rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (03/05/85)
>> Okay Rich, this article got here. Here goes. I have tried to tell you >> in the past that a religion does not imply a belief in God. I am going >> to try again, but again I think that you are barking up the wrong tree >> with respect to every mystical tradition I know of. But here goes anyway.... > > And I've repeatedly stated that the understood definition of the word > religion implies (as all the definitions in my dictionary do) a "belief > in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator ... > of the universe". Other life-philosophies and/or belief systems (like > Ubizmatism) get *labelled* as religions, but they are not. (Just as > certain disciplines get called sciences when they hardly qualify for > the term.) We've been through this before. Religion 1 The service and worship of God OR THE SUPERNATURAL [emphasis added] 2 A personal set or institutionalized system of religiuos attitudes beliefs, and practices [definition of "Religious" included in this postiong] Religious 1 Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledegd ULTIMATE REALITY OR deity [emphasis added] Webster's New Collegate Dictionary Note that by this definition you are a verry religious person (no matter what you say) Your definitional quibles remind me of the people trying to prove that blacks are inferior. When a clearly superior black is pointed out they say "Oh he's not a real black, He clearly has a lot of 'white blood'". If you realy want to attack religion why don't you define religion to mean "Belief that the Bible is completely and literaly correct"? It would make your argment easier. > But, as I mentioned before, that doesn't qualify as a "religion" by > the definition put forth. So I'm not sure what point you were trying > to make. If you're saying "See? A religion said this.", well, it's > not quite a "religion" by definitional standards---which is not to > belittle it, it simply doesn't qualify for THAT label, which is > probably something (from my perspective) to be proud of. I'm not all > that familiar with Buddhism, but it's intriguing that it posits what > I've described above, in contrast to religions. See what I mean? >> Bingo. Now we hit the point where I think that both you and the >> Christians are wrong. You are thinking in your concepts. they are >> thinking in their concepts. Both of you mistake your concepts for >> reality *which* *is* *something* *else* *altogether*. > > No, Laura, we've missed the point entirely. I am making statements > about the nature of reality, and about the nature of one's subjective > experience of reality, and how one's perceptions based on that > subjectivity are subject to error. Laura is exactly correct. You are making statements about YOUR CONCEPT OF the nature of reality. How can you make satements about the nature of reality? (If you are actualy omnicient ignore this posting:-) > The only "concept" I am putting > forth here is the erroneousness of assuming subjective experience as > equivalent to reality. It is by its very nature MORE tainted than > efforts towards objective experience. You have "shown" by rational argument that subjective experience is unreliable. It is also possible to prove by subjective experience that rational argument is unreliable. How can you KNOW that one is more "tainted" than the other without some (nessicarily subjective) information about the "very nature" of things. > My "concepts" don't adequately "describe" reality, because 1) any set > of concepts described in words in inadequate to describe reality > completely, and 2) the observational tools don't exist to make such a > complete description. My warnings about the unreliability of the basis > of certain "concepts" are not a description of reality, but rather a > set of precepts for determining (at least in part) what is a viable > means of determining "reality". Ok, fine. But why should anyone be interested in your "precepts" if they don't describe reality? This is a case of the common misconception that a "Meta axiom" (a rule of inference) is in some since "better" than an "ordinary" axiom and requires less justification. Don't try to prove your beliefs you are wasting your time. (as I am wasting mine :-) Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/11/85)
> Your definitional quibles remind me of the people trying to prove that > blacks are inferior. When a clearly superior black is pointed out they > say "Oh he's not a real black, He clearly has a lot of 'white blood'". > If you realy want to attack religion why don't you define religion to > mean "Belief that the Bible is completely and literaly correct"? It > would make your argment easier. [HARTLEY] First off, what a manipulative and base crock of shit!!! Comparing an attempt to use clear definitions with racism. The relationship is less than tenuous, it's non-existent: I'm defining what the notion of religion is, and I'm labelling non-religions (i.e., life philosophies or belief systems or whatever OTHER appropriate terms might be chosen) as such. *I* don't define religion: English language usage does. And I'm not using the term to particularly mean one particular religion or set of religions. So, please, if you want to answer the points in the original article (which we've all been very successful at AVOIDING---why?), fine, but if you want to compare correct use of language with racism, please find another home. >>But, as I mentioned before, that doesn't qualify as a "religion" by >>the definition put forth. So I'm not sure what point you were trying >>to make. If you're saying "See? A religion said this.", well, it's >>not quite a "religion" by definitional standards---which is not to >>belittle it, it simply doesn't qualify for THAT label, which is >>probably something (from my perspective) to be proud of. I'm not all >>that familiar with Buddhism, but it's intriguing that it posits what >>I've described above, in contrast to religions. > See what I mean? No. (But I'm sure you do, so you'd be the best candidate to explain it.) >>>Bingo. Now we hit the point where I think that both you and the >>>Christians are wrong. You are thinking in your concepts. they are >>>thinking in their concepts. Both of you mistake your concepts for >>>reality *which* *is* *something* *else* *altogether*. > >>No, Laura, we've missed the point entirely. I am making statements >>about the nature of reality, and about the nature of one's subjective >>experience of reality, and how one's perceptions based on that >>subjectivity are subject to error. > Laura is exactly correct. You are making statements about YOUR CONCEPT > OF the nature of reality. How can you make satements about the nature > of reality? (If you are actualy omnicient ignore this posting:-) Laura (and you) are exactly wrong. I am making statements about the nature of reality. Note that I am describing METHODOLOGIES for finding the BEST picture available to us of what is reality as opposed to utilizing the clouded misperceptions without examining their veracity/falsity. My "concepts", as Laura refers to them, involve how one chooses to make statements about reality, and I have shown that those methods are in fact BETTER for making such statements than the less rigorous methods of subjective evidence. As I said earlier: >>The only "concept" I am putting >>forth here is the erroneousness of assuming subjective experience as >>equivalent to reality. It is by its very nature MORE tainted than >>efforts towards objective experience. > You have "shown" by rational argument that subjective experience is > unreliable. It is also possible to prove by subjective experience that > rational argument is unreliable. How can you KNOW that one is more > "tainted" than the other without some (nessicarily subjective) > information about the "very nature" of things. Because of the track record of unreliability and erroneousness attributed to subjectivism. Why am I getting the feeling that people are actually putting forth arguments that they themselves do not believe to support their point? Is Hartley saying that he lives by his subjective evidence rather than his objective evidence? I tend to doubt it. >>My "concepts" don't adequately "describe" reality, because 1) any set >>of concepts described in words in inadequate to describe reality >>completely, and 2) the observational tools don't exist to make such a >>complete description. My warnings about the unreliability of the basis >>of certain "concepts" are not a description of reality, but rather a >>set of precepts for determining (at least in part) what is a viable >>means of determining "reality". > Ok, fine. But why should anyone be interested in your "precepts" if > they don't describe reality? Are you implying that YOURS do? I don't think so. In fact, I think I have discussed why subjective precepts are LESS capable of such description. > This is a case of the common misconception > that a "Meta axiom" (a rule of inference) is in some since "better" > than an "ordinary" axiom and requires less justification. Don't try to > prove your beliefs you are wasting your time. (as I am wasting mine :-) This is actually a case of trying to show that the system with the fewest axioms/assumptions is more grounded in reality: if the system with more axioms were correct, it would be discoverable and verifiable through the one with fewer ones, because the basis of the additional axioms would evidence themselves in analysis. But they don't, and thus we can skip over those additional axioms when analyzing when performing analysis. You're only wasting your time if you're just talking and not listening. Your paragraph on definitions above might be interpreted as not listening, or imposing erroneous traits on the opposing argument in an attempt to silence it so you won't have to listen. -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/12/85)
Rich, I think that you have missed it. Are you thinking now? What you are are thinking is a concept, a model, which described reality. This is neither good nor bad, but simply the way human beings think. However, would you not agree that your concepts of reality are different from what they attempt to model? What happens when a human being gets so stuck in their own concepts that they lose track of reality-that-is? Lots of things. From my perspective, I find that both you and the Christians have a way to view the world. You each think that your way is the most useful. You each miss out on the distinction between reality and concepts of reality, though, so the whole thing is simply odd from where I look, until it leads to intolerance and hatred (wow -- not only do I confuse my concepts with reality, but I am willing to imprison, kill, label insane, confiscate the children of people who do not share my concepts) at which point it becomes tragic. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (03/15/85)
>> Your definitional quibles remind me of the people trying to prove that >> blacks are inferior. When a clearly superior black is pointed out they >> say "Oh he's not a real black, He clearly has a lot of 'white blood'". >> If you realy want to attack religion why don't you define religion to >> mean "Belief that the Bible is completely and literaly correct"? It >> would make your argment easier. [HARTLEY] > > First off, what a manipulative and base crock of shit!!! Comparing an > attempt to use clear definitions with racism. The relationship is less > than tenuous, it's non-existent: I'm defining what the notion of religion > is, and I'm labelling non-religions (i.e., life philosophies or belief > systems or whatever OTHER appropriate terms might be chosen) as such. > ... > but if you want to compare correct use of language with racism, please find > another home. I must appologize for implying that you have anything in common with racists. If it gives you any comfort, I would not bother to argue with you if I thought you were one of those worms (appologies also to worms). That was just the first example of that fallacy that came to my mind. Let me give another. You have noted often on the net that christians have historically commited large numbers of atrocities of various kinds. Some Chritians have replied that these acts were not commited by Christians but only by "christians". The argument is that a Christian is defined to be a follower of Christ and that Christ advocated tolerance, therefore anyone who commits an attrocity is by definition not a Christian. These Christians are trying to make their point (that christians are by and large a moral bunch) by using a definition of christian that differs substantally from common usage. You are trying to make your point (that religious thought differs from other thought principly in assuming the existance of God) by using an artificially restricted definition of "religious". > *I* don't define religion: English language usage does. And I'm not > using the term to particularly mean one particular religion or set of > religions. But you are TRYING to define religion in a way that DIFFERS from English language usage. > Religion > 1 The service and worship of God OR THE SUPERNATURAL [emphasis added] > 2 A personal set or institutionalized system of religiuos attitudes > beliefs, and practices [definition of "Religious" included in this > postiong] Definition 2 is the one that is being discussed for the most part on the net. This definition depends completely on the definition of "religious" > Religious > 1 Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledegd > ULTIMATE REALITY OR deity [emphasis added] Note the word "OR". I shall not post a definition of "or" even though it seems that you are ignorant of it's meaning. > Webster's New Collegate Dictionary Also, while we are arguing definitions, you might look up the word "Budhism". If the definition you find does not call it a reigion, go buy yourself a new dictionary. > Is Hartley saying that he lives by his subjective evidence rather than his > objective evidence? I tend to doubt it. What objective evidence? My (clearly fallable) senses? My (considerably more fallable) memory? All evidence is subjective in the final analysis. This does not mean that I weigh all evidence equally. I have criteria which determine what evidence I will trust when there is a contradiction. My criteria are probably much like yours (yech). The difference is that I recognize my criteria as arbitrary. How would I go about verifying my criteria? From evidence? How would I weigh the evidence? Using my criteria would be circular reasoning and (by my criteria) cheating. By reason alone? Reason is just one criterion for judging evidence. I usualy give it a high weight, but I cannot use it now because it is one of the criteria I am trying to judge. > This is actually a case of trying to show that the system with the > fewest axioms/assumptions is more grounded in reality: if the system > with more axioms were correct, it would be discoverable and verifiable > through the one with fewer ones, because the basis of the additional > axioms would evidence themselves in analysis. Not always. Take for instance the parallel postulate of Geometry. It can be shown that it cannot be derived from the other axioms. You are free to use it or to use one of it's converses (there are at least 2) depending on your taste or on any application you might have in mind. You have a criterion for judging world views that says that systems with fewer axioms are better. I share this view, as long as it is used in MODERATION. Not everyone else does. As I said before, a world view can only be verified by circular reasoning. Remember that ocams' razor is only a huristic; the simplest explination is not ALWAYS correct. (This, by the way, is what the "screwdriver" debate is about. "Argument from design" has nothing to do with it.) Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl