How to Win an Argument with Tom on Biblical Interpretation
The biggest intellectual nothing burger of the last century?
Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach contained some interesting musings on recursion, computation, self-reference, and so on. But of course is main "oomph" was that it was going to use all of these musings to explain consciousness. And the explanation? "This is it -- this is what consciousness is . Consciousness is that property of a system that arises whenever there exists symbols in the system which obey triggering patterns somewhat like the ones described in the past several sections" (385). Can you imagine someone in a real science, one that makes real discoveries, offering an "explanation" like that? "Planets just are those celestial objects that move in the sky in that funny way." "Atoms just are those things that cause chemicals to form in the patterns they do." "Evolution just is the process of new species coming into being." Such a phony would be laughed right out of the scientific community. In a real s
Who's Tom?
ReplyDeleteOk. 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.
ReplyDeleteIsn'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?
Interesting take.
ReplyDeleteObviously 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."
Tom, I'm just joshing you.
DeleteWorks for me, Gene!
DeleteI 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.
Who is this Tom? Is he part of the conspiracy?
DeleteTom is Knappster.
Delete