Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!ucbvax!brahms!gsmith
From: gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Book of Flammage
Message-ID: <16048@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 7-Oct-86 07:21:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.16048
Posted: Tue Oct  7 07:21:29 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 10:51:49 EDT
References: <11900055@uiucdcsb> <1169@cybvax0.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 85
Keywords: Whom might we flame?


   On the one hand we have:

In article <1169@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:

>This is a flame, written for amusement value only.  There is just something
>about certain kinds of dogmatic behavior that kindles derision in me....

>In article <11900055@uiucdcsb> wsmith@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu types in a lengthy
>passage without any explanation of why this rambling, psychotic raving is
>relevant to anything.

>Or is it the book of platitude?  Should believers be certified nuts?

>Well, at least they're not beating around the bush: they come right out and
>say "these irrational maunderings are the absolute truth: look it says so
>right in the title."

>Of course.  Sacred books have about as much diversity and imagination as
>low-grade slasher movies.  There are certain features that sell.

    But on the other hand:

In article <1178@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:

>There are perhaps 10 contributors to *.religion.* whose articles strike me as
>penetrating.  (At least two of them are Christian.)  Gary is perhaps the most
>erudite of that bunch.  Most other contributors repeat tired, old errors that
>are generally scoffed at in intellectual circles.  Or worse, resort to no
>content but derision, as in the above statement.

   Now this leads to the question: when derision is kindled, what does Mike
think should be done about it? Is it OK to deride Bahis for being Bahis, 
but not OK to deride Gary Bucholtz for expressing his rather idiosyncratic
views? I often find Mike's comments penetrating, and sometimes find them
annoying, but I would hate to find that they were immune from derision
by reason of ineluctable profundity. In other words, if certain views
are scoffable in intellectual circles, I want to reserve the right to scoff
here as well. I might even want to sneak in a tired literary allusion or
two if I am feeling especially dyspeptic.

   What role does erudition play in protecting us from the scoffers? It
certainly makes one harder to deal with. But there are a few very erudite
people on the net (Yakim Murillo is the most notable example) who seem to
require a little derision even so. There is the question of cogency as well.
Gary is certainly erudite, but are his arguments of uniform excellence? 
I am not quite sure at times what he is trying to say, but something like
this is what I have gotten out of it --

	   To be a real Christian it is necessary that:

	   (1) You have (or at least are working on) a Doctorate in
	   Theology from a major seminary.

	   (2) You must regard Bultmann and Heidegger as canonical,
	   but not the New Testament.

	   (3) You must absolutely disbelieve in the possibility of
	   miracles. 

    As I say, I don't know if Gary really thinks this, but the above strikes
me as manifest nonsense and a prime candidate for derision. And people know
different things. I doubt if Gary is the most knowledgeable person on talk.
religion.misc when it comes to plant genetics, for instance. Or what about
astrophysics? I find:

In article <663@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> gary@sphinx.UUCP (Gary Buchholz) writes:

>  You have a really bizzare notion of Physics.  For the solar system to 
>  be as stable as it is now, and in the past for as long as men in 
>  recorded history have been making observations the "law(s)" of physics
>  as we know them (not just gravity) will have had to work the same and
>  be valid for every nanosecond since the birth of our system.  If not,
>  then the whole mess would have "crashed" by now. 

    Am I allowed to deride the idea that a single nanoseconds suspension
of the law of gravity would have lead to the destruction of the solar system?
Why not -- it seems like a remarkably silly notion to me.

    There may be a few people on the net so brilliant and knowledgeable as
to be immune from derision (I noticed Bill Thurston posting an article over
on net.math, for instance), but in general I find the notion problematic.

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
"A good punch in the nose IS often effective communication"-- Ken Arndt