our forebears built them, and even though our worldview is > > different, we still want our churches. ... > There's a valid point there: you don't have to *believe* in > Christianity to understand the history of western art and culture, > but if you're not conversant with it, you're nowhere. Depends on where you want to go today. One possible logical interpretation is that nationalism and a colonial mindset linger on even when other kinds of superstition are losing ground. On 23 Dec 2006, mb wrote > HVS > ... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > colonial mindset linger on even when other kinds of superstition > are losing ground. The way this is snipped, it looks like my comment as to the "valid point" relates to Adrian's remark about "wanting churches". My comment was about O'Briain's remark about the problem of looking at/understanding historical western art without any knowledge of Christian traditions. I really don't have the faintest idea as to what point you're trying to make about the relevance/irrelevance of knowing Christian traditions for the understanding of western artistic traditions. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 23 Dec 2006, mb wrote > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > to make about the relevance/irrelevance of knowing Christian > traditions for the understanding of western artistic traditions. You're right: The comment was making a hash of Bailey's note (to which it was addressed) and yours (that was looking at a totally different aspect of it). Apologies. On 23 Dec 2006, mb wrote >> I really don't have the faintest idea as to what point you're >> trying to make about the relevance/irrelevance of knowing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > different aspect of it). > Apologies. Ah; that's good -- I was really quite flummoxed! SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van [...] > There's a valid point there: you don't have to *believe* in > Christianity to understand the history of western art and > culture, but if you're not conversant with it, you're nowhere. [...] Right. This always reminds me of the Soviet Union, where the authorities undertook to stamp out religion and had laws on the books against exposing a poor innocent minor to the mental darkness and superstition of religious instruction. Soviet schoolteachers discussing the various European periods of painting with what were known as their "Biblical myths" had to be careful not to go too deeply into explanations of the subject matter, with which they themselves actually were not too familiar, so as not to leave themselves open to accusations of breaking the law, for which there were stiff penalties. None of the children really understood Biblical subjects in the paintings, in my opinion a blow to art appreciation. Regards, ----- WB. >But he did not lose his love of what he termed "Christmas carol >Christianity", its directness and its clarity, its colour and its >joy." There's an interesting parallel there with Gould, an agnostic Jew raised in a secular (Socialist) family, but one of whose greatest joys was choral singing, particularly of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century composers. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > Re a previous thread: a couple of articles in the (UK) Guardian today > which support the supposition that Christianity in the UK, unlike that [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Christianity", its directness and its clarity, its colour and its > joy." There's something of a parallel there, in the UK at least, between those who are observant Jews and those who describe themselves as culturally Jewish. But I'd guess that their random sample won't have picked up many of either. Reflecting on what I know of the religious convictions of my non-Jewish friends, it occurs to me that a significant number of my work colleagues are regular church-goers, which I find quite surprising. Business school lecturers tend to be conservative: I wonder if that has anything to do with it. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >Reflecting on what I know of the religious convictions of my non-Jewish >friends, it occurs to me that a significant number of my work colleagues >are regular church-goers, which I find quite surprising. Business school >lecturers tend to be conservative: I wonder if that has anything to do >with it. Where do they live? If they live in villages or in small market towns, or even in particular locations in cities, going to church may simply be a way of being part of the local community, or part of a particular section of the local community, IMO. Rather like (but different from) becoming a Mason, or joining the WI, etc. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>Reflecting on what I know of the religious convictions of my non-Jewish >>friends, it occurs to me that a significant number of my work colleagues [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >particular section of the local community, IMO. Rather like (but >different from) becoming a Mason, or joining the WI, etc. Absolutely. My wife is a church-goer and when she moved here the church was a wonderful way for her to become part of the community. I was brought up in the CoE and - although not believing in anything myself these days - the children are being brought up in it, including going to the CoE primary school. After all, as churches go, it's one of the safer ones; I view it as a sort of mimetic cowpox. SignatureOn-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon > Re a previous thread: a couple of articles in the (UK) Guardian today > which support the supposition that Christianity in the UK, unlike that [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Christianity", its directness and its clarity, its colour and its > joy." It all seems a little weird to me. I consider anyone who describes themselves as a Christian to be religous. If they consider they aren't - well one of us is confused. >> Re a previous thread: a couple of articles in the (UK) Guardian today >> which support the supposition that Christianity in the UK, unlike that [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >themselves as a Christian to be religous. If they consider they aren't - >well one of us is confused. I don't think so. I think, in the US, that there's the "If I'm anything, I'm Christian" thinking. Someone who proclaims to be a Christian is probably religious, but someone who replies to the question of "Are you Christian?" with "Yes" may not be. There are a lot of Americans who are not willing to say "I'm an atheist", but they are not religious and don't observe any religion. They consider themselves to be vaguely Christian albeit non-practicing. Look at some of the old threads here. Many people - Americans and UKians - have stated that they are not religious and do not believe in God or gods. How many have overtly stated that they are atheists, though? They may, now, if asked, but there's something about that absolute denial that isn't heard or seen that often. There's also quite a bit of difference between "I'm Christian" and "I'm a Christian". The former says you are not Jewish, Muslim, etc, and the latter says you practice a religion. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL "Fred" wrote: > >"Wood Avens" ... > >> "Most people have no personal faith, the poll shows, with only 33% of > >> those questioned describing themselves as "a religious person". A > >> clear majority, 63%, say that they are not religious - including more > >> than half of those who describe themselves as Christian." ... > >It all seems a little weird to me. I consider anyone who describes > >themselves as a Christian to be religous. If they consider they aren't - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Christian is probably religious, but someone who replies to the > question of "Are you Christian?" with "Yes" may not be. It means that there remains either some kind of religious belief, or a sense of still belonging to a religious community. For practical purposes, these people should be counted with the religious. > There are a lot of Americans who are not willing to say "I'm an > atheist", but they are not religious and don't observe any religion. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > though? They may, now, if asked, but there's something about that > absolute denial that isn't heard or seen that often. > There's also quite a bit of difference between "I'm Christian" and > "I'm a Christian". The former says you are not Jewish, Muslim, etc, > and the latter says you practice a religion. That's right. Residual tribalism. On 24 Dec 2006, mb wrote > "Fred" wrote: > ... >>> It all seems a little weird to me. I consider anyone who [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > For practical purposes, these people should be counted with the > religious. I suspect they're viewing "christian" as primarily a social/cultural category which doesn't require any commitment at all to the tenets of Christianity. Dawkins, for example, clearly isn't a Christian -- but his brand of scientific atheism is solidly rooted in christian-as-opposed-to- any-other cultural traditions. -snip- >> There's also quite a bit of difference between "I'm Christian" >> and "I'm a Christian". The former says you are not Jewish, >> Muslim, etc, and the latter says you practice a religion. > That's right. Residual tribalism. I don't think it's that residual. It may have transmuted from religious tribalism to a secular version which has retained the label as a sort of short-hand, but it's still very strong. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 24 Dec 2006, mb wrote ... > > For practical purposes, these people should be counted with the > > religious. > I suspect they're viewing "christian" as primarily a > social/cultural category which doesn't require any commitment at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > scientific atheism is solidly rooted in christian-as-opposed-to- > any-other cultural traditions. That's the devil of it: It's a tradition that developed in violent opposition to religion. Our ignorance of similar traditions in other areas, and their relative lack of success, attach a "christian" label to what is total opposition to it. I don't think Dawkins would agree with the rather sloppy shorthand name. > -snip- > > >> There's also quite a bit of difference between "I'm Christian" > >> and "I'm a Christian". The former says you are not Jewish, > >> Muslim, etc, and the latter says you practice a religion. > > That's right. Residual tribalism. > I don't think it's that residual. It may have transmuted from > religious tribalism to a secular version which has retained the > label as a sort of short-hand, but it's still very strong. You're right there. >On 24 Dec 2006, mb wrote >>> I don't think so. I think, in the US, that there's the "If I'm >>> anything, I'm Christian" thinking. Someone who proclaims to be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >social/cultural category which doesn't require any commitment at >all to the tenets of Christianity. Yes. Exactly. But I'm interested in what Tony says, because it suggest there may not be quite such a difference between the UK and the US as I was supposing. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >But I'm interested in what Tony says, because it suggest there may not >be quite such a difference between the UK and the US as I was >supposing. There are a good many people who were baptized, and may even have gotten married in a Christian ceremony, who do not attend church services nor express any outward religiosity, but still consider themselves Christians as a matter of culture and moral outlook, celebrate the secularized Christian holidays, and so on. (For that matter, you can substitute the name of most individual denominations for "Christian" and my statement remains true.) According to a Pew poll from last July (N = 2003), 45% of respondents attend services less than once a month; in the same poll, about 80% of respondents described themselves as some flavor of Christian. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >But I'm interested in what Tony says, because it suggest there may not >be quite such a difference between the UK and the US as I was >supposing. My take on this (having lived in both societies) is that by and large there isn't that much difference with e.g. California, but in some other states the proportion of "in your face religious adherents" is higher than e.g. in the U.K. In the circle of colleagues/customers I worked with overseas during my career, I did encounter the odd overt bible-thumper, but it was pretty rare. Likewise in California. But I have also had to visit/work in other locations in the U.S.A, and while still fairly rare (Hi Daniel) my experience tells me that the risk of such encounters was higher in in certain other parts. And then of course we have some distinct clusters in the U.S.A sich as The Amish, Mormons in Utah, et al. Jitze >>But I'm interested in what Tony says, because it suggest there may not >>be quite such a difference between the UK and the US as I was [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >course we have some distinct clusters in the U.S.A sich as >The Amish, Mormons in Utah, et al. I live in Florida, and while Florida is not in the "bible belt", it is known for being a state with a great deal of religious influence (1) on voting habits, a large percentage of Christians (in the "I am a Christian" sense) in the population, and a large percentage of the Christian population as active church-goers. Yet, I find very little "in your face" religious attitude in day-to-day life. I think I know quite a few people who are devout church-goers ("think" because they really don't bring up it up unless it's appropriate to the conversation). The most obvious manifestation of "in-your-face" religion is staring at the bumper-sticker on the back of the car ahead in traffic. People who don't bring up religion in conversations have no hesitation about affixing a "Jesus Is My Co-Pilot" sticker to their automobile. The other most obvious manifestation is the "Letters to the Editor" in the newspaper. The religious seem to be the most prolific letter writers. (1) Religious influence in the sense of opposing candidates who are not outspoken in the condemnation of homosexuality, abortion, and the decline in "family values". (I have that in quotes because it's a phrase used that I truly don't have a good understanding of. There seems to be some sort of sliding scale of what is considered to be good "family values".) BTW: I'm going to Mass tonight for the first time since last Christmas. My wife asked me if I would go, and there is no doubt in my mind that I have an option. (I meant to write that) SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > On 24 Dec 2006, mb wrote > > "Fred" wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > scientific atheism is solidly rooted in christian-as-opposed-to- > any-other cultural traditions. You mean in the I-think-I'm-right-and-that-you're-not sense? It's called taking your own side in an argument. The difference with Dawkins is that antagonistic and all as he is, he presents evidence in his own defence. Christians tend not to. > -snip- > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed > For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van On 24 Dec 2006, wrote >> Dawkins, for example, clearly isn't a Christian -- but his >> brand of scientific atheism is solidly rooted in >> christian-as-opposed-to- any-other cultural traditions. > > You mean in the I-think-I'm-right-and-that-you're-not sense? Not really. I mean in the sense that that particular set of beliefs and world-view -- that the scientific method is sufficiently robust that it effectively proves the non-existence of deities -- is very much a western philosophical stance which developed from (and indeed within) mainstream christian views of how the world works. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 24 Dec 2006, wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > much a western philosophical stance which developed from (and indeed > within) mainstream christian views of how the world works. This is nothing but an accident of geography. There is no reason to suppose that the scientific method needed Christianity in order for it to emerge. > -- > Cheers, Harvey > > Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed > For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van On 24 Dec 2006, wrote >> On 24 Dec 2006, wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to suppose that the scientific method needed Christianity in > order for it to emerge. Sorry, but whether it *needed* it or didn't is -- in historical terms -- about as irrelevant as it gets. It's what happened -- and the discussion is about how we got to where we are, rather than about theoretically possible alternative universes where things could have happened differently. You don't get a "get-out-of-your-existing-tradition-free" card on the grounds that, theoretically, history might have developed differently. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 24 Dec 2006, wrote > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Sorry, but whether it *needed* it or didn't is -- in historical > terms -- about as irrelevant as it gets. That's exactly my point. So what if the culture of Christianity in Europe fed into the scientific method as we now know it? When you find your car keys, you don't care if you found them on the table or behind the couch - the important thing is you can drive. I don't see any significance in what you're saying. > It's what happened -- and the discussion is about how we got to > where we are, rather than about theoretically possible alternative > universes where things could have happened differently. Except that it's pretty easy to imagine that the scientific method would have come about anyway. Maybe quicker, maybe slower. This devalues what you're saying. It's reduced to 'so what'? > You don't get a "get-out-of-your-existing-tradition-free" card on > the grounds that, theoretically, history might have developed > differently. I'm not for a moment trying to get out of my existing tradition for free. No-one should deny history. But so what? You seem to be suggesting that every time we use the scientific method we should be tippin our hats to Jesus or something. History matters less and less when you're talking about something that would have happened anyway. The scientific method isn't some little cultural bauble like the Beatles music or soemthing that could only have come to us by the route it did. It's too fundamental not to have been discovered eventually. > -- > Cheers, Harvey > > Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed > For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van On 25 Dec 2006, wrote >> On 24 Dec 2006, wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > method would have come about anyway. Maybe quicker, maybe > slower. If, if, if, if. I'm talking about what happened, not what might have conceivably happened if what happened hadn't happened. I'm interested in verifiable evidence of historical events, not some theoretical historical sequence where the unverifiable meets wish-fulfillment. -snip- >> You don't get a "get-out-of-your-existing-tradition-free" card >> on the grounds that, theoretically, history might have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be suggesting that every time we use the scientific method we > should be tippin our hats to Jesus or something. ?? Read what I wrote, not what you would have had me write. I'm saying that the scientific tradition developed within the western cultural tradition in a period when that tradition was strongly christian. You appear to want to wish that link away; I'm simply pointing out that the link did, in fact, exist. > History matters > less and less when you're talking about something that would > have happened anyway. I see no historical, scientific, or empirical evidence for the statement that it would have happened differently -- only historical, scientific, and empirical evidence that it happened the way it did. Saying "it would have happened anyway" is a straightforward, faith- based statement on your part; it's entirely bereft of real-world evidence. > The scientific method isn't some little > cultural bauble like the Beatles music or soemthing that could > only have come to us by the route it did. It's too fundamental > not to have been discovered eventually. Statements of belief -- religious or scientific -- don't convince me that history didn't happen or, if it did, that it doesn't matter because in some theoretical alternative universe which lies outside our experience, someone really, sincerely, deeply believes that history would be the same. You're reciting a creed rather than presenting testable constructs. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 25 Dec 2006, wrote >> The scientific method isn't some little >> cultural bauble like the Beatles music or soemthing that could [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You're reciting a creed rather than presenting testable constructs. To say nothing of reifying "The Scientific Method" as if it were a single, well-defined and universally understood thing. (As anyone knows who has the slightest inkling of what historians and philosphers of science discuss in their copious free time, it ain't.) SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > On 25 Dec 2006, wrote > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > I'm talking about what happened, not what might have conceivably > happened if what happened hadn't happened. Clearly. The only question is: why are you only taking about what happened? It's clearly led to a belief on your part that there's only one way history can give us what we have. If Columbus had never sailed, would we still be sitting around thinking the world is flat? Clearly not. I'm interested in > verifiable evidence of historical events, not some theoretical > historical sequence where the unverifiable meets wish-fulfillment. You're the one completely over-rating the role of Christianity in the development of the scientific method. Now that's wish-fullfillment. > -snip- > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cultural tradition in a period when that tradition was strongly > christian. You're pretending that this christian element was all-important. I'm telling you it was incidental. > You appear to want to wish that link away; I'm simply pointing out > that the link did, in fact, exist. But I'm not wishing it away. I just said no-one should deny history. I'm simply pointing out the obvious - that it was incidental. History didn't need to happen just the way it happened in order for the scientific method to be with us now. > > History matters > > less and less when you're talking about something that would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > historical, scientific, and empirical evidence that it happened the > way it did. Not only are you implying here that the scientific method would not have been arrived at were it not for Christianity, but you're also implying that North and South America would still lie undiscovered were it not for Columbus and that Everest would still not be conquered were it not for Hillary. And numerous other nonsense too. So the it-would-have-happened-anyway argument is not so unfounded as you suppose. > Saying "it would have happened anyway" is a straightforward, faith- > based statement on your part; it's entirely bereft of real-world > evidence. So it's not based on any assumptions about human ingenuity? Human curiosity? The ability of humans to figure things out given enough time? You make it sound like I have to actually construct my alternative history in precise detail. Who *would have* arrived at the scientific method? Who would have scaled everest and when? Who would have discovered America? > > The scientific method isn't some little > > cultural bauble like the Beatles music or soemthing that could [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > our experience, someone really, sincerely, deeply believes that > history would be the same. I never said history would have been the same. I simply said the scientific method owuld still have been arrived at. The only reason I made the claim is because the scientific method is such a basic building block of thought. I never claimed there'd still be Indiana Jones films. > You're reciting a creed rather than presenting testable constructs. Well you explain to me then why thinking that Everest would not have been scaled only for Hillary is a reasonable and defensible position. And why we'd still either think that the world is flat or that it's open water from Lisbon to India only for Columbus. Knock yourself out. > -- > Cheers, Harvey > > Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed > For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >>On 25 Dec 2006, wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > would we still be sitting around thinking the world is flat? Clearly > not. That was a nineteenth century fabrication. No educated person of Columbus's day thought the world was flat, though they might have thought it was smaller around than it is. >> I'm interested in >>verifiable evidence of historical events, not some theoretical >>historical sequence where the unverifiable meets wish-fulfillment. > > You're the one completely over-rating the role of Christianity in the > development of the scientific method. Now that's wish-fullfillment. No, it's not. You have to go with the available evidence, and science just didn't develop under Hinduism, Buddhism or Confucianism the way it did under Christianity. >>>>You don't get a "get-out-of-your-existing-tradition-free" card >>>>on the grounds that, theoretically, history might have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You're pretending that this christian element was all-important. I'm > telling you it was incidental. Without anything to back up your assertion. >>You appear to want to wish that link away; I'm simply pointing out >>that the link did, in fact, exist. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > didn't need to happen just the way it happened in order for the > scientific method to be with us now. It's not obvious. There were intelligent people living thousands of years in relative peace and stability under other religions who did not develop science. For that matter, the Chinese had gun powder a lot longer than the West without having developed firearms; is that supposed to be just a quirk of geography as well? >>>History matters >>>less and less when you're talking about something that would [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > it not for Columbus and that Everest would still not be conquered were > it not for Hillary. And numerous other nonsense too. North and South America were discovered thousands of years before Columbus. > So the it-would-have-happened-anyway argument is not so unfounded as > you suppose. You've shown no evidence. >>Saying "it would have happened anyway" is a straightforward, faith- >>based statement on your part; it's entirely bereft of real-world [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I never said history would have been the same. I simply said the > scientific method owuld still have been arrived at. Possibly, but you cannot explain why it wasn't developed elsewhere. You have a religious belief about the lack of significance of culture in the development of science. > The only reason I > made the claim is because the scientific method is such a basic > building block of thought. I never claimed there'd still be Indiana > Jones films. Considering how long humans were around before the scientific method, that is an odd assertion. >>You're reciting a creed rather than presenting testable constructs. > > Well you explain to me then why thinking that Everest would not have > been scaled only for Hillary is a reasonable and defensible position. > And why we'd still either think that the world is flat or that it's > open water from Lisbon to India only for Columbus. Knock yourself out. Got any other strawmen in that satchel? --Jeff SignatureWar cannot be humanized. It can only be abolished. --Albert Einstein > > You're the one completely over-rating the role of Christianity in the > > development of the scientific method. Now that's wish-fullfillment. > > No, it's not. You have to go with the available evidence, and > science just didn't develop under Hinduism, Buddhism or Confucianism the > way it did under Christianity. No joke. Against it, not under it. It still does against it, not "under" it. >>>You're the one completely over-rating the role of Christianity in the >>>development of the scientific method. Now that's wish-fullfillment. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It still does against it, not "under" it. The Church reacted conservatively and dogmatically against Gallileo. That does not negate the fact that Gallileo developed his way of thinking within a Christian culture and zeitgeist. Modern biblical literalism is another aspect of the same mode of thinking, shared by fundamentalist Christians and atheists alike. --Jeff SignatureWar cannot be humanized. It can only be abolished. --Albert Einstein cavello wrote: [...] completely over-rating the role of Christianity in the development of the scientific method. Now that's wish-fullfillment. No, it's not. You have to go with the available evidence, and science just didn't develop under Hinduism, Buddhism or Confucianism the way it did under Christianity. I think of Euclid's Elements, written circa 300 B.C. -- yes, 300 years Before Christianity -- which was the highest and purest form of mathematics in Europe 2000 years later. The Greeks managed to measure the circumference of the Earth without a long ocean voyage. Aristotle and those of his general time were making progress in scientific investigation. They made so much that Aristotle was considered _The Authority_ in Christian Europe for a thousand and some years. -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (What were they missing scientific method wise?) >cavello wrote: > [...] completely over-rating the role of Christianity [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Aristotle was considered _The Authority_ >in Christian Europe for a thousand and some years. Immediately after which, once the Greek well had run dry, the monasteries "borrowed" the learning and scientific advances of Al-Andalus and the Kingdom of Granada for the next half millennium. Until at least the Renaissance, Christian science was basically a hodge podge of the efforts of others. SignatureBrad Germolene ADVANCE REMONIKERIZATION ALERT: Archie Valparaiso is coming (to stay, I promise) in January 2017. On 26 Dec 2006, Brad Germolene wrote >> cavello wrote: >> [...] completely over-rating the role of Christianity [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Until at least the Renaissance, Christian science was basically a > hodge podge of the efforts of others. And after the Renaissance? SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >On 26 Dec 2006, Brad Germolene wrote > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >And after the Renaissance? It went all medieval again, of course. SignatureBrad Germolene ADVANCE REMONIKERIZATION ALERT: Archie Valparaiso is coming (to stay, I promise) in January 2007. > No, it's not. You have to go with the available evidence, and > science just didn't develop under Hinduism, Buddhism or Confucianism the > way it did under Christianity. But it did under Islam and if it hadn't been for the exchange of ideas mainly via Spain/Portugal, it might have taken even longer to reach the Christian world. SignatureRob Bannister On 26 Dec 2006, Robert Bannister wrote >> No, it's not. You have to go with the available evidence, and >> science just didn't develop under Hinduism, Buddhism or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ideas mainly via Spain/Portugal, it might have taken even longer > to reach the Christian world. And then it developed in the Christian world. Which brings us full circle to the point: western science, as we know it, developed in the western world, as we know it, during a long period when the western world operated within a world view which was culturally and socially Christian. This appears to rankle with some posters, who would dearly like it to be either "not so" or irrelevant; but history's messier than some folks would like it to be. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >> No, it's not. You have to go with the available evidence, and >> science just didn't develop under Hinduism, Buddhism or Confucianism the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mainly via Spain/Portugal, it might have taken even longer to reach the > Christian world. And let's just point out that Islam is a western, monotheistic religion. --Jeff SignatureWar cannot be humanized. It can only be abolished. --Albert Einstein >> On 24 Dec 2006, wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >suppose that the scientific method needed Christianity in order for it >to emerge. There is a difference between "need" and what actually happened. My understanding[1] is that scientific method developed in the Christian montheistic culture for good reasons. A belief in a single "creator of everything" can leads to and support the idea that there are universal laws of nature, that is, if something happens here, it will happen the same anywhere else that relevant identical conditions exist. In the Christian world, investigatory and empirical science seem to have started as an exploration of the creator's handiwork. Obviously, important contributions were made by other factors. [1] My knowledge of this subject is casual. I have not made a systematic study of it. The influences on me have been isolated comments in various books, and then in 1997 _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ by Jared M. Diamond. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >The influences on me have been isolated >comments in various books, and then in 1997 _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ >by Jared M. Diamond. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel Should be required reading. If nothing else, it demonstrates the Law of Unintended Consequences beyond any peradventure. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>The influences on me have been isolated >>comments in various books, and then in 1997 _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Should be required reading. If nothing else, it demonstrates the Law >of Unintended Consequences beyond any peradventure. Yes. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > My understanding[1] is that scientific method developed in the > Christian montheistic culture for good reasons. A belief in a single [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Obviously, important contributions were made by other factors. Very much so. If your cause and effect works, then one would have expected Muslims to have got to atheism first, since they started on invesigatory and empirical science long before the Christian world. SignatureRob Bannister > >> On 24 Dec 2006, wrote > >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > will happen the same anywhere else that relevant identical > conditions exist. Of course. But there are any number of other routes to the same set of rules. That fact renders Christian monotheistic culture far less significant than you think it is. > In the Christian world, investigatory and empirical science seem to > have started as an exploration of the creator's handiwork. > > Obviously, important contributions were made by other factors. And the scientific method would have evolved anyway. So stop being so awestruck by the role played by Christianity. It's a little like the way Edmund Hillary is lauded for climbing Everest. Great achievement and everything, but no-one seriously argues that if he hadn't climbed it, no-one would yet have climbed it. > [1] My knowledge of this subject is casual. I have not made a > systematic study of it. The influences on me have been isolated > comments in various books, and then in 1997 _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ > by Jared M. Diamond. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel On 25 Dec 2006, wrote >> My understanding[1] is that scientific method developed in the >> Christian montheistic culture for good reasons. A belief in a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Of course. But there are Read as: "I can imagine" rather than "I have evidence of"... > any number of other routes to the same > set of rules. That fact renders Christian monotheistic culture > far less significant than you think it is. >> In the Christian world, investigatory and empirical science >> seem to have started as an exploration of the creator's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And the scientific method would have evolved anyway. A statement like this is that it's impossible to prove or disprove it -- it's a statement of belief, not one of a testable theory. "It would have happened anyway" is stating one's philosophical belief and deduction, and like intelligent design, it's inherently non-scientific, since it cannot be independently proven or disproven. (The possibility of disproof by testing is, of course, what makes evolution a scientific rather than philosophical theory. "It would have happened anyway" doesn't belong to that class of theories.) SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 25 Dec 2006, wrote > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > evolution a scientific rather than philosophical theory. "It would > have happened anyway" doesn't belong to that class of theories.) A lot of verbiage there. When you think about it, neither is it possible to test the theory that someone would still have made it to the top of Everest even if Edmund Hillary had spent his life bee-keeping in New Zealand. But it's hardly a nonsense theory. My theory that it would have happened anyway is based simply on the tenacity and cleverness of the human race - and that's not really something you can go around pretending cannot be tested or proven. Humans are pretty good at developing mental models of the world around them. Given a culture of curiosity and learning, the scientific method would not have gone undiscovered for long. Christianity's role is purely incidental, particularly when you think of the role Aristotle and Plato played in the development of reason - centuries *before* Jesus was born. > -- > Cheers, Harvey > > Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed > For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > >> Dawkins, for example, clearly isn't a Christian -- but his > >> brand of scientific atheism is solidly rooted in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > much a western philosophical stance which developed from (and indeed > within) mainstream christian views of how the world works. Against it, with a lot of violence. Not "within". Don't you just love it when after so many years of bloody struggle the priestly now peddle the idea that they were on the other side? On 24 Dec 2006, mb wrote >>>> Dawkins, for example, clearly isn't a Christian -- but his >>>> brand of scientific atheism is solidly rooted in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Against it, with a lot of violence. Not "within". No, within the tradition of enquiry. The mediaeval church famously fought the early enlightenment, but the later foundations of modern atheism weren't persecuted. Or was Darwin opposed with violence and excommunicated when I wasn't looking? SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 24 Dec 2006, mb wrote > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Or was Darwin opposed with violence and excommunicated when I wasn't > looking? No violence or excommunication, but a series of vicious verbal attacks. SignatureRob Bannister > On 24 Dec 2006, mb wrote ... > >> Not really. I mean in the sense that that particular set of > >> beliefs and world-view -- that the scientific method is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > fought the early enlightenment, but the later foundations of modern > atheism weren't persecuted. Wow, should we say thank you? Any little step was persecuted to the full extent of what was possible at the time. When they can't burn you, they use propaganda, character assassination, everything they have and the kitchen sink. When that doesn't work, they use "enlightened" quasi-religious people to excuse everything and spread the myth that oh, yes, the Church is on the reasonable side. While the hardcore continues to speak in tongues and wage crusades. > Or was Darwin opposed with violence and excommunicated when I wasn't > looking? The perverse nonsense is still continuing 100-some years after his death --including lawsuits and government action in the US. On 25 Dec 2006, mb wrote >> On 24 Dec 2006, mb wrote > ... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Wow, should we say thank you? Where was that remotely implied? All that's being asked is that you acknowledge two historical knowns: (a) that modern science -- science as we know it in the 21st century -- developed largely within the western world, and (b) that during the period it developed, the western world was a christian culture. You appear to accept the factual truth of the first statement, but are having some trouble acknowlwedging -- not thanking, not bowing, not scraping, merely acknowledging -- the truth of the second. It's rather as if you'd be happy to accept that the Renaissance produced great art -- but that the fact that the artists and their patrons produced devotional art was some sort of incidental (and slightly embarrassing) side issue. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 25 Dec 2006, mb wrote > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > are having some trouble acknowlwedging -- not thanking, not bowing, > not scraping, merely acknowledging -- the truth of the second. If it did develop largely within the Western World, it's due to the fact that elsewhere repression was more successful. All the evidence points to the fact that modern science developed against bitter opposition from both Church and believers. Not as part of a christian culture but as the un-christian culture. > It's rather as if you'd be happy to accept that the Renaissance > produced great art -- but that the fact that the artists and their > patrons produced devotional art was some sort of incidental (and > slightly embarrassing) side issue. Art is part and parcel of religious culture; no objection there. On 26 Dec 2006, mb wrote >> You appear to accept the factual truth of the first statement, >> but are having some trouble acknowlwedging -- not thanking, not [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Art is part and parcel of religious culture; no objection there. You seem to define science as somehow acultural. I don't think it is. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 26 Dec 2006, mb wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > believers. Not as part of a christian culture but as the > > un-christian culture. > You seem to define science as somehow acultural. > > I don't think it is. Who said it is? Any progress of science was part of a different culture than the hegemonic one, totally opposed to the religious one and fighting for dear life until very recently. It continues to be so, and people belonging to the dominant culture concentrate in technology while basic and theoretical science is as un-christian as can be. The only real "clash of civilizations" is at the level of the Kansas trial(s). On 26 Dec 2006, mb wrote >> On 26 Dec 2006, mb wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Who said it is? Any progress of science was part of a different > culture than the hegemonic one, You're romaticising. For most of modern history since the Renaissance -- and absolutely when dealing with the Enlightenment -- scientific progress was entirely part of the the mainstream/hegemonic culture. The members of the Royal Society were not ostracised by the political or religious heirarchies of their day; they established scientific truths, and for their efforts were duly rewarded not only with political honours and financial rewards, but also with consecrated burials (often in the holiest of holy places). > It continues > to be so, and people belonging to the dominant culture > concentrate in technology while basic and theoretical science is > as un-christian as can be. Again, you're romanticising: basic and theoretical science is only "as un-christian as can be" for those who are believe that physically unverifiable truths are, definitionally, not truths. Something like "intelligent design" isn't science; but evolution isn't theology -- and scientists who claim to have addressed theology look silly when they huff and puff about theologists who claim to have addressed science. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 26 Dec 2006, mb wrote > >>>> You appear to accept the factual truth of the first > >>>> statement, but are having some trouble acknowlwedging -- not [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > only with political honours and financial rewards, but also with > consecrated burials (often in the holiest of holy places). Yeah, there was a window in England and France, you're right. As long as you did your own thing and kept mum on superstition. > > It continues > > to be so, and people belonging to the dominant culture > > concentrate in technology while basic and theoretical science is > > as un-christian as can be. > Again, you're romanticising: basic and theoretical science is only > "as un-christian as can be" for those who are believe that > physically unverifiable truths are, definitionally, not truths. Of course they are not. Or, better said, the very word "truth" is too redolent of superstition. Anyway, you described very well the mindset of the majority in basic science. Not culturally mainstream, I'd say. > Something like "intelligent design" isn't science; but evolution > isn't theology -- and scientists who claim to have addressed > theology look silly when they huff and puff about theologists who > claim to have addressed science. No one can "address" theology, except perhaps psychiatrists. Scientists just dismiss it. Generally speaking. >>On 26 Dec 2006, mb wrote > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Yeah, there was a window in England and France, you're right. As long > as you did your own thing and kept mum on superstition. Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." He spent a great deal of time trying to discover hidden messages within the Bible. http://www.answers.com/topic/isaac-newton-s-religious-views --Jeff SignatureWar cannot be humanized. It can only be abolished. --Albert Einstein > >>On 26 Dec 2006, mb wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > the Bible daily." He spent a great deal of time trying to discover > hidden messages within the Bible. I don't know if Newton really was such a complete a.s as he pretended to be, or if he well knew on which side his bread was buttered. Intelligence is compatible with the most mammoth emotional blocks, but in his time repression was everywhere: the alternative to having honors heaped on him could well have been loss of life or limb (see other cases). Even Diderot had to kneel and cross himself, or else. Those were not easy times (a little like the US today). >No one can "address" theology, except perhaps psychiatrists. Scientists >just dismiss it. Generally speaking. There are scientists other than Dawkins, you know. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > mb > > >No one can "address" theology, except perhaps psychiatrists. Scientists > >just dismiss it. Generally speaking. > > There are scientists other than Dawkins, you know. Scientist, by its very definition, is one who sticks to strict requirements of method and rules of evidence. Anyone with any kind of belief --if otherwise a scientist-- is a clear case of schizophrenic personality (that's why psychiatrists were mentioned). On 27 Dec 2006, mb wrote >> mb >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Scientist, by its very definition, is one who sticks to strict > requirements of method and rules of evidence. Which means that it is impossible for science to deal with things that don't have physical existence: like consciousness, say. Science can deal with the *effects* of a non-physical thing like consciousness, but is unequipped to deal with the thing itself; when it tries, it looks downright foolish. > Anyone with any > kind of belief --if otherwise a scientist-- is a clear case of > schizophrenic personality (that's why psychiatrists were > mentioned). You mean like a scientist who believes that a lack of a physical state proves the non-existence of something? Yeah, I'd agree with that. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 27 Dec 2006, mb wrote ... > > Scientist, by its very definition, is one who sticks to strict > > requirements of method and rules of evidence. > > Which means that it is impossible for science to deal with things > that don't have physical existence: like consciousness, say. > Science can deal with the *effects* of a non-physical thing like > consciousness, but is unequipped to deal with the thing itself; > when it tries, it looks downright foolish. Consciousness is very much physical. Easily manipulated both experimentally and therapeutically. So let's not confuse it with "non-physical things", a self-cancelling expression. > > Anyone with any > > kind of belief --if otherwise a scientist-- is a clear case of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You mean like a scientist who believes that a lack of a physical > state proves the non-existence of something? It doesn't "prove" anything. It just does not exist, so whatever you want to create in your imagination is all yours. On 27 Dec 2006, mb wrote >> On 27 Dec 2006, mb wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It doesn't "prove" anything. It just does not exist, Which is a belief statement, not a scientific one. You clearly hold this belief so deeply that you don't see that you're using tautological reasoning: "Non-physicality doesn't prove non- existence; but anything without non-physicality doesn't exist." Neat circle. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 27 Dec 2006, mb wrote > >> You mean like a scientist who believes that a lack of a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which is a belief statement, not a scientific one. Come on, H, measure it under reliable, reproducible conditions by physical means and it will exist. Otherwise it's part of your imagination. Would you accept the objective reality of every nightmare I have when I drink too much? > You clearly hold this belief so deeply that you don't see that you're > using tautological reasoning: "Non-physicality doesn't prove non- > existence; but anything without non-physicality doesn't exist." Not again: If anything is "non-physical", it's necessarily a chimera of someone's overheated imagination, so there is no need for proof one way or the other. > Neat circle. On 27 Dec 2006, mb wrote >> On 27 Dec 2006, mb wrote >>>> You mean like a scientist who believes that a lack of a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > imagination. Would you accept the objective reality of every > nightmare I have when I drink too much? I'd certainly not accept the premise that said nightmares "don't exist": I'd say that if you've experienced them and can recall them, they have an "existence" of some sort which merits acknowledgement. If you dismiss that existence on the basis of them being non- corporeal, your definition of what constitutes "existence" is, in my view, overly literal and limited; philosophically flawed. >> You clearly hold this belief so deeply that you don't see that >> you're using tautological reasoning: "Non-physicality doesn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not again: If anything is "non-physical", it's necessarily a > chimera of someone's overheated imagination, This simply restates your self-referential definition by positing -- as self-evident fact -- that "a thing which is imagined" has no claim to "existence". That's only true if one has already accepted the premise that there can be no existence which is not physically determinable. Your nightmares "exist"; that your definition of "existence" doesn't cover them doesn't change the fact of their existence. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van ... > >>>> You mean like a scientist who believes that a lack of a > >>>> physical state proves the non-existence of something? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > them, they have an "existence" of some sort which merits > acknowledgement. Of course there is something to acknowledge: The fact that the H. sapiens genus is easily manipulated into taking collective hallucination for reality and acting on it, with absolutely horripilating physical consequences. > If you dismiss that existence on the basis of them being non- > corporeal, your definition of what constitutes "existence" is, in > my view, overly literal and limited; philosophically flawed. Where is the flaw? We are dealing with two things here, figments of the imagination and abstractions. The first is inside the skull of the imaginer, not provable by any means *and* the number of imaginable things is infinite. The second is a convenient way to organize thought but not in any case something with an existence outside your skull. ... > > Not again: If anything is "non-physical", it's necessarily a > > chimera of someone's overheated imagination, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's only true if one has already accepted the premise that there > can be no existence which is not physically determinable. That's the rock bottom. All thought has to be based on some self-referential foundation. Without being disrespectful, I prefer mine to yours: It is provable. We'll have to put a sock in it sometime: Looks like we are far, far away from language use. >Scientist, by its very definition, is one who sticks to strict >requirements of method and rules of evidence. Anyone with any kind of >belief --if otherwise a scientist-- is a clear case of schizophrenic >personality (that's why psychiatrists were mentioned). You are so confused I don't even know where to start. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > mb : > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are so confused I don't even know where to start. If things were clear to you you'd know. I am using caricatural shorthand in the description, of course (this is not the place to go into detail), but that is not a result of confusion. >If things were clear to you you'd know. I am using caricatural >shorthand in the description, of course (this is not the place to go >into detail), but that is not a result of confusion. Your denial only reinforces my understanding that you haven't a clue. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > On 25 Dec 2006, mb wrote > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > that during the period it developed, the western world was a > christian culture. This would account for the Christian names of so many sciences like Al-gebra and Al-chimie. SignatureRob Bannister On 26 Dec 2006, Robert Bannister wrote >> All that's being asked is that you acknowledge two historical >> knowns: (a) that modern science -- science as we know it in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This would account for the Christian names of so many sciences > like Al-gebra and Al-chimie. Did you not read "as we know it in the 21st century" or "during the period it developed"? In case it's necessary to flog the poor, deceased equine, Al-gebra and Al-chimie were co-opted by western science at an early date, and were then further developed within the western world. (cheap shot) Or do I have this wrong? Did the studies of subatomic particle physics develop first in Riyadh? (/cheap shot) SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >On 26 Dec 2006, Robert Bannister wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >(/cheap shot) It's a little-known well-known fact that primitive atomic weapons were developed in Al-Damas-t'n, near Bashan-stouk. SignaturePaul In bocca al Lupo! >>On 26 Dec 2006, Robert Bannister wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >It's a little-known well-known fact that primitive atomic weapons were >developed in Al-Damas-t'n, near Bashan-stouk. I bet Harvey doesn't know that he's got nuclear piles. SignatureRobin Herts, England >>>On 26 Dec 2006, Robert Bannister wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I bet Harvey doesn't know that he's got nuclear piles. His bum glows in the dark, does it? --Jeff SignatureHalf of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm but the harm does not interest them. -T.S. Eliot >> On 26 Dec 2006, Robert Bannister wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It's a little-known well-known fact that primitive atomic weapons were > developed in Al-Damas-t'n, near Bashan-stouk. I expect Bush and Blair are still looking for them. SignatureRob Bannister >It's a little-known well-known fact that primitive atomic weapons were >developed in Al-Damas-t'n, near Bashan-stouk. The number of which fearsome place was Four One One One. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> On 26 Dec 2006, Robert Bannister wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It's a little-known well-known fact that primitive atomic weapons were > developed in Al-Damas-t'n, near Bashan-stouk. <grin> SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) [...] > There are a lot of Americans who are not willing to say "I'm > an atheist", but they are not religious and don't observe any > religion. They consider themselves to be vaguely Christian > albeit > non-practicing. [...] European television correspondents in the US have returned to this subject again and again, producing TV documentaries on religion in numerous states throughout the country in attempts to explain the situation to European audiences, especially the roots of Christian fundamentalism and fanaticism. Some comments by just rank-and-file Americans have been enlightening. Having been assured the documentary was destined for European audiences only, one American woman in Kansas told a correspondent on camera that she didn't believe in God, but she said she would not admit to it because general knowledge of the fact would certainly result in animosity towards her at work and in her community. A shopkeeper in Colorado said he was an atheist, but he said he had to keep it to himself. If word of it got out, he said, many of his customers would refuse to patronize his grocery store. Regards, ----- WB. >>> Re a previous thread: a couple of articles in the (UK) Guardian today >>> which support the supposition that Christianity in the UK, unlike that [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >though? They may, now, if asked, but there's something about that >absolute denial that isn't heard or seen that often. You've got to see who's doing the posting in those threads. If they're Brits, I wouldn't expect them to go up to people and overtly say "I'm an atheist", or even discuss their lack of religion with anyone, unless they're what I would call atheist fundamentalists who, like religious fundamentalists, are in your face with their beliefs. I became an atheist when I was five or six, and I have not seen anything since then that puts religion into any category different from a belief in the tooth fairy or astrology. Religion is not something that I normally even waste a microsecond thinking about, and I can't imagine many situation in which I might find myself being asked what my religion was, or whether I had one. We don't get religious people knocking on doors here, but if we did I'd tell them to mind their own business, as I do to the occasional political canvasser, mainly because I don't like answering the door to such people. SignatureRobin Herts, England >>>>Re a previous thread: a couple of articles in the (UK) Guardian today >>>>which support the supposition that Christianity in the UK, unlike that [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > business, as I do to the occasional political canvasser, mainly > because I don't like answering the door to such people. We get regular visitations from pairs of smartly dressed young men wanting to talk to us about the Bible. Anyone who knoes what to look for can instantly see that Jews live in our house but this doesn't deter them - I suspect it makes them even keener. When Son lived at home he liked to engage them in conversation, as he did with political canvassers. Husband also engages political canvassers in lengthy conversations, but only if they are from the party he is not going to support: he reckons that if they spend all their time talking to him, they won't have a chance to persuade anyone else to vote for them. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >We get regular visitations from pairs of smartly dressed young men >wanting to talk to us about the Bible. Anyone who knoes what to look for >can instantly see that Jews live in our house but this doesn't deter >them What's the old joke? "While I was waiting for you to answer the door I did you a favor and straightened up that thing you had nailed to the door jamb". SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > Religion is not something that I normally even waste a microsecond > thinking about, and I can't imagine many situation in which I might > find myself being asked what my religion was, or whether I had one. > We don't get religious people knocking on doors here ... As I believe I've mentioned here before, in 1978 a man knocked on my door and asked, among other questions, what religion I was. Only it was multiple choice. He asked: "Are you Protestant or Catholic?" To my twofold shame, I blurted the wrong answer -- Protestant -- before doing the correct thing and asking why he was asking. What did my religion have to do with being enumerated for the upcoming municipal election, anyway? The answer is, because Roman Catholics in Ontario have a constitutional right, grandfathered from before the days of religious equality, to a separate, tax-funded, religious school system. Every tenant or landowner pays property taxes, and part of these is designated for schools. If you aren't a Roman Catholic, that part is automatically directed to the public school system. If you are, you have the option of having it directed to the Catholic system instead. (Any other religious schools are treated as private schools -- if you want to give them money, that's fine, but you still have to pay your taxes toward the public school system.) Further, each school system has its own school board, with an elected member representing each ward in the city. So in a municipal election, you have to be given the correct ballot for the school system that your taxes support. Since you have to be asked at election time, the system was that the record of your enumeration would also serve as the record of how your property taxes would be directed. So he had to ask whether I was a Catholic; if I was, the next question would have been which school board I wanted my taxes (or rather, the portion of the landlord's taxes corresponding to my apartment) directed to. Or at least, it should have been. Given that the enumerator had managed to turn the question "Are you a Catholic?" into "Are you Protestant or Catholic?", it seems entirely possible to me that if I had been a Catholic, he would have skipped the next question and assumed I was not supporting the public school board. I think that my the time I had moved in 1983 to my present house, door-to-door enumeration had been done away with. I don't really remember what I had to do to get on the voters' list and to get my property taxes correctly assigned here. ObAUE: The separate Roman Catholic school system is often called the "separate school system" (here and in other provinces where the same system exists). Logically "school" should bind tighter to "system" than to "separate" here, but in fact the schools in the system are in turn called "separate schools" -- sometimes as part of their official name. What is now the Toronto Catholic District School Board was the Metropolitan Separate School Board until about 10 years ago, and the schools used to have names like "St. Bridget's Separate School", although I believe that form is no longer used here. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | In the affairs of this world men are saved, msb@vex.net | not by faith, but by the want of it. --Franklin My text in this article is in the public domain. [...] >It all seems a little weird to me. I consider anyone who describes >themselves as a Christian to be religous. If they consider they aren't - >well one of us is confused. It is possible to agree with Christian morality without going in for the metaphysical stuff. In Australia, like the UK, people in this position can and do call themselves non-religious Christians (or something else, meaning the same thing). My sainted mother holds a position somewhere in this area. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > something else, meaning the same thing). My sainted mother holds a > position somewhere in this area. Tariq Ali, a radical figure probably unknown outside the UK, calls himself "a secular Muslim". SignatureMike. [...]> First, a poll about religion in Britain: > "Most people have no personal faith, the poll shows, with only > 33% of those questioned describing themselves as "a religious > person". A clear majority, 63%, say that they are not > religious - including more than half of those who describe > themselves as > Christian." That's one of the big cultural differences between the United States and Europe, where Christianity for people in some countries is first and foremost just a feature of their national culture. Colorful Christmas traditions are very old, and the custom is to observe them during the month of December. A typical remark of the season in some countries might be: "When I was a small child, my grandma took me to my first church concert. I was Bach's 'Christmas Oratorio.' I first took my own children to a performance of it every year at Christmas, and now I take my grandchildren." When the Pope urged the faithful in his Christmas message not to leave Christ out of Christmas, many Europeans surely had no trouble understanding what he meant. On the other hand, there are European countries like Poland where being Christian is all bound up with being Polish, but that's certainly not the norm. Regards, ----- WB. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.