Ch. 4 - WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD

[Frank 013]

Quote:MadNone of which I say to exonerate the practice of witch-hunting, but it does make the role of religion a little more explicable. With or without the Judeo-Christian tradition and the witch mythology that it made possible (but did not, as people tend to imply, furnish in its full form -- else, why would witch-hunter generals have to write a "Hammer of God&quot , these societies were under so much pressure that they would have brought some form of discrimination to bear. Some of the cases I have read about seem to disagree with that assessment, often times it appears that simple personal friction between two people or families was enough to get some people implicated.In addition it can be argued that many of the prejudices that led to this friction were religiously inspired.Most of the evidence against the witches was doctrine negligence (not being a good Christian) on the part of the witch, and was generally pointed out by the person making the implication. Quote:Mad Religion provided an easy form, but you can hardly explain the entire episode of witch hunting by attributing it to religion. Without the Christian myth of witches there could have not been witch trials, and the passage from the bible that says "thou shall not suffer a which to live" is fairly plain in its meaning. Not only did religion supply much of the friction between people but it also supplied the justification for killing them. Religion is relatively unique in this dual role. Quote:Mad Nor did religion provide a quick and ready excuse -- the ring-leaders had to fill in a lot of blanks and reinterpret a lot of material in order to bend it to their desires.Of course they did... Witches aren't real, and what was considered witchcraft also had to be defined. So these people were forced to make all that stuff up. The fact that they could do all that and get it enforced by the church is the disturbing part. If belief in the mythical, and intolerance of differing cultures were not the norm the witch trials could not have cultivated.And both catalysts can be attributed to the religions of the time. Later Edited by: Frank 013 at: 3/19/07 1:04 pm

[Mr. P]

Quote:Quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------MadThe myth was a contemporary development, developed mostly by the authors of the Malleus and other essays in order to provide a system for their hunts. Prior to the 16th century, you don't find a well-developed witch-mythology, just a scattered collection of local superstitions, often unconnected to Biblical exegesis and very rarely forming any sort of cohesive system.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Frank:None of this really matters much, what was important was what the holy bible said to do with witches. And it matters less still because my original assertion holds: witch hunts were born from religious thought...no matter what time the religious idiots lived.Mr. P. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George CarlinI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[MadArchitect]

Frank 013: The sciences use every sense of human perception and then some, to determine "our reality" nothing about the "supernatural" or "god" is evident. So I think it is fair to say "in our reality".I really don't feel the inclination or energy to rehash this debate yet again, but suffice it to say that science provides no real basis for talking about a great deal of the things that we take to be socially meaningful -- ie. love, respect, sensibility -- save in terms that are so reductive that they leave little room for actually experiencing those things as meaningful. A strict adherence to the principle of science as the only valid demarcation of "our reality" is so restrictive and reductive that I doubt anyone in this forum would really apply it.If they did interact with our reality in any meaningful way they would be detectable, at least statistically, but they are not.They'd only be statistically detectable if they interacted with normative processes in a consistent, predictable manner. Either way, indifference and non-interaction are not necessarily the same thing.me: Mostly, it seems, as a result of the schism in the Church. The same thing made it possible to discern heretics under the Spanish Inquisition. If a person didn't eat pork, they were suspect, regardless of whether or not they had a gastronomic condition that necessitated a special diet. But to call that a religious motivation is to miss the point.Frank: Religion does not always supply the motivation but it often enough does, would the slight even have been considered offensive if not for religious influence?Slight? I think you're confusing two different scenarios. In one, non-orthodox behavior was taken as an indicator of allegiance to an usurped tradition, as a potential act of rebellion. In the other -- given the word "slight", I take it that you mean instances of individuals accusing other individuals of witch-craft or heresy -- no religious motivation was really necessary. All that was necessary was some notion that the accusation would result in some potential gain -- either the opening of a place of position (a fairly common motivation in Inquisition Spain), the removal of a business rival, or the settling of a quarrel on less than even ground. Religious tradition wasn't even necessary as an impetus -- it was only an excuse for bringing the rival to the attention of the authorities. Exactly the same thing could have happened 50 years ago -- all you needed to do was point out some habit or opinion expressed by your rival that might mark them as a subversive Communist sympathizer -- and it could well happen today, if you could find some way to implicate your rival as, say, a child molester. The major difference is that modern society isn't undergoing quite the same crisis that it was going through during the 16th and 17th century, not that religion has less of a hold than it did then. Given the same level of social tensions -- be they cultural, political, or otherwise -- you'd likely see the same incidence of accusation and persecution.me: The myth was a contemporary development, developed mostly by the authors of the Malleus and other essays in order to provide a system for their hunts. Prior to the 16th century, you don't find a well-developed witch-mythology, just a scattered collection of local superstitions, often unconnected to Biblical exegesis and very rarely forming any sort of cohesive system.Frank: None of this really matters much, what was important was what the holy bible said to do with witches.It does matter. It matters quite a bit. How many instances of witch burning can you find documented in the period prior to the witch-crazes? Why weren't the passages you cited more influential before the 16th century? Why wasn't witch persecution more pervasive?Christendom has always had some active part in determining what does and does not stand as Biblical canon, and even where the canon was firmly set by a regard for tradition, interpretation made it possible to shift emphasis towards certain passages and away from other passages. Even the passages ostensibly about witchcraft are liable to differences in translation, and so far as I know, it isn't at all definite that they refer to any tradition of witchcraft that would have been recognizable to the medieval. It would have been entirely possible, and perhaps more correct, for the medievals -- who were still working directly with Latin and Hebrew texts -- to have translated "witch" a different way.The fact is, the witch masters general chose to interpret scripture a certain way, and from that interpretation, they elaborated a very specific, non-canonical mythology that allowed them to persecute certain undesireables within their communities. The biblical influence was indirect, and without it, they would have simply found another way to persecute the same individuals.Examples of charges were actions like missing church, working on the Sabbath, using herbal remedies; even a negative comment about a church sermon could be damning evidence during the witch trials in Salem.Would these have been offensive actions without religion?What you don't seem to understand is that these were also indications of political dissidence. Not attending church was indicative not of atheism, but of schism -- it implied (whether truly or falsely) that the accused was practicing a different tradition within their own home, and that put them in suspicion of any number of radical beliefs that were just as political as they were religious. Again, look at the episode in historical context -- were people being burned at the stake for missing church in the 14th and 13th centuries? What changed between then and the 16th and 17th centuries?It's all too easy to look at the witch-crazes apart from their historical circumstances. They occured in a period of radical social upheaval, when the side one took on the issue of Reformation also implicated what side they were likely to take on the issues of political governance and legal sanction. To think that those issues didn't play a very large part in the witch-crazes is absurd.

[Mr. P]

Quote:I really don't feel the inclination or energy to rehash this debate yet again, but suffice it to say that science provides no real basis for talking about a great deal of the things that we take to be socially meaningfulHe hath spoken...it must be true. Cower, inferior creatures that doubt his word...We are not talking about "love, respect..." we are talking about a god people insist is real that in no way can be shown to exist! And we are also talking about thoughts that give people the feeling that they have the justification to kill others based on total flights of fancy. We are then asked to just accept these things and not hold them accountable for the atrocities that they enable. All this from something that is most likely a figment of the imagination. You are steering things into a direction that has no bearing on this topic. And who says that science cannot speak about "love, respect..."? You have proven nothing with your past discussions...so please do NOT rehash it again. My position is that since all our actions and thoughts come from biological systems that make us a living being, then science can indeed speak about these things.Quote:It does matter. It matters quite a bit. How many instances of witch burning can you find documented in the period prior to the witch-crazes? Are you implying that there was no witch hunting prior to the 16th century? None at all? Because if there were some cases, then Franks point is valid. Just because it reached a fever pitch in the time period generally know to be the "Witch Hunts" in our history, does not take away from what Frank is saying or the fact that the witch craze is born from religious thought.The book I linked previously in the thread covers the 'existence' of Witchcraft from 400-1700 CE. Seems to me there are some cases of it prior to the 16th century. Or are those centuries prior to the strawman of the 16th century insignificant in your case to deny that the whole thing is rooted in faulty ways of thinking? I know you already attached a stigma to it by denigrating the primary source nature of the work (although I remember in the past that you attacked another work for NOT using primary sources), but obviously there is enough of a history prior to the 16th century to have had a portion of a book written about it.I was enjoying your absence...Mr. P. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George CarlinI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy PiperEdited by: misterpessimistic  at: 3/22/07 3:56 pm

[Frank 013]

Quote:MadScience provides no real basis for talking about a great deal of the things that we take to be socially meaningful -- ie. love, respect, sensibility -- save in terms that are so reductive that they leave little room for actually experiencing those things as meaningful.Science does address these matters, from the brains chemical process, to their evolutionary needs and development. Sociology and psychology help explain how we think, and why we think and believe the way we do. They try to help us understand these emotions and their uses and abuses in human history.These sciences are not perfect, but what human endeavor is? Quote:MadThey'd only be statistically detectable if they interacted with normative processes in a consistent, predictable manner. According to you they would then be natural occurrences.Quote:MadEither way, indifference and non-interaction are not necessarily the same thing.It still does not matter, the result is the same, these things if they do exist are undetectable, unresponsive and either unable or unwilling to effect our reality. In any case they are as useful as nothing. Quote:MadSlight? I think you're confusing two different scenarios. In one, non-orthodox behavior was taken as an indicator of allegiance to an usurped tradition, as a potential act of rebellion. But why? Do you really believe working on Sunday would have been considered an act of rebellion had it not been for such a restrictive religious belief? Religious belief and its restrictive rules is what opened the door for these perceived "crimes" religion made the difference between petty, insignificant behavioral quirks being what they are, to becoming death warranting crimes against the people and the church. Quote:MadIn the other -- given the word "slight", I take it that you mean instances of individuals accusing other individuals of witch-craft or heresy -- no religious motivation was really necessary.I said as much, but religion is what allowed such minor actions to be considered improper in the first place. And only religious fervor could allow such minor infractions to end up with a death penalty attached.Quote:MadThe fact is, the witch masters general chose to interpret scripture a certain way, and from that interpretation, they elaborated a very specific, non-canonical mythology that allowed them to persecute certain undesirables within their communities. The biblical influence was indirect, and without it, they would have simply found another way to persecute the same individuals. I do not think so, like I said many of the infractions these people were charged with would not have been considered so without religious bigotry. And the truth is the persecutors did not even have to look very far or hard. One simple passage from the bible was so easily abused; and because their horrific idea was inspired by the churche's "divine" book they ended up with the backing of the most powerful authority of the time.Quote:MadNot attending church was indicative not of atheism, but of schism -- it implied (whether truly or falsely) that the accused was practicing a different tradition within their own home, and that put them in suspicion of any number of radical beliefs that were just as political as they were religious. Again, it is not likely that these actions would have been considered so without the restrictive, absoluteness of church doctrine backing up those principles. Quote:MadWere people being burned at the stake for missing church in the 14th and 13th centuries? to my knowledge there were witch burnings if that is what you are asking, and much of the reasoning was as petty as missing church. Quote:MadWhat changed between then and the 16th and 17th centuries?Religious fraction, the threat of the educated exposing religious doctrine as false... the list goes on, basically a once great power was feeling that it was loosing its grip on the people, and it was. Fear, guilt, persecution, and conspiracy became the new tools of the church in order to maintain control. Later

[halofrisbeechamp]

Wow. Somehow this topic has gone from "is there or is there not 'God," to, "what things happen in societies when people believe in or enforce beliefs about God, in a group setting, and what things happen when groups of people, don't, believe the same stuff, and how and why people get persecuted and killed or at least annoyingly controlled by either"....Ahem....

[Mr. P]

Dont ya just love tangents? I do.Mr. P. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George CarlinI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[irishrosem]

I think this happens a lot when we talk, period. Edited by: irishrosem at: 3/23/07 10:57 am

[Frank 013]

This happens a lot when we talk about religion. Later

[Frank 013]

So true. Later