“What sort of thing offends you, Mr. Cavett?” an interviewer asked me recently. “In other words, what to you is politically incorrect.”This is exactly so. Twain’s book is a brilliant, gentle yet scathing condemnation of racism, a fact that is completely missed by “those of less than fully formed cerebral development”, those whose first and only intent is to be offended, mindlessly so. Not surprisingly these folks are not offended by Leftist government programs which keep black ghettos, ghettos. Nor are they offended at the hugely disproportionate deaths of blacks in utero. As Alveda King has said, the most dangerous place for a black person to be is in the uterus.
“Anything that is politically correct.”
Such as?
“Well, the infantilism of the phrase “the n-word,” for example, and of those of less than fully formed cerebral development who have bowdlerized Mark Twain’s masterpiece because of the references to Huck’s beloved friend in the authentic vernacular of the time. I hate to spoil the fun of the benighted and alleged educators who have even pulled this great book from the school shelves, but Jim is the moral center of the story.”
I wonder what the magnificently irascible and insightful Twain would write about today’s world.
17 comments:
The gods offer no rewards for intellect. There was never one yet that showed any interest in it.
-- Mark Twain
A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows.
-- Mark Twain
If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be -- a Christian.
-- Mark Twain
The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive ... but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born.
-- Mark Twain
The man certainly could turn a phrase. It would be indeed be fascinating to hear his insights on todays world.
I agree they should leave the book as is. Words hold no power we choose not to give them.
Anonymous (please choose a moniker)
It is simple to find and quote Twain's rage and war against God. It's a little more difficult to understand his motivation. Twain's rage developed when he lost his beloved daughter, and Twain lost his sense of balance and became enraged at God and devoted himself to bitterly punishing God for the rest of his life. For the most part he attacked man-made religious ecclesiasticism; I am not aware that he defeated the necessary existence of an intelligent, powerful first cause for the universe.
Twain's later grief-driven bilious bitterness in no way detracts from his incredible ability to construct and wordsmith his insights in his earlier life.
It's religion that does the harm. Not a God, obviously. Imaginary friends only have the powers that we grant them. A lot like words in that way.
It seems quite clear from his quotes that he derided religiosity because it stultifies the intellect.
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.
-Bertrand Russell
"We know that reason is the devil's harlot, and can do nothing but slander and harm all that god says and does." - Martin Luther
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:17)
Ah the cult of the intellect, which is freed by its own self-worship from examining its own limitations.
Why not make a point. Is it that "religion does the harm"? I'm sure you would tell that to the Chinese Communists and they would be glad to hear it. Have you ever spoken to anyone who escaped Russia under the Stalinists? Where is your evidence? In fact where is your evidence for Atheism or materialism? Your claim to intellectual superiority must certainly be evidence based, so kindly share it here.
Or is your belief in your superiority not actually supported with material evidence which you can share with us?
The above quotes support the assertion that religion is antithetical to knowledge and reason.
The point is obviously that religion rejects reason, and if you reject reason, you are stupid.
Do I have this straight: Your entire case is based on those quotes? As an Appeal to Authority argument? You have no actual evidence to present to support your case?
You don't consider quotes from foundational text and mainstream religious leaders evidence of the religious position?
Science has questions that may not be answered, religion has answers that may not be questioned.
~Anonymous
Sam,
Welcome, and let's discuss your positions, which seem to be represented currently with quotes rather than statements of your own thoughts. Perhaps you could make statements of your belief system or worldview which we could discuss.
Religious teachers who take worship upon themselves are ecclesiastics who add their own home made brew to the idea of an intelligent first cause for the orderly universe. When that happens it is false. But that doesn't reflect on the issue of theism, it reflects on those who teach fallacy and those who believe it. Theism is a type of philosophy which is independent of any person.
The use of wit and witticism is no replacement for careful considered thought based on solid fundamental logical principles and processes. And the use of isolated quotes, say from Twain, do not reflect the context within which the statements are made. These are made as examples of wit, not of rational analysis.
For example, the anonymous claim you make above is seen as an attempt for clever reversal replacement of subject with predicate which seems to place an inversion in the concept. This would be thought of as wit, but certainly not as logic, because it is neither specific (what religion exactly are we speaking of here, Buddism?), nor is it valid either strictly nor generally. Most damaging is that it presents the inversion as fact with no underlying support in terms of valid sets of which this would be claimed to be a part, as would be necessarly done in a syllogism.
Mistaking wit for logic and rational process is very common, but it seems to be an intellectual maturity issue, where a dispassionate pursuit of knowledge ultimately replaces sarcasm and wit as logic falls into place.
Do you have a position which you would care to discuss?
Thanks for the welcome.
All the quotes but the last were of the observational kind, not an attempt at humor or witticism. I thought you would have noticed my own comments alongside the quotes, which fleshed out my thoughts regarding the subject.
But that is a most excellent question. What religion are we talking about? I'm assuming RC Christian, but since there are something in the order of 30000 sects of Christianity, I could use the clarification.
You are disregarding ML as a religious authority? What about the Bible? The Pope? What authority do you accept?
Presenting a coherent syllogism does not necessarily makes for a valid argument. For example
1) If objective morality exists, God exists.
2) Objective Morality exists
3) Therefore God exists.
This syllogism sounds valid, yet obviously has holes in it large enough to drive a truck through.
"Do you have a position which you would care to discuss?"
Faith is antithetical to reason? The bible offers no praise of the intellect? Christ wouldn't be a Christian today? The Church opposes progress? Religion does harm? Religion stultifies the intellect? Rejection of reason is foolish?
I'd be more than happy to discuss any of these positions which I hold.
Hello Sam,
What I focus on as the purpose of this blog is the position of Atheism that there exists no deity. By deity I mean a first cause for the universe which is powerful enough to accomplish that and intelligent enough to put order in place. My challenge is for Atheists to prove that position, using their favored technique which is empirical science to provide material, replicable and falsifiable evidence for their belief.
Religion is a second order, human embellishment which doesn't serve to falsify the existence of a deity, no matter how egregiously false the religion might be. What religious leaders say about the existence of a deity has no effect on the fact; facts are independent of our opinions about them.
Now for rejection of reason. I do not reject reason. I hold that Atheism, which rejects the first principles of logic, rejects reason, and I can demonstrate that. In fact, your rejection of syllogistic logic is a case in point: every syllogism is merely opinion based on other opinion, unless the second proposition is traceable back to principles which are unquestionably valid. No logician would accept you syllogism, unless you can demonstrate a true objective moral, one which does not violate evolution for example. (Slaughter of offspring is an approved evolutionary technique: male lions, after killing the former dominant male and taking over his pride, kill all the prior owner's offspring with no moral qualms). So syllogisms,in the absence of an absolute base, are merely opinions which are based on other opinions in an infinite chain of opinions: the opinion infinite regress. Many Atheists reject absolutes, and some do so angrily. But they cannot absolutely prove the absolute non-existence of absolutes, whereas a metalogician can demonstrate a universal coherence that serves as an adequate absolute for a logical base that stops the regress at a point of unchallengeable validity.
So would you care to discuss logic and metalogic first, or objective morals?
As I mentioned, religion is what does the harm. Very similar to an imaginary being, I do not see how the existence of a god can be disproved. I can think of innumerable ways to prove his existence, but each has been disregarded by the religious as not applicable to their concept of god.
I certainly agree that what religious leaders say about the existence of a deity has no bearing on the facts of the matter.
I'm pleased that you reject the syllogism of objective morality therefore god. I've had that presented many times by theists and it is incredibly hard to explain to them how wrong they are. You might be surprised that many 'sophisticated' theologians find that a compelling argument.
You didn't answer what religion we were talking about, or if you accept the bible as divine.??
Logic, metalogic and objective morality wasn't actually in the list of things I suggested. Maybe I'll flip through your site some more and see if I can find some logical things I disagree with.
Hi again
Read through your First Principles and would like to point out what I think is a large flaw.
d. However, if the First Principles are true, then intuition of truth is assumed a valid technique; therefore, skepticism is neither absolute nor is it immune to argument.
This is invalid. The First Principles are true because they are observable or to be otherwise would be incoherent. You then label that to be known by intuition. Therefore intuition is a valid means of knowing. That seems obviously false to me, so if you'd like to discuss that, I'm game.
To say that the first principles are valid based solely on observation is to be susceptible to the Inductive Fallacy. To say that the first principles are valid solely due to their coherence is a Fallacy of Circularity because it uses a first principle to judge the first principles.
These two methods, taken together, do not prove the validity of the first principles, but they do serve as comfort in judging the first principles to be valid, a judgment which must be done intuitively. One infers that if the first principles are not valid, then logic fails; this is an intuition, not a proof, because for all we know, logic does fail and we are duped into thinking it valid.
Our intuition, however, tells us otherwise. And that is supported by observation and coherence methods as double checks.
It is sometimes said that the first principles are known to be true by inspection. This is the definition of axioms, which are either presumed valid without questioning their validity or source, or are seen intuitively to be atomically valid with no need of a superior source to validate them.
Right. They seem intuitively true, because they seem to match all our experiences.
So they are checked for consistency and non-contradiction. They then are measured against observation.
Because you cannot get any more basic than what exists, exists, they become the First Principles.
Your error is to then conclude that intuition alone is a valid means of knowing, neglecting to recognize that intuition is built upon experience.
The error is then compounded by claiming that FP are known only by intuition. Then claiming that since Naturalism is based upon the FP, it is based on intuition.
It seems to get worse after that, but maybe you can clear that up for me before I point out where you assert seemingly out of nowhere that transcendence is proven a valid source of both information and ethical value statements.
Keep in mind that I have no issue with the FP, but with the inferences you draw from them.
I would also like to know what religion we were talking about, and if you consider the bible divine. 1 or 2 word answers would cover it, I don't expect you to immediately justify it, I'm just looking for some background.
I realize we are far afield from the original topic. Perhaps a new thread is called for?
Since by examining with non-contradiction and consistency, you are using the first principles to check themselves, and that is clearly circular, then perhaps I don’t understand your thought process. If you are objecting to intuition as the source of apprehension, then we can discuss that, especially in terms of Pyrrhonianism and Solipsism. Is that where you are headed?
Because experience is not really the source of our knowledge that we truly experience our suposed environs; there is no known solution to the brain-in-a-vat conundrum (unless you have one), and because of those types of issues, we must intuit whether our senses are providing valid input or contrived input or perhaps we are deluded or illuded. The only way to avoid intuition is to outright deny it... because your intuition tells you it cannot exist. A non-coherence.
On my part I am not discussing any religion nor do I defend any religious rites or artifacts, nor do I defend any religious writings nor leader's claims: there are ample sources elsewhere for that. Religion is man-made; I commonly refer to it as ecclesiasticism, because religion is too vague a term to mean much and despite its vagueness it carries much baggage which varies for each individual.
What I discuss here is twofold: first, whether it is reasonable to posit a first cause, or whether Atheists can refute it using the evidence they demand of other belief systems (empiricism) to justify their own belief system; and second, whether the claims Atheists make stand up to logical scrutiny using standard logic practices based on First Principles.
I am willing to change my position on intuition if you can provide empirical proof of its non-existence. But my experience is that materialism demands far more of others than it can produce for itself. Perhaps you will surprise me.
We can continue this here, or at the latest post whenever that arises, or over at the Challenge to Atheists which is always available at the side-bar: your choice.
I welcome the conversation.
Your error is to conclude that intuition alone is a valid means of knowing.
That is my contention.
I am not claiming its non-existence, I am claiming that intuition alone is not a pathway to knowledge.
I hope that is clear. If you accept I will post either on your latest post or the challenge post.
If we are going to have a proper argument, I would also like to lay out some basic ground rules so we are on the same page.
http://i.imgur.com/OrNZz.jpg
Post a Comment