So, just what are we talking about?

[kandrathe]

Yes. Sorry, I was obtuse. I think it devolved into a rant.

[kandrathe]

If anyone can disprove the proposition that these things do not exist (which is at least a falsifiable hypothesis) by demonstrating their existence under reproducible, scientific conditions, then we'll have a whole new ballgame.

I agree, and I thought that was my proposition. I'm all for conclusive evidence, which I believe requires the investigation of those cases which seem credible. As I said above, the implications of the "truth" of some of these claims would be staggering.

The jumping off the cliff argument was what I was attempting to use in our discussion about al Queda links to Iraq. I suspect that there just aren't enough leaps to indicate for some people a clear trend.

[Nystul]

That’s not the extent of my personal philosophy, but given the temperature in these forums it’s likely the furthest I’m willing to share of my own beliefs.

That's certainly understandable, and I can relate.

From what you've described so far, the Goth is roughly on the same functional level as the Trekkie. Now Trekkies seem to take a bit of flak, but probably not anywhere near what many Goths do, because they don't tend to go to school, work, or the grocery store dressed like Spock. They save the outfit for more appropriate occasions, like conventions, parties, and movies, and maybe just wear a "Live Long and Prosper" t-shirt for mundane public life. To justify a daily public appearance that is so far from the social norm that it is distracting, this ought to go deeper than liking a certain type of literature or music, or hanging out in clubs or concert halls where such appearance is considered cool.

You say it does go deeper, and I'm willing to take your word for it. I certainly don't expect you to delve into details that could subject you to further ridicule.

[--Pete]

. . . in the Bible.
Hi,

The Bible contains metaphorical truths

Yes. As well as a few historical truths and a large collection of folklore, prejudice and superstition.

From that conclusion you can generate questions like, 'which parts are metaphorical', and 'who decides so' etc. which leads to large differences

Not just between the two systems you've outlined, but between many groups in the second system. The point you've overlooked or are glossing over is that "The Bible is the literal truth" is indeed an axiom, and if used as such it rapidly leads to internal contradictions. "The Bible contains metaphorical truths" is *not* an axiom. It is an invitation to search the Bible for things that one believes, thus making those things (or, sometimes one's interpretations of those things) the axioms. In many cases the axioms so generated are not used to develop any further viewpoints. But, it is the possibility of generating so many axioms, and the fact that many of the axioms so generated can be contradictory, that gives rise to so many mutually antagonistic sects of Christianity. The history of the West is tinted red with the blood of all those who've died over issues such as "Was Jesus God and man or was He God made man."

It is possible to make from the Bible a set of self consistent axioms that can be the basis of an ethical life. Indeed, one doesn't even need to believe that god exists to do so. Jefferson did a fair job of it, even including much of the life of Christ. However, it is possible to do the same in all major world religions, or, indeed on the basis of no religion at all. One can devise a code of ethics based solely on the "golden" rule, which is nothing more than an expression of enlightened self interest. And which is coming closer all the time to being "provable" in game theory. Just as Christianity holds no patent on religious evil, it also holds none on good.

To show something to be false that has already been 'proven' true, you need to show that one of the assumptions that the conclusion was based on is false (or can be false under some situation), or you need to show a misapplication in the logic leading to the conclusion.

I'm going to quibble here a bit. Of course, if the logic is wrong, the conclusion is not proven (which, I suspect, is why you had "proven" in quotes). In such a case, the conclusion would just be a conjecture whose truth or falsehood is yet to be determined. But to discuss the rest of your statement, I think we have to distinguish "truth" from "Truth" following the convention of Hofstadter in Godel, Escher, Bach. An Eternal Golden Braid (which I highly recommend to everyone). Within a logical system, there is no Truth, just truth. Anything logically derivable from the axioms is "true" within the system. If that result is to be compared with something outside the system (i.e., if we are "modeling" something), then that result may be not "True" to the model.

Now, looking just at a axiomatic system, the only real requirement is consistency. If it is possible to both derive statement S and statement not S under the system, then the system is inconsistent. An adjustment to the axioms needs to be made to eliminate that problem. Much of the mathematics of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century focused on that. Not a requirement, but something that most logicians consider part of the "beauty" of a system is parsimony, that there be as few axioms as possible and that each be as "simple" as possible. It was the lack of parsimony in Euclid's parallel postulate that eventually lead to non-Euclidean geometries which helped to develop the concepts of consistent axiomatic systems in math in general. A third desideratum is that the system be as complete as possible. Prior to Godel's work, this was the "requirement" of completeness, namely that any well founded expression in the system be decidable (equivalently, that either that expression or its negation be derivable).

So, the only problem with a derivation is that it could have been made under a set of inconsistent axioms. The result would then not be "false" but simply "unproven". Or, perhaps just considered nonsense. However, if we are modeling something, then there is a bigger system. And one of our assumptions (another "axiom") is that the smaller system (say, "mathematics") can model the bigger system (say, "the universe"). That the two systems are somehow isomorphic. Over the course of the twentieth century, it became more and more obvious that that assumption is, in general, wrong. Some characteristics of the universe can be modeled to some degree of accuracy by some branch of mathematics. But only in the (physically unrealistic) simplest cases can math provide a complete solution.

Many people, when speaking of "science" think of it only in the equation driven form of classical physics. That form is very useful and very powerful when it applies, but it does not apply to many qualitative phenomena. Thus, for instance, the formation of global features that can be explained by plate tectonics is not amenable to reduction to a simple equation. However, even in the absence of the mathematics, science is still a "logical" system. It is still a system where the phenomena are described by a set of axioms that are, as much as possible, self consistent, parsimonious, and complete. This set of axioms does not, at present, meet any one of the three "requirements". It is this admission that science is *not* complete, and the willingness to throw out what is found to be wrong and to accept (however much it hurts the preconceived notions) what is found to be right that gives science its great predictive power and that justifies the acceptance of science as the best world-view we have now.

The battle between religion and science only comes about because religion refuses to accept its limitations. Descendant from a time of ignorance and superstition, when the only answer to any physical process was "god did it", religion had a great power over its followers. As knowledge and observation replaced ignorance and superstition, the need for the mystical explanations of religion was reduced. It is this thousand year retreat from law, from science, from customs that religion is fighting. The spiritual is still in the hands of religion, and thus it should remain. The moral (as opposed to the secular ethical) is still in the hands of religion, and so too should it remain.

There are many people whom I've known that fully subscribed to the model of science and yet were deeply religious. The two are not incompatible, not even in conflict at the fundamental level. One does not need to be an atheist to accept science. Indeed, a scientist is most likely to be an agnostic, at least on the intellectual level. On the emotional (or spiritual, if one prefers) level, being an atheist or a theist each require an act of faith.

--Pete

EDIT: Typo and changed "ascribed" to "subscribed"

[Occhidiangela]

Can you tell me where and when this modern "Goth" fad started? My exposure to it has been small, and I will quite frankly tell you I find the posturing lame, trite, and neurotic, however, my father likewise found some things I did regarding long hair, rock music, and playing adventure games to be completely pointless. My perspective is thus not impartial.

Whence came the modern, secular Goth, and why?

EDIT: Looks like I have a slight answer: From Some Stuff about Goths

The words Goth and Gothic have had many, largely unrelated meanings:  the name of the Germanic Visigoth tribes that overthrew the Roman Empire. From this source arose the concept of a Goth as an uncivilized person, a barbarian. 4
a style of architecture in Western Europe which was popular from the 12th to the 16th century.
a style of horror/mystery literature that is dark, eerie and gloomy.

Goth, as a modern movement, started as one component of the punk rock scene. As the latter faded, Goth survived by creating its own subculture.   The first use of the term Goth in its present meaning was on a British Broadcasting Commission (BBC) TV program. Anthony H. Wilson, manager of Joy Division described the band as Gothic compared with the pop mainstream. The name stuck.

Their use of black clothing was originally "something of a backlash to the colorful disco music of the seventies." 5 It also stuck.

The movement first became established in the Batcave, a nightclub in London, England, in the early 1980's. 3
Spreading to the U.S., it first became popular in California.  Goth is featured in The Crow horror movies (1994, 1996). Other Gothic movies are the original Nosferatu, the color remake Nosferatu the Vampyre, and the Cabinet of Doctor Caligari.   Popular music bands are the Bauhaus, Siouxsie and the Banshees, the Sisters of Mercy, Dead Can Dance, and many others.

Goths, historically, were a people who migrated into Europe from somewhere north of the Caucasus. IIRC, old Gothic, the language, is related to Old German but not to Old Norse. Gothic architecture was heavy duty stuff in the Middle Ages. The modern face painting and whining Gothic behaviour seems tied somewhat to the Vampiric theme, which is also related to various Christian motifs of the Middle ages and later in the Victorian era. (Vlad the Impaler was hardly a Vampire, he was a typically brutal feudal lord.)

I realize that you have taken some cheap shots in your day in re your chosen motif, perhaps your personal explanation can shed some light on it for this old fart.

Care to share, or would you rather PM?

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

I realize that you have taken some cheap shots in your day in re your chosen motif, perhaps your personal explanation can shed some light on it for this old fart.

Care to share, or would you rather PM?

Occhi

This old battleaxe would be interested in your response too.

There are no 'Goths' in my sons' friendship networks at the moment, so I have no personal informants to ask.

I realize that this is tantamount to asking for a major essay on the topic, but I would appreciate the effort if you do so. And I promise, no cheap shots afterwards from me. :)

[kandrathe]

I think "Trekkie" sounds more like Fan boy, rather than a real counter or subculture phenomenon. I think "Punk" is a better comparative, where the punk culture had a distinctive departure in art, music, and philosophy. The popular culture often misconstrues the assimilation, for the reality. For instance, the Hippie movement in the 60's was a counterculture revolution, but on the heals of the real revolution, fashion, advertising, and marketing hijacked the movement and adopted it for its popularity and ability make a buck. Since it became mainstream, the fashion, music, and art that was formerly associated with the movement was worn by people who were diametrically opposed to that movements philosophies. I don't think of all subcultures are rebellion, but rather a creative exploration of alternatives to the humdrum of the normal.

Also, when a movement has moved onto the "shock" radar of the popular culture, is when I most notice youth flocking to use it as a means of expressing rebellion.

[Doc]

There is a book called Drama Queens, I forget the author. But it tells the story of American Goth.

Many Goths will vehemently deny it, but, the Modern American Gothic Culture has it's roots in the underground homosexual groups of the 40's, 50's, and 60's. The Quiet Clubs, Hush Halls, and Closets. It was common for folks frequenting these establishments to go while "Dressing Vicky" or dressing in vaguely Victorian outfits. Underground theatre and dance was filled with early Gothic influence. Dramatic flair was all part of the game and slowly oozed over into mainstream American culture. In the late 60's, it began coming out of the closet, and, in the 70's, with movies like The Rocky Horror Picture Show Goth became a fad for all sorts of folks, both gay and straight. With the birth of the Vampire Cults back in the 50's and 60's in Naw'Lins, Goth gained new blood, pardon the pun, as the two alternative lifestyles meshed well together, taking place behind closed doors, and both requiring a real flair of the dramatic. Dolls began "Dressing Vicky" in the early days of the punk music explosion, to piss off the conformists. That had mixed results though, as most Punks found it sporting to pound on the homosexuals and often beat on one another out of confusion. Goth became a catch all for anything non conformist and the means for whiney teenagers everywhere to piss of their parents.

In short, it's a mish mash of pretty much everything that is both underground and American.

[Cryptic]

>>Can you tell me where and when this modern "Goth" fad started?

Sure, no problem. If this threatens to derail the thread, let me know and I’ll take it to PM.

It’s worth pointing out that Diablo II is a game replete with gothic elements (see previous link for comparisons to The Castle of Otranto, the first gothic novel, written in 1764).

I’ll try to keep this only long, not painfully long …
:lol:

Basically, goth is a subcultural movement that has many levels. Depending on the individual, it can be just for show, for research, or, it has enough depth to uphold a life philosophy.

Etymology, History & Confusion of Terms

Medieval: In its earlier use, Goth was synonymous with barbarian. It was later attributed specifically to Germanic peoples, and later to those of somewhat Germanic cast (read: stereotype).

High Medieval / Renaissance: The use of the term “gothic” was next used to describe cathedral architecture, as an insult. Some considered the elaborate style, and gargoyles in particular, as an affront to God. (Classic examples of gothic architecture include Notre-Dame de Reims, Westminster Abbey, etc.) As the style grew in popularity, the term gained respect, but it still referred to that which is ornate, unsettling, or even garish. Significantly it implied a merging of Christianity (cathedrals) with the pagan (gargoyles and the idols that were incorporated into early churches, possibly to attract the pagans whose sacred ground had just been built upon), and not always a peaceful one.

Age of Reason / Enlightenment: And so, the gothic novel (beginning around the time of The Monk, 1796) was also deeply interested in questions of religious faith, conflict, and turmoil, so this term tended to stick to the literature, and some gothic fiction of the period was even set in cathedrals and monasteries (and most especially, their undercrofts and graveyards).

Victorian Gothic & the Gothic Revival: Lots of people think that Frankenstein or Dracula are the finest bits of gothic literature, but I would say Poe’s Fall of the House of Usher is superior (1839), because it eloquently unifies many of the “new,” more cerebral themes of the gothic revival. (That’s another subject entirely, but those themes include duality, the nature of fate vs. free will, awareness of mortality as a heightener of sense of purpose and creativity, androgyny as a characteristic of ambiguous identity, death vs. the eternal, sensuality vs. the intellect, etc.)

The 20th Century: Cinema seized on the gothic as quickly as it could. (Nosferatu, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, etc.) This quickly degenerated into the popular “haunted house” motif, a tragically flayed equine if there ever was one.
:P

With the rise of serious literary criticism in the mid-20th century, the gothic novel (often emulated and explored, but never really quantified) attracted a great deal of interest, especially after Freud. The psychological themes inherent to the genre gave it a new level of respect, but invited more sensational parodies as well.

This is the time period (c1930-1950) to which I can trace the divergence between gothic *appearance* and gothic *substance*. But the two are roots from the same tree, so they often intertwine.

The Subculture

Gothic music originated in England at the end of the 70s. As one could say that punk grew out of disenfranchisement with the government and a backlash against “art rock” (Floyd etc.), it could also be said that gothic (now “goth”) was a way to swing the pendulum back the other way. It was something new, but is also focused on classic themes from the literary past.

The early examples (Joy Division, Bauhaus, the Banshees, etc.) show a clear punk influence, but with a focus on darker and more sophisticated themes than simple angst and rebellion. This is where the “pariah complex” came from, shared by many subcultures, since subcultures usually take root as a way to define shared interests that lie a bit beyond the mainstream.

The style of music later (early to mid-80s) became more passionate, artistic and danceable. Example groups that flourished in this phase include The Cure, The Sisters of Mercy, and in other directions, even Depeche Mode (example, Black Celebration) and Skinny Puppy. The amusing thing about these groups is that most of them strove to avoid the goth label, because they were building more intricate and serious work on the crude foundations, and to admit to “goth” was to admit to punk roots – not cool for groups with an artistic intent. The pendulum swings further …

Clubs featuring the music were flourishing around the world by this time (late 80s to early 90s). The audience grew, and therefore the style diverged into many sub-genres. Examples include goth-industrial, which focuses on themes of technology and isolation; goth-ethereal, which focus on dreamlike imagery and illusory beauty (Cocteau Twins, Dead Can Dance, etc.), and many others.

Among many other things, the Anne Rice phenomenon (early novels, but mostly made popular in the mid- to late-90s) led to a fierce division in the goth scene, for two reasons. One, was the focus on vampires – early gothic icons, now often ridiculed. The other was that her later novels mostly suck, and being a devotee of Rice isn’t always looked upon as a gold star in the field of gothic literature.

The subculture still hasn’t settled (early 21st century). Some people say that the scene is about vampirism, others about fallen angels, and others say it has no need for supernatural icons at all. Some say it’s about the music, others about the books, while still others say that other forms of media are far more representative. Etc. Think of these different schools of thought as similar to the many branches of Christianity, but not nearly so structured (and many not so serious).

Ironically, the growth of the movement has led to commercialization, so that The Oxford Book of Gothic Literature now shares the shelf with comics from Hot Topic. This creates lots of confusion among newcomers and curious onlookers, because some see it only as sensational display, while others dress more normally, focusing themselves on esoteric thought.

I know people who consider themselves goths who range from 12 to 48 years of age, so there’s also a generation gap now to add to the festivities. Many of the younger neophytes are more interested in shocking their parents than in giving thought to the meaning of life, spirituality and mortality, so they usually either mature and deepen their interest, or move on to something more shocking and less elitist.

In short (yeah, right), if you get two goths in the same room, chances are they’ll have two entirely different mindsets, and yet will agree on certain specific points of interest that fall within the genre.

Shared Points of Reference
(outside of music and literature)

Art: For revivalists, the Pre-Raphaelites and Symbolists are popular. For post-modernists, many like H.R. Giger or the Japanese take on goth’s visual cues (Vampire Hunter D, Yo#$%&aka Amano, etc.)

Cinema: For popular fare, most like Tim Burton films and such. For the more artistic, serious films include Begotten and the short films of the Brothers Quay.

Gamers: Too many to mention. I personally find the World of Darkness cheesy, but enjoy games like Alice, Diablo II, and Lament of Innocence.

Photography: Wildly divergent, depending on whether the viewer’s focus is on the morbid or the darkly romantic (an old dichotomy that dates all the way back to 1764, due to Otranto). For the pretty and the Victorian, some like Lewis Carroll or Julia Margaret Cameron; for the twisted, some like Joel-Peter Witkin.

There’s lots more, but those are the basics and I don’t want to put anyone to sleep.
:blink:

Thanks for the open-mindedness if you read this far.

[Nystul]

I think "Punk" is a better comparative, where the punk culture had a distinctive departure in art, music, and philosophy.

Punk was a bad a comparison for me to use, because it falls into the same trap you mentioned at the end of your post:

Also, when a movement has moved onto the "shock" radar of the popular culture, is when I most notice youth flocking to use it as a means of expressing rebellion.

These are the people I referred to as seeking their own persecution. They are the rebels without a cause. They know the norms of the culture, they want to go against the grain (to be individual rather than part of the machine), so they latch onto something like this. If the movement in question did not have shock value, many of them would have gotten involved in something else. Thus they essential get the reaction they are asking for.

Cryptic says this isn't him, and I take his word for it. I still don't quite "get" the link from point A to point B, as it were. I like a lot of the gothic elements, but they do not create any desire in me to dress strangely for everyday life. But probably that's just me being me.

[Taem]

Religion is a fickle thing. If religion was a science, you'd be asking yourself questions like:

1a.) Can I talk to god?
1b.) Does god talk to me?
1c.) Can I prove it?

2a.) Can I touch god?
2b.) Can god touch me in some way?
2c.) Can I prove it?

3a.) Does prayer really do anything for myself?
3b.) Does prayer really do anything for other people?
3c.) Can I prove it?

4a.) Are deeds done in gods name actually done for his glory, or a man made goal of sorts? (reference the Israelites murderous campaign into the "holy land", slaughtering every "man, woman, and child" ~ the crusades ~ the Salem witch trials)
4b.) Does god give me deeds to do in his name?
4c.) Can I prove it?

5a.) Are the miracles listed in the bible actually miracles or natural occurrences of nature that those lucky enough to reap natures glory gave thanks to god for?
5b.) Are all hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, and the like in today’s day and age a sign from god?
5c.) Can I prove it?

I'm sure there are many more questions you could ask, but I'm struck by a few things in particular:

When I look through the history books, I see the most atrocious deeds done in the name of religion, or at least justified by it. I see gods name or influence the constitutions of many countries, countries whose leaders practice clearly evil deeds as defined by any moral person.

When I look at in-depth studies done at hundreds of colleges across America, I wonder how the mysteries of god really work. There was a recent study done on terminal cancer patients detailing how "prayer" not only does nothing statistically for people, but can actually make people sicker as the people who felt they "had" to prayer, and that burden became a real chip on their shoulders making then feel guilty. What really makes people better is letting go of their worries and making amends; righting was is wrong and feeling good about ones accomplishments and failures.

Yet above all this, I still believe in a omni-presence I call "god". I also believe that there was a man named Jesus Christ (as recorded historically, not only biblically) that died for his belief in god. I also believe that through his passing, I am saved. I think that if I am wrong about this, then nothing will happen to me, but if I am right, then I am saved, so better safe than sorry ;) .

While most people think the bible is the written word of god, I see no room for argument when a "man" creates a movie about a situation written in the bible. If "god" did not breathe life into the film as was supposedly done to the bible, then who really cares? The movie is just one mans interpretation of the events that transpired in the bible, much the same was Lord of the Rings was Peter Jackson’s interpretation of the LotR books. There were slight difference, but the main bulk of the story is still there. I was going to conclude with something grand, but atlas, my kids are yelling and my wife is giving me the evil eye. Time to put the little munchkins to bed!

[Jester]

"I think that if I am wrong about this, then nothing will happen to me, but if I am right, then I am saved, so better safe than sorry."

That would be Pascal's Wager. Unfortunately, it is fallacious. What if Islam is correct, and you're pretty much going to hell, not for disbelief, but for wrong belief? Or Zoroastrianism? Or a God who resembles the christian god in all aspects, but has reversed the heaven/hell entrance requirements?

There's no evidence whatsoever that you're "better safe than sorry".

Jester

[whyBish]

"The Bible contains metaphorical truths" is *not* an axiom.  It is an invitation to search the Bible for things that one believes, thus making those things (or, sometimes one's interpretations of those things) the axioms.  In many cases the axioms so generated are not used to develop any further viewpoints.  But, it is the possibility of generating so many axioms, and the fact that many of the axioms so generated can be contradictory, that gives rise to so many mutually antagonistic sects of Christianity.

It is possible to make from the Bible a set of self consistent axioms that can be the basis of an ethical life.

Anything logically derivable from the axioms is "true" within the system.  If that result is to be compared with something outside the system (i.e., if we are "modeling" something), then that result may be not "True" to the model.

If it is possible to both derive statement S and statement not S under the system, then the system is inconsistent.

Yeah, sorry, I rushed off to tennis after posting and then thought I should have mentioned internal consistency etc., although none of this was my point (I have no idea what my point actually was :P )

The only thing I don't get from your post however, is the first quoted paragraph.
How is that not an axiom? (Oh, and I did get the point about a system truth does not imply that the thing it modeled was True due to the modelling process)

One last note, many people can have belief sets that are internally inconsistent, and (dipping my foot into another sharkpool) Piaget believed that the realisation of these internal conflicts were a driver towards learning. I lived for about four years with a group of people that had the 'Literal' view of the Bible, but also (apart from evolution) did not want to contradict science. Suffice to say, there were many inconsistencies pointed out on both sides which lead to lots of thinking, which can only be a good thing. :)

[Drasca]

I like a lot of the gothic elements, but they do not create any desire in me to dress strangely for everyday life.  But probably that's just me being me.

while others dress more normally, focusing themselves on esoteric thought.

So you're not some youth going clubbing :P You don't have to dress freakishly, except in your own wardrobe--but you probably have better fashion sense than I. Strange and foreign clothing is only freakish until it is part of your own warddrobe--then you have nothing to wear. Though that certainly isn't a problem with uniform based societies, or nudist colonies. Probably. Broad tangent: Would it really be easier to decide 'what to wear?' when clothing is optional?

Hmm. I recall Classic Diablo being advertised as a Gothic-horror rpg. I may be wrong, but the Church and Catacombs levels & music sure do inspire the sense of impending doom element, also found in goth literature.

[Occhidiangela]

Far more Gothic, in the literary sense and in mood, than Diablo II.

[kandrathe]

As Pete wrote above; The methods of science and belief in a religion are not inconsistent . Each of us has contructed a view of our universe based on our learning and assumptions. I would say of your first 5 points; science can only make conclusions using observable, measurable, reality. The nature of a supreme being as defined in Christianity moves in the the realm of the metaphysical and supernatural. Humans are bound to a 3 dimensional space, and have 5 senses which allow us to observe our reality. We anthropomorphize God, if we expect that God is bound to the same limitations.

When I look through the history books, I see the most atrocious deeds done in the name of religion, or at least justified by it.

But also, correlation does not indicate causality. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". When I look in the history books I see that most often when coalitions of humans wield power, they use it against their opposition minority. This was also true in ancient Chinese, and Indian histories that predate western histories by thousands of years. Sometimes the coalition is based on a common religion, but more often it is based on racial, geographic, or secular rule. So, I think that persecution occurs in the enforcement of morality, or the enforcement of a philosophy, or the enforcement of unjust laws. The common ground is the enforcement of "The Majority" beliefs upon the minority individual.

In early European history often the rulers comingled government and religion in mutual enforcement of law and morality. This was the oppression that forced many to flee to the new world, and when the constitution of the US was crafted, guarantees for all religious freedoms were added.

[kandrathe]

I was struck by that part of his statement as well, but was not sure how to respond. I think by definition, there can be no fence sitting with this type of belief. It is valid to have the belief, without having all the justifications. In Christian parliance, that would be inspired by grace. All that is neccesary for a Christian to be saved is to have an unwavering love of God, not the rational behind that passion. I'm not sure who said it but I heard recently on the NPR show "Matters of Faith" a theologian say "I can think my way to agnosticism, but when I follow my heart I am drawn to a deeper love of God".

[Nystul]

while others dress more normally, focusing themselves on esoteric thought.

I assumed 'more normally' was said in relative terms here :) Most people identify "goth" based on a visual appearance, and I would guess that this appearance is where most of the social problems come in. Gothic literature was taught at my high school (not as a class, but as a few weeks worth of literature curriculum), and wasn't the slightest bit controversial. The "goth look", on the other hand, was. There were only a few kids in my small high school who had the goth look, and how the administration handled it is kind of funny. Basically the ones with good grades and attitudes could wear whatever they wanted, and the one with mediocre grades and a big mouth usually got sent to the office to remove the eye makeup and/or turn her shirt inside out. Even funnier, the dress code violation applied was the new "gang paraphanelia" ban (this was mid-90s, in an almost all-white, rural school district, in a county that has probably never had a gang-related crime report). Anyways, to get back on the subject, I have not seen much controversy about gothic literature or even gothic bands, but I suppose there could be some (a lot, even) if this extends beyond entertainment and into deep belief systems.

So you're not some youth going clubbing You don't have to dress freakishly, except in your own wardrobe--but you probably have better fashion sense than I.

Hah! My fashion sense is somewhere between "grunge" and "flat out boring". And the "grunge" part is only because I can't be bothered to buy new clothes.

I have enjoyed some gothic literature, classic horror movies, have some occultish beliefs, and other related goodies, but not nearly to the point where it is a major part of my lifestyle (with the exception of playing Diablo, of course!). So I wouldn't quite be a goth in any case. As for the music scene, I guess it's OK but I'd rather be at a Springsteen concert.

I recall Classic Diablo being advertised as a Gothic-horror rpg.

I don't recall how the game was advertised, but the dark feel of the game is really what first drew me into it. I tried to recapture a bit of that in the poem which I think I actually entitled Tristram Gothic (*cough* shameless plug: read poetry sticky thread in D1 forum and add more poems *cough cough*). At some point, the monsters became like chess pieces and the mood of the game became a total afterthought. But I still remember the scare from the first skeleton.

[--Pete]

Hi,

"The Bible contains metaphorical truths" is *not* an axiom.

The only thing I don't get from your post however, is the first quoted paragraph.
How is that not an axiom?

We may be getting into semantics here. If we're using the word "axiom" in its colloquial sense (supposition), then the statement in question is indeed an axiom. However, if we're using "axiom" in its more technical sense (postulate), then I don't think it is. And, given the nature of this sub-thread, I think only the second (technical) sense would apply since we are discussing logical systems.

The reason I don't think the second statement is an axiom can be seen from the definition of "postulate": a hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or premise of a train of reasoning -- Merriam-Webster online. The part that I'm sticking at is the "train of reasoning" phrase. The statement "The Bible contains metaphorical truths" does not seem to lead anywhere in a discussion of religion because of its vagueness and generality.

The vagueness makes it impossible to determine which parts of the Bible, if any, are to be considered true and under what interpretation. Every particular passage could be considered true by one reader and false by another, and yet the two could be in complete agreement as to everything but the interpretation. That is, both could agree that "if passage P contains message M1, then it is true; else if it contains message M2 it is false". They simply disagree on which message it contains. Thus the vagueness makes the statement "The Bible contains metaphorical truths" useless as an "internal" axiom, it tells us nothing that allows us to judge the content of the Bible.

The generality of the statement makes it pretty well useless in a religious discussion "external" to the Bible. After all, if something contains "metaphorical truths", then the extraction of those truths is as much (or more) in the mind of the extractor than it is in the material from which the truths are to be extracted (the I Ching is an excellent example of this). One can say "_______ contains metaphorical truths" of nearly any man-made work (and probably of many natural phenomena). Then, to support that argument, one simply needs to pronounce some "truth" and any tenuous connection to the work in question. That the connection resides chiefly in the arguer's mind does not invalidate the argument. The use of "metaphorical truths" implies an interpretation and interpretations are exterior to the message.

So, in the colloquial sense, the statement may indeed be a supposition. But it is not a useful or meaningful postulate. And so, for the purposes of this discussion, I don't think it qualifies as an "axiom".

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Of course, the argument you gave (i.e., who knows what religion is true, if any) is valid. But I find something more fundamentally funny.

Imagine, if you will, Pascal's time and place. Basically, when he said "religion" he meant Roman Catholicism. Now, asked if one should believe in God, his answer boils down to "either believe in him or fake it". Thus Pascal's god cares more for the form than the function -- he rewards believers and hypocrites alike. Interesting concept, a god who allows himself to be fooled and a heaven that can be entered by ass kissing.

--Pete