Question for religious parents

wrote in message
ups.com...
bizby40 wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
bizby40 wrote:

I *believe* that you obfuscate your meaning by making your
words as convoluted and circular as you can, and then
follow up with a "really?" or a "*boggle*" when someone
does not understand, thus attempting to put yourself on the
high ground and leave the poor befuddled simple-minded
fool on the ground.

And I believe that I use words as clearly as possible. Therefore we
disagree, and you think I am wrong, and I think you are wrong.

Which is all I've ever said through this entire thread.

Wow, you've sure used a lot of words to say only that.

Yeah, I've noticed. I would never have thought that some people were
confused by philosophy because they didn't think that propositions had
truth values. And the instructor would never be able to figure that
out either given the way classes work, so it's a good thing to know.
After 50 minutes in a class, it's over. This thread has kept going for
what, a week?

From dictionary.com:
be·lieve
[snip]
3.. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
4.. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.

All of those definitions consist of *asserting* that a proposition is
either *true*, or *false*.

I don't think the two I didn't snip necessarily say that.

Sure they do. "I believe they will arrive shortly" means you think
it's true that they will arrive shortly; "I believe they have already
left" means you think it's true that they have already left.

I don't really understand why you are having such
a hugely long conversation about semantics. I
suppose it would be more technically correct for
me to say, "I believe that no one can know for
sure what happens after death." (something I
believe to be *true*) and then "But the theory I
find most comforting or appealing is..." (stating
an opinion), but it is common for people to use
the term "believe" without having a 100% certainty
behind their views. And when someone tells you
that they can hold their beliefs without thinking
others are wrong, you really ought to believe them,
because you really can't tell someone how to
feel, and arguments over semantics are just
annoying.

Again, you don't have to be certain to be stating a belief. You just
have to think it's either true or false. You don't have to have
reasons. You don't have to have a why.

Why do you keep insisting that people think something
they have said they don't think, or feel something they
don't have said they don't feel?

And I don't know if anyone has said you have to have
a why in order to believe something. I know I haven't.
But for some of us, the lack of a solid why is the
reason why we are not confident enough in our
belief to label it as "true". I can stop calling it a
"belief" if it's going to bother you so much, but I
cannot suddenly believe in it's truth.

Bizby

dragonlady wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

Maybe that's why I can do this: I sometimes actually come close to
thinking I can maybe really imagine Schrodinger's damned cat both dead
AND alive until the probablity wave is collapsed by opening the box....

Schrodinger's cat isn't both dead and alive; it exists in a
superposition of quantum states. That's what quantum theory says,
anyway. Quantum theory doesn't endorse contradictions.

Schrodinger asks us to imagine this "superposition of quantum states" --
that, in fact, the cat exists in both states at the same time.

"The name of that new mode (which is just a name for something we don't
understand) is superposition. What we say about an initially white
electron which is now passing through our apparatus with the wall out
is that it's not on _h_ and not on _s_ and not on both and not on
neither, but, rather, that it's in a superposition of being on _h_
*and* being on _s_. And what that means (other than "none of the
above") we don't know. And some of what this book is going to be about
are a number of attempts to (as it were) say something more about
superposition than that." -- pg. 11, _Quantum Mechanics and
Experience_, by David Z. Albert.

"According to the standard von-Neumann-Dirac formulation of quantum
mechanics (which we will consider in some detail in the next chapter)
the particles do not determinately pass through one slit or the other
when both A and B are open; rather, the theory tells us that each
particle follows a superposition of different trajectories and thus
ends up in a superposition of passing through A and passing through B.
A particle in a superposition of passing through each slit does not
determinately pass through A, does not determinately pass through B,
does not determinately pss through A and determinately pass through B,
and does not determinately not pass through A and determinately not
pass through B. Indeed, a particle that is in a superposition of
passing through A and B has *observable* physical properties that
differ from each of these four classical alternatives." -- pg. 5, _The
Quantum Mechanics of Minds and Worlds_, by Jeffrey A. Barrett.

Add 'em to the stack. :-)

I am NOT a quantum physicist, and but have a decent lay understanding
for a non-scientist, and his thought experiment is one which fascinates
me, so I've done more than the average amount of reading on the subject.

Ah. If we're going to make an argument from authority, I plan to be
beginning graduate work in philosophy of physics shortly. I have a
bachelors in physics and a lot of independent reading in philosophy,
because my DH is defending his philosophy of science dissertation on
Wednesday. Here's a link to his advisor's web page:
http://web.arizona.edu/~phil/faculty/rhealey.htm

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

dragonlady wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

I think beliefs are more likely to be right if they are
modified in the face of future developments.

Then why do you want me to believe that people who disagree with me are
necessarily wrong?

If you're intending to talk about reality, things are always either
true or false. The reality of the case is never "maybe true"; even if
our best scientific answers are always approximations to reality,
there's a way reality always actually is. There aren't any examples
yet of things being "maybe true" in reality.

Do you think there is only one religion in the world that is right?
That everyone in the world ought to convert to it? Or that all
religions are wrong, and everyone ought to give up religion? How do YOU
understand the multiplicity of religions in the world?

I think that people believe in different propositions for different
reasons, and that if they all agreed on points of belief, that they'd
all be the same religious faith.

I'm not sure that's an answer to the question I asked -- but you don't
have to answer it, either. I was just curious.

Why do you think that's not an answer?

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

dragonlady wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

You're not saying that they are necessarily wrong. You're saying that
they don't agree with your belief.

You can say that you're confident that P, or that you think maybe P.

But propositions are really either true, false, or indeterminate. The
claim isn't that the proposition, "God exists" is maybe true, but maybe
the proposition "God exists" is true.

Things can't be maybe true. They can only be true or false or
unanswerable.

Why?

Because you're talking about reality, or else you're not. You might
not be sure, but that's a different problem -- why, not what.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

dragonlady wrote:
In article . com,
" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

Read James Fowler wrt embracing paradox as part of faith development.

We are talking about religion here, not logic class -- which is not to
say that formal logic has no place, only that the way language is used
in *that* field is more appropreate.

I do believe I see the problem. g

Let me mirror it back to you:

Read David Hume's _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_ wrt beliefs.

We're talking about philosophy of religion here, not mysticism -- which
is not to say that mysticism has no place, only that the way language
is used in *that* field is more appropriate.

Maybe YOU are talking about the philosophy of religion -- I'm talking
about my religion.

I'm talking about the way religions are.

But you could be right about the basis of our disagreement.

I suspect so.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

In article .com,
" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
In article . com,
" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

Read James Fowler wrt embracing paradox as part of faith development.

We are talking about religion here, not logic class -- which is not to
say that formal logic has no place, only that the way language is used
in *that* field is more appropreate.

I do believe I see the problem. g

Let me mirror it back to you:

Read David Hume's _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_ wrt beliefs.

We're talking about philosophy of religion here, not mysticism -- which
is not to say that mysticism has no place, only that the way language
is used in *that* field is more appropriate.

Maybe YOU are talking about the philosophy of religion -- I'm talking
about my religion.

I'm talking about the way religions are.

So am I -- but specifically about how MY religion is.


But you could be right about the basis of our disagreement.

I suspect so.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

bizby40 wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Again, you don't have to be certain to be stating a belief. You just
have to think it's either true or false. You don't have to have
reasons. You don't have to have a why.

Why do you keep insisting that people think something
they have said they don't think, or feel something they
don't have said they don't feel?

Words mean things. If you're just sort of emoting and not making any
claims about how things are, go right ahead -- emotions are like that.
In dragonlady's case, because she said that she's a) holding a
contradiction to be true, and b) that her belief is cognitive.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

dragonlady wrote:

DH's PhD is in Material Science (a cross discimplinary field -- in his
case, he had to pass qualifiers in physics, chemistry and electrical
engineering) -- according to him, Shcrodinger was actually trying to do
a thought experiment to take the quantum theory of superposition of
states to an absurd level, since clearly the cat can't be simultaneously
dead AND alive. Shcrodinger didn't "approve" of quantum theory, and the
thought experiment was to show how silly it was.

Yeah, exactly. The cat can't be both simultaneously dead and alive.
The proposition "The cat is dead" can't both be true and false. Good
for you!

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

In article . com,
" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

DH's PhD is in Material Science (a cross discimplinary field -- in his
case, he had to pass qualifiers in physics, chemistry and electrical
engineering) -- according to him, Shcrodinger was actually trying to do
a thought experiment to take the quantum theory of superposition of
states to an absurd level, since clearly the cat can't be simultaneously
dead AND alive. Shcrodinger didn't "approve" of quantum theory, and the
thought experiment was to show how silly it was.

Yeah, exactly. The cat can't be both simultaneously dead and alive.
The proposition "The cat is dead" can't both be true and false. Good
for you!

You make it sound like you think I'm an idiot. I am not incapable of
formal rhetoric, or logic. I did well in the handful of classes I've
taken in those fields.

I choose a different approach when it comes to my religion.

The point is, if the quantum phsyicists are right, by logical extension,
the cat MUST be simultaneously dead and alive.

While it clearly is not the case, I find it
fun/illuminating/challenging/mentally stimulating to try to visualize it
exaclty that way. (And, not being a physicist, I'm clearly NOT in a
position to figure out what's wrong with this particular picture.)

And my appoach to religion is the same -- Fowler's "ironic imagination".

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article . com,
" wrote:

bizby40 wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Again, you don't have to be certain to be stating a belief. You just
have to think it's either true or false. You don't have to have
reasons. You don't have to have a why.

Why do you keep insisting that people think something
they have said they don't think, or feel something they
don't have said they don't feel?

Words mean things. If you're just sort of emoting and not making any
claims about how things are, go right ahead -- emotions are like that.
In dragonlady's case, because she said that she's a) holding a
contradiction to be true, and b) that her belief is cognitive.

You keep saying that -- I don't hold contradictions to be true.

I simply decline to find someone else's beliefs false. The distinction
may not matter to you -- but it matters a great deal to me.

I attempt to hold my own beliefs with humility, acknowleging that I
can't know everything -- and since I might be wrong, someone else might
be right.

And -- reminding you again -- this entire discussion came about because
someone insisted that religious people HAD to think that other religions
were wrong. That is the primary statement that I refute.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care