Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!harwood
From: harwood@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Book of Flammage
Message-ID: <1723@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 12:12:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: cvl.1723
Posted: Wed Oct  8 12:12:23 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 04:59:03 EDT
References: <11900055@uiucdcsb> <1169@cybvax0.UUCP> <16048@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: harwood@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood)
Distribution: world
Organization: Center for Automation Research, Univ. of Md.
Lines: 87
Keywords: Whom might we flame?

In article <16048@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>
>   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....
>
...
...
>
>>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.
>
...
...
[G.W.Smith:]
>   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.
>
...
... [omitted; G.W.Smith wondering about Gary B's opinions of scholarly-
unwashed Christians:

>	   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


	Maybe we can create an endowed chair for Thurston in *.religion.*
(if he will condescend from a transcendental variety of hyperbolic space;
Mike already admits it's more profitable to be prophetable ;-)
	By the way, for the information of logicians like Mike H., the
man generally considered to be the most creative living logician, philo-
sophical and mathematical, is not an atheist or even an agnostic, but
an Orthodox Jew  (Saul Kripke, of Kripke modal logic/model theory reknown).