It seems that a lot of people have issues with burning books. Burning books is wrong, they tell me. But why? I think that being anti-book burning is something people picked up from being kids. They learned burning books is bad. They learned that burning books is only for the Nazis. They learned one should never burn a book because all books are valuable even if we disagree with them. And so forth.
But I have a question. What about People Magazine? That is valuable intellectual content? I disagree, it is a poison to one's mind and virtue. People Magazine is a waste of ink and paper. And so I find absolutely nothing wrong with burning it.
The Bible is a despicable book. I do not think the Bible (altogether) should be destroyed. Because I do not believe ideas should be destroyed. The material in the Bible has to be preserved because it is important if we want to understand how history turned out to be. If we cannot understand why people did what they did since we do not have what the Bible says then we will not be able to why history turned out the way it did. So I am not saying the Bible (altogether) should be destroyed.
What I am saying is different. Suppose you want to start a fire. But you cannot find a good source for fire. Suddenly you remember that you have a Bible lying around your house that you do not need. Why not put the book to good use, for once, and start a fire with a Bible?
Burning books that you disagree with is perfectly fine. As long as you do not burn actual people. I have no problem with burning the Bible or the Mein Kampf.
Obviously, the only problem with burning a Torah is that it is just too expensive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
> Burning books that you disagree with is perfectly fine. As long as you do not burn actual people.
ReplyDeleteHistory shows that people who burn books inevitably follow up by burning the people who wrote them.
seems okay to me if you need the fire
ReplyDelete"History shows that people who burn books inevitably follow up by burning the people who wrote them.":
ReplyDeleteSo if I burn Torah books today then tomorrow I will burn you?
Can you show me the connection from books to people. Show me how I get from one to another.
Garnel, you are aware that some Rabbis burned the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchiim because they thought it was heretical. I'm not aware that the Rambam was burned, however
ReplyDeleteI will be burning "Ethics" this very evening. A more worthless book has never been written.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Spinoza wouldn't mind if the Humble Host doesn't like his work
ReplyDelete"I will be burning Ethics this very evening. A more worthless book has never been written.":
ReplyDeleteIf Ethics is worthless then I wonder how useful the Torah actually is. The Torah is nothing but a book of obedience to a celestial fascist.
But if you wish to burn the Ethics, then go ahead. You might also want to burn Newton's Principia and Euclid's Elements while you are at it. I value Principia and Elements more than Ethics. So if you want to burn books that I value the most go after Newton and Euclid.
"You might also want to burn Newton's Principia and Euclid's Elements while you are at it. "
ReplyDeleteMaybe you can do me a favor and switch this blog to printed form. That would help me in my quest to burn things that you value.
"Maybe you can do me a favor and switch this blog to printed form. That would help me in my quest to burn things that you value.":
ReplyDeleteI do not really value this blog so much. This blog sucks. So far I had 187 posts and only 2 followers. What an embarrasment. I am a failure of a human being. You would waste fire on me. Better stick to Principia and Elements.
I did not mention Principia and Elements. I mentioned Ethics. I would not burn math books. They are not comparable to a philosophy text; even though as descriptions of reality they are both wrong in the same way that the biblical description of creation is wrong. Its just a matter of degree.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I could of course print out the 187 posts on paper of any dimension in order to control the size of my blaze.
"even though as descriptions of reality they are both wrong in the same way":
ReplyDeleteMath is a terrible description of reality. But somehow, ironically, when we want to calculate how to send a space ship into orbit we use math. When the ancient Greeks calculated the size of the earth and the distance to sun they used math. When physicists want to calculate what goes on in the quantum level to arbitrary degree of precision they use mathematical methods. So I guess you are right. Math is a terrible way to describe reality, but somehow, strangely, we use it. Why is that?
Mathematics is increasingly accurate when describing a certain slice of reality, namely that portion that we can measure using our senses to start and as we develop, other tools. For some time Mathematics as a tool to describe reality has been increasingly running up against fundamental limitations that we have not found a way around. It may well be that we ultimately figure out a way to test some of the assumptions underlying say M Theory, but for now, all we have are increasingly bizarre models of reality that are fantastically complex and totally out of keeping with our day to day experiences. Warped Passages is in my view the best book that describes these difficulties but take your pick. Ultimately it may well be that our understanding of what really constitutes the fabric of the universe or multiverse is inconceivably small. On a universal scale we may have the equivalent of a mollusks understanding of the true workings of things. For that reason alone, we should refrain from triumphal statements about the non-existance of God. The plain fact is we no-nothing whatever.
ReplyDelete> Can you show me the connection from books to people. Show me how I get from one to another.
ReplyDeleteSure. Why are books burned in the first place? Because someone is opposed to the ideas the books espouse. They don't want those ideas getting around, they don't want people thinking about them so they destroy the books to prevent that from happening.
How far a leap of logic is it to realize that since you're destroying the books because of the ideas they contain you might as well destroy the group that produced the books since they believe in and espouse those same ideas?
"Mathematics is increasingly accurate when describing a certain slice of reality, namely that portion that we can measure using our senses to start and as we develop, other tools. For some time Mathematics as a tool to describe reality has been increasingly running up against fundamental limitations that we have not found a way around....":
ReplyDeleteThis is why I do not like popular science and math books, they are written in an easy manner for the general population to understand, but doing this hides a lot of stuff that is never mentioned.
You do understand that a math book on a subject, or a physics book, is written thousands of times simpler than what it actually is?
Have you ever studied physics at a high level (I did not, but I do know some of the mathematical equations that are used, but I still refrain from discussing physics because I do not know it)? Do you know mathematics at a sufficiently high level to be able to understand the mathematics that is used in something like string theory?
I doubt it. Therefore, your understanding of what goes on in the physics and math world will be faulty by just reading popular science and math books. If you are curious and appreciate science then go ahead and read those books. But do not get the impression that these books tell you everything which is going on.
"For that reason alone, we should refrain from triumphal statements about the non-existance of God.":
What can be stated without any evidence can be rejected without any evidence. Do you not think you are repeating the same God of the Gaps fallacy that people have been doing for thousands of years? Every ounce of my reason, and everything that we know in science, points to there being no God.
"Sure. Why are books burned in the first place? Because someone is opposed to the ideas the books espouse.":
You are confusing the correlation with causation. People who burn other people are correlated with book burners, but book burning is not a cause of burning people. The true cause of burning books and people is censorship. People who want to censor thought are the ones who burn people. I do not want to censor anything. I might not agree with what you say and what you believe but I will give up my life to defend your right to say it and believe it.
"Every ounce of my reason, and everything that we know in science, points to there being no God."
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of people who are scientists who disagree with that. Lets use Roger Penrose who knows more about mathematics than you do. He does not make the ridiculous and unprovable claim (at least currently) that everything we know in science points to there being no God. Nor does Stephen Hawking (who points out that God is not a necessary element but is also not unlikely). The problem that you have is you think that your beliefs represent the way things are. There are plenty of religious fanatics who believe the exact opposite with the same degree of conviction. I think that you might wish to look into the dictionary and find the word humility. Once you learn what that means you might be able to add something to the mix.
"Lets use Roger Penrose who knows more about mathematics than you do.":
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Roger Penrose is a good applied mathematician. He definitely knows more than I do. I have respect for him. Steven Hawking probably does not. Because Hawking in a physicist, not a mathematician, Penrose is (at least a mathematical physicist).
But Penrose is not religious. Nor is Steven Hawking. Nor is harldy any cosmologist and mathematical physicist that I know of.
A lot of these excellent and talented cosmologists do not say "there is no God" because they do not reject the possibilitity of deism.
I have no problem with deism at all. I never make the statement that I know there is no God (as Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson meant by it). But I do not consider that "God". What does that have anything to do with God?
I do believe that the universe is arranged in a rational manner. I have said this many times through out this blog. But I do not refer to this rationality found in nature as "God". Because that term is unnecessary for me.
I never reject deism. And I never pretend that I do. My entire objection is to religion and theism. All of these great talented and smart cosmologists that I have a lot of respect for that you will mention are not religious people. They find the whole notion of religion silly.
"He does not make the ridiculous and unprovable claim (at least currently) that everything we know in science points to there being no God.":
It is not ridiculous. There is reason to believe God created animals anymore. There is no reason to believe God created life anymore. There is no reason to believe God created the universe anymore. What is God? God is that what people substitute into the unknown.
"There are plenty of religious fanatics who believe the exact opposite with the same degree of conviction.":
Oh yes, I am an extremist. Not just in regard to skepticism but in regard to other things to. But why is extremism a bad thing if you never plan to hurt any people? You can say that religious extreminsts and I have strong convictions. And that is true. The difference is that I am a skeptical person and I try to come to all of my positions as rationally as possible. Religious extreminsits (and not just extreminists, but all religious people) do not.
"Oh yes, I am an extremist. Not just in regard to skepticism but in regard to other things to. But why is extremism a bad thing if you never plan to hurt any people?"
ReplyDeletePerhaps you never do mean to hurt any people physically. Maybe you dont view verbal barbs as hurting people. Perhaps for you, the only pain someone can feel is physical. Maybe people really are dumb and weak to feel lost without the consoling idea that we are more than just meat machines. Maybe they are.
That said, I really do not see any reason why it is necessary to taunt people. You are mortal and so are they. If you are right and there is nothing more than simple biology, you no less than they will share eternity in cold shallow graves.
Given that fact. I simply see no reason why you would write a post called "Burning the Torah". If everything you write is correct, there is still no reason to provoke people just as there is no reason to take away a childs candy.
I do not really value this blog so much. This blog sucks. So far I had 187 posts and only 2 followers.
ReplyDeleteHey Spinoza,
I read your blog regularly and love it. It is one of my favorite blogs,
"I read your blog regularly and love it. It is one of my favorite blogs.":
ReplyDeleteThank you for that, I am surprised some people actually like it. It must really suck to be married to a frum wife with kids and be non-religious. Are you ever going to come out to her? Do you love her? Do you love your kids?