Me, being charitable
by machtThe other day I linked to this essay by Richard Dawkins where he talks about raising Christian children and sexual abuse and the harm in each. Some other people have been talking about it too. I do tend to think that Dawkins is basically the Pat Robertson of atheists and thus nutty. But this is what it would look like if I were charitable towards Dawkins.
Although Dawkins clearly says that the sexual abuse by priests isn't as bad as bringing children up as Catholics in the first place. Let's assume he wasn't making a blanket statement about all Christians or even all Catholics, but only a specific type of Catholic (and perhaps other Christians, too). Dawkins then goes on to desribe a letter he got from a woman who did, indeed, feel that her Catholic upbringing did more harm to her than her sexual abuse. Fair enough. He then goes on to distinguish between mild types of sexual abuse like fondling and more grievous types like, I imagine, rape. I don't see any problem with making a distinction like this and it is reasonable to talk about different degrees of sexual abuse. Finally, Dawkins says,
"Being taught about hell - being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that - is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse. "
Again, there is truth in this in so far as some children who have been raised religious and have been through sexual abuse may end up having more lasting harm from the religion than the sexual abuse.
Okay, that's as charitable as I can be. But even if we assume that there is no such thing as hell, I don't see how Dawkins can claim that teaching children about this is worse child abuse than the less heinous forms of sexual abuse. This sounds a lot like, from Dawkins perspective, asking whether cancer or AIDS is worse or whether it is better for your cousin or your nephew to die. Is this really something that we can generalize, though? If somebody came up to Dawkins and said he was raised Catholic and he was sexually abused and the sexual abuse had a far greater impact on him that the religion did, is Dawkins going to tell him he is wrong? Possibly (in his more Pat Robertson-like moments), but I doubt it. At least I hope not.
Really, the only valid point Dawkins has is that using "hell" as a psychological tool to control kids into believing something, is wrong, whether hell is real or not. I really don't think this is original nor controversial, though. The problem with Dawkins, though, is that he tends to project his narrow view of religion onto all religious people.
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Hi Macht,
As best as I can figure it, this is a 2002 editorial posted by an author named Emily Hourican about a conversation she had with Richard Dawkins.
Pat Robertson makes his views clearly known by proclaiming them on his own television show (700 club). But if you want to think of Dawkins as the "Pat Robertson of atheists", who am I to argue?
It stills seems to me that the only purpose for discussing Dawkins' view of sex and child abuse in an ID/Darwin discussion would be to for argumentum ad hominem. Now, it has been suggested that this type of information could be thought of as a counter to an Appeal to Authority argument, based on the assumption that Dawkins' opinion influences many people. Personally, I don't take any of Dawkins' pronouncement at face value. I don't know that many who do.
However, since this thread is categorized under "random stuff" and I wouldn't want to be accused of being too stiff on the rules, I will offer in my opinion on the subject.
I believe the harm done by sexual abuse is compounded by moral and religious norms. Not many religions openly talk about sex with kids. And preaching the idea that sexual desire is a normal and healthy thing, isn't high on the priority of most bible thumpers. In fact, a lot of people get the idea that all out-of-wedlock sex is sinful. I don't know about the rest of you, but even after decades of being an adult, I still have cognitive dissonance when it comes to sex. And, yes, I blame religion.
I would hope most people would agree that the harm done by "mild sexual abuse" is much more mental, than physical. I suggest if it wasn't for the social stigma behind it, "mild sexual abuse" wouldn't be as harmful as it is. I also think many people mentally abuse their children in the name of religion. I am not interested in comparing which one is worse than the other.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 22, 2006 @ 10:18 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:41 pm
I have done no such thing. All I've done is pointed to some of his wacky beliefs about religion and tried to figure out what he could be saying. I think I was more than charitable with what he said and that isn't something you'd expect if my purpose was argumentum ad hominem.
Bull crap.
Another assertion with no evidence. Also, define "bible thumper" as I have no idea what you mean by it.
Comment by macht — October 22, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Hi Macht,
The direct way to counter my "argumentum ad hominem" suggestion is to offer another explanation as to why the post is significant. BTW, I wasn't accusing you were putting Dawkins' down and I agree you were being charitable. You could even be right in your charitable analysis that Dawkins is just another Pat Robertson. It is still not directly applicable to the ID/Darwin subject unless its intent was to generally weaken Dawkins as an authoritative source.
I wrote…
I believe the harm done by sexual abuse is compounded by moral and religious norms. Not many religions openly talk about sex with kids. And preaching the idea that sexual desire is a normal and healthy thing, isn't high on the priority of most bible thumpers.
You wrote…
I honestly threw that out there expecting most people have had similar experiences to mine. For example, when talking about the commandment "Thou shalt not commit Adultery" my Sunday school teachers avoided explaining it had anything to do with sex.
Macht, I had written a long explaination of why I have the opinion I do, but I decided against posting it. It is not worth it. This is the second time you have reacted strongly to a religious topic, so I will just drop the subject.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 22, 2006 @ 11:32 pm
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:23 am
No, the way to counter it is to show that it isn't an ad hom. Ad homs are generally of the form:
Person P says X.
There is something wrong with Person P.
Therefore, X is wrong.
I did no such thing. I never suggested that ID is true because of this, I never suggested all atheists are wrong because of this, and I never suggested that you should ignore what Dawkins has said on other subjects (say, evolutionary biology) because of this.
And I didn't "react strongly to a religious topic." What I "reacted strongly" to was a bald assertion by you that wasn't supported with any evidence or argument. It is a coincidence that the topic was religious in nature. (I really didn't intend it to be read as a strong reaction, BTW. I thought it was more humorous than anything since my response was as well supported as the statement it was in reply to.) If you have some reason to say what you did other than personal anticdote, I'd love to hear it.
Comment by macht — October 23, 2006 @ 12:23 am
October 23rd, 2006 at 11:58 am
Explain how it's a healthy thing. I'm very curious. I wasn't always religious. Prior to becoming so I was what one might call a lecher. The correctness of a particular religion and even the existence of God was of no concern to me. But my lecherous behavior was usually followed by long periods of depression. That, and disillusionment towards any relationship I was in. Those relationships were usually short-lived. That desire you are referring to was one of the main reasons why I behaved the way I behaved.
I even saw psychologists and psychiatrists to see what was wrong with me. Why do I have these feelings and why do relationships crumble when this desire becomes so prominent. For as much as I heard in the media that it's perfectly healthy and normal to pursue whatever I so desired I was left confused and lost. The psychologists I would talk with would tell me that my feelings of disillusionment/depression were perfectly normal and that they see many others with similar problems. I never heard that I should keep a handle on my desires. Whenever I would ask if the problem might be related to these desires I would hear, "No, those behaviors are perfectly normal and healthy. It is just something you need to deal…. oh and here is a prescription for prozac, Doug."
It's anecdotal. But many of my like-minded friends had (have) the same issues. Sure, it's 'shock and awe' for a couple of moments there; but disillusionment sets it, depression followed, relationships crumbled, then the intensity of the behavior increased - the disillusionment/depression and trail of ruined relationships followed suit.
But none of us wants to consider that that which we belief to be most free and sacred to us might be what is part of the problem.
But as for your issue regarding sexual desire. I've never heard that sexual desire is NOT a healthy thing; when the behavior takes place between two loving, consenting adults who are married & the purpose of the action is to bring life into this world.
–But I'm going to assume this is what you were not referring to (I could be wrong). Because I don't know of many Christian (and most non-Christian) denominations that don't promote this.
Comment by Doug — October 23, 2006 @ 11:58 am
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Thank you, Macht, for being charitable to Dawkins when so many are being uncharitable to him especially at this moment in time. If God is not a delusion, some people seem to have needed R.D. to reveal this to them.
Also, thanks for the link to the R.D. interview, which contains this gem for post-Enlightenment, post-modern, post-postness thought:
"The word atheism sounds negative; let me call it rationalism."
Ironically, some at telic thoughts who prefer an agnostic approach to ID than allowing there to be a necessarily theological dimension to ID agree in many ways with Dawkins' 'scientific' (ethological) approach to evolution. They mock Dawkins for his anti-theism, while remaining agnostic themselves, not taking a stand for any theistic viewpoint.
The irony of the agnostic telic thinker is the denial of a theistic dimension (foundation), which is exactly the main motivating factor, along with the fact that they possess scholarly American degrees, behind the original coining of the concept duo 'intelligent design'!
Dawkins hates religion and loves himself, his genes and memes. Agnostic IDists could care less about religion (or philosophy), love themself and their rabbits and accept evolution as a 'theory of evolution' or as a 'new creation' story (Midgley). Is there such a big difference after all?
Comment by g arago — October 23, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Hi G. Arago,
Who here has mocked Dawkins for his anti-theism?
Comment by Krauze — October 23, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:18 pm
g arago
Hi, g arago. Why does it have to be about gods/God? Why can't it be plain "that's what follows…"
Agnosticism in the scientific arguments doesn't necessarily mean agnostic beliefs metaphysically. It's just that those beliefs don't materially affect the material evidence, in a scientific quest. Why is that wrong?
Dawkins' atheism comes from his own experiences with life and death on planet earth. He rationalizes what he chooses to believe, just like everybody else rationalizes what they choose to believe. There's not enough difference between these contestants to slip a razor between.
I take my theistic stands in theistic debates. I do not think of TT as an essentially theistic debate. Here, I take scientific stands. Knowing that scientific stands always involve the caveat - I could be wrong.
Is it all just solipsism to you? If so, why do you bother?
Comment by Joy — October 23, 2006 @ 10:18 pm
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Doug
Excuse me? I've been happily married for 37+ years, Doug. I can guarantee you that every time we've made love, it wasn't planned to propagate life. In fact, I got fixed when only ~5 years into the adventure so that very thing WOULD NOT happen.
Am I now to expect that your particular branch of Christianity views my family life as anathema? I'm hoping your last paragraph was meant to dispel that misconception. Because it really is a gross misconception. You know that, don't you?
Comment by Joy — October 23, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 1:09 am
Dawkins has an easy answer for that one: the cousin. Your nephew shares 25% of your selfish genes, your cousin only 12.5%.
Comment by ragesoss — October 24, 2006 @ 1:09 am
October 24th, 2006 at 3:55 am
Dawkins chooses to not believe because he sees no evidence supporting the case of God. This is reason. If he had choosen to be a deist despite seeing no evidence of God's existence, he would certainly have delusional. Now, if you have evidence supporting the case for God's existence, you truly ought to be a deist. Your evidence ought to be used to convince the scientific community and the world of your strong case. Unfortunately, the scientific still await such an evidence. Everything points to the exact opposite actually. Consequently, science has no choice but to consider creationists and ID advocates irrational.
My point is that you cannot say that Richard Dawkins believes in the non-existence of God. He does not have a choice. Given everything he knows, there is no place for God, so why bother?
You instead choose to believe in God. True, God's non-existence cannot be demonstrated 100%, but reasons for believing there might still be a God shrink by the day. Your beliefs have a word, it is called Faith.
Comment by StephInSD — October 24, 2006 @ 3:55 am
October 24th, 2006 at 8:59 am
Joy, my intention is not to go out of my way to offend you; but I do believe that the purpose of sexual intercourse is to bring new life into this world.
In regards to my "particular branch of Christianity"'s view on your family life as anathema…. certainly not. Why would you assume this to be the case? You think that Catholics are requested to loathe those that do not fall in line with our view on reality and the purpose for existence?
I don't know why that would be the corollary of not using sexual intercourse to bring new life into this world.
Comment by Doug — October 24, 2006 @ 8:59 am
October 24th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Doug
What Catholics believe about MY 'purpose' in life is not relevant, and they've no time to worry about my life anyway while they're busy reproducing and supporting all that raw evolutionary material. I'm sure their one or two dozen kids will out-reproduce my measly two and win the trophy for contributing the most raw material to almighty evolution.
But since that's not a competition I signed up for in the first place, I'm sure Catholics don't mind if I don't care.
Comment by Joy — October 24, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Joy, this isn't Catholics vs. you. I'm a Catholic, I mind that you don't care. I wish you did. It doesn't mean I don't like you or that I loathe you or that I wish the worst. I'm a Catholic for a reason, I believe it to be true (or as close to the truth as one can get). Is there a possibility that my beliefs are wrong? Certainly…. I consider that possibility all of the time.
Comment by Doug — October 24, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Unfortunately, the scientific still await such an evidence. Everything points to the exact opposite actually. Consequently, science has no choice but to consider creationists and ID advocates irrational.
This is silly. What scientific data says about initial causation is speculative. Scientific "answers" to the origin of the universe are limited by what can be unequivicabally stated about the singularity that preceeded its birth. Origin of life models are characterized by lack of causal specificity.
My point is that you cannot say that Richard Dawkins believes in the non-existence of God. He does not have a choice. Given everything he knows, there is no place for God, so why bother?
Dawkins has choices like the rest of us. He chose his own restrictive interpretation.
You instead choose to believe in God. True, God's non-existence cannot be demonstrated 100%, but reasons for believing there might still be a God shrink by the day. Your beliefs have a word, it is called Faith.
Your beliefs are grounded in faith too.
Comment by Bradford — October 24, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Doug wrote:
"…I do believe that the purpose of sexual intercourse is to bring new life into this world."
If we assume that God designed humans and other mammals, why did He design the vast majority of female mammals so that they only are receptive during a fraction of their estrous cycles (while they are fertile), while a few species (including humans) were designed so that they were interested in sex throughout the cycle, including times when there is virtually no chance of fertility?
MET predicts that such behavior will be highly correlated with pair-bonding behavior. How do you reconcile these data with your creation hypothesis, other than sticking your fingers in your ears and making loud noises?
Comment by Smokey — October 24, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Why in the world would you care that I don't care? I am what I am for a reason too. And it's not about how much raw material I can contribute to evolution, or how much wealth the church can count on in future generations from my sexual slavery to evolution - life as 'purposeful' only in how much future death it contributes to the machine.
There are plenty of beliefs in this world that I don't buy and don't care about. It's a total waste of time and life to worry too much about what other people believe.
Someone told me the day after my son died that his death was a "lesson" for me to learn. It pissed me right off. I did not need to spend nine months incubating and 21 years loving and teaching and worrying and caring and feeding just to "learn" that life sometimes ends too soon. I knew that perfectly well long before all that pain and suffering and helplessness and sorrow. I needed no refresher course.
…as if the sum total of the 'purpose' of my son's life had nothing at all to do with him. This is human life as mere "thing" - raw clay - and not a living, breathing, caring, desiring, despairing, dreaming being in its own right in a life that has a beginning, a middle, and an ending. A whole, a done deal, with meaning and purpose in and of itself for the being who lived and died.
Without any of that valuation attached to how successfully any of us manage to play the cheap flesh game. Screw evolution. We humans enjoy freedom of will, so we can freely choose not to play. That in no way diminishes the meaning or purpose of anyone's life, long or short.
Comment by Joy — October 24, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Joy,
I'm not certain where all of this is coming from. I'm fine that you disagree with something that I believe to be true. I think it's in line with what God requests of us…. that's why I said that I mind. But 'mind' in the sense that I care.
You might not 'worry' about what my beliefs are; but your response is not consistent with one who thinks the issue is a total waste of time.
Comment by Doug — October 24, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Joy wrote:
"Someone told me the day after my son died that his death was a "lesson" for me to learn. It pissed me right off."
That's a pure emotional violent attack. I've never lost a child, but if I try to put myself in your place, anyone who made such an arrogant, ignorant claim to me would probably lose a lot of teeth.
At best, religion provides a path to approach life's mysteries, but anyone who claims that religion's answers are so clear that she/he knows that a child's death must be a lesson to a parent is despicable.
"Screw evolution…That in no way diminishes the meaning or purpose of anyone's life, long or short."
I don't see why you think evolution must diminish the meaning of anyone's life.
Comment by Smokey — October 24, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
That's kind of harsh. Come on, both of you. We all hear things we don't want to hear. I have 2 living immediate family members (out of many). I've lost alot of people in my family (all in December too…. the month I was born). I've heard alot of coarse things as well. I don't know what the motivation is behind the comments; but do I assume that this person is intending on hurting me more? No. We all have had hard times and we all try to make sense of it. Calling someone a despicable person, saying you want to knock their teeth out… how exactly is this different from what you assume they were intending?
Comment by Doug — October 24, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Doug wrote:
"That's kind of harsh."
Yes.
"I don't know what the motivation is behind the comments; but do I assume that this person is intending on hurting me more?"
The intent of any jerk who says something like this is to feel superior to the parent who is the object of the comment.
"Calling someone a despicable person, saying you want to knock their teeth out"¦ how exactly is this different from what you assume they were intending?"
It's different because saying such a thing to a grieving parent is far more morally wrong than knocking the speaker's teeth out in response.
Comment by Smokey — October 24, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
You don't know that, Smokey. You can't make these assumptions off of what a person's intentions were. If they believe these thoughts to be true maybe they truly thought they were trying to be helpful. Maybe it was a struggle for them to say it. I'm not saying that the person was right for saying what they did to Joy…. that's really not the point, because what do I know about their actual intentions? But you claim quite loudly to have a strong understanding of why they acted the way they did…. and you immediately assume they had ill-intent.
What about ignoring them if one would be so offended? I have been called alot of things in my time. "Son of a drunk" being one of them, "walker of a vegetable" another (my best friend got hit by a car; became mentally and physically handicap). You know what I did? I ignored it. I knew what their intention was when they made those comments. Why waste my time making a rational argument why one should 'play nice' when they are intentionally trying to insult me? Same with this scenario. If you are certain what their intentions are why waste your time? Why are your intentional actions any different from their intentional actions. Again, this assumes that they were trying to act arrogant, insensitive, superior (which I do doubt… at least doubt your level of certainty in regards to their intentions).
Comment by Doug — October 24, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
I guess I just wanted to make the firm distinction I have earned from experience of life and death in time, between the FACT that flesh is cheap, and the FACT life is valuable beyond measure.
The person who said the wrong thing to me didn't intend to bring more pain, but to ease my pain. Luckily, I was in so much pain nobody could have added a whit to it, so anger was a welcome relief. I was devastated by untimely death, a life lost in time that was more important to me for 21 years than my own, and for whom I'd have jumped into the pit of hell fearlessly. In the end, all I could do was tell him I loved him. He already knew that.
I didn't punch her lights out. She meant well, as we all do in such awful situations, even if we don't know how to express it. So I learned not to even try. Was that "lesson" the totality of the value of my son's life? I don't believe so. But now when I'm comforting the grieving, I just hug them and hold their hands. Sometimes words are entirely inadequate, so it's best to say nothing at all.
It all works out in the end (it's been 14 years). Precious life has a beginning, a middle, and an ending - all of which has meaning and purpose in and of itself (even if we don't get the opportunity to share in it). Because I got to share, I get to hold the Love closer to my heart than my blood (or DNA) for as long as I live. Then it's gone, and nobody will care. Evolution never cared in the first place.
Or, to put it simply, the purpose of life is life. Reproduction is just the evolutionary mechanism for ensuring there's a pile of raw clay to work with in time.
Comment by Joy — October 24, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Doug wrote:
"You don't know that, Smokey. You can't make these assumptions off of what a person's intentions were."
Sure I can. It's an inference, not an assumption, btw.
For example, what should I infer from your failure to respond to my simple challenge to your claim that human sex is for reproduction? My challenge doesn't assume that MET is true, you know.
"If they believe these thoughts to be true maybe they truly thought they were trying to be helpful."
If they believed that it was true, that confirms the inference, doesn't it?
"Maybe it was a struggle for them to say it."
That does nothing to change my interpretation, does it?
"I'm not saying that the person was right for saying what they did to Joy"¦. that's really not the point, because what do I know about their actual intentions?"
Well, are you saying it was wrong to say that, or that you also believe that the death of a child is a lesson to the parent?
"But you claim quite loudly to have a strong understanding of why they acted the way they did"¦. and you immediately assume they had ill-intent."
Read my understanding again, Doug. I said that it was a statement of superiority. One can make such a statement without ill intent, but it's still despicable IMO.
"What about ignoring them if one would be so offended?"
You're missing my point. I am saying that it is so despicable that I don't think I could ignore it. Call it weakness if you will.
"I have been called alot of things in my time. "Son of a drunk" being one of them, "walker of a vegetable" another (my best friend got hit by a car; became mentally and physically handicap). You know what I did? I ignored it."
Good for you. However, all of those are love taps in contrast to the comment made to Joy. I was pointing out to her that I would have trouble imagining the devastation of her situation, but as best I can imagine it, I admired her restraint. Was that part unclear?
Comment by Smokey — October 24, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Then your inference seems very weak. If all the information you have to go off on is that someone offered a bit of advice; and if you are then able to make assumptions (inferences) into their true intention just based off of that (not knowing anything about their attitude in general, how important the tragedy was to them…etc) I think you would be well over stepping your bounds.
That I didn't know how to answer it; that I see you as being antagonistic to a wide array of views that differ from yours; that I didn't really care to enter into a discussion with you because you don't really seem interested in others' views…. just what you think is wrong with them…. or some other reasons.
That they are trying to be intentionally rude and callous…. and they are therefore despicable and deserve to have their teeth knocked out? No, it doesn't confirm your inference (assumption).
This should be clear by now, Smokey. I said this:
You don't have enough to back your inference in regards to the person's intentions. Certainly not enough to back your claim that acting out violently on the person would be appropriate or justified.
Again, you don't know that. I gave many other reasons why the person may have acted the way they did. Why does superiority jump into your mind right away? I've tried to help others with issues (sexual desires), not because of superiority (because I still make many MANY mistakes) but because I genuinely care.
Then I'm not missing your point. I well understand it. I choose to ignore not because it is the easy thing to do, but the more right thing to do. For me it is incredibly hard. This is coming from a former hateful, white supremist.
Love taps? How do you know what it meant to me? How do you know how much my best friend meant to me? How do you know how much my mom meant to me? This encapsulates the whole conversation I had with you. You have the faintest idea what it is like for a 12 year old boy to be part of the reason why his best fucking friend got hit by a goddamn car and can't move or even FUCKING TALK. Fuck it! Ban me!
Comment by Doug — October 24, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Doug, there's more than a hint of self-preservation and guilt tied up in the dumb things people are known to say at the worst times. My friend did not mean to hurt me, but merely voiced her own rationalization for the awful thing that had occurred. The rationalization spoke way more to her own loss than to mine - she loved him too.
Another friend at the time identified so strongly with my loss that she went psychotic for fear of losing her own children and had to be hospitalized. Ended up killing herself and we (as godparents) inherited all three of 'em. They're doing okay, last I heard. All but the Marine will be here for Thanksgiving, and we've two grandkids from the investment. Their lives are as precious and purposeful, and I'd be as devastated to lose them. DNA isn't everything…
In your experience there was guilt. And even in situations where there's nothing you can do to change fate, there is still guilt. "Survivor's syndrome" or some such designation. Shit happens. We all feel bad about it, though we aren't all well-versed in how to speak about it.
Life's value seems to be tied up in the love that each life inspires and shares. Love doesn't die, you know. DNA [flesh] is just clay.
Comment by Joy — October 24, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Maybe we can start again?
A drawback of a forum like this is just that we don't know each other very well; and we can't possibly know what situations like these have meant to each other. Doug, Smokey couldn't possibly gather from your original posts anything of what you went through with your friend. He wasn't trying to belittle you.
And Joy, I really don't think Doug is trying to act superior. You have differences in your views. For some of us– and I know I'm among them–a difference of any significance is ground for argument– afterall, only one of two opposite ideas can be right, and I usually think mine is:). So I'm not really capable of "agreeing to disagree" on any topic in the book. But it doesn't mean I respect the other person any less.
Sorry for preaching :???:. But I just wanted to say– no-one's trying to be nasty to anyone else– we're just are terribly limited, and seem to always say the wrong things without trying. Please, don't let your own hurt get in the way of understanding someone else.
Comment by Afon — October 24, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
It was my fault he got hit by the car. He hasn't spoke a sentence, walked on his own, had control over his arms, kept food in his mouth since 1988.
In 2000 his mom couldn't take care of him anymore. He lives miles away from her, in a nursing home, with no family around, because of me.
Comment by Doug — October 24, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Sorry Joy, Smokey, TT community. Thanks Afon for the words, Thanks Joy for understanding.
I don't know what else to say.
Comment by Doug — October 24, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Well, as for me, I was just kinda pleased with Macht's charitable approach to Richard Dawkins!
Online tempers fly sometimes when they need not - shall we call them knives of dialectical reason that cut upon emotion? I appreciate the willingness of people to share stories of hurt and suffering. When you bring your past on-line, it is made open to more and less sensitive people. The ironic thing being that this thread is about R. Dawkins, who I can only imagine would raise my ire more than irregularly if speaking about such things as competition and cooperation, survival of the fittest, war and peace (struggle for existence), caring for humankind, altruism, ethics,` spirituality, non-material being, etc.
Dawkins does, as Macht notes, tend to "project his narrow view of religion onto all religious people," which says something about his communicative competency on religious themes. Unfortunately, ambiguity remains for natural scientists who basically adhere to his (ethological or naturalistic) views of evolution, yet not his views about the evolution of religion or the evolution of warfare. Memes also are said to exist with a 'struggle for life' type of attitude.
Some people provide the example where being agnostic religiously actually fuels their ability to look at science neutrally. A more philosophical topic is to ask if science itself can be neutral or whether it always already depends on metaphysical, methological, epistemological or theological presuppositions to ground its contribution to humanity. I don't doubt that Joy and others (especially natural scientists) will try to take the high road of science about evolution and/or i+d. They apparently check their religion/theology/spiritual existence at the door. The real issue, that is, of saying that i+d (taking into account Johnson's, Behe's and Dembski's motivations, hermeneutics) is 'theologically irrelevant' still seems an incredible stance to take. But there are those that continue to do it!!
Dawkins is a reductionist, a scientistic (arrogant) scientist, a materialist and an atheist - these things undoubtedly affect his contribution to evolutionary science and likewise colour his views of i+d and God. The delusions that he attributes to a great many others are now being turned around upon him. (And if he gets burned again and again in such public places as the on-line debate recently with Quinn, he may indeed end up some day in a scientific mad house!) Don't worry Darwkins Defenders, M. Foucault will return to save him (it's all about power, not truth)!
As for solopsism, Joy, please note that my meaning makes sense when speaking of Dawkins' 'selfish gene'/ 'selfish person' perspective as it would likewise against Ayn Rand's claims for 'the virtue of selfishness.' The point was that agnostic (religiously) i+dists (e.g. some at TT's, including the Design Matrix author) and atheistic/anti-theistic evolutionists (e.g. R.D.) are not as far apart as they might seem on the surface. But as always, exceptions to such a suggestion do exist.
Comment by g arago — October 24, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Doug wrote:
"If all the information you have to go off on is that someone offered a bit of advice;…"
The scenario Joy presented was not advice, Doug.
"That I didn't know how to answer it;…"
And your inability to answer it suggests what , to you? Maybe your conclusion about the purpose of sex was wrong?
"That they are trying to be intentionally rude and callous"¦."
No, Doug. My inference is that she/he believed her/himself to be superior. That naturally leads to rudeness and callousness, all orthogonal to ill intent.
"You don't have enough to back your inference in regards to the person's intentions."
My inference has nothing to do with ill intent. My inference is that the speaker was assuming superiority.
"Love taps? How do you know what it meant to me?"
Less than it would mean to a parent. It was a statement of relativity, not an absolute one.
"How do you know how much my best friend meant to me?"
A lot, Doug, but less than a child means to a parent. It was in no way meant to belittle your situation. I apologize for my clumsiness if you took it that way.
"How do you know how much my mom meant to me?"
A lot, I'm sure. But the comment you offered wasn't in the context of her death, like the one Joy offered was.
"This encapsulates the whole conversation I had with you. You have the faintest idea what it is like for a 12 year old boy to be part of the reason why his best fucking friend got hit by a goddamn car and can't move or even FUCKING TALK."
That wasn't part of what you wrote, so of course I'd have no idea that you felt guilty about it. Given the additional context of your involvement in the injury, there's much less contrast. It also seems to be a different situation, since there's no indication that Joy felt guilty over her son's death. I think that my imagination is insufficient to put me in either situation, and I mean that purely as a sympathetic statement to both you and Joy.
Let me reiterate what Afon said–no one's trying to be nasty here, and a lot of context is missing.
Comment by Smokey — October 24, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Doug, you're welcome. I understand perhaps more than you thought I might. By the way, a 72-year old Irish Catholic priest walking in the park that fateful day - a man who had been a physician for 52 years before he became a priest hoping to "be God's Hands" in some meaningful way - saved our son's life after the accident. We had nearly 3 months' worth of Miracle (attested to in court by a dozen 'scientific' experts) before he died, then that priest came in across three states to do the funeral.
We're not Catholic, but that never bothered him. Our daughter told him when we met him the 'Day After' the accident that if her brother were in Big Trouble far from home, he's exactly who she expected God to send to the rescue.
How does one go about "throwing a funeral?" Heck if I know. We met on the beach in the morning, dressed in white, and told stories about a Wonderful Life. He has a 16-year old son, too, lives in Florida with his Mom. Last time he visited he got bit by a copperhead and spent three days in the hospital.
Some life-lines (DNA speaking) are just way too turbulent to mess with, I figure. I've lived here 14 years and killed more than one copperhead per season, never been bit…
Smokey, you're likely to qualify as human if you keep it up. How then shall we battle each other's ideology with foam-padded swords? You've some good points to make, and making them just demonstrates that you've plenty of depth to work with.
Afon, thanks. I realized I'd stepped in it early on, then had to play clean-up. No one's experience trumps mine for me, but mine doesn't trump anyone else's for them. A good thing to keep in mind.
Comment by Joy — October 24, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
October 25th, 2006 at 10:43 am
I have lurked here for awhile now, and like the flavor of this ID site. But, I had to "come out" from the shadows to share a word of thanks for the honesty and humanity shared in this thread. Someone stated that a lot of context was missing. Welcome to the internet. Thanks again
bj
Comment by bj — October 25, 2006 @ 10:43 am
October 25th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
My main point was that one doesn't know what anothers intention is. That it's best not to let your assumptions (inferences) to do too much assuming or inferencing when you are working with such minimal amounts of information.
You're right, you didn't know the extent of injury suffered by my best friend (Andy)…. or the impact that it had on his life, his family's life and my life. Some less than friendly neighborhood kids must have learned that a 'vegetable' was used to refer to a person who is on the extreme end of being mentally incapable. While I would take Andy for walks this term was yelled occassionally. You didn't know the whole context, nor the extent…. but you equated it to 'love taps'. I really didn't want to open up that chapter of my life again. So I didn't think it was necessary to let it all out when I 1st mentioned of my best friend's condition. His family lived 2 houses down from mine. I got to see his parent's divorce, his mom struggle to raise him and his older brother on her own, her entering into abusive relationships with other men, his older brother become a punching bag for one of his mom's boyfriend, his older brother beat Andy out of frustration, his family getting worn down over the years and have to eventually put him in a nursing home where visits aren't as frequent as they used to be(he's only 28 years old).
This didn't need to be stated. You didn't need to equate this to 'love taps'.
I spent a good portion of my life jumping to conclusions, making similar inferences and assumptions off of other's intentions, actions & words. My past is littered with this; as stated, I have a history that disgusts me. You can claim you're alot of things and get some level of acceptance and approval for struggling to no longer be that way. Admitting that you once were a supremist, all you get is more scorn and hate directed at you. But all you can do back is try to be understanding and loving; and pray for more help everytime you fall back down.
Comment by Doug — October 25, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
October 25th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Doug wrote:
"You didn't know the whole context, nor the extent"¦. but you equated it to 'love taps'…You didn't need to equate this to 'love taps'."
Doug, in no way did I EQUATE that with love taps. You seem to have missed the essential qualifier, "…in contrast to the comment made to Joy."
Comment by Smokey — October 25, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
October 25th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Smokey:
Doug:
Smokey:
Comment by Doug — October 25, 2006 @ 1:57 pm