A metaphor to mull over

This was a blog posted by my friend from school on his myspace. I really wanted to share it so here it is:

I've been pondering over the state of things recently, and during this time of contemplation, the following metaphor popped into my mind. As always, when I get a thought worth speaking aloud, I like to share it with all of you. So, without further ado…



Consider:

Way back when in the good ol' days, all of the 'enlightened' philosophers and scientists in Europe believed full heartedly that the earth was flat. This, of course, wasn't a baseless idea. They had all of the scientific data to back it up, and everything they had observed seemed to fit their 'logic' flawlessly. It made perfect sense: When ships sail off into the ocean for long enough, they sink into the sea and vanish. It's completely logical to believe that there was an edge, and that the ship had fallen off. Besides that, if you climb somewhere really high up, you can't see the land curving…it's flat. These two observations are enough to prove it. Problem solved. No argument.

However, much to there dismay, a group of 'revolutionary thinkers' arose and announced to these people a completely crazy idea: The earth is round. These people also had the logic and experiments to back them up: Well you see, if a ship sails over the horizon, it can come back. Therefore, the earth has no edge, but is curved, which is why they 'sink.' They go lower on the curve than you can see. The 'revolutionaries' were confident that they were right.

However, the 'enlightened' refused to accept these 'radical' observations and continued to believe full-heartedly that *they* were correct. They drew their conclusions based only on what they could see, and that closed their mind to any argument that contradicted what they were saying.

And so the two sides fought. Those passionate about their beliefs did what they could to spread their message and share their knowledge, while those fickle individuals who couldn't decide what they believed, along with those who took a side but kept quiet about it, pushed for peace and the 'freedom' of letting everyone believe what they wanted to. And this went on for years until, lo and behold, all kinds of explorers sailed around the world, proving the 'revolutionaries' right. Problem solved. No argument.

And why were the 'revolutionaries right? Because they knew something the 'enlightened' didn't. They knew that seeing wasn't enough. They knew and had faith that there was something beyond the horizon that couldn't be seen, and in the end, their truth was proven right for all to see. Now I ask you:

Were the 'revolutionaries' arrogant in trying to spread the truth to (or, as some call it, push their beliefs on) those who believed differently, knowing without a doubt that it was true? Is it arrogant to state a fact because someone refuses to accept it?

Would you let anyone believe a 'fact' such as "The earth is flat" or "There is no gravity" or "Humans are made of cheese" when you know that it's not true, despite any 'evidence' they have to back it up?

If you believed one of those blatant lies, wouldn't you want someone to break your argument and tell you the truth?



And so I leave you on this. Life and truth aren't limited to what you can or can't see. You as a human can only see a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent of it. There are a lot of things over the horizon that you can't see—that you'll never see--and whoever believes and can understand that knows the Truth within this metaphor. And so in closing, I tell you that I don't care what 'evidence' you have behind your so-called 'facts;' I know the truth, and the truth is: The earth is round.



If you have any questions or comments about this metaphor and it's all too 'subtle' meaning, then you're free to leave them right here on this page. For my part, I'll try to get back to you as soon as possible. 'kay, thanks for reading.

Comments?

Quick comment.

The revolutionary thinkers can prove this, and did prove it. They had the means to attempt and succeed.

God, on the other hand, can't be proven.

If I missed the entire point of this metaphor...damn. Whoops?

This was a blog posted by my friend from school on his myspace. I really wanted to share it so here it is:




Comments?

Sound insight, but dangerous when applied to religion

Sound insight, but dangerous when applied to religion

I don't see how "dangerous" it is to religion. If anything, it proves that whatever a faithful person believes in can't be disproven to them.

I don't see how "dangerous" it is to religion. If anything, it proves that whatever a faithful person believes in can't be disproven to them.

What I meant is that a devoutly religious person could use this argument to justify pushing their views on someone, claiming that they know their views to be "fact," not that it is dangerous TO religion, but dangerous when mixed WITH religion.

What I meant is that a devoutly religious person could use this argument to justify pushing their views on someone, claiming that they know their views to be "fact," not that it is dangerous TO religion, but dangerous when mixed WITH religion.

But the 'revolutionaries' were using facts to back themselves up, while faith/religion is, by definition, the belief in something without basing it on facts. :f6:

"belief that is not based on proof"
~Dictionary.com

But the 'revolutionaries' were using facts to back themselves up, while faith/religion is, by definition, the belief in something without basing it on facts. :f6:

"belief that is not based on proof"
~Dictionary.com

To a devout Christian, the Bible is irrefutable proof. To a devout Muslim, the Qur'an. Etc.

In the same way, the revolutionaries came accross new evidence to support a new idea, leaving those without that evidence to have this new idea pressured onto them. Devout religious followers tend to have the mindset of "I have irrefutable proof through ___ book and the feeling of security I have from ___. Those who don't believe my proof is valid are wrong and need to be corrected." Same beliefs as the revolutionaries, just with the evidence being replaced with emotion/feeling and some old texts.

Faith is belief without undeniable proof, not religion.

To a devout Christian, the Bible is irrefutable proof. To a devout Muslim, the Qur'an. Etc.

In the same way, the revolutionaries came accross new evidence to support a new idea, leaving those without that evidence to have this new idea pressured onto them. Devout religious followers tend to have the mindset of "I have irrefutable proof through ___ book and the feeling of security I have from ___. Those who don't believe my proof is valid are wrong and need to be corrected." Same beliefs as the revolutionaries, just with the evidence being replaced with emotion/feeling and some old texts.

Its Koran i think nor Qur'an unless that's a different religion
sorry didn't mean to be name nazi lol

Its Koran i think nor Qur'an unless that's a different religion
sorry didn't mean to be name nazi lol

That's fine, I couldn't remember, and not a theology buff, so I spent a minute or two trying to figure it out...now I know...and KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE GI JOE!

lol its okay im in Ancient Civs and we talked about World religion class one day and we went through our library... and i forund the Koran

lol its okay im in Ancient Civs and we talked about World religion class one day and we went through our library... and i forund the Koran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an

WOW HOLY CRAP A BOOK HAS SEVERAL NAMES.

The church had to keep its power. Thus supporting the nazis during WW2 and every other leading (military) power during the times. Thus the crusaders. Thus the denial of new theories.

Besides that, if you climb somewhere really high up, you can't see the land curving…it's flat.

This is a false statement. The curvature of the earth *is* visible from a sufficiently high point. There are numerous mountains where you could, with rather crude tools, easily detect this.

This is a false statement. The curvature of the earth *is* visible from a sufficiently high point. There are numerous mountains where you could, with rather crude tools, easily detect this.

But they where back in the 15th century, and the people arguing this theories were Europeans and the higher mountains they could access were the alpes (don't really know their English name, the mountains north of Italy), and their methods were not accurate as far as I know. Not until galileo galilei I guess.

But they where back in the 15th century, and the people arguing this theories were Europeans and the higher mountains they could access were the alpes (don't really know their English name, the mountains north of Italy), and their methods were not accurate as far as I know. Not until galileo galilei I guess.

All you need to do is hold a stick above the horizon to see that the earth isn't as flat as the stick.

The church had to keep its power. Thus supporting the nazis during WW2 and every other leading (military) power during the times. Thus the crusaders. Thus the denial of new theories.

This is misleading.The church of 1000 years ago certainly isn't the church now. If someone argues that because they have some of the same beliefs, they are still to blame, he would also be arguing that the British government is bad because of King John. And Nazis? Please. Does that mean the current Italian government is tainted by WWII?

---

All you need to do is hold a stick above the horizon to see that the earth isn't as flat as the stick.

I'm confused by this statement. Please explain further?

That whole story is completely bogus, despite what you may have heard about Columbus in elementary school. There was no question about the shape of the earth in that time period.

^ Thunda

Hopefully this crudely made graphic will help:


Exaggerated, maybe, but at a decent altitude it'd be noticeable.

This is misleading.The church of 1000 years ago certainly isn't the church now. If someone argues that because they have some of the same beliefs, they are still to blame, he would also be arguing that the British government is bad because of King John. And Nazis? Please. Does that mean the current Italian government is tainted by WWII?

I was more thinking about petting the Nazis to be able to become the main religious group if the Nazis succeeded. If we go on and say directly support... Well, depends on sources. Most other sources are catholic papers. Which obviously won't try to give Catholicism a bad image.

And for the rest, yeah, I meant for like 500 years ago. Stuff like that does obviously enough not happen today. However, it's quite funny that people most likely stated the exact same thing 500 years ago.

^ Thunda

Hopefully this crudely made graphic will help:


Exaggerated, maybe, but at a decent altitude it'd be noticeable.

yeah that's it. That's all it really takes. At about 3km up the edges will be approximately 8mm lower, which while slight is certainly noticeable.