John Madziarczyk: Atheists Rely Too Much on Science
John Madziarczyk argues that it is faulty reasoning for atheists to expect science to answer questions about religion:
Because the existence of God isn't a question that science can answer. How do you set up an experiment to test for the existence of God? How do you set something up so that the data can be falsified, meaning that it could be either proved false or not, regarding God? You can't. It's not like analyzing the age of a particular strata of rock or doing a chemical experiment.
How did John Madziarczyk come to the conclusion that the existence of his god can't be addressed by science? The two most likely possibilities are that he knows something about the nature of his god which leads to this conclusion, or he has simply defined his god in way that just happens to lead to this conclusion. In the latter case, his position can't be taken seriously because he's deliberately defining science out of the conversation in order to salvage his theism. In the former case, we can challenge how John Madziarczyk can come by any certain knowledge about anything without opening the door to scientific investigation as well. If knowledge is a "justified, true belief," how does he "justify" his belief in a manner that excludes the scientific process of formulating hypotheses, testing implications, and so forth?
This is not the end of the problems with John Madziarczyk's position, though. Anything that has any sort of impact on our world can, in principle, be investigated by science. Such investigation may be difficult and even not technically feasible right now, but nevertheless they are possible. We haven't observed black holes directly, but if they exist they will have an impact on space around them and we can investigate that — we can for example test for certain conditions which, if a black hole is present, we can expect to find. If we keep not finding what we expect, then either black holes don't exist or, if they do, they aren't at all like what we think.
The same is true for everything that exists, so for Madziarczyk to suggest that the existence of his god is a question which science can't address even in principle entails that the existence of his god has no impact on our universe. At best that reduces his theism to a form of deism, but even that might be too generous because deists postulate a god that created the universe and that's a lot of impact, even if no further intervention occurs. If our universe really was created by a god, then that is something that should in principle be testable by science.
So it's more likely that Madziarczyk has reduced his theism to one where there is a "god," but it does nothing to or in the universe and isn't even responsible for the universe existing. That's not a god worth worshipping, caring about, or even thinking much about. Indeed, it's hard to see how the "existence" of such a god can be distinguished from its non-existence. One way or the other, then, the reasonableness, rationality, and importance of theism is completely eviscerated. If there were more defenders of religious theism like John Madziarczyk, there wouldn't be much for atheist critics to do.
I say that there are a number of things that you can't do an experiment about that we still think exist and are valid in our day to day life. Morality is one of those things. You can't reduce morality to scientific laws, you can't reduce ethics to scientific laws, yet we still think that ethics and morals are important. ...morality and ethics can't be proven right or wrong yet we still use them and still talk about them. It's the same way with God. Just because we don't have an experiment that can prove or disprove the existence of God doesn't mean that that proves that God doesn't exist. Morality exists.
Talk about a wild misuse of analogies. True, you can't reduce morality to scientific laws, but that's hardly relevant because John Madziarczyk isn't making a legitimate comparison. We can't reduce aesthetics to scientific laws, but who would use this as an analogy to argue that we can't use science to test for the existence of atoms? It makes no sense whatsoever.
A legitimate analogy here would be one with the inability of science to test for the existence of something which we all know exists. Morality definitely doesn't qualify because you can use science to demonstrate that morality and ethics exist — you don't need to because it's fairly obvious, but if someone challenged it, then it's a question which science can address. Is there anything which definitely exists, but which science is necessarily unable to address in any fashion? I can't come up with anything and I'll bet John Madziarczyk couldn't either, that's why he offered such an absurd comparison.
Religion and spirituality is essentially and experiential reality and the scientific community will never have access to that sphere of experience with which to fu** with and prove or disprove. Instead, people who have experienced true spirituality will always be able to tell through comparing notes with the experience of others that they're experiencing phenomenon in common, and that will always be the baseline of proof.
I can barely make any sense out of this and am not at all sure what point John Madziarczyk is trying to make. It sounds rather like he's arguing that religion and spirituality are basically in the realm of personal, subjective experience and this is a realm which science doesn't really have access to. Science can't prove or disprove the content of our experiences or our reactions to them, therefore it is illegitimate for science to be used as any sort of basis for challenging, questioning, or denying the foundations of those experiences. This raises potentially interesting philosophical questions about the nature of personal experience and the difference between subjectivity and objectivity.
While this portion of the text might have the most potential for interest and substance, it can't even begin to salvage the original position. That people have religious and spiritual experiences isn't really questioned. The reality of such subjective experiences is generally accepted even by atheists. What isn't accepted, though, are all claims about the nature and origins of those experiences.
John Madziarczyk seems to want to insist that these claims be treated as sacrosanct, but unless he is claiming that people are infallible when it comes to the nature and origin of personal experiences, such a demand is completely inappropriate. We know for a fact that people are highly fallible when it comes reporting the content of experiences (eyewitness testimony) and remembering basic facts about past experiences. Why should interpretations about the nature and origin of religious experiences be treated any less skeptically and less critically?
John Madziarczyk also doesn't help his case by trying to claim that the "baseline of proof" should be people comparing notes and finding commonalities in experiences. First, all the known problems with eyewitness testimony and memory are even more relevant. Second, similarities in experiences and interpretations can have no bearing on the accuracy of those interpretations. Finally, if we were to adopt such a standard consistently, then we'd have to accept the truth of UFO abductions, fairies, astrology, psychics, and a host of phenomenon which are plainly false.
Even worse, we'd have to accept as truth just about all mutually exclusive religious experiences — so long as a group of people compare notes and find commonalities, their interpretations must be "true" even if the truth of those interpretations is incompatible with the truth of interpretations arrived at by some other group. This is an untenable and unreasonable situation which a person would have to be incredibly desperate to adopt — and, to be honest, there is a hint of desperation in Madziarczyk's words: "the scientific community will never have access to that sphere of experience with which to fu** with..."
Is John Madziarczyk afraid that science will eventually be able to explain the origin and nature of religious experiences — and reveal that they are entirely natural, lacking any supernatural components? I think that the overwhelming results of science from several fields has already done just that, at least to the degree that we normally accept other conclusions. Even if it hasn't, though, it makes no sense to fear or abhor such a conclusion if you sincerely desire to know the truth. The only reason to fear that is if you prefer a comforting belief over a potentially uncomfortable reality — and once again, the reasonableness of religious theism is arguably undermined from within, not by external critics.
Comments
I think theists and atheists alike would both benefit greatly if each side realized that one cannot prove the non-existence of something. It’s impossible.
I can prove there’s no physical evidence that there’s currently an outhouse on my backlawn. Proving a negative only becomes problematic when the burden is to prove something doesn’t exist anywhere in the universe.
Interestingly, if we had someway to detect God, it would be easy to prove or disprove His existence, at least the omnipresent version: if He’s supposed to be everywhere and He isn’t in the first place you check, then He isn’t anywhere (except in our imaginations).
That’s a popular myth, especially with theists who seem to be desperate for it to be true, but it’s false.
My point was in the impossibility proving the non-existence of a non-existing entity, or one that requires belief. I don’t have to believe in an outhouse in the backyard for my worldview to change. However, belief in god(s) does require me to change my worldview - how the world works, what goes on in it, the origin of the species, etc. That’s all I was getting at - proving the existence of a thing that can never be proved one way or the other is pointless. Don’t get me wrong, I’m atheist through and through (pastafarian, actually), I just find the “existence” argument tiring.
The link I provided applies to any “entity” as well.
The problem is, it’s not inherently impossible to disprove the existence of something. The only “things” which cannot, in principle, be disproven are those which are defined too poorly to make sense of and those defined as having no impact on this universe. In both cases, those, their “existence” is indistinguishable from their nonexistence.
their “existence” is indistinguishable from their nonexistence.
Well said, my friend. That wraps it all up nicely.
Can you prove that unicorns don’t exist?
Define “unicorns”.
Let’s define a unicorn as a white equine-like creature with a six to twelve inch horn protruding from its forehead region. And we’ll throw in another trait: when touched, the unicorn’s horn helps to heal wounds.
I seem to remember the circus had something like that a few years ago. One-horned deer have been found in Italy. So, I guess they exist in that sense.
How? What exactly are the powers of this horn and how do they work?
The aforementioned horn secretes an organic, anti-bacterial substance that boosts the injured individual’s immune system, speeds along the healing process, and prevents infection.
I don’t believe that true horn is capable of secretion like that. So, what you describe as you describe it isn’t possible.
So then is the answer: Yes, you can prove a unicorn (as I have defined it) does not exist?
And if so, did you prove the non-existence of unicorns by means of deductive reasoning?
Seems like it.
What do you think?
Well it seems like deductive reasoning:
1) Unicorns have horns with healing abilities.
2) Horns with healing abilities do not exist.
3) Therefore unicorns do not exist.
So, this means that you can prove a negative.. Correct?
Actually, I think it’s more like horns that secrete things don’t exist.
I’ve already demonstrated that there is more than one way to prove a negative. Many think that it’s philosophically impossible, but that’s derived from a superficial knowledge of philosophy. Proving negatives is hard and requires the right circumstances, not impossible.
Thanks! (I hope you don’t think I believed in unicorns. I was just using it as an example.)
Although, there is the possibility of a Unicorn Planet! Check it out if you dare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQJD1ura7G4
This is a bit off the main topic. Speaking of unicorns, have you seen the latest JibJab offering?
Back to the subject. Science is the first to admit it doesn’t know everything; that’s what makes it science instead of faith or speculation. Science is constantly changing as knowledge increases. It does not get it’s knowledge from ancient mythological ideas and stories that have long outlived provable data and facts.
Of course, there are new discoveries and theories in the scientific community all the time. There are also mistakes; but science is ever evolving and learning from their errors and they don’t insist on perpetuating them.
Very often the religions completely ignore science in deference to their dogmas. One glaringly obvious example: Creationism aka. ID.
When humankind as a whole were barely able to stand upright,they had no stream of knowledge to depend on. As humanity progressed,they created their beliefs as their intelligence allowed. Eventually man became a thinking, questioning entity. Curiosity about the world
created the first rudimentary science.
The more man learns, the more he should progress. Unfortunately, I feel that the religions have done more to impede progress, than help it. If it were not for the religious zealots of times passed, and even some here and now in today’s world, we would be much farther ahead in so many ways.
Advances in technology and medicine, can not and must not be ruled by ancient mythology and erroneous beliefs. Of course, ethics are always a consideration in any enterprise, including science.
Religion is never an objective experience, in any regard; it is, by its nature, subjective. No one can be objective about their religion. On the other hand, science by its nature must always be objective.
As an atheist, I’ll take evolution over two people in a garden being scammed by a talking snake, any day.
To me, this is the very benefit of science, in that, there is a way to prove something. There is a period of testing to give proof for something.
My “reliance” and interest in science has a lot to do with the fact that unprovable religious doctrine was passed off to me as fact. When those religious “facts” were proven to be false by science, “new light” was shed forth on the previous “fact”.
If atheists rely too much on science, it can be said that theists rely too much on religion. But that is the nature of the category we have made for it. Atheists can’t rely “too much” on science. That’s similar to saying “Hedonists are too focused on sensual pleasure.”… well, they are hedonists. If atheism is disbelief in Gods, how else are atheists to answer the large questions in life? Spirituality? perhaps. Science? Perhaps.
And what is too much? If I rely on science one iota less, would that be enough? And what would relying less accomplish?
Though I don’t like trying to infer motives, it seems as though the implication is that atheists would *finally* understand religion or gods if they just relied on science less. That takes us down the road of all sorts of previously mentioned misconceptions about atheism.
With regard to the “you can’t prove God doesn’t exist” argument…
This has been solidly addressed by Russell’s famous teapot, an analogy Dawkins is well practiced at applying whenever this ridiculous argument comes up.
The fact that the existence of a thing might not be provable to be 0% does not immediately infer that the odds are 50/50 and that therefore anyone adopting either perspective (belief for or against the existence of the thing in question) is standing on fair ground.
While it may not be possible to prove that the likelyhood of the existence of God is 0%, the likelihood may yet remain somewhere akin to .0000001%, for example, hardly good odds to base one’s entire way of life on, ala the famous teapot analogy.
Why don’t religious people understand this basic fact?
To determine whether anything in the world is real—and this applies not just to religion but to science and politics as well—the test is amazingly simple: see if it can be experienced, verified, or corroborated without ever having to reference words. If it can be experienced without relying upon words, it’s real. If it can’t, it’s artificial.
Without words, without deferring/referring back to language, religion cannot exist. Religion is language-based and rather noisy. In silence, then, religion instantly disappears and is replaced by reality.
we atheists don’t have to prove that gods do not exist. The burden of proof is on the theists. If a theist claims that his/her god exists, in order to convince me, they need to provide evidence of that extraordinary claim, and I have yet to see any evidence at all.
I am a scientist. I propose an experiment to determine the true religion, if it exists on earth.
Basic assumptions: God exists, is a personal God and is described accurately by one of the worlds religions.
Experiment: Determine statistically which group (religion) is favored by supernatural interventions in the course of natural events.
Data: The data should already exist. Determine the normal distribution of survival rates and recovery rates of all surgical operations and illnesses. Separate the statistics into religious categories. Eliminate genetic group effects.
Conclusions: The group where god intervenes and alters the natural Boltzman distribution of recovery or survival rates in a very significant way must be the true religion.
One could then expand the study to additional areas which are addressed by prayers and which are assumed to be on god’s answer list.
If god is real, personal and is answering prayers he is altering the physical world and his actions should be subject to scientific examination.
Is there a flaw in this experiment?
Is there a flaw in this experiment? — gerald Moore July 20, 2008 at 7:02 am
You can get to the bottom of this without invoking the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution or any other fancy-pants statistical analysis:
Recruit 100 volunteers from every world religion. Line up the volunteers against a brick wall at dawn. Fire machine guns at them until lunch time.
The ones who show up for sandwiches belong to the one true religion.
Sojourner wrote:[As an atheist, I’ll take evolution over two people in a garden being scammed by a talking snake, any day.]
You do realize that the scam was accepting knowledge of a certain sort over a relationship with God, right?
Depending on your point of view, the snake was the hero liberator of the story, or… you’re making the same mistake they did.
Ironical:
Perhaps I didn’t understand your comment. Are you saying that the talking snake was historically true? I fondly hope not. Besides who was it that wrote this historical (hysterical) episode in the first place? Who was there? Do you know?
You might as well believe that there’s an old man in the sky that watches your every move! You don’t believe that, do you? If you do, try reading a bit of Dawkins, it may help you recover from your affliction. “The God Delusion”, by Dawkins is a good place to start.
Sojourner,
Myths don’t have to be historically true to have a point we might want to take seriously.
I’m not suggesting you should. Only pointing out that you’re participating in that story on one side or the other to some extent and that it might be worth thinking about.
You do realize that the scam was accepting knowledge of a certain sort over a relationship with God, right? Ironical @ July 21, 2008 at 5:40 pm
What makes you think so?
Myths don’t have to be historically true to have a point we might want to take seriously. Ironical @ July 22, 2008 at 9:49 am
Mm hmm. And a broken clock can still be right twice a day. But I wouldn’t set my watch by it.
Why be so coy? If you honestly believe the Eden myth contains a truth worth taking seriously, why not say so unambiguously? Because if you make clear claims you would be expected to offer real support for them?
Zack,
If you need to set your watch more than twice a day, you probably need a new watch.
Also, there is a cool new thing called a “digital watch”, that you might enjoy.
To answer your questions, in order:
- I can be coy if I want to.
- I did.
- No, that is not why.
If you’re still confused, please read Genesis 1-3, then read my post and if it still isn’t clear to you, I’m honestly not sure how to help.
If you need to set your watch more than twice a day, you probably need a new watch. Ironical @ July 23, 2008 at 1:51 pm
If I had said anything about setting my watch multiple times a day, then your comment would have made a ton of good sense.
Also, there is a cool new thing called a “digital watch”, that you might enjoy.
I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but digital watches haven’t been cool since — well, since never.
To answer your questions, in order:
Now that would be cool. When are you going to try it?
I can be coy if I want to.
Agreed. You can let rats dance on your keyboard if you want to. Doesn’t answer my question. If you scroll up, you will see that it was “Why be coy?”
I did.
You did not. Want me to prove it?
No, that is not why.
Maybe. But frankly, you don’t seem to pay close attention to what you or anyone else says, so I’m not convinced you really know.
If you’re still confused, please read Genesis 1-3, then read my post and if it still isn’t clear to you, I’m honestly not sure how to help.
At least we can agree that your posts are honest in the same measure that they are helpful.
As for Genesis 1-3, I have read these chapters. In the spirit of reciprocity and to assist you in overcoming your debilitating coyness, I refer you to Matthew 5:15.
Zack,
Couple of things.
1) Calm down please
2) Digital watches were a reference to Douglas Adams.
3) Let me try to clarify the original point, this really isn’t obscure at all, but maybe I’m assuming too much in terms of your ability to get what I’m saying.
Or maybe I’m being vague beyond recognition.
The point I thought was ironic related to Sojourner’s mocking the Eden myth was this:
The snake is offering knowledge to Adam and Eve at the expense of their relationship with God. They take that deal.
Now, Sojourner says almost exactly the same thing - would much rather have knowledge of evolution than the version involving the garden of Eden and all that implies. He’s taking the deal too.
I just thought it was amusing that he is mocking a myth while making exactly the same decision that the myth is saying was the source of all evil in the world.
I mean, it would only have been better if he were somehow wearing a snake suit when he made the comment.
I’m not saying that the Eden version is right, or better than a more scientific version.
And I’m not saying Sojourner is wrong to prefer evolution over Genesis. I don’t even have any problem with him mocking the myth.
I am saying it was ironic that he is poking fun at a religious myth while mouthing the words of the talking snake in the story - and that he didn’t seem to realize he was doing that.
I mean he is dismissing the story - while being pegged by the story at the same time.
If you believe, like some folks, that a possible reading involves the snake as the hero of the story, helping humanity grow up and eventually break free of religion… then you might have a perspective that isn’t intending to make fun of Sojourner at all, just pointing out something mildly ironic.
Couple of things. Ironical @ July 24, 2008 at 10:53 am
I don’t know whether it’s your grasp of math or language that’s more at fault here, but when your purpose is to enumerate, “couple” means “two.”
Maybe in a display of your well-known appetite for mild irony and even milder allusions, it is a veiled reference to the standards of enumeration employed for the Hitchhiker “trilogy.”
1) Calm down please
Don’t panic.
2) Digital watches were a reference to Douglas Adams.
You’re a hoopy frood. You know where your towel is. 42. You grok Spock. You must cut down the mightiest tree in this forest with a shrubbery.
3) Let me try to clarify the original point, this really isn’t obscure at all, but maybe I’m assuming too much in terms of your ability to get what I’m saying.
Or maybe…
Or maybe I’m being vague beyond recognition.
Yes, that’s it.
I mean he is dismissing the story - while being pegged by the story at the same time.
Yes, yes — I get that you perceive a thin irony. Here is the part you do not address when you want to pretend that all along you were only chuckling (and not, gosh, in a mocking way… only, you know, pointing out the delicious little irony) about Sojourner’s supposedly tin ear:
Myths don’t have to be historically true to have a point we might want to take seriously.
Does the Eden myth have a point that we ought to take seriously, or doesn’t it? That is, a point that is intrinsic to the myth itself, and not one that arises secondarily from internet comments about the myth? Is knowledge of good and evil the source of evil?
You do realize that the scam was accepting knowledge of a certain sort over a relationship with God, right?
You describe the choice of knowledge as a scam. Is this your true view?
Also, please note that not even Genesis says that Adam’s fall ended his relationship with Yahweh.
Zack says, “I don’t know whether it’s your grasp of math or language that’s more at fault here, but when your purpose is to enumerate, “couple” means “two.”
Yes, it is clear that you don’t know. It actually is the third choice of, “Zack doesn’t understand the normal use of language and this is upsetting for some reason. Maybe he could look at
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/couple. and check the informal use of ‘couple’ that specifically means more than two.”
If you’re going to be arrogant, condescending and insulting, you might want to do the most basic level of fact checking.
Zack says, “Does the Eden myth have a point that we ought to take seriously, or doesn’t it? That is, a point that is intrinsic to the myth itself, and not one that arises secondarily from internet comments about the myth? Is knowledge of good and evil the source of evil?”
Yes, it does.
And Joseph Campbell is not a “secondary” internet commentator. You are just displaying your own ignorance, yet again.
According to the myth, “knowledge of good and evil” is not the source of all evil. I never said this, and no one that I’m aware of says this. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.
Please do 15 minutes of work on this topic before you presume to instruct us further.
Zack says, “You describe the choice of knowledge as a scam. Is this your true view?”
No, Sojourner described it that way. And he does while agreeing with the “scam” offer. That is why it was ironic.
Zack says, “Also, please note that not even Genesis says that Adam’s fall ended his relationship with Yahweh.”
I didn’t say it ended his relationship with God. I said that he chose the serpent’s offer over a relationship with God. Those two statements don’t mean the same thing.
Asking for some level of courtesy from you would be a non-starter. But please develop some ability to understand normal speech before you expect any further response from me.
Ironical,
A few things, please:
1) Calm down.
2) Why so serious? (That’s a reference to a recent popular film. You may have seen it.)
3) Check the informal use of “couple” that specifically means “more than two” and you find, in the 14th of 14 definitions, one that says, “more than two, but not many, of; a small number of; a few: It will take a couple of days for the package to get there.”
Your usage is followed by 14 comments. Maybe you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this, but if FedEx told me that a package was going to get here in “a couple of days” and it didn’t show up for two weeks, I would think they had messed up somewhere.
Yes, it does.
But after all this time, you still have not offered any support for your claim that it does. Clearly, you simply cannot.
Joseph Campbell is not a “secondary” internet commentator. You are just displaying your own ignorance, yet again. Ironical @ July 25, 2008 at 2:29 pm
When has either of us mentioned Joseph Campbell in this exchange? Or did you just feel that your exercise in balderdash wasn’t complete until you dropped the name of The Master?
You perceived irony in Sojourner’s response to the Eden myth, rather than identifying any truth in the myth itself — hence, your point was secondary to the myth. Sojourner is the “internet commentator.”
According to the myth, “knowledge of good and evil” is not the source of all evil. I never said this, and no one that I’m aware of says this. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.
Please do 15 minutes of work on this topic before you presume to instruct us further. Ironical @ July 25, 2008 at 2:29 pm
One of us is displaying his ignorance and failure of due diligence, but I’m too polite to say which one it is. Apparently I’m not the first guy to think there’s something to this business about the Eden myth involving knowledge of good and evil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Knowledge_of_Good_and_Evil
And he does while agreeing with the “scam” offer. That is why it was ironic. Ironical @ July 25, 2008 at 2:29 pm
It’s only ironic if the “scam” really is a scam. My question to you is: do you consider it a scam?
Asking for some level of courtesy from you would be a non-starter. But please develop some ability to understand normal speech before you expect any further response from me. Ironical @ July 25, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Your warmth, wit, wisdom, and erudition will be sorely missed on these pages.
Zack says, “Your usage is followed by 14 comments. Maybe you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this, but if FedEx told me that a package was going to get here in “a couple of days” and it didn’t show up for two weeks, I would think they had messed up somewhere.”
No it isn’t, I made 2 minor points and followed that with an longer explanation. Well within the realm of the informal use of “couple”.
Zack says, “But after all this time, you still have not offered any support for your claim that it does. Clearly, you simply cannot.”
Or you’re very hostile and I can tell you aren’t interested in an actual conversation. So why bother?
If you’re confused by the Eden myth, the internet and your local library is replete with commentary. If you think it has no value at all, just ignore it.
Zack says, “When has either of us mentioned Joseph Campbell in this exchange? Or did you just feel that your exercise in balderdash wasn’t complete until you dropped the name of The Master?”
I did in my second post. I referenced him directly by mentioning the snake as the potential hero of the story – that comes from Campbell. And I referenced him by name in the last post. That you didn’t get the reference just means you (again) didn’t get the reference.
That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it just means you haven’t read “The Master’s” work on Genesis. You failing to get the reference doesn’t mean I’m writing balderdash, it just means you haven’t done your homework on this topic.
Zack says, “You perceived irony in Sojourner’s response to the Eden myth, rather than identifying any truth in the myth itself — hence, your point was secondary to the myth. Sojourner is the “internet commentator.”
Ok, fair enough, you intended something else and this wasn’t clear. Because it wasn’t clear, I misunderstood. And yes, congratulations! I was talking primarily about Sojourner’s response, and not primarily about the myth itself. Nothing gets past you!
Zack says, “One of us is displaying his ignorance and failure of due diligence, but I’m too polite to say which one it is. Apparently I’m not the first guy to think there’s something to this business about the Eden myth involving knowledge of good and evil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Knowledge_of_Good_and_Evil”
Your source of knowledge on this topic is wikipedia?
And no one (including me) has made the claim that the myth does not involve the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Where are you getting that?
Tell you what, please quote where I said that directly, or just admit that you’re a complete idiot.
To your point, it isn’t impolite to admit that you’re wrong. Again, your choice is to admit that, or to demonstrate how I’ve displayed ignorance or lack of due diligence. Refusing to play your stupid little game or answer your petulant little questions in a way that you like doesn’t count as ignorance. Pointing out that you don’t display even a basic understanding of this myth at all has nothing to do with due diligence. Quoting from the dictionary to contradict you on a ridiculous side issue wouldn’t count as either one.
You didn’t ask if the myth “[involved] knowledge of good and evil.” The question you asked was, “Is knowledge of good and evil the source of all evil?” For the second time, the answer to that question, according to the myth is, “no.”
It’s such a bad question that I can’t even believe you’re read the story, much less the wikipedia article. And if you have read the story, and the article, you haven’t understood either one. Maybe take a look at the link YOU provided again. It answers that question at least twice that I saw, and not in the way you indicate above.
Zack says, “It’s only ironic if the “scam” really is a scam. My question to you is: do you consider it a scam?”
Only? There are several ways it could be ironic. One way would be for Sojourner to call it a “scam” while clearly holding the position that it isn’t and not seem to realize he is doing that.
My answer to you is: No, I do not consider it a scam.
Or you’re very hostile and I can tell you aren’t interested in an actual conversation. So why bother? {etc, etc, blah blah blah]– Ironical on July 29, 2008 at 5:54 pm
You sure talk a lot for a guy who doesn’t think he’s in a conversation. If you’re only able to say what you want to say when others treat you with what you consider proper deference, then you’re writing in the wrong venue.
“Why bother” — and yet, you manage to stir yourself to devote more than 700 hyperventilating words to other topics, to accidentally comic effect.
Here is the question you’re still avoiding, since you appear to have lost track: what point does the Eden myth have that is worth taking seriously, in your own view?