tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post3853692746096886946..comments2024-03-18T08:38:01.678+00:00Comments on The Life And Opinions of Andrew Rilstone: AnswerUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-80152892643576097872008-11-27T08:05:00.000+00:002008-11-27T08:05:00.000+00:00Well, I'm glad that "chav" appeared here, forcing ...Well, I'm glad that "chav" appeared here, forcing me to Google it and find<BR/>"...baseball caps, frequently in Burberry check, a favourite style."<BR/>The American mind boggles.Porlock Juniorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16791629233605877049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-40701027009867135522008-11-26T20:52:00.000+00:002008-11-26T20:52:00.000+00:00I'm really surprised that anyone finds any of this...<I>I'm really surprised that anyone finds any of this stuff controversial.</I><BR/><BR/>I think if the School of Dawkins (to speak loosely) too often assumes that anyone religious must be a biblical literal fundamentalist, it is conversely true that a lot of religious rationalists (à la A. Rilstone, esq.), too often radically underestimate how many religious people take the (to him) self-evidently allegorical, parable sections of scripture literally.<BR/><BR/>Granted, as an American, my perspective on this is probably skewed. But over here it ain't just the bible belt. To take an example from my own tribe, there was a big controversy in Orthodox Jewish circles recently about a (Orthodox) rabbi who wrote books seeking to understand the early chapters of Genesis metaphorically being excommunicated for not believing in (what among Christians would be called) Young Earth Creationism. It wasn't unanimous on the ignore science side... but it wasn't unanimous against it either.<BR/><BR/>I think that those atheists who are fairly called anti-religious (rather than the majority who are just non-religious) would do well to remember how many of the faithful take scientific evidence (of things like the age of the earth) seriously. But those believers who are fairly described as taking science seriously would do equally well to remember how many believers are not among their number.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16524368948187746248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-26994289374043823362008-11-21T21:35:00.000+00:002008-11-21T21:35:00.000+00:00Kurt said... I didn't even get AR's "Life and Opin...Kurt said...<BR/><I> I didn't even get AR's "Life and Opinions..." reference until I happened to Google Tristram Shandy one day.</I><BR/><BR/>Honestly, Kurt! Why, I have known that ever since... for as long as...<BR/><BR/>...anyway, how are you today?Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-24230612015507062302008-11-21T13:13:00.000+00:002008-11-21T13:13:00.000+00:00Apologies for my perpetual Anglocentrisms! (I thou...<I>Apologies for my perpetual Anglocentrisms! (I thought maybe I should stop to explain Family Fortunes, but not 'chav'...)</I><BR/><BR/>Family Fortunes was based on the U.S. game show Family Feud. However, your show didn't star Richard Dawson (who was married to Diana Dors), so I'm betting it was inferior.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-57876097433948445832008-11-21T00:53:00.000+00:002008-11-21T00:53:00.000+00:00Apologies for my perpetual Anglocentrisms!Actually...<I>Apologies for my perpetual Anglocentrisms!</I><BR/><BR/>Actually you should go keep right on with those. How else will we colonials ever learn anything? I didn't even get AR's "Life and Opinions..." reference until I happened to Google Tristram Shandy one day. Lord knows what else has been going over my head, but one can only keep trying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-51242003239597537812008-11-20T23:49:00.000+00:002008-11-20T23:49:00.000+00:00Kurt said...I had to Google the term "chav"!Apolog...Kurt said...<BR/><I>I had to Google the term "chav"!</I><BR/><BR/>Apologies for my perpetual Anglocentrisms! (I thought maybe I should stop to explain Family Fortunes, but not 'chav'...)Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-2546639025778112192008-11-20T12:42:00.000+00:002008-11-20T12:42:00.000+00:00Not that Dawkins is all bad.http://richarddawkins....Not that Dawkins is all bad.<BR/>http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,824,Postmodernism-Disrobed,Richard-Dawkins-Nature,page2<BR/>(you may want to scroll down a bit)<BR/>then again, books such as "Higher Superstition: the academic left and its quarrels with science" may have some agendas of their own (I assume it is not my left, well, slightly-left-off-centre, they are talking about: but still)I. Dallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427385974208305067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-40857761654330107272008-11-20T10:09:00.000+00:002008-11-20T10:09:00.000+00:00Burrows wrote:"(Incidentally, back at Questio...Burrows wrote:<BR/>"(Incidentally, back at Question I did finally get the chance to add a few more comments about the Marxist theory of light bulbs. Everyone’s favourite subject, I’m sure...)"<BR/><BR/>I do believe that Mr. Rilstone did a piece on conspiracy theory a while ago;)<BR/><BR/>Stevens wrote:<BR/>"The Romans were famously tolerant of other religions."<BR/><BR/>Would propably use the term "imperialistic towards" rather than "tolerant of", as regards both the pagan & christian Romans. <BR/><BR/>The fascinatingly-named Kabala wrote:<BR/>"It's worth noting that while the Bible does seem to imply a flat Earth at times, this was never (in extreme contrast to the idea of the Earth as center of the universe) something that the Catholic Church or any other church insisted on."<BR/><BR/>At the time of Galileo, most catholic astromomers (not including Galileo, of course) supported the, well, catholic Tychean model.<BR/>&:<BR/>The Christian Catholic Apostolic Church did insist on a flat earth.<BR/><BR/>But apart from that, you are entirely correct.<BR/><BR/>As for medieval terramorphology, the current consensus (wikipedia) on the matter is, I at least think, instructive.<BR/><BR/>Secularist: "Religion is anti-science. Why, in the Dark Ages, the Church people burnt people at the stake for saying the Earth was round!"<BR/>Fundementalist:>looks at evidence< AHA! You are blatantly (very blatantly: the High Medival scholastics went out of their way to use Round Earth theory as an illustration of the Proper Order of Things, including the supremacy of the catholic church)WRONG!! for onceANYWAY that proves that the medieval Catholic Church was not anti-science, which logically means that modern protestants are allowed to be anti-science!<BR/>Secularist: "You actually looked at the evidence?! Er, not really used to you doing that. How can anyone be sure NOBODY in the Dark Ages believed the Earth was flat, there might have been some peasants who thought so, and in a Very Real Democratic Sense that is what Really Matters"<BR/>Fundementalist: "Come on. Chaucers 10-year old son knew the Earth was round. Obviously, you are part of an evil, anti-christian conspiracy, one that sacrficices BABIES to SATAN!"<BR/>Secularist: "That is not true!. Well, the last bit isnt... not if you have a non-insane view of abortion, that is... anyway, define evil!"<BR/>Fundementalist: "YOU! AHahahaaa!"<BR/>Dawkins: "Another Victory for Memeology!"<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earthI. Dallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427385974208305067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-46170368262434914792008-11-20T04:17:00.000+00:002008-11-20T04:17:00.000+00:00Speaking of Dante, note that the center of the Uni...Speaking of Dante, note that the center of the Universe is not necessarily a place of honor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-45477054716084015312008-11-19T23:55:00.000+00:002008-11-19T23:55:00.000+00:00It's worth noting that while the Bible does seem t...It's worth noting that while the Bible does seem to imply a flat Earth at times, this was never (in extreme contrast to the idea of the Earth as center of the universe) something that the Catholic Church or any other church insisted on. Well before Columbus, Magellan, or Galileo, medieval people knew the world was round. Look at Dante, for example, where Purgatory is a mountain in the Southern Hemisphere. Aquinas also refers to a round Earth, if I recall correctly.James Kabalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02335302113772004687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-52196038794218960362008-11-19T18:53:00.000+00:002008-11-19T18:53:00.000+00:00The hilarious thing is that we now put the words ‘...<I>The hilarious thing is that we now put the words ‘good’ and ‘Samaritan’ together so automatically, Family Fortunes style. For the original context try the Honest Asylum Seeker, the Helpful Hoodie or the Good Chav.</I><BR/><BR/>I've heard preachers note that today Jesus would probably talk to a Jewish audience about the Good Palestinian.<BR/><BR/>I had to Google the term "chav"!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-745133837988428182008-11-19T18:25:00.000+00:002008-11-19T18:25:00.000+00:00Kurt said...Re. the parables don't forget also tha...Kurt said...<BR/><I>Re. the parables don't forget also that the content of the parables often includes a challenge to the notion that God favors a certain ethnic group. E.g. the story of the Good Samaritan.</I><BR/><BR/>The hilarious thing is that we now put the words ‘good’ and ‘Samaritan’ together so automatically, Family Fortunes style. For the original context try the Honest Asylum Seeker, the Helpful Hoodie or the Good Chav.<BR/><BR/>sam dodsworth said...<BR/><I>Of course, I'm also assuming that it's more important to expose as many people as possible to the Gospels (so they can exercise their Free Will) than it is to win immediate converts.</I><BR/><BR/>It’s always interested me how much evangelists go for the ‘exposure’ thing. By any set of stats, you’re much more likely to get a convert from a rival sect than from a non-believer, but still they do the doorstepping.<BR/><BR/>Andrew Stevens said:<BR/><I>The best guesstimate that I can find is that about 60 million people lived under the Han Dynasty and about 56 million under Roman rule.</I><BR/><BR/>Much closer than I thought! I’d imagined once China got unified, it would beat anywhere else for numbers. I've no idea how you'd measure who was impacted by a civilization, rather than just who lived under it.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-23613222318711112262008-11-19T17:11:00.000+00:002008-11-19T17:11:00.000+00:00China would presumably have involved exposing the ...<I>China would presumably have involved exposing the greatest initial numbers as well. And if you could also somehow spread it from China to Japan, they were a major naval force...</I><BR/><BR/>The best guesstimate that I can find is that about 60 million people lived under the Han Dynasty and about 56 million under Roman rule.<BR/><BR/><I>Well yes, but it starts with a subject group anyway, the Jews, then spreads to the rulers. And the Romans took up more Greek culture than Jewish. Perhaps the main difference is that Greek culture was less monolithic than Roman.</I><BR/><BR/>and <BR/><BR/><I>On our timeline, Roman religion was basically Greek religion patched over an earlier animist tradition, so I think there's a reasonable chance. And the same argument applies to the Goths who took over from Rome, of course.</I><BR/><BR/>The Romans were famously tolerant of other religions. They were happy to allow temples to subject peoples' gods in Rome. This was usually accomplished by identifying another religion's gods with their own or, more rarely, importing a god into the Roman pantheon. Roman religion was not simply Greek religion. There are definite differences between Diana and Artemis or Ares and Mars. The Romans did wholly import some Greek gods (like Dionysus who became Bacchus) as well as gods from other sources like Isis from Egypt and Mithras from Persia or the great cult of Magna Mater (originally Phrygian Cybele). Judeo-Christianity, on the other hand, could not adapt to this process and YHWH was never brought into the Roman pantheon. However, the increase in anthropomorphic religion and the decline of the old religion after the Second Punic War could, conceivably, have been paralleled by the old religion being replaced with a Greek Christianity instead, I suppose.<BR/><BR/><I>More generally, I think you're overestimating the influence of the Roman Emperors and underestimating the effects of cultural diffusion. Christianity got as far as Ethiopia before the rise of Islam hit the Middle East, even with the Sassanids in the way. I'd expect things to go even better with Christians in Ptolomaic Egypt and Selucid Persia.</I><BR/><BR/>Ethiopia isn't exactly a textbook example of cultural diffusion. For those who aren't familiar with the story, Saint Frumentius and his brother Edesius were young boys whose ship was seized off Ethiopia (then the Aksumite Empire). Their uncle was killed and the two boys were brought before the King and the King was quite taken with them, raised them to positions of responsibility, and freed them from slavery before his death. His widow begged Saint Frumentius to assist her in educating young King Ezana and this crucial event aided in converting most of the Aksumite Empire. This strikes me as a strange chance event and not cultural diffusion as such. This isn't to deny, of course, that cultural diffusion occurs. And if Aksum hadn't been ready for a new religion, Saint Frumentius would have failed just as Akhenaten failed to convert Egypt to monotheism.<BR/><BR/>I am not in general a big fan of the Great Man theory of history, but Tolstoy plainly went too far in the other direction.<BR/><BR/><I>Of course, I'm also assuming that it's more important to expose as many people as possible to the Gospels (so they can exercise their Free Will) than it is to win immediate converts. Otherwise, you can certainly argue that the establishment of Christianity as the Roman state religion was a more important outcome.</I><BR/><BR/>I do very much agree with this, but the Gospel doesn't spread without converts.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-62378132567167567642008-11-19T14:01:00.000+00:002008-11-19T14:01:00.000+00:00Moreover, since Greece eventually succumbed to Rom...<I>Moreover, since Greece eventually succumbed to Rome, do we have any guarantee that Rome would have adopted Greek Christianity rather than just exterminating it?</I><BR/><BR/>On our timeline, Roman religion was basically Greek religion patched over an earlier animist tradition, so I think there's a reasonable chance. And the same argument applies to the Goths who took over from Rome, of course.<BR/><BR/>More generally, I think you're overestimating the influence of the Roman Emperors and underestimating the effects of cultural diffusion. Christianity got as far as Ethiopia before the rise of Islam hit the Middle East, even with the Sassanids in the way. I'd expect things to go even better with Christians in Ptolomaic Egypt and Selucid Persia.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I'm also assuming that it's more important to expose as many people as possible to the Gospels (so they can exercise their Free Will) than it is to win immediate converts. Otherwise, you can certainly argue that the establishment of Christianity as the Roman state religion was a more important outcome.Sam Dodsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05726256941052487243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-24797446664524666212008-11-18T23:20:00.000+00:002008-11-18T23:20:00.000+00:00Then again, IIRR, early Christianity was more the ...<I>Then again, IIRR, early Christianity was more the religion of traders and merchants so perhaps it makes more sense to look at trade routes than empires</I><BR/><BR/>I gather that Galilee was a good place to incubate a revolutionary movement: enough of a backwater so that one could stay somewhat out of the way of both Roman and Jewish authorities, but yes, a major trade route passed through there.<BR/><BR/>Re. the parables don't forget also that the content of the parables often includes a challenge to the notion that God favors a certain ethnic group. E.g. the story of the Good Samaritan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-74965944657056271292008-11-18T21:20:00.000+00:002008-11-18T21:20:00.000+00:00andrew stevens said...Obviously, one could have st...andrew stevens said...<BR/><I>Obviously, one could have started it in China (which was much more sophisticated than Europe if you pick the right epoch) and simply had China spread it rather than remaining insular as they historically did.</I><BR/><BR/>China would presumably have involved exposing the greatest initial numbers as well. And if you could also somehow spread it from China to Japan, they were a major naval force...<BR/><BR/><I>Moreover, since Greece eventually succumbed to Rome, do we have any guarantee that Rome would have adopted Greek Christianity rather than just exterminating it?</I><BR/><BR/>Well yes, but it starts with a subject group anyway, the Jews, then spreads to the rulers. And the Romans took up more Greek culture than Jewish. Perhaps the main difference is that Greek culture was less monolithic than Roman.<BR/><BR/>Then again, IIRR, early Christianity was more the religion of traders and merchants so perhaps it makes more sense to look at trade routes than empires.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps like Sam, I’m torn between the desire to nitpick and the desire to respond more metaphorically (if not mythopoetically). It’s surely the ‘killer app’ of Christianity that it was an open religion rather than belonging to an ethnic group. If there was a major Western religion that did that before Christianity, I don’t think I know of it. As mentioned earlier, I wonder if the parable form of Bible stories was a way to ‘de-specificise’ the teachings. (From “our temple has always been right here, it’s a holy spot” to “there was a farmer who sowed seeds in a field.”) The crucifixion tends to be important <I>as a story</I>, even to those who believe it literally happened. It didn’t matter that you didn’t see the event, or have connections to anyone who did, it mattered that you heard about it.<BR/><BR/>(Incidentally, back at Question I did finally get the chance to add a few more comments about the Marxist theory of light bulbs. Everyone’s favourite subject, I’m sure...)Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-11886949870314129712008-11-18T20:26:00.000+00:002008-11-18T20:26:00.000+00:00Not a bad thought, Sam. I agree that there are ot...Not a bad thought, Sam. I agree that there are other relatively close times and spaces which would probably have served as well.<BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that God won't interfere with free will. Alexander is his only chance in the scenario you're suggesting, since his Empire doesn't survive him (and I am not at all convinced that Alexander made any lasting cultural contributions to either India or China, due to the very short time they were present, so I'm not sure it is a better choice). With Rome, there are multiple Emperors to convince (with Constantine being the one who converted). Moreover, since Greece eventually succumbed to Rome, do we have any guarantee that Rome would have adopted Greek Christianity rather than just exterminating it?<BR/><BR/>Of course, if Christianity was a major mover in Greco-Roman culture spreading throughout the world, then my argument collapses. Obviously, one could have started it in China (which was much more sophisticated than Europe if you pick the right epoch) and simply had China spread it rather than remaining insular as they historically did.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-60864934553029103142008-11-18T14:08:00.000+00:002008-11-18T14:08:00.000+00:00andrew stevens:It does seem to me that having him ...andrew stevens:<BR/><BR/><I>It does seem to me that having him killed by the Roman Empire is quite possibly the best idea available.</I><BR/><BR/>I like your reasoning but I'm not sure about this. If Rome is good then wouldn't Ancient Greece have been even better? If you got in before Alexander then the Gospel would spread as far as India well before the rise of Rome - and India would give you a link to China. If you were lucky, you could even convert barbarians along the Chinese border and get Christianity into the Central Asian steppes. Once the Goths, Vandals, and Huns started sending missionaries along with the invading hordes then I don't see much room for other religions anywhere. <BR/><BR/>Getting Jesus executed in a suitable way might be a bit more of a problem in Ancient Greece, I suppose. I'd suggest Syracuse under the Tyrants: influential, not as conservative as Sparta, and authoritarian enough to see a popular figure as a threat and have him executed on charges of "impiety".Sam Dodsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05726256941052487243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-35392653244560237482008-11-17T11:42:00.000+00:002008-11-17T11:42:00.000+00:00Political Scientist wrote:"an institution tha...Political Scientist wrote:<BR/>"an institution that predated the Code of Hammurabi, and featured on the Ten Tables of Roman Law, was dealt such a blow that two hundred years later, we cannot imagine how people can ever have supported it."<BR/><BR/>Well, it was critizised since Old Testament times (though mostly when it came to the enslavement of co-religionists), and domestic slaves as an entire class in society in the West was phased out during the Dark Ages, & did not return untill the nazis (areas bordering up to slave-holding cultures, such as many of the Native American ones, or the Vatican, obviously are another matter)<BR/><BR/>Ibid:<BR/><BR/>"Aristotle noted in De Caelo that stars can disappear as you go north, and others may have made similar observations. Moreover, the Hellenistic influence that so perturbed the Maccabees - and survived their revolt - would have lead to at least Jewish scholars having familiarity with Greek thought"<BR/><BR/>Indeed, Aristotle went into some detail on the subject of earthly rotundity: however, it was still a matter of debate right up till the end of the Patrician period, where the matter was settled by all the flat earthers being stomped on by big blond people.<BR/>So, yes, it is difficult to disprove at least SOME Jewish people have belived in a flat (and very propably square) earth; especially considering most Chinese people, in spite of being quite brilliant astronomers, thought the earth was flat (& square) until those spoilsport Jesuits told them otherwise, or that there was a flat (& round, for some reason) earth socity at least up till 2002 AD (one of those great Victorian inventions, though it pales compared to Koreshanity:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreshanity<BR/><BR/>Ibid:<BR/>" Fundementalism was a reaction against the depredations of German Higher Critism, but now it tends to be thought of an anti-science phenomenon. "<BR/><BR/>Yes: quite.<BR/><BR/>Ibid:<BR/>"I think Dawkins must have a different version of the Bible."<BR/><BR/>In case anyone is interested, Danish schools put at least as much effort into teaching the pagan Norse creation myth as described by (catholic) Snorri Sturlausson as that of genesis: but as far as I can tell, all the aesir-worshipping neo-pagans up here have been converted by Americans: & the only person I have ever seen try to defend it as science was from the US.<BR/><BR/>"It would be interesting, from this point of view, to know what a historian of the 41st century would write about what 21st century humans “believed” about the universe: is it bounded or unbounded? I suspect the vast majority of people have no beliefs about the matter, simply because they’ve never thought about it."<BR/><BR/>My experience is that it influences people even when they do not think of it, implicitly. Consider, for example, how many people assume that that EITHER Genesis OR "evolution" are right, &, if the latter, that it must do exactly the same things for "Darwinists" that Genesis does for Fundementalists.<BR/>Obviously, this is no longer merely a matter of biology.<BR/><BR/>Or to be more precise, 41 - century people would be completely correct in assuming large numbers of 21 - century people believe in anti-science, memes, & witchcraft.<BR/>http://www.somethingawful.com/d/weekend-web/jumptheshark-owls-orgonite.php?page=7I. Dallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427385974208305067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-70338649806587314292008-11-16T21:31:00.000+00:002008-11-16T21:31:00.000+00:00Also, if it’s the second, why the long gap in time...<I>Also, if it’s the second, why the long gap in time between the Fall and being put back on track? Could not the crucifixion (or something similar) have been made to happen more or less instantly?</I><BR/><BR/>I'm an atheist myself, but I could take a crack at this one. If we assume that it is meaningful that people <I>know</I> about the death and resurrection of Christ, then God has a difficult time of it. If he does it back in prehistory, then it would have lapsed into myth and legend by the time civilization got started. Nobody would remember Christ at all. So, imagining that we are a God outside of time experiencing it all simultaneously, where should Christ be put so the event has maximum impact on all of humanity? It does seem to me that having him killed by the Roman Empire is quite possibly the best idea available. Roman culture would eventually reach all the corners of the earth in a way that no prior civilization ever would. It is, of course, a pity that generations before Christ don't get the benefit and that it would take centuries for other civilizations to get the Gospel (or even thousands of years in the case of, say, Australian aborigines), but any choice is going to leave out masses of humanity. The specific time and place where Christ was killed probably leaves out the fewest number of people.<BR/><BR/>I don't, by the by, regard this as particular evidence for the truth of Christianity (though some might). But, of course, that <I>is</I> why Christianity is the most influential religion in world history. Because the man who founded it was killed specifically by the Romans. Something like this reasoning could be used to account for why the Jews, particularly, were selected as God's favored people.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-10441174858059781192008-11-16T13:48:00.000+00:002008-11-16T13:48:00.000+00:00Hi Andrew, The problem with this blog is that in i...Hi Andrew, <BR/><BR/>The problem with this blog is that in it you and so many people say so many intelligent things that it can be quite hard to keep up! Thanks very much for your continuing fascinating articles...<BR/><BR/>I do have a small question about this one - and sincere apologies if you have answered it already and it hasn't registered with me. The biblical accounts of the fall contradict science/fact/observation in so many ways that it very naturally falls into a 'mythic', but not necessarily 'untrue', register for reading, as a story about 'why the world exists' and 'why the state of Man and the world is not as it should be'. There is no corresponding central fact about the resurrection - it is a specific historical event, yes? What is there about the resurrection story (as opposed to the crucifixion story) that would make one understand it as referring to an historical event rather than a figurative one? Or is this a matter of faith?<BR/><BR/>And thanks again for the maintenance of this excellent blog.JWHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01637785437909299947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-64733678372355567612008-11-15T22:39:00.000+00:002008-11-15T22:39:00.000+00:00I am very willing to be shouted down here, but my ...I am very willing to be shouted down here, but my reading of Genesis 1 is that<BR/><BR/>a: Before Jehovah got to work, the universe was a huge chaotic cosmic ocean: <I>sea</I> is what there was before there was anything else.<BR/><BR/>b: The first thing Jehovah did was get a great big, er, bowl and plonk it over the sea, trapping some water underneath it, and some water above it. <BR/><BR/>c: Then, he caused some of the water that had been trapped under the bowl to divide, leaving a dry space in between.<BR/><BR/>d: Then he got to work creating animals and plants on the dry bit.<BR/><BR/>e: A few hundred years later, when everything went pear shaped, he "opened the floodgates" and let all the water above the bowl pour back in, effectively scrubbing out the creation and starting over (preserving one human family and specimens of the animals.) <BR/><BR/>f: That is why "dividing waters" features quite a lot in the symbolism of the Old Testament -- when Jehovah splits the Red Sea in two for the Israelites to pass through, he's recalling the creation of the universe.<BR/><BR/>g: That is why "the sea disappears" in the book of Revelation.<BR/><BR/>h: The story of Jesus walking on the water is "Jesus doing a Jehovah type thang", not merely "An interesting display of levitation".<BR/><BR/>i: It probably has some bearing on the Jonah story, too, come to thing of it. <BR/><BR/>I seem to recall reading somewhere (and it was probably "The Monster Manual", so don't pay too much attention to me) that in some Babylonian stories, the Creator slays a primal dragon, and cuts it in half; and this primal dragon may be identified with the sea: so YHWH dividing the waters to create the earth may be a partial recollection of that. (When the God of Job claims to be able to draw out lethiathon with a hook, it's possible that he's saying "I'm the one who killed the primeval chaos sea monster" as opposed to merely "I'm good at hunting crocodiles.") It may be that the Dawk had read something of this kind in Wikipedia and become infected with the "The Genesis creation story is the same as that of ancient Babylon" meme.Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16934052271846235431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-42242363856192470122008-11-15T21:11:00.000+00:002008-11-15T21:11:00.000+00:00Andrew Rilstone wrote:“I've reviewed the box set f...Andrew Rilstone wrote:<BR/>“I've reviewed the box set for Sci-Fi Now #23, although that's pretty much just a retrospective on the series.”<BR/><BR/>Excellent - in that case, I shall treat myself to a copy. <BR/><BR/>Sam Dodsworth wrote:<BR/>“Thanks for that. I stand... corrected? Convicted of unjustified skepticism, anyway. “<BR/><BR/>My pleasure: I think slavery and Abolition are very important topics that certainly should be taught at school. The problem I have is the lack of historical context is which they are presented. I don’t know if you are familiar with a book by Sellar and Yeatman called “1066 and all that”? It’s a parody of history education, by treating history as a series of half-remembered facts relentlessly forced into a Whiggish narrative. [It’s a lot funnier than I’ve made it sound]. All events in history are classified as Good Things, or Bad Things. All kings are either Good Kings, or Bad Kings. This wonderfully reductive approach still appears in teaching about the British Empire [Bad Thing]. This means it’s possible to miss just how revolutionary Abolition was: an institution that predated the Code of Hammurabi, and featured on the Ten Tables of Roman Law, was dealt such a blow that two hundred years later, we cannot imagine how people can ever have supported it. Abolition could not have been achieved without the Royal Navy (slave ships were treated as priate ships, and crews could be hanged) and the Empire[1]. However, you could be forgiven for reading some text books and believing the British invented it...<BR/><BR/>Regarding the Dawkins quotes:<BR/><BR/>“... the Jewish creation myth, which is taken over from the Babylonian creation myth.”<BR/><BR/>is a dogmatic claim that might not survive contact with reality[2]. <BR/><BR/>I think the best way to interpret the “child abuse” references is that it’s a lot easier to brand something you dislike “child abuse” than to make a plausible case against it. This is why<A HREF="http://political-scientist.blogspot.com/2008/04/in-future-everything-will-be-child.html" REL="nofollow"> in the future, everything will be child abuse for 15 minutes. </A><BR/><BR/><BR/>On “Flat earth”: Apologies to Kurt for pressing on with this, but it isn’t at all clear to me that the OT requires a flat earth. Apart from anything else, Ancient Near East peoples<BR/>were familiar with sea travel, and anyone who’s ever watched a ship go over the horizon must make the leap to a non-flat earth. <BR/>There are references to Job to the constellations, and as they have names presuambly they were objects of study. Aristotle noted in De Caelo that stars can disappear as you go north, and others may have made similar observations. Moreover, the Hellenistic influence that so perturbed the Maccabees - and survived their revolt - would have lead to at least Jewish scholars having familiarity with Greek thought.<BR/><BR/>I’m not commited to this belief (although as these are beliefs we hold about beliefs that other people held, it may be difficult to imagine evidence that that might make us change our beliefs), but I think the case that the ANE Jews believed in a flat earth cosmology is far from made.[3] <BR/><BR/><BR/>Re: evolution, that the Genesis narrative is a story encapsulating truths rather than being a plonkingly litteral scientific account of creation has a long history in Christian thought. Augustine, writing over a thousand years before Darwin was thought of, says:<BR/><BR/>“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.” [The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1:19]. <BR/>For that matter, James Orr - the Fundementalist’s Fundementalist - clearly had no problem with an old earth, nor even with the evolution of animals (I suspect, but do not know, that he still would have regarded humans as necessarily the product of an act of Special Creation). Fundementalism was a reaction against the depredations of German Higher Critism, but now it tends to be thought of an anti-science phenomenon. <BR/><BR/>[1] This is not to say the Empire was a Good Thing (it certainly wasn’t), but it is to say a state of affairs that existed for hundreds of years is probably too complicated to be summed up in an adjective and an abstract noun. An aim of education, moreover, should be teaching children that most things are too complicated to be summed up in two words.<BR/><BR/>[2] Amoung other shortcomings, my copy of the AV fails to include Damkina’s residence in the palace built by Ea the All Wise atop his slaughtered great-great-grandfather Apsu, nor even the mighty Marduk’s triumph over Tiamat’s champion Kingu, his reclaimation of the Tablet of Destinies from Kingu’s chest, his formation of man from Kingu’s blood, and his promotion by his grandfather Anu to Chief of the Gods. <BR/><BR/>I think Dawkins must have a different version of the Bible. <BR/><BR/>[3] It would be interesting, from this point of view, to know what a historian of the 41st century would write about what 21st century humans “believed” about the universe: is it bounded or unbounded? I suspect the vast majority of people have no beliefs about the matter, simply because they’ve never thought about it. Was it CS Lewis who coined the term “chronological snobbery”?Political Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763391741375972410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-7210865361289173942008-11-15T17:00:00.000+00:002008-11-15T17:00:00.000+00:00Andrew wrote:"I believe that God intended and inte...Andrew wrote:<BR/><BR/>"I believe that God intended and intends us to be happy and healthy and to live in peace and happiness, and to go and be with him forever when we die. I believe that we have all turned away from him; disobeyed his instruction; believed the metaphorical serpent who has told us that we can be as gods, knowing good and evil. I believe that as a result, we are shut out from the happy peaceful state that God wants us to live in, and, will not go and be with him when we die. I believe that God came and lived and died with us as a human being so that we can get back to that happy state, and so that we can go and be with him and we die."<BR/><BR/>Other than the death part (that is, God never intended for us to die), this IS very good theology and (I hope) it's very popular. It sounds as if you got all the good exegesis out of the text, even if you deal with the text differently than I do. I still think its historicity is really important, and not just in the same way that Kurt Gibson's homerun in the 1988 World Series is more important than Roy Hobbs's in the The Natural.<BR/><BR/>There's still the problem of original sin, and Paul's writing in Romans which explains it and the mechanism of salvation. But I'm more concerned with whether or not my British Cousins understand baseball metaphors.David C. Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16840450521639431271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-56961546736095928202008-11-15T11:48:00.000+00:002008-11-15T11:48:00.000+00:00Andrew Rilstone said:I take Genesis 3 to be a narr...Andrew Rilstone said:<BR/><I>I take Genesis 3 to be a narrative description of the state which human beings are, as a matter of fact, in: alienated from the world, from their own bodies, and from each other as a result of rebellion against God and the wish to supplant God....</I><BR/><BR/>...then said later...<BR/><BR/><I>I absolutely regard Jesus death and resurrection as revolutionary historical events which put the human race back on God's original tracks. I merely observe that we aren't in the possession of a first hand, factual, journalistic account of how those events happened.</I><BR/><BR/>Apologies if this is me being slow, but not quite with you here. <BR/><BR/>The crucifixion was a genuine historical event which had genuine historical ramifications, even if the only accounts of it we have are merely second-hand. Okay, get what you’re saying. But the Fall <I>wasn’t</I> a historical event, Genesis is simply parcelling up something we have all done individually into quasi-historical symbolism which we might ingest? Or <I>was</I> there a genuine Fall, but so long ago that we don’t even have the second-hand accounts so must rely on symbolist supposition?<BR/><BR/>Also, if it’s the second, why the long gap in time between the Fall and being put back on track? Could not the crucifixion (or something similar) have been made to happen more or less instantly?<BR/><BR/>Again, apologies if this is just clamour from the cheap seats...Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.com