Orson Scott Card article about Mitt R./LDS ideas about God

Page 1 of 1 [ 11 posts ] 

i_Am_andaJoy
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,268
Location: Ocala, FL

13 Dec 2007, 8:48 pm

This is a link to an article written by Orson Scott Card (the author of Ender's Game) that i particularly liked.

http://deseretnews.com/article/1%2C5143 ... %2C00.html

(the math discussion especially. :wink: )



lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,618
Location: Somerset UK

13 Dec 2007, 10:01 pm

I like Orson Scott Card's books.

I struggled through the article.

I found the mathematical dialogue particularly revealing. Two sides, each with random belief systems, using the same geometric analogy, where neither of them have the slightest idea what geometry is all about. Camels and eyes of needles all over again.

Three lines can certainly be parallel and touch at every point, even with plain Euclidean geometry. What's more fun is to have a geometry where three lines (shortest routes between two points, say) can be coexistent for part of their travel, but distinct elsewhere.

The last paragraph of the article is quite nice, although technically, it does end by loosely implying that one does have to have SOME sort of belief about God. I prefer to have no beliefs whatsoever. I choose to behave in an honourable manner. I do not do so by rote, for fear of punishment, or in expectation of reward.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


i_Am_andaJoy
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,268
Location: Ocala, FL

14 Dec 2007, 9:23 am

lau wrote:
I like Orson Scott Card's books.

Camels and eyes of needles all over again.



?

well, a camel CAN pass through this pass-- the eye of the needle. and most people do get it confused because they think "sewing needle" instead... but i will admit i do not know enough about math to see how it is like a camel all over again. :)

i like his books too.


_________________
www.asaspiepie.blogspot.com
Even in his lowest swoop, the mountain eagle is still higher than the other birds upon the plain, even though they soar. --Herman Melville


AliceinOz
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 223
Location: Australia

14 Dec 2007, 10:45 am

i_Am_andaJoy wrote:
This is a link to an article written by Orson Scott Card (the author of Ender's Game) that i particularly liked.

http://deseretnews.com/article/1%2C5143 ... %2C00.html

(the math discussion especially. :wink: )


I liked this article. Thanks for the link.



lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,618
Location: Somerset UK

14 Dec 2007, 12:01 pm

i_Am_andaJoy wrote:
lau wrote:
I like Orson Scott Card's books.

Camels and eyes of needles all over again.



?

well, a camel CAN pass through this pass-- the eye of the needle. and most people do get it confused because they think "sewing needle" instead... but i will admit i do not know enough about math to see how it is like a camel all over again. :)

i like his books too.


If you do a search for "Camel" and "Eye of a needle" you'll find that the arguments rage on... that the "Eye of a needle" was a gate, a mountain pass, whatever... or the "Camel" was a mistranslation that should have said "rope". In fact, the consensus on all sides, these days, is that Jesus really did mean a big wobbly "ship of the desert" and a sewing needle. It's actually quite appropriate, in the context of the rest of what he says at that point.

What I meant was that the arguments about whether lines are parallel, meet, etc is totally spurious. The core problem is whether the "trinity" is meaningful in any sense. Dressing it up with bickering about a geometric analogy is an attempt to bypass discussing whether the trinity is a meaningful concept tp start with.

A lot of Jesus' teachings, I am quite happy with, once they are stripped of their supernatural trappings. Specious squabbling over the details of G, S and HG I can live without.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


Snowfern
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 145
Location: Singapore

14 Dec 2007, 12:26 pm

i'm a huge fan of his books, i don't understand the article though.

:-/


_________________
"Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist." ? Philip K Dick


i_Am_andaJoy
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,268
Location: Ocala, FL

14 Dec 2007, 12:31 pm

lau wrote:
If you do a search for "Camel" and "Eye of a needle" you'll find that the arguments rage on... that the "Eye of a needle" was a gate, a mountain pass, whatever... or the "Camel" was a mistranslation that should have said "rope". In fact, the consensus on all sides, these days, is that Jesus really did mean a big wobbly "ship of the desert" and a sewing needle. It's actually quite appropriate, in the context of the rest of what he says at that point.


ah, well i will take your word that the debate rages on, because i personally don't think it's that hugely important whether the camel/eye thing is impossible or just merely difficult, i was more trying to understand what you meant, which you have now further explained...

lau wrote:
What I meant was that the arguments about whether lines are parallel, meet, etc is totally spurious. The core problem is whether the "trinity" is meaningful in any sense. Dressing it up with bickering about a geometric analogy is an attempt to bypass discussing whether the trinity is a meaningful concept tp start with.


ahh. well i disagree that the "core problem is whether the trinity is meaningful in any sense" in the context of this article. if one is searching for God/religion, then sure it's relevent, but i took the analogy as just trying to point out that math skill or lack thereof is not neccesarily going to make a good President.


lau wrote:
A lot of Jesus' teachings, I am quite happy with, once they are stripped of their supernatural trappings. Specious squabbling over the details of G, S and HG I can live without.


i thought the point of the article was to try and show that "squabbling over the details" when both sides believe in Christianity IS silly, and not what you should base your vote for President on either way.


_________________
www.asaspiepie.blogspot.com
Even in his lowest swoop, the mountain eagle is still higher than the other birds upon the plain, even though they soar. --Herman Melville


lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,618
Location: Somerset UK

14 Dec 2007, 2:59 pm

i_Am_andaJoy wrote:
...
lau wrote:
A lot of Jesus' teachings, I am quite happy with, once they are stripped of their supernatural trappings. Specious squabbling over the details of G, S and HG I can live without.


i thought the point of the article was to try and show that "squabbling over the details" when both sides believe in Christianity IS silly, and not what you should base your vote for President on either way.

Ah! And by that, I think you have proved my point. The way that the argument over a detail of doctrine (dogma) has left you with the transferred idea that you should only vote for a Christian. Subtle stuff. Think through what you say above.

Note that the article starts off specifically saying that NOT being Christian is NOT a bar from office (which I think actually depends on what state you reside in?), and finishes up talking about honour, but halfway through has seemingly been showing how the Church of the Latter Day Saints is somehow the "honourable" one.

Basically, it keeps changing subject, drawing in premises as it goes along, and finishes with "we're the ones to provide a proper president".

I have a rather low opinion of all religions. While they appear to do some good, I have yet to be convinced that that good stems from the religion itself. Plus religions and their bureaucracies are so often corrupt and intolerant. I don't need a god. I can be good without that.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


i_Am_andaJoy
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,268
Location: Ocala, FL

15 Dec 2007, 12:17 am

lau wrote:
Ah! And by that, I think you have proved my point. The way that the argument over a detail of doctrine (dogma) has left you with the transferred idea that you should only vote for a Christian. Subtle stuff. Think through what you say above.


you are incorrect. i have not been left with the transfered idea that i should only vote for a Christian at all.


_________________
www.asaspiepie.blogspot.com
Even in his lowest swoop, the mountain eagle is still higher than the other birds upon the plain, even though they soar. --Herman Melville


DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

15 Dec 2007, 12:37 am

Well, Lau, while the US Constitution only addresses the question of whether religious tests should be permitted for national offices (and, incidentally, for some of our neocon neighbors, that's a resounding "no"), the states have generally taken this to apply to themselves, as well. Not familiar with most state constitutions, but it is specifically disallowed by the state of Washington...


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,618
Location: Somerset UK

15 Dec 2007, 12:55 pm

Sorry DeaconBlues... I've put too many double negatives into what I posted to work it out for sure. I gather (from more superficial research) that the US constitution says something about no tests of religion.

I gather the constitution is rather contradicted by the 1954 change to the pledge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

I.e. To be a US citizen, you must sincerely take the pledge, and therefore must understand that you obliged to believe in the concept of "God" (admittedly, not specifically a Christian one, though at least monotheism seems to be a requirement).

I assume you can only hold hold public office if you are a US citizen?


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer