HTML source code
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: iPhone 4
Next: Share Wireless Internet Connection?
From: Ben C on 18 Jun 2010 07:33 On 2010-06-18, dorayme <dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <slrni1m60d.557.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, > Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > >> On 2010-06-16, dorayme <dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > ... >> >...I had a theory once, now slightly softened, that all >> > religious people must be mad because they could not possibly >> > believe such way out things sanely. >> >> You have to consider all the everyday things non-religious people also >> believe with no more evidence. >> > > What everyday things? Like that it is bad to walk under ladders? > Or things more systematic that build whole world views, control > others, take over governments, direct state wealth, schooling of > children, demean the female half of their societies, ... All that sort of thing, yes. It's probably easier to enumerate only the things you're actually certain of and have really good first-hand evidence (if not Cartesian certainty) for. In particular dealings with other people require small leaps of faith all the time (like that they understand you, see Korpela's rules of communication). 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. So, this is a part of life for everyone I think, not something perverse and bizarre that the non-religious can do without. >> Also the meaning of the word "I believe", especially in the context of >> religion. This word has a first-person assymmetry at the best of times >> (if you _really_ believed something, were _really_ deluded, you'd just >> say "I know"). >> >> As for expressions like "I believe in" those belong almost completely to >> religion. An outsider has to be careful he knows what they mean before >> dismissing them. >> >> Generally there really isn't that much difference between a religious >> person and a non-religious one (I include atheism as a religion). > > If simply not believing in theism is atheism, it is no more a > religion than it is *a theory* that there is no phlogiston, > ghosts, fairies. By atheism I mean the claim that there is absolutely no God, not just non-theism. >> Lunatics are available in all flavours. > > Yes, I agree. As I said, I have softened. > > About belief: as it happens, there are few people who believe in > a god or gods. There is a sharpish distinction between someone > claiming to believe, saying they believe, acting a bit like they > believe on the one hand and really believing on the other. Yes, but I would also say that "religious belief" is a particular subset of behaviour and language all of its own. 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. > It is highly unlikely that most of those church members really > believe all that rubbish they spout. To truly believe something > you must be prepared to bet something that quite clearly means > something to you, the loss of which would not easily be borne. > Often it is, to sum it up, money! But not always and never the > only thing. Sadly people do often hand over a lot of money to their churches.
From: dorayme on 18 Jun 2010 08:19 In article <slrni1mma0.557.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > On 2010-06-18, dorayme <dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > In article <slrni1m60d.557.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, > > Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > > > >> On 2010-06-16, dorayme <dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > ... > >> >...I had a theory once, now slightly softened, that all > >> > religious people must be mad because they could not possibly > >> > believe such way out things sanely. > >> > >> You have to consider all the everyday things non-religious people also > >> believe with no more evidence. > >> > > > > What everyday things? Like that it is bad to walk under ladders? .... > > 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. No such real revelation will happen to the average religious bod. There is nothing that can really settle the matter even in time and after much searching. Religious people do or pretend to make big claims about the world for which not only is there no evidence, but for which there never really could be evidence in a strong sense. > So, this is a part of life for everyone I think, not something perverse > and bizarre that the non-religious can do without. > ... > >> > >> Generally there really isn't that much difference between a religious > >> person and a non-religious one (I include atheism as a religion). > > > > If simply not believing in theism is atheism, it is no more a > > religion than it is *a theory* that there is no phlogiston, > > ghosts, fairies. > > By atheism I mean the claim that there is absolutely no God, not just > non-theism. > OK, non-theism is merely neutral between agnosticism and atheism but that does not seem to me to give ground to say that atheism is any sort of religion. We must distinguish between the lunatic ravings of atheists and atheism. The very word is highly misleading. There is no aphlogisticism! There is no symmetry except in some misleading or very abstract sense. Atheism could be said to be a reflex action to an extremely severe intellectual and moral provocation. > >> Lunatics are available in all flavours. > > > > Yes, I agree. As I said, I have softened. > > > > About belief: as it happens, there are few people who believe in > > a god or gods. There is a sharpish distinction between someone > > claiming to believe, saying they believe, acting a bit like they > > believe on the one hand and really believing on the other. > > Yes, but I would also say that "religious belief" is a particular subset > of behaviour and language all of its own. > > 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. But that is not what religious people do. > > It is highly unlikely that most of those church members really > > believe all that rubbish they spout. To truly believe something > > you must be prepared to bet something that quite clearly means > > something to you, the loss of which would not easily be borne. > > Often it is, to sum it up, money! But not always and never the > > only thing. > > Sadly people do often hand over a lot of money to their churches. Not often, surely, considering the number of religious people. People often hand over their dough for houses and cars and clothes and food for themselves and family. But yes, some do. Some people make foolish investments. But it would be a sight to behold to see all the people who profess such certainty in gods put their money where their mouth is, if this was possible. I reckon they would not do so. Compare... well, excuse me, me! I 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? -- dorayme
From: Ben C on 18 Jun 2010 08:42 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. > No such real revelation will happen to the average religious bod. > There is nothing that can really settle the matter even in time and > after much searching. Religious people do or pretend to make big > claims about the world for which not only is there no evidence, but > for which there never really could be evidence in a strong sense. Only some religious people, and some religions are worse for that than others. [...] >> > About belief: as it happens, there are few people who believe in >> > a god or gods. There is a sharpish distinction between someone >> > claiming to believe, saying they believe, acting a bit like they >> > believe on the one hand and really believing on the other. >> >> Yes, but I would also say that "religious belief" is a particular subset >> of behaviour and language all of its own. >> >> 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.
From: Bill Braun on 18 Jun 2010 09:05 dorayme wrote: > Religious people do or pretend to make big claims > about the world for which not only is there no evidence, but for > which there never really could be evidence in a strong sense. I appreciate your larger point. As a nit pick, there is a meaningful distinction (for me) between the religious person and the dogmatic person. I know a large number of quite sane people who think of themselves as religious, insofar as their understanding of what happens on Sunday spills over a bit into the rest of the week, as a matter of civility and respect. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
From: Warren Oates on 18 Jun 2010 09:24
In article <slrni1m60d.557.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > As for expressions like "I believe in" those belong almost completely to > religion. An outsider has to be careful he knows what they mean before > dismissing them. I believe in a cold beer on a Friday morning to set the day up. -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer |