101. Comment #178708 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 12:30 am

Epeeist,

Nicely played.

I hope that will keep Artful thinking for a little bit.

Perhaps Jesus crucifixion was metaphor as well? Metaphor for metaphor?

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

102. Comment #178709 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 12:30 am

Comment #178704 by riandouglas

I did note that, but isn't the term "god" a generic term and not a proper name?
Yahweh, Zeus, Thor are all gods, right?

No they are all myths.

Whoops, sorry. Zeus and Thor are myths, Yahweh is real.

And of course there aren't just literal and metaphorical bits in the bible. Large amounts of it are just the myths of a cattle-sacrificing (see Leviticus for the excruciating details) primitives. There is is no reason to give them more provenance than, say, the Kalevala, Hávamál or Mabinogion.

Other Comments by epeeist

103. Comment #178710 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 12:34 am

epeeist: Given that it is, then the whole story of Jesus is an irrelevance since there was no literal fall only a metaphorical one.

In that case I wont bother to mention that the story of Jesus is also heavily metaphorical, if not entirely.

Other Comments by riandouglas

104. Comment #178712 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 12:37 am

epeeist: No they are all myths.

Whoops, sorry. Zeus and Thor are myths, Yahweh is real.

That one trips me up all the time. I keep forgetting the reasoning behind Thor and Zues being myth, and Yahweh being real. I'm so confused. Can you help me out with that Artful?

Other Comments by riandouglas

105. Comment #178713 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 12:40 am

Can you present any argument or evidence for the existence of this god of yours? Before I entertain the existence of your god as a probability, you'll have to show that to be the case.

Riandouglas, there are loads of arguments that I can refer you to. The one that is relevant to this thread is the very existence of the faculty of reason, which is not reducible to natural causes. Science since Aristotle has always been driven the observation of rationality at the heart of the universe. Along with many scientists and philosophers I contend that this rationality points to an extra-, non-material origin of the universe. As Paul Davies (not a Christian of course) said: "The impression of design is overwhelming". Scientists (Kepler, Newton et al) looked for and found scientific laws because they believed in a Law-giver.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

106. Comment #178716 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 12:49 am

Comment #178713 by Artful_Dodger

The one that is relevant to this thread is the very existence of the faculty of reason, which is not reducible to natural causes.

You have proof for this assertion?

Even if it were true it doesn't necessarily point to your particular deity, or a deity at all.

Other Comments by epeeist

107. Comment #178717 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 12:49 am

Given that it is, then the whole story of Jesus is an irrelevance since there was no literal fall only a metaphorical one.

Epeeist, there is nothing metaphorical about the fall, except (possibly) the images, the word pictures, that were used to describe it. The tree and the fruit and the talking serpent may not be literal, but the all too real narratives that they are intended to illustrate: of defiance against God, of human beings setting themselves up as gods, of human self-deification leading to human destruction (with implications for the created order of which humans (men and women equally) had been made the custodians, are absolutely literal. The evidence of them lies all aroound us everywhere we look. This makes the story of Jesus not only relevant but indispensible.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

108. Comment #178718 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 12:52 am

Artful_Dodger: Epeeist, there is nothing metaphorical about the fall, except (possibly) the images, the word pictures, that were used to describe it. The tree and the fruit and the talking serpent may not be literal, but the all too real narratives that they are intended to illustrate: of defiance against God, of human beings setting themselves up as gods, of human self-deification leading to human destruction (with implications for the created order of which humans (men and women equally) had been made the custodians, are absolutely literal. The evidence of them lies all aroound us everywhere we look.

Again, you're presupposing a god. Why?
I think a long struggle into sentience and civility (or at least, what passes for it around here) describes humanity well. Even better for me, I have evidence to back up my assertion - evolution and common descent :-)
Your evidence for the fall, which would include evidence for the god who caused the fall, would be what?

Other Comments by riandouglas

109. Comment #178719 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 12:53 am

Artful,

Reason is not reducible? We have evolved far enough so that we can counteract our evolutionary impulses. How do you think we do this?

I contend that reason does NOT point to an extra, non-material origin of the universe. I am as entitled to opinion, and as informed as you, and I have come to the opposite conclusion. Btw- who says that the universe was always rational in the Aristoltlean sense? Why do you say origin? Because you've a priori decided God as having created the universe and then having created it rationally right from the beginning, for your convenience.

The impression of design is overwhelming. Key word- impression. And I would add, overwhelming for some.

It just so happened that God existed a priori in the minds of Kepler and Newton etc., as well.

If Newton looked around him without the a priori conclusion, he would , I would submit, have noticed that for instance, everything falls, and would have sought to equate gravity without believing that God put it there.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

110. Comment #178720 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 12:57 am

Artful_Dodger: Epeeist, there is nothing metaphorical about the fall, except (possibly) the images, the word pictures, that were used to describe it. The tree and the fruit and the talking serpent may not be literal, but the all too real narratives that they are intended to illustrate:

So, you're admitting that you don't have a method to separate the literal from the metaphorical, regardless of your protestations to the contrary earlier.
Thanks :-)

Other Comments by riandouglas

111. Comment #178722 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 12:58 am

"Epeeist, there is nothing metaphorical about the fall, except (possibly) the images, the word pictures, that were used to describe it."

Hence, metaphorical. The narratives themselves which you cite are not literal but abstract. Genesis is a metaphor for past and present society.

Jesus Christ.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

112. Comment #178723 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 1:00 am

DalaiDrivel: Jesus Christ.

Metaphorical :-)

Other Comments by riandouglas

113. Comment #178725 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 1:01 am

Yes, riandouglas. That too.

God (oh oh... metaphorical!!!) I'm frustrated but I'm having fun here!

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

114. Comment #178726 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 1:02 am

The one that is relevant to this thread is the very existence of the faculty of reason, which is not reducible to natural causes.

I'm afraid that is a question begging charlatan assertion. How could you possibly know that?

For your acknowledging the possibility of god thing, I acknowledge the possibility of fairies. I'm still going to need good reasons to think that they exist. Otherwise I'd be begging the question.

Science since Aristotle has always been driven the observation of rationality at the heart of the universe.

Primate projection, and anthropomorphication. Reason is a facualty of the a brain.

Along with many scientists and philosophers I contend that this rationality points to an extra-, non-material origin of the universe.As Paul Davies (not a Christian of course) said: "The impression of design is overwhelming". Scientists (Kepler, Newton et al) looked for and found scientific laws because they believed in a Law-giver.

Appeal to authority/the people fallacy, and a bald assertion. Contend it all you like, try demonstrating it or giving me more than "you feel it in your gut" for me to take you seriously. Uninformed intuition is notoriously unreliable.

Even that aside, say that I did accept the the universe was created, now give me a reason to think it was Yahweh and not Allah.

What you don't seem to understand is how truth about the world is most accurately and reliably determined. It is by coming up with an idea, and then attempting to disprove it. Gathering support for it or falsifying it in this manner. Just presupposing the truth of your ideas is counter to arriving at the actual truth. As any discovery, or any break through, or any amount of aquired knowledge will attest to, the people that discovered it were wrong hundreds of times before they got to right. Admitting, and realising you are wrong is the most important step to getting to right. You require a mechanism for establishing when you have reached a false conclusion. What is the mechanism for religious mode of thought for determining this? If you were wrong, how would you discover it? What do you do in order to deserve true assumptions from falsehoods?

You can't guess or imagine reality. It requires invesitgation, and observation, and always assuming the negative, and attempting to prove yourself wrong. The religious mode of thought is the exact opposite to a scientific mode of thought, and that is why science is proven to work, and religion has never supported any of it's assertion about the world.

Beyond simply presupposing this or that, it is impossible to rationally get from disbelieve to belief. That is where faith comes in, and I think you know it. You must at one point simply take at least one step for granted. That is what is required in every theologian's arguments. They all have at least one controverisal premise that you must just assume, or take for granted, and then they have proved it! Well guess what, I could prove anything I wanted to if I was given just one too. It is hardly impressive.

Come to me when your assertions don't require faith (i.e. question begging, presupposition, acceptance without rational or evidentiary justification) and I'll be completely willing to take anything you have to say seriously. I always am. I not not adverse to the idea of a god, or the supernatural at all, it might exist. I still will require good reasons to believe that it does. Just like UFOs. They could exist, and I have more reason to think they do than supernatural things, but I need good reasons to in fact believe that they do. I will not just question beg and assume they do without jusitifcation. I actually care about holding true beliefs about the world, so I have rather rigid and discriminatory epistemological standard. I don't just let things slide by without meeting my standard because I like the sound of them, unlike you.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

115. Comment #178727 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 1:02 am

Comment #178717 by Artful_Dodger

Epeeist, there is nothing metaphorical about the fall, except (possibly) the images, the word pictures, that were used to describe it. The tree and the fruit and the talking serpent may not be literal, but the all too real narratives that they are intended to illustrate: of defiance against God,

To take Rian's comment further. Not only are you presupposing a god (which makes your argument circular), but a particular god. Why is the story of the creation and the fall (including Ningizzida the talking serpent, lord of the tree of life lifted straight from the Epic of Gilgamesh) any more true than that of Hiranyagarbha the golden embryo or the meeting of ice and fire in Ginnungagap. Note that neither of these two mythologies has a fall. In fact the idea of a fall is an exception in mythology.

Other Comments by epeeist

116. Comment #178729 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 1:07 am

epeeist: Not only are you presupposing a god (which makes your argument circular), but a particular god.

And I thought Artful was simply trying to convince us of the possibility of a god, prior to discussing which words if any, were it's. Shame on me!

Other Comments by riandouglas

117. Comment #178731 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 1:16 am

Not only are you presupposing a god (which makes your argument circular), but a particular god.

Not any more than your presupposing the non-existence of God makes your argument circular.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

118. Comment #178732 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 1:20 am

Seriously? What world do you live in were things are assumed true until proven false? That is not this one.

Cats are omnipotent entities hiding their true potential. Are you going to assume this is true until you can disprove it?

Or are you going to use your actual method for determining truth from fiction? Your gut. Whether it feels right to you or not. (*rollseyes*)

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

119. Comment #178735 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 1:31 am

Comment #178731 by Artful_Dodger

Not any more than your presupposing the non-existence of God makes your argument circular.

If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said supporting evidence materialises.

I accept that there are lots of things in the universe that cannot (yet) be explained by methodological naturalism. So far all the things that we can explain have not needed an additional entity X.

I put it to that if you want to posit an additional entity then the burden is upon you to show evidence for its existence.

Some while back I posted a set of lemmata. They must have been apposite since MPhil was kind enough to re-use them. I would suggest that you need to fulfil them one by one if you want us to accept your god exists:

1. The Universe was created
2. The creation was performed by a deity
3. The deity is interventionist and keeps interfering in the universe
4. The deity happens to be that of an iron-age Semitic people from one region of a small planet circling a star in a galaxy of some 100 billion others, the galaxy being one of some 150 billion others
5. All of this is documented in the "holy book" of that particular set of people

You might want to try and establish a couple of auxiliary premisses

1. The deity is omni-maximal, i.e. omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent
2. All other creation myths, gods, demi-urges and supernatural beings are false

Other Comments by epeeist

120. Comment #178738 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 1:33 am

Mitchell Gilks: Seriously? What world do you live in were things are assumed true until proven false? That is not this one.

Don't be too hard on Artful. Earlier he seemed to have difficulty understanding what reasoning was :-)

Mitchell Gilks: Cats are omnipotent entities hiding their true potential. Are you going to assume this is true until you can disprove it?

I knew it! Mine always seemed a little to satisfied with himself - a little too sure. Now that the truth is out, how can we use this information? :-)

Other Comments by riandouglas

121. Comment #178741 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 1:43 am

Trying to show me up Epeeist? With your far better formulated explanation of the same thing? Also with your apposite (had to look that word up) lemmata (...that one too)?


One mistake I did notice though, there is actually an estimated 400 billion stars in our galaxy, not 100 billion.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

122. Comment #178742 by Quine on May 12, 2008 at 1:46 am

Well, it seems to have gotten much more difficult for the faithful to float the usual theological circularity around here.

Other Comments by Quine

123. Comment #178745 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 1:49 am

Comment #178742 by Quine

Well, it seems to have gotten much more difficult for the faithful to float the usual theological circularity around here.

At MPhil's suggestion I am attempting to read "On What There Is". I am finding it tough going. I really wish that theists had more than one book in their library.

Other Comments by epeeist

124. Comment #178746 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 1:56 am

Artful:

"Not any more than your presupposing the non-existence of God makes your argument circular. "

In addition to Epeeist's lemmata, I will simply say:

Presupposing nothing leaves nothing go back to. The dismissal for obvious reasons (namely it's raising more questions than it answers), of a skyhook in investigative methodology necessitates cranes to explain phenomena.

We don't know how the universe began. We just know the statistical unlikelihood of a supernatural entity being responsible that fulfils Epeeist's lemmata. We know not what to count on.

Perhaps, if you will forgive us, we will be skeptically agnostic about the origin of the universe, and extremely dubious of God as its cause.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

125. Comment #178747 by Barry Pearson on May 12, 2008 at 2:03 am

DalaiDrivel said: Barry Pearson, I'm not attacking IDiots' strategy. I'm attacking their ideology. To say that the biological roots of our existence prescribe the manner in which we construct society is a logical fallacy, given the ability of humans to counteract their evolutionary impulses.

I think we agree here.

They are illogical to claim that acceptance of evolution automatically results in a materialistic worldview that is detrimental to society. However, I don't think they claim this because of "evolutionary impulses", but because of lack of strict Christianity-guided morality. (They are welcome to submit properly researched papers on that topic to relevant journals!)

But once they believe that, it is logical to demolish the opposition. If you think you are fighting for the future quality of society, you don't let a few inconvenient facts get in the way!

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

126. Comment #178754 by Quine on May 12, 2008 at 2:11 am

I am finding it tough going.

It is short, but dense with thought. Thankfully, short enough to be able to reread a few times so more sinks in.

Other Comments by Quine

127. Comment #178756 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 2:14 am

Barry Pearson,

Quite right. Wilful ignorance goes a long way in the minds of the political Christian.

It is indeed logical to discredit the opposition as a means of neutralising it. Neutralisation can take many forms in itself, legitimate and illegitimate.

As to the lack of Christian-guided morality- well as you'll no doubt agree, there are countless other religions, past and present, and humanisms from which to derive morals.

Knowing this, which I'm sure they do, they will continue to press their agenda by saying God created the universe and all life in it, including the manner in which it should be lived, and the God in question is the Christian God. How do they know this? They have faith. Faith in what? The holy book. The holy book written by who? God. Which God? The Christian God. Who is? The God that created the universe and all life in it...

And around we could go again... I know that demonstration was unnecessary for most people on here... sorry. Couldn`t resist!

Thinking like a Christian is an unnerving but useful exercise.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

128. Comment #178759 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 2:23 am

Comment #178754 by Quine

It is short, but dense with thought.

I think I must be reading it in Winnie the Pooh mode - "I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me".

As I say, I do wish theists would go and read some other books. I don't necessarily expect them to agree with and accept the contents of, say, Aristotle's "Nichomachean Ethics" or Quine's ontology, but I do expect them to be aware and knowledgeable of other positions.

Other Comments by epeeist

129. Comment #178760 by scooternyc on May 12, 2008 at 2:25 am

Personal subjective terminology to describe the evolutionary process does not advance the discussion, it hinders it. (a subjective idea)

This may be one reason why the religious find it hard to swallow. Their morals are so subjective and in conflict with subjective terminology of evolution, it shuts down the conversation because both people are thinking themselves "right" - another subjective thought.

Other Comments by scooternyc

130. Comment #178763 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 2:27 am

Comment #178760 by scooternyc

Their morals are so subjective

No they are not.

*stamps foot*

Religious morality is objectively valid. It says so in the bible.

Other Comments by epeeist

131. Comment #178764 by Quine on May 12, 2008 at 2:28 am

I forget which female comedian talked about her upbringing in a house where her mother believed that there was only one book, and that was called Matthew.

Other Comments by Quine

132. Comment #178765 by scooternyc on May 12, 2008 at 2:31 am

"Religious morality is objectively valid. It says so in the bible."


LOL! :)

And so early to be so sarcastic - I'm impressed and amused!

Other Comments by scooternyc

133. Comment #178766 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 2:33 am

Comment #178765 by scooternyc

And so early to be so sarcastic - I'm impressed and amused!

It might be early for you, but I have done half a morning's work here.

I note that Artful seems to have left us. No doubt he will appear in another thread as though he hadn't got anything to answer.

Other Comments by epeeist

134. Comment #178767 by scooternyc on May 12, 2008 at 2:41 am

I'm almost shocked at his antediluvian posts regarding the existence of god; I thought everyone already knew that god didn't exist, that we were merely just waiting for the religious to catch up.

Other Comments by scooternyc

135. Comment #178782 by Peacebeuponme on May 12, 2008 at 3:15 am

Awkward Question_Dodger

The tree and the fruit and the talking serpent may not be literal, but the all too real narratives that they are intended to illustrate: of defiance against God, of human beings setting themselves up as gods, of human self-deification leading to human destruction

Why must you confuse non-belief in a god with having a god complex? It is possible to be an atheist and humble you know. In fact, the people who seem to have the most difficultly with humility are the robe-wearing classes.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

136. Comment #178783 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 3:19 am

scooternyc: I'm almost shocked at his antediluvian posts regarding the existence of god; I thought everyone already knew that god didn't exist, that we were merely just waiting for the religious to catch up.

Shh, we don't want to spring the full surprise all at once. A little bit at a time :-)

Other Comments by riandouglas

137. Comment #178793 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 4:17 am

Shh, we don't want to spring the full surprise all at once. A little bit at a time :-)

Thank you for your consideration riandouglas. "Mankind cannot bear too much reality".

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

138. Comment #178795 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 4:28 am

Artful_Dodger: Thank you for your consideration riandouglas. "Mankind cannot bear too much reality".

Considering the effort you go to to avoid answering questions in a straighforward manner, or avoid answering them all together, I assume you are unable to cope with "reality".

Other Comments by riandouglas

139. Comment #178798 by irate_atheist on May 12, 2008 at 4:46 am

137. Comment #178793 by Artful_Dodger -

"Mankind cannot bear too much reality".

Speak for yourself.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

140. Comment #178799 by The Reverend Dark on May 12, 2008 at 4:49 am

Artful-Dodger walked into this one.

Thank you for your consideration riandouglas. "Mankind cannot bear too much reality".

Laughing boy, he wasn't talking about mankind.

Just you baby.
Just you.

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

141. Comment #178800 by Dr Benway on May 12, 2008 at 4:50 am

Artful_Dodger: The tree and the fruit and the talking serpent may not be literal, but the all too real narratives that they are intended to illustrate: of defiance against God, of human beings setting themselves up as gods, of human self-deification leading to human destruction

You claim to know the mind of God. Think about that, then read your words again.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

142. Comment #178801 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 4:53 am

As I said before, it is you lot who are side-stepping my questions. No one has come up with anything like a credible account of how reason and morality can be shown to have a natualistic origin. Dawkins himself tacitly admits as much when he urges us to "transcend" the nature that gave rise to us - to step outside the supposedly all-encompassing natural selection paradigm in order that "nature red in tooth and claw" does not have the last world. But if nature is all there is what "on earth" do we escape into? I have read a number of physicalist accounts of mind and morality and none of them addresses this cardinal difficulty in anything like a satisfactory manner. If you have an answer, don't just throw the names of naturalist philosophers at me. Show me where and explain to me how they have resolved this issue.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

143. Comment #178806 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 5:02 am

Comment #178801 by Artful_Dodger

I have read a number of physicalist accounts of mind and morality and none of them addresses this cardinal difficulty in anything like a satisfactory manner.

So give us some names, rather than a woolly "physicalist accounts".

And I still think you are committing the fallacy of bifurcation. Just because we (currently) cannot account for something does not mean that goddidit.

And I find it somewhat irritating that you accuse us of not answering questions when you ignore most everything that is put to you, my comment #178735 for example or even something as simple as why you assume something is true until proven false as raised by Mitchell Gilks in comment #178732.

Other Comments by epeeist

144. Comment #178807 by Quetzalcoatl on May 12, 2008 at 5:05 am

Artful-

There is no "general decision procedure", only a willingness to take seriously the possibility that God could have used the medium of "the word" to make Himself known to us via the operation of reason in engaging with this "word", and also awareness of the rich panoply of literary devices available to the writers whom he inspired so to make himself known.

Then how can you know that your interpretation is any more valid than another? You can't.

Ironically, I recently wrote a blog post on this very subject. This discussion is an excellent example.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

145. Comment #178809 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 5:11 am

Quetz: Ironically, I recently wrote a blog post on this very subject. This discussion is an excellent example.

I thought you wrote the blog in response to this actually :-)

Other Comments by riandouglas

146. Comment #178811 by Peacebeuponme on May 12, 2008 at 5:13 am

Artful_Dodger

As I said before, it is you lot who are side-stepping my questions.

Please address posters specifically. "You lot" covers many people on here who would have answered any questions you had put to them specifically, or indeed had not been asked one.

Any listen to Epeeist. Stop using the god of the gaps. Its really childish.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

147. Comment #178812 by Dr Benway on May 12, 2008 at 5:16 am

Artful_Dodger: No one has come up with anything like a credible account of how reason and morality can be shown to have a natualistic origin.

There are two aspects to morality: a subjective feeling of right and wrong, and an explicit behavioral rule.

Many here have pointed to interesting research concerning moral feelings.

I explained the purpose of explicit behavioral rules (sustaining relationships) and how we arrive at these rules (negotiation).

These are indeed answers to your question. State your disagreement, if you do not agree.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

148. Comment #178813 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 5:17 am

Artful_Dodger: As I said before, it is you lot who are side-stepping my questions. No one has come up with anything like a credible account of how reason and morality can be shown to have a natualistic origin.

Ok, my straight out answer, just so you don't keep trotting out that tired old response - "I don't know". That isn't to say that the supernatural is a probability, as there is no evidence to support that assertion at present. EDIT: If anyone knows of some good papers, I'd be interested in reading it. Thanks
double edit: Unless it is simply the research showing moral behaviour in other species etc.

Think back to people a hundred or two hundered years ago, before atomic theory. Ask the question "Why is the Sun hot/bright?".
we have Mr "God makes the sun shine", and Mr "I don't know".
Now, in the light of current scientific knowledge, who was less "wrong".

Other Comments by riandouglas

149. Comment #178816 by Quetzalcoatl on May 12, 2008 at 5:23 am

Rian-

I thought you wrote the blog in response to this actually :-)

actually I wrote it in light of the discussion on another post of my blog! Apparently it's the topic of the moment.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

150. Comment #178817 by Incredulous on May 12, 2008 at 5:25 am

Poor Artful Dodger. Still confused between the subjective and objective. At least Epeeist has helped me name another logical fallacy - the fallacy of bifurcation.

I like the TS Eliot quote - Burnt Norton?. The problem is that Eliot's defensive of his theistic beliefs were ripped up in his face by my latest hero, Bertrand Russell. And boy Bertie left Ts's arguments in a mess!

I love Eliot's poetry, but as a statement of truth, get with the evidence based game. Learn more science and math and philosophy, etc and leave all this belief and metaphorical reality(?) stuff behind.

Maturity is ok you know, Artful. Understanding reality is good as well and the imagination is all good when you see it for what it is.

Other Comments by Incredulous