[extropy-chat] Putting God to Rest

[Lee Corbin]

Damien writes

> At 03:34 AM 4/24/2007 -0700, Lee wrote:
> 
>> [John Clark wrote]
>> > God created the universe 4000 years ago and then
>> > tortured himself to death so he could forgive us for
>> > our sins. How can you treat such moronic babbling
>> > without being insulting? And why would you even
>> > want to?  Insults have their place in the world of ideas.
>>
>> Your statements above are simply and totally stupid,
>> reflecting complete ignorance of psychology.  Moreover,
>> they're insipid and ultimately meaningless, being nothing
>> more than empty rhetoric and name-calling.

[actually-- that is not true; I was being ironic, after all.
John's lead sentence contains a powerful argument.]

> and added:
> 
>> The question *is* whether or not insulting language is to be employed, e.g.
>> characterizing the views of others as puerile, stupid, ignorant, etc. Again,
>> use of such language is completely pointless, except as an emotional salve
>> for those who already agree with you.

Hopefully the irony of the first quoted paragraph was apparent to all.
My entire post had been written in an objective tone, and I threw
that last paragraph in to make a stark contrast;  anyone reading it
should have been aware that unlike my earlier paragraphs, this one
was merely insulting, and almost entirely without objective content.
"simply and totally stupid", "reflecting ignorance", "insipid", etc.
ARE WE NOT ABOVE USE OF SUCH LANGUAGE ON 
THIS LIST??

Alas although I'm sure that Damien got it (despite the appearance
of my quotes that he gives), I am far from certain that many other
people did. 

> Hmm. Several different points come to mind.
> 
> For a start, it's not an in-group *salve* so much as a *glue* and 
> that's always handy when a few people hold strong contrarian opinions 
> in the midst of a powerful social consensus.

And why cannot the "glue" be expressed in uncompromising yet 
objective prose that does not descend to the level of insult?

> But is it true that psychology teaches us that ridicule is 
> ineffective in changing opinions?

Ridicule, alas, may indeed be effective in changing opinions; people
are such sheep, and have so little backbone that they cannot stand
to be laughed at.

> When friends, enemies and random 
> people on the street mock those wearing white after Labor Day--a 
> completely arbitrary piece of nonsense--you'd better believe most 
> people will swiftly come to heel, blushing and aghast at their faux 
> pas. Perhaps few on this list would; perhaps most on this list would 
> defiantly wear nothing but ice cream suits and white socks all year 
> long just to stick it to the morons. Derision can stiffen one's 
> idiosyncratic resolve. Not for most people, though, on the evidence.

Mocking those who wear white after Labor Day elicits a change
in behavior?  I don't follow.

> More importantly, ridiculing the ridiculous is a long established 
> technique of considerable effectiveness. The word "satire" comes to 
> mind. On the other hand, a lot of people don't seem to comprehend 
> satire, and get anxious in its presence, complaining that it's 
> "mean."

Humor exculpates everything, in my book, so long as it doesn't
shut down argument. Satire can often get points across economically.
But I note that you have drifted away from my chief complaint; namely
that insulting language---e.g. name-calling such as "stupid", "asinine",
"inane" serves no purpose except among the club of those who already
agree.  Using them in debate ought to be unacceptable. Indeed, many
list rules forbid the ad hominem.

> But look again at John Clark's summary of Xian beliefs... An 
> immortal and transcendentally Cosmic God allowing himself to be 
> tortured to death for our sins but then bouncing back is so utterly 
> ludicrous--taken literally, rather than as a winter/spring metaphor 
> or something--that it calls for a rich serving of ridicule. If not 
> that, what? Must we henceforth remain sweetly demure in the face of 
> *any* ridiculous assertion, lest we hurt someone's feelings or 
> strengthen their resolve to beat the shit out of us? (Now there's a 
> motive I can relate to, alas.)

Well, let's look again at what he wrote, because he raises exactly
the same question right there:

>> > God created the universe 4000 years ago and then
>> > tortured himself to death so he could forgive us for
>> > our sins. How can you treat such moronic babbling
>> > without being insulting?

It's *not* moronic babbling;  have you ever seen morons
babble?  You can treat apparently absurd arguments with
the same kind of criticism (if it's worth your while) as you
would like your arguments to be criticized.  One can make
very critical remarks about the above---critical arguments,
that is---without name calling.   What?  Do you think that
Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine had no answers to your
questions?

>> > And why would you even want to?  Insults have their
>> > place in the world of ideas.

They simply do not!

Lee