|
| "Ishmael" Book Review, analysis of author's treatment of Genesis 3-4 |
|
| |
 I just wrote a lengthy post on the forum for Daniel Quinn's books, of which "Ishmael" is one. It might be a bit difficult for someone who hasn't read the book, but I provided a weak summary of Quinn's interpretation early in the post. I'm a bit worried about my own scholarship with that post. I wrote it in one go and with little editing. I tried to write without bias. Feedback appreciated. Follow-up replies on the forum are expected, which should prove interesting (especially since I'm linking you directly to them
http://quinnforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=608#608 |
|
| To add a comment to ""Ishmael" Book Review, analysis of author's treatment of Genesis 3-4" |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| August 02, 2007 |
 |
|
|
| So you're Buho, huh Eric? Wow, that looked like it took a long time to write. I couldn't find any clear flaws in your post, so I wouldn't worry too much about its scholarly-ness. Seems fine for a public forum. I guess we'll see if anyone responds now. ~mike |
|
|
| August 03, 2007 |
|
|
|
Yeah. I guess I forgot to mention my avatar is "Buho." I use Buho whenever possible, so you can do some net searches paired with some other terms and you'll probably find my writings over the last three to six years.
On a related note, I've had a lively discussion on the same Ishmael forum but on a different topic for the past week. It's coming to a close. Today I expose the illogic of the guy I was talking to on three different points. He pretty much conceded that he'd rather hold to his illogic because that's his belief. Can't argue with that! Read it here: http://quinnforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=224 Gets better on the second page. Best post of mine is probably the five-part one on the 2nd page that starts with logic. |
|
|
| August 03, 2007 |
|
|
|
Eric, interesting forum. There are some dandies in there. Here are some of my favorite quotes:
- I also do not believe in unconditional love, because unconditional love means love without boundaries which I find dogmatic. (huh?)
- If I understand the Jewish scripture correctly Lilith was created as the original woman. But she was forced to leave Eden because she finds herself Adam’s equal. (huh???)
- Death in its most abstract meaning is necessary in order for change to exist. (huh?) Life without death (change) is impossible. (huh??)
- Christianity as we know it is only possible because the Roman empire adopted it as its national religion.
- The awful truth of evolution is that the more advanced you become, the more you fear evolution…(huuuhhhh??)
- I do not need a priest or a god to teach what is right (=what works) and what is evil (= what doesn’t work).
Alright, enough of that. Better you than me, I wouldn't have the patience. Seriously, I read many of your responses too, you appear to have a gifting in breaking down these bizarre "arguments" and countering with something they might understand. You also have a familiarity with "taker/leaver" theory whatever that is (is it a fictional construct, or Quinn's actual believes?)...
G'nite!
~mike |
|
|
| August 03, 2007 |
|
|
|
Yeah, I addressed each of those "huhs." They're quite peculiar! I think by "unconditional love" he meant "limitless love" not the "if..than..else" conditional. His definition of death was "the ceasing of life" and his defintion of life was somehow dependent upon death, which is a circular argument, a logical fallacy, not to mention not based in biological evidence. Lilith was a new one on me.
I think the Taker/Leaver theory is Quinn's brain child, something he truly believes. His book was too serious, and he has a small legion of fans that believe his theory is valid. I realized today the theory is built on relativism, which is a self-refuting philosophy (see my new comment on my very first blog for some gold). His theory is also based on the assumption that mold-to-man evolution is fact and that God does not interact with this planet (Naturalism, Deism, Materialism). |
|
|
| August 03, 2007 |
|
|
|
If I ever need a definition for an -ism, I will likely come to you Eric. 
It is always so interesting to me what nonsense people will believe. Someone once said if you don't believe the Bible you'll believe anything. (Ravi?) I see examples of this almost daily. |
|
|
| August 03, 2007 |
|
|
|
Some more thoughts on Taker/Leaver theory.
The way it's portrayed: the "civilized" world are the Takers. The "primitive" cultures are the Leavers. Takers believe the world was made for them and they were meant to rule/conquer/subdue it. Takers believe they have the one Truth and force Leavers to their view, that only they are right. Leavers believe they were made for the world. They do not possess the truth, but believe they can find the truth by emulating nature. Nature gives them three rules: do not exeterminate competitors; do not destroy competitors' food; you may deny your competitors access to what you are eating, but not ALL the food. The Takers are violating all those rules, and it's leading to the extinction of thousands of organisms, overpopulation, ills, sicknesses, etc. Leavers, meanwhile, seek to live in harmony with nature. Quinn associates Christianity with Takers, even though it had Leaver roots (Hebrew herders). Jesus was a Leaver.
From a Christian perspective, I believe true Christianity is a combination of both Taker and Leaver. The world was made for us, we were meant to rule it, but we are not to destroy the world, we are to be good stewards. We possess absolute truth (the bane of relativism). Since I think Christianity slices up the Taker/Leaver dichotomy, that's another reason I think his theory is bunk.
Nevertheless, I think there are a few kernels of truth Christians can learn from. This world is definitely taking a nose-dive. Quinn believes God will not intervene at the end, thus we must take matters into our own hands. Christians understand it's going to get a LOT worse before it gets better. Of course, we too should honor God's creation by attempting to reverse and prevent the damage. It probably wouldn't hurt to attempt to live more like a Leaver. I'm sure there's a book written by a Christian that addresses this much better than Quinn, though.
One of the shocking outworkings of Quinn's Taker/Leaver theory appears on page 138:
Ishmael: "If there are forty-thousand people in an area that can only support thirty-thousand, its no kindness to bring in food from the outside to maintain them at forty-thousand."
Student: "It's hard to just sit by and let them starve."
Ishmael: "This is precisely how someone speaks who imagines that he is the world's divinely appointed ruler [the Takers].... It is the gods who let these [drought, floods, etc.] things [happen], not you." The Christian strongly disagrees. On a related note, God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply, and there is nothing wrong with having more than two children. This is a no-no for the Leaver, because this will eventually lead to overpopulation. Well, yes, if God will not intervene in the future. But we believe that's not going to be the case. Thoughts? |
|
|
| August 03, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hahaha, Mike! Glad I can help. Now go to bed! Your family needs you bright-eyed and bushy-tailed in the morning.
 |
|
|
| August 06, 2007 |
|
|
|
I was reading an excellent article on Relativism just now when I ran across this quote: Finally, is it fair to apply logical analysis to relativistic principles? Many relativists say no. But, I do not see why not. If a relativist were to convince me that logic isn’t necessary in examining relativism, he’d have to convince me using logic, which would be self defeating. If a relativist uses relativism -- the subjective view of his own opinions -- to validate his position, he is using circular reasoning; namely, he is using relativism to establish relativism. So, either way, he has lost the argument. After reading that I realized what happened in that "related note" topic linked in a comment above. I had used logic to take down about three of the guy's points. I started out by saying "if you do not agree with my opinion that logic is a good tool to measure the worth of a theory then we must end our conversation now." Further discussion with him (page 3) has dwindled to him holding onto his ideas despite them being clearly illogical. That guy is a relativist out-and-out. Amazing! I would have assumed he would have valued logic, but this article predicted no and it turned out to be right! |
|
|
| February 26, 2008 |
|
|
|
Hey, I made it into the "Fundies Say the Darndest Things!" list! http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=33706 I'm actually in there twice, another one from 2005. W00t? |
|
|
Follow this blog
