How to Win an Argument with Tom on Biblical Interpretation

By -

Comments

  1. Anonymous8:22 PM

    Who's Tom?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous12:34 PM

    Ok. The First Stick Guy quotes some big internet sources, and the Second Stick Guy quotes some less prestigious ones. Aside from First Stick Guy talking about some journals, I don't see how this argument can go somewhere.
    Isn't there some larger question about the presentation of information present here? I mean, if we lived in the Soviet Union, it would seem like you'd have all the universities and professions stacked up against you on issues like higher productivity of capitalism, etc. If everything that claims to be 'professional' and 'respectable' is saying you are wrong and crazy, under what circumstances should you believe them?

    Also, I'm not quite getting this. Did you have some argument with someone about Biblical interpretation, and they cite something you didn't find convincing?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thomas L. Knapp11:20 AM

    Interesting take.

    Obviously my take is a bit different. The most important difference, I think, is that you appear to think that we're having an argument that one side or the other needs to "win."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah11:53 AM

      Tom, I'm just joshing you.

      Delete
    2. Thomas L. Knapp4:56 PM

      Works for me, Gene!

      I do want to elaborate on my point of view, though.

      I don't really discuss religion, or my beliefs relating to it, very often or in very many places. This is one of those places, because I think you do take religious belief seriously rather than just considering it another football to kick around.

      In discussing religious belief -- as opposed to, say, politics -- my goal is not really to persuade anyone of anything. It's more a matter of being interested in saying "here's what I believe and why" versus what someone else may believe and why, and seeing if anything interesting comes of it.

      I'm not disinterested in persuasion because I don't think it's important. I'm disinterested in persuasion because almost any religious belief by definition includes a strong element of faith.

      Faith is not really subject to empirical proof or disproof, and (assuming certain things even MAY be true) it is foolhardy, and perhaps downright evil, to intentionally attempt to prang someone else's.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous5:52 PM

      Who is this Tom? Is he part of the conspiracy?

      Delete
    4. gcallah9:47 PM

      Tom is Knappster.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more

Against their will / we were taxing against their will / we were young and we were strong and we were taxing against their will

By -
Never one to allow a mistake to go uncompounded by a glaring error, Bob Murphy digs in deeper . He claims that "Taking money from people against their will is not akin to getting on the treadmill; it is akin to killing people against their will." Bob has introduced a largely irrelevant criterion here with his "against their will." Let us start with killing. (No, no, not killing Bob : we still love him despite his obstinacy.) The justice of a killing does not depend at all on whether the "victim" wants to be killed. If I shoot someone who is attempting to set off a nuclear weapon in Times Square, the fact that I killed him "against his will" does not make my killing immoral. And if a friend who is in despair asks me to shoot him in the head, the fact that he wants me to kill him would not make my action moral. Similarly, in taking money from people, the crucial question is whether you are taking it justly or unjustly, not whether they wan...
Read more