TheHermit wrote:
>In a debate, and this is more of a debate than a conversation, a point
>undefended is a point conceded.
Well, I would respectfully disagree with primary assumption above; I think most will agree with me that this is a forum for conversation, not a stage for debate. CoV is composed of active participants and curious observers, not of winners and losers. There is no panel awarding points to either side, only friends made and opportunities for friendship lost.
>I have noticed that the religious are very
>quick to claim these points. Just look at the whole "The US is a Christian
>currency" because of the inclusion of "In God We Trust" on their currency
>for just one example.
Did someone say that here? Or are you bringing your prejudices from another conversation (oops! "debate" for you, I guess) in here and painting us with them?
>Reeling out rope is possibly even less "caring" than correcting egarias
>errors.
SnowLeopard wasn't the only one I was reeling out rope to, my debating friend.
>Cute phrasing. Are you losing it? So soon? Should I give you some
>rope? I actually address the points made by the people I am holding
>discourse with.
No, you didn't. But I don't expect that you saw that, did you? Did you see how well it went over? Shook her to her very foundations, didn't it? (LOL!)
>I don't invent mono-variable functions in x and then refer
>to values in y.
??? (Last time I checked "f(x)" and "y" were considered the same in even the most basic texts. I'm afraid I don't understand what your saying.)
>Excuse me if I observe that a "one-dimensional entity" cannot wriggle. And
a
>one-dimensional entity watching a two-dimensional entity wriggle would
>simply perceive it blinking on and off.
So you did understand he analogy to some degree, I take it.
>Tim it sounds more and more as if this is your preferred data space:
>
> Faith Phaith
>Caring ............... Arsehole
> Lies Truth
>
>While the one below has a great deal to recommend it:
>
>
> Caring
> .
> . Belief
> . /
> . /
> ./
>Lies . . . . . -. . . . . Truth
> /.
> / .
> / .
> Proof .
> .
> Arsehole
>
Well, I'm not sure where the first chart came from, but yes, the second is
quite close to what I was saying. Although I think it's a little odd where
you put "Proof" on it. Was that a mistake?!?
Ohhh! I get it now! It's in 3-D right! Neato! Proof/Belief is on the
z-axis, coming forward, correct? (I'm assuming Belief is in front, since
that is the standard form for such graphs.)
>The front right upper quadrant (+C+P+T) is quite attractive. And despite
Could you be a little more clear about what you mean by that? I was urging
you to use the upper right rather than the lower right. (2-D version) What
did you think I was saying?
>your implications to the contrary can be occupied simultaneously. The
>either/or choices are purely in your mind.
>As I recall, "noëtic" (from Gk noësis a perception), automatically implies
>reason and the intellect. So if we toss out reason, then "noëtics" fails to
>have a subject.
Why would you toss out reason? You nuts or something?!? But really... This is what I was taking about: (From a post to CoV on 1/27/99)
>>>Begin Archive Post<<<
>I find that few people really understand why a lot of christians
I think this is a very important area that is often overlooked in
discussions of religion and a topic which could benefit all of our
understandings if thoughtfully explored in a forum such as this.
The "cement" you're talking about is what William James describes in his
book _The Varieties of Religious Experience_ as having the four qualities of
ineffability, passivity, noëtic quality, and transcendence. ("Noëtic" is a
little used word that comes from the Greek for intellect or understanding.
SG wrote:
>hold to their faith when there seems to be so much evidence
>destructive to the biblical world-view.
[snip]
>
>I believe it has more to do with a religious experience than anything
>else. When I realized the logistics of one Santa bringing every boy
>and girl in the world toys, I was able to discard that belief. Why?
>Because there was no experience to cement that belief into place.
"Although so similar to states of feeling, mystical states seem to those who experience them to be also states of knowledge. They are states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority for after-time."
from the outside world. I'm quite curious what selective advantage these
experiences _must_ have provided to those having them to have garnered such
an overriding significance in the workings of the brain.
Now, all that being said, I should worn you that this possibility of having
a fruitful discussion on the topics above here, on the Church of Virus list,
seems completely unlikely. There are many who frequent these parts which
find it hard, if not impossible, to accept the realms of emotion or
experience as valid and are therefore quick to classify-and-dismiss anything
that smells even faintly of subjective experience. Such thinkers would
withhold the label "true" for only those things that can be objectively
proven and are unlikely to place any experience, religious or otherwise, in
that same category. (And yet, oddly, I suspect these same individuals would
be just as unlikely to dismiss their own emotional experiences--say,
>That is an analogy to the christian experience in "meeting Jesus
>Christ". It's like a whole new world opens up, and you want to tell
>everyone about it. It's so real that no amount of evidence seems
>to be able to destroy faith in it.
Yes, I think we're talking about the same things here.
>I have had that experience, and now am trying to find out if this
Love, anger, passion, fear, and comfort are also "just tricks of the brain."
The real question is: What have we gained as a species by having this trick
hard-wired into our brains?
>experience is just a trick of the brain.
-Prof. Tim
Now, are we on the same page, TheHermit? Do you understand what I'm
referring to when I say "noëtic" experience? Or should I go over it again
>>>End Archive Post<<<
>I know why the religious believe as they do. For some people it is
rewarding
>(in the same way as T.M. or a dose of ecstasy can be rewarding. Been there,
>tried that.) and it is comforting not to need to attempt to think, not to
>need to find answers, not having to find beginnings or explain ends. We
are
>able to reproduce all of the "results" of faith chemically,
??? Please share, I'm unaware of these findings.
>and have a
???!?!?!! Again, please share. I'd be interested in these studies too.
Did they use twins separated at birth, perhaps?
>number of strong indications that a capacity for faith is genetically
>programmed.
>A more interesting line of investigation might be what benefits
>a capacity for faith might entail.
Funny, I think I said the same thing two months ago. (above) Where were you then?