NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/origins/15894

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 10.6 KB | 254 lines

Newsgroups: talk.origins
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!nsisrv!jgacker
From: [e-mail] (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:20:36 GMT
Lines: 240




Ted Holden, obviously having knocked back a few shots of mead spiced
with peyote, abandons twiddling inaccuracies about dinosaur weightlifters
and decides to get phil-oo-soph-i-kal:
news ([e-mail]) wrote:
:
after discussing Nietzche, Ted elaborates:
: Basically,  I was trying to point out the fact that evolutionism, as
: presently taught, offers man precisely nothing,

    Nothing?  Why should it offer man anything?  It's a scientific
theory, a framework of observing nature.  The fact that science (practiced
properly) offers man the nobility of honest inquiry into truth has
obviously slipped by you a long lost time ago.



as well as the far
: lesser known fact that new studies are revealing that the spiritual
: realm which most normal people believe in and can sense,

    Ted, do you know my buddy Kalki?  He's a student of this
particular topic too.  Unfortunately, neither of you can refer to
the results of these studies published in a refereed scientific journal.
Oh, please tell us where to look for them.
    How do you, a normal person (that's a stretch) sense the
spiritual realm?  Peyote?  Thunderbird?  A couple of strawberry
daiquiris?
    I don't sense the spiritual realm.  I have faith that it
exists.  That's all I can have -- according to the apostle Paul.  I assume
you've heard of him.


once existed at
: least in part on this earth.

    Where?  Is there geological/archaeological evidence for the
location, such as the recently rediscovered Ubar?  I'm sure you can tell
the Landsat group where to start looking.  I have their number.  Call me.


At present we cannot perceive this other
: realm directly or with our senses,

    Wait just a minute there, hoss!  Not more than four lines ago you
said (quoting) "the spiritual realm which most normal people believe
in and can sense" unquote.  Since "you" are part of "we" I must logically
conclude you're not normal!  Ooh, that was a tough one.
    But the above is an accurate statement.  First one you've nailed
in this discourse, likely the last, too.  WE CANNOT PERCEIVE THIS OTHER
(spiritual) REALM DIRECTLY OR WITH OUR SENSES.  Right!

and a goodly number of people have
: always been tempted to write off anything not amenable to description or
: direct observation.

    My definition of "write off":  exclude from scientific inquiry.
Those darn scientists have all those picky, picky, picky rules about
being able to do "experiments", Mommy!  I don't wanna play!

Wayne Throop adds:
: >The above is basically gibberish.
and then explains his statement.


Ted, meanwhile, hurtles onward into the unknown:
: What gets the Throops of the world so riled at this sort of talk is the
: following consideration.  Suppose evolutionists are right, that man is
: simply a freak accident, the final end product of a long chain of events
: governed by random and chance processes, originating with single-celled
: creatures somehow self-generating from inert/inorganic materials which
: somehow simply got lucky.  Then basically, you're saying to the common
: man, "Abandon hope!  You're going to die in thirty or forty years, and
: like as not, nobody will give a damn about anything you ever did 30
: years later, and that's every bit of it.  Even the greatest man of the
: age will be forgotton 5000 years from now, and that's just a grain of
: sand on the beach in the framework of the oceans of time we're talking
: about."

    This gets Throop (or me) riled, Ted?  Not really!  Your statement
and grasp of the facts is correct.  But it doesn't rile me that science
isn't in the business of providing hope to mankind.  That's not
scientific business -- NOW we can bring in religion.  To provide hope and
a means to reach a higher glory.  Science won't do it, and doesn't care
if it did or not.

: Is it any wonder that the common man does not buy any of this?  Is it
: any wonder that the masses do not beat a path to Throop's door?

    It's clear that the "common man" has nothing to gain, save
increased knowledge and exercise of his intellect, from understanding and
appreciating many scientific theories.  I know that the primary form
of dissolved uranium in seawater is [UO2(CO3)3]4-, and no one is
beating a path to my door, either.  But that's the True Gospel of Uranium
in Seawater!
    Kornbluth was right:  "The Marching Morons", and you're leading
the parade.


: I have tried to point out, that if you have to rebel against
: Christianity, the logical starting point is Nietzsche and not Darwin.
: The NT really is about sin, and redemption from sin, and Nietzsche
: really does raise valid objections to the entire notion.  Beyond that, I
: have a problem with Christianity because the American Indians went 1400
: years without ever hearing of Christ, and I have a hard time squaring
: that with the notion of Christ being an annointed savior of mankind.

    If you want some answers to these questions, pick up a copy of
R.C. Sproul's "Reasons to Believe", available at most Christian bookstores.
I didn't "like" the answer he gave, but it was in accord with Scripture.
I would actually be interested in how Nietzsche raises valid objections to
the entire notion of sin and redemption from sin.  E-mail an outline if
you care to.

: There are other problems as well.  For one thing, the anti-sexual tone of
Christianity does not appear to be a part of most versions of the antediluvian
: paradise.  The enforced other-worldiness appears to be a product of the times
: in which Jesus lived.

    Explain what you mean by this, Ted.   Christianity, taken from
scripture, is not anti-sexual within the bounds of monogamous marriage.
It does proscribe fornication and adultery, and homosexuality (though
the latter is mostly an OT prohibition.)  I do not care to attempt to enforce
morality based on Scripture, though many other more rabid fundamentalist
brethren would like to.
    Define "enforced other-worldiness", too.

: Nonetheless, I tend to hold jusgement of Jesus in abeyance.

    Thank you for that, at least.

: Jesus claimed to be a prince of the land which people inhabit AFTER they
: die.  The thing which totally separated him from all other people in the
: bible, is the statement of the apostles that "...he spoke as one with
: authority", concerning the afterworld kingdom.

    You're right.  What's the point?

: Consider the most grandiose nation ever put together (the Mongol
: Empire), as well as the longest lasting (the Byzantine), and ask
: yourself, "Where are they today?  What remains of them?"
:
: And then consider that the empire which Jesus established is still with
: us, that the best architecture on earth is still the collection of
: temples built in his honor.

    Excluding the Taj Mahal and the U.S. Capitol in the process.
That's a pretty sweeping statement!

Consider that the esteem in which Christ is
: still held is so great, that even the phoniest con artist on this earth,
: a man like Jim Baker or Oral Roberts, can make money almost in any
: desired amount almost effortlessly simply preaching his gospel.

    Consider also that the hypocrisy of Baker, Tilton, and Swaggart
seriously damaged the credibility of the Church's true message, that of
bringing sinners to redemption.  It is sad that the message of Christ
was used in this manner.  Science, by remaining essentially honest,
doesn't come under the charge of hypocrisy nearly so often.  It is better
to remain honest and poorly funded than to lie and garner gobs of money.
"It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for
a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."


: That has to be what gets to the Throops of the world.  How much money
: did you make preaching evolution this year, Throop?  How many people
: built temples and cathedrals in honor of Darwin this year?

    Who really cares, Ted?  Are we to judge honesty and the pursuit
of wisdom and truth by the balance sheet?  That Darwin is still a voice
is tribute to his intellect.

    If Wayne Throop worries that evolution
is getting short shrift in the marketplace, that's his problem.  The biggest
cathedrals in America are a tribute to ABNER DOUBLEDAY, PROPHET OF
BASEBALL, and his high priests make more money in a day than I made all
year!  Does that mean we should all be preaching the gospel of baseball?

Throop writes:
: >Evolutionary theory models cooperation just as easily as competition,
: >dominance and "will to power", as anybody must realize if they know
: >anything about the evolutionary account of the nucleus or organelles in
: >cells, or anything about the evolutionary account of multicellular
: >organisms.

And Ted goes berserk:
: See what I mean?  Throop just doesn't get it.  The fact that man's
: entire existence becomes utterly meaningless under this system does not
: even strike him as a problem.

    To science, it's not a problem.  The problem of a meaningful
existence belongs to religion.  The two are SEPARATE.  Buy a clue, Ted.


Kind of like somebody standing there
: naked in a blizzard and shouting to the world:  "GEE!  I've got it
: knocked!!!"

    Or preaching Velikovsky at the AGU convention.  Try it, Ted, and
see how it works.  I'll even sell tickets.

: You're offering mankind    N - O - T - H - I - N - G.

    Wrong!  Science, of which the investigation of evolutionary origins
is a subset, offers mankind a framework for appreciating reality.  That
many people are content to let reality just pass them by is not science's
problem.

Throop does offend me a bit, but I can handle it:
: >    God: a mythical being created by a recent primate species
: >         on earth to account for origins, because they just couldn't
: >         imagine all this stuff lying around without an alpha male
: >         in charge of it.

because science can't prove either the mythicality or reality of God.

: I'll sell fertility pills in China before you ever sell that.

    Cute.


: Again, for any normal person who might chance to be reading this, I am
: recommending Richard Heinberg's "Memories and Visions of Paradise", Tarcher,
: 1989.  The notion that the afterworld is completely inaccessible and/or
: unknowable to us in this world no longer appears to be entirely the case.

    I'd also recommend the Book of Romans in the Bible, since
we're on the subject.  (Helps to get a balanced view, you know.)


: Ted Holden
: HTE

    Gosh, that felt good!  *Cleansing breath*  AAAAAAHHHHHH.

    Jim Acker
    [e-mail]