From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:08:45 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: ingles@finch.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)

In article <5#g+lfB@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@finch (Ray Ingles) writes:
>> You have controlled studies otherwise?  Good grief--is this just another
>> yes no! yes! no!! debate?  Gag me with a Canaanite.

> So why did you start it?

I didn't "start" anything.  I have actual experience that pure honesty
is sometimes defective, and I mentioned it.  I had--sometimes instanta-
neously--feedback about what worked and what didn't.  I saw the cause
and effect of spelling out too much "truth" as a student would freeze
or the like.

>> So you have your opinion about what's good, I have mine.  Who cares?

> Rob was the one who was asking *us.*

Because someone was going on an anti-Bible rampage, saying it's of no
use to anyone, etc.

|| ||||We're discussing ethics, not survival.  How about "not stealing" or "not
|| ||||torturing insects" or "share your toys with your baby sister"?  The
|| ||||negative consequences are incredibly more subtle than burning your hand.

>> >>>The reason I don't do those things is because the negative consequences,
>> >>>while subtle, are in general(IMHO) worse than the short term gain.

>> >>And kids grasp this, no problem?  You must be kidding.

>> >It takes time to grasp, yes. So do most new concepts. So what?
>> >Programming them through myth isn't instantaneous either.

>> Stories have a way of entering the young mind and lasting there quite
>> strongly.  Lectures have a way of disappearing instantaneously.

> For the third time, who said anything about "lectures?"

See the reinserted ||s above.  Learning to not do a negative is not
as easy as learning to do a positive.  Parents lecture their children
all the time, especially regarding the negatives.

>							  I learned
>much of my 'moral values' by watching my parents every day. It's
>comparable to giving a lecture, and then going out and doing it
>with the lecture as a guide.

This is good for the positives.  But for the negatives?

>> I once ran into a calculus student of mine five years after she was in
>> my section.  What did she remember of my lectures?  Nothing.  Except a
>> few of the stories I told, like the one about Max and Min(nie) Mouse.
>> *I* remember the calculus, but not the stories!

> Case in point. I'll bet she didn't do the homework, or did it at
>the last minute. The lectures are supposed to give you a framework
>for thinking about the problems, and if you don't do the problems,
>they're forgotten.

Actually, she was a good student, and did her homework regularly.  She
just had no reason to really know calculus other than as a requirement.

> But you can't "not do the homework" for 'moral' behavior. You have
>choices every moment and you have to balance the consequences. Your
>parents' examples, it seems to me, count more when you're deciding
>things than any number of stories.

Right.  But if your parents sit down with you and read a story, that has
a very strong effect too.

>> Exactly my point.  I simply do not consider whether it is to my advantage
>> or not to cheat in a given situation, and find such thinking abhorrent.

> You aren't noticing that we behave in exactly the same manner save
>for extreme situations like the end of the world when you won't be
>writing any more checks.

I think the differences show up a lot sooner than the extreme situations.
But discussing the extreme makes the differences clearly.

> He was asking why we don't generally use myths and fables in teaching
>moral valuse to children. He was apparently implying that this was somehow
>incomprehensible or something.

Actually, I find the idea of parents not sitting down and reading to their
children regularly totally incomprehensible.

>> You only find it questionable because your experiences are not the same
>> as ours.  Rob _has_ found the Bible useful.  You haven't.  And you won't,
>> because you do not read the Bible in a Jewish context.

> Then Rob was making an assertion that he should have known cannot be
>understood outside of his (and your) own context. Why bother? And
>why blame us for saying, "We don't accept that asserion?"

Anyone who falsely states the Bible doesn't work period for people is
going to get a rejoinder.  The evangelists will try to sell it to you,
but I think most of us Jews would be happy to meet halfway: you can
take it or leave it, but please don't speak in absolutist terms. 

>> We are not Biblical literalists.  We have Midrashim, Aggada, commentaries,
>> supercommentaries, etc that tell a much different picture than you get
>> from the literal text.

>Oh, so "texts" in and of themselves are not useful, they must be
>actively interpreted. Well, great. Maybe you should have made that
>clear earlier.

I've said it repeatedly, long before Eric brought it up: Judaism is not
literalism, and criticism based on literalism is a strawman.

> Now, what's the advantage of explaining a text that explains why you
>should do this or not do that, and explaining things directly?
> Mind you, answers like, "The second one does not work" will not be
>accepted, since that isn't true.

In the Jewish context, there's a clear answer: it's our heritage.  We want
to do more than transmit ethics to our children--we want to transmit their
heritage.

But in general--well, I'm not going to give a lecture on the uses of
literature.  You ask the question in rec.arts.books, and you'll get
flamed as a heathen or uneducated lout of the lowest sort.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism