HTML source code
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: iPhone 4
Next: Share Wireless Internet Connection?
From: Warren Oates on 18 Jun 2010 09:34 In article <hvfqtg$ekb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Bill Braun <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: > We can disagree without being disagreeable. Where's the fun in that? -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: Wes Groleau on 18 Jun 2010 10:30 On 06-18-2010 08:19, dorayme wrote: > would gladly bet my photographic collection on the sun coming up > tomorrow (with or without clouds).*That* is sincere belief. But > who would bet against it, a rich madman? If you were to lose, the collection would be of little use to you OR to the rich madman. -- Wes Groleau Words of the Wild Wes http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW
From: Warren Oates on 18 Jun 2010 11:59 In article <michelle-B76A91.07015418062010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > Nonsense. A Bloody Mary or Mimosa, and it doesn't matter what day of the > week. Well, okay, I can't fault that. It's just that today _is_ Friday, and there was a cold Milwaukee Ice lurking in the 'fridge. -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: dorayme on 18 Jun 2010 19:07 In article <hvfvul$uil$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > On 06-18-2010 08:19, dorayme wrote: > > would gladly bet my photographic collection on the sun coming up > > tomorrow (with or without clouds).*That* is sincere belief. But > > who would bet against it, a rich madman? > > If you were to lose, the collection would be of little use to > you OR to the rich madman. How do you work that out? -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 18 Jun 2010 20:00
In article <slrni1mqbr.557.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > On 2010-06-18, dorayme <dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > In article <slrni1mma0.557.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, > > Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > [...] > >> In particular dealings with other people require small leaps of faith > >> all the time ... > >> > >> So does science-- quite often people are trying to prove something they > >> only have a hunch about or want to believe. Of course they've still got > >> to prove it, but it's not what's driving them. > >> > > > > Yes, we all trust and we are built and brought up to trust. I, > > for example, think that there is more truth to what most > > scientists are believing about man made climate change than you. > > But we can rightly feel some bloody self respect about it because > > the truth will out and we will come to agree more. > > In that case yes (although for climate change quite a lot of the truth > has already come out). > > But lots of other things we all believe never get verified. > OK, but to be optimistic for a moment, very roughly there are three classes: - for those for which an argument could be mounted by someone or other if they took the trouble but have not (farmer Joe expects the sun to come up tomorrow) - for those for which no argument of any credibility could be mounted at this time by anyone but for which one day there will be an argument (good hunches and intuitions) - for those for which an argument could not be mounted by anyone (barely meaningful ideas like that one can exist without a body and forever) I place a lot of religious ideas in this last category. .... > >> Facts are not what are important in religious belief most of the time > >> anyway, but things like morality and appreciation of nature. When it > >> works well, it's more about perspective on known facts than fabrication > >> of bogus facts. > >> > > > > Sounds interesting the idea of perspective on known facts. Not > > really sure why an "As if" would not do just as well for this > > purpose. Just So stories are fun and interesting when done > > consciously and rationally and with perspective. > > Yes, religions can be full of that kind of stuff. > > > But that is not what religious people do. > > Depends on the religious people. The ancient Greeks' idea of a religious > festival was putting on tragedies. As far as I know nobody claimed or > cared whether the events in them were supposed to have happened > literally, but if you want truth and perspective, there is none finer. The world of people steeped in literature (or film or many other of the arts for that matter) is quite a different world to that of the world of folk not so fortunate. It is impossible for some not to see the world through the prism of the great literature of the world (and I am not excluding ancient biblical texts). But this is a very different thing to *believing* that Captain Wentworth and Anne Elliot exist. It may be impossible for a man or a woman steeped in Jane Austen's writings not to see the parallels in their own lives of the tribulations the fictional characters experienced. In other words, fiction can colour and enrich a person's life without it spilling over into abject scientific idiocy. "God gave us this land", say some, and this has seemed to them to *entitle them to grab it now*! Instead of the attitude: "Hey, kids, God said this land was ours, it happened like this... Moses ...." The Just So colouring the child in an interesting *literary way* for ever more. Importantly, this last way is not some great truth to justify unwise and cruel action. If the people who say this sort of thing manage to live in peace with their neighbours (by use of civilised processes nothing to do with religion), the stories they tell their kids can be seen as benign and interesting - like the Greek case you point out. Truth does not come into it. I suspect that we are seeing many similar things in this business. -- dorayme |