What ticks me off about some sorts of "proofs" of Mystical Revealed Knowledge

[xiphias]

I saw a really, really cool lecture/show/thing tonight, and this is not a reaction to that show, but rather a reaction to a comment that a person in the audience had . . . that sort of "question" that is actually a five minute lecture of their OWN beliefs that takes time away from the person that you're ACTUALLY there to hear. . .

So: this sort of Mystical Revealed Knowledge could be proofs of Creationism, could be related to the Mayan Calendar ending (which actually simply means that the Mayans have to replace their Fifth Cycle Hot Firefighters calendar with the new Cute Puppies calendar for Sixth Cycle), proof that the Illuminati are behind everything, or, in THIS person's case, talking about how the sound of words reveals Significant Secret Knowledge.

"You can listen to the sounds of words! And then you hear connections between them!"

Yeah. That's right. BECAUSE THEY'RE FROM THE SAME DAMN ROOTS! Yes. There ARE connections. They were PUT there by the people who USE the language over time. Sometimes people use puns to tell stories, too. They're not SECRET MESSAGES FROM THE UNIVERSE -- they're things people do either directly on purpose, or indirectly, as ways to help their societies' express useful concepts.

It just struck me the same way as that whole Kirk Cameron "the banana is proof of Divine Intelligent Design" thing. Yes, you're RIGHT that the banana fits humans perfectly -- because HUMANS ENGINEERED IT over hundreds of years of careful breeding.

This person with the "SECRET MESSAGES FROM LANGUAGE" and "bananas, therefore Creationism" are appropriating human accomplishments and assigning them to some sort of Divine force. There may well be a Divine force doing things, but it's not cool to take human accomplishments and credit them to It. It's just an insult to my entire species.

Comments

[chanaleh.livejournal.com]

"You can listen to the sounds of words! And then you hear connections between them!"

Um! Like, within the same language, or across languages?

On a related note, are you familiar with Edenics? and Isaac Mozeson? I kind of love it.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Within the same language, mostly. . .

Edenics . . . that was a really big thing -- back in pre-Renaissance times . . .

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Why am I reminded of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

This person with the "SECRET MESSAGES FROM LANGUAGE" and "bananas, therefore Creationism" are appropriating human accomplishments and assigning them to some sort of Divine force. There may well be a Divine force doing things, but it's not cool to take human accomplishments and credit them to It. It's just an insult to my entire species.

I agree that it's offensive to use this reasoning to support creationism. I'm not sure it's intrinsically offensive to credit human accomplishments to divine forces. I've seen it done in ways I consider respectable. ("G-d made us invent safety goggles so we wouldn't go blind, but you still need to put them on, you irresponsible git!") I'm sure some of my sense that this older usage is ok is just transferring over from my feeling that it's ok to try to make people wear safety goggles, but not ok to try to make people believe in creationism. I realize I'm not making a rigorous argument here.

[(Anonymous)]

Proximate vs. Ulitmate cause... nothing in the fact that the proximate cause is a human agency prevents the ultimate cause from being Divine; Divine beings *can* sometimes claim responsibility (and be held accountable) for the effects of human action. My favorite example is Christ's... er... crucifiction - God did it.

But... it doesn't work in reverse: you can't claim an effect requires Divine action if it can be shown that a human agency is sufficient.

C.