If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#481
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
In article ,
dragonlady wrote: not always be possible to say to yourself that you won't argue as some day you might share that belief. Speaking of which -- would you like to join me in my worship of a relational, rescuing God? ;-) And I'd be glad to worship with you -- but for me worship is an intransitive verb: no object required. (But we can sit and worship together -- me in my intransitive way, you your relational, rescuing God, and both have a very spiritually satisfying experience.( No, not that -- I want you to join me... on the Dark Side of the -- hang on... :-) -- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "... if *I* was buying a baby I'd jolly well make sure it was at least a two-tooth!" Mary Grant Bruce, The Houses of the Eagle. |
#482
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
In article .com,
" wrote: 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. I've never suggested that there isn't a Truth at the core of it all -- only that it is unknowable by any one person. I suspect those who've come closest to seeing it all are those we would call mystics, and they generally imsist that it isn't capturable in the limited medium of language. I therefore choose to hold my beliefs in a way that seems to make some people uncomfortable. It doesn't mean I don't understand how logic works, or the difference between "true" and "false", or believe that REAL contradiction (as opposed to apparent contradiction) can hold -- it just means I choose to believe P, while holding that not-P may be true. 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? Because it reads like a simple tautology: if everyone believed the same thing, they'd all be the same religion. That strikes me as a fairly meaningless statement. They don't all believe the same things, they are not all the same religion. If you are saying the only reason for the multiplicity of religions is that people have different reasons for what they believe -- well, I think that is, at best, overly simplistic. -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
#483
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
wrote in message ups.com... 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. Yes, words mean things. And one of the meanings of believe is "To expect or suppose; think," *all* of which have meanings that include uncertainty! In fact, one definition of suppose is "To believe, especially on uncertain or tentative grounds." Also, "To consider to be probable or likely". So you can consider something to be probable or likely but on uncertain or tentative grounds, and so while you believe it to be true, you are quite open to the possibility that it might not be. In dragonlady's case, because she said that she's a) holding a contradiction to be true, and b) that her belief is cognitive. I'll let dragon speak for herself. Bizby |
#484
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
dragonlady wrote:
The point is, if the quantum phsyicists are right, by logical extension, the cat MUST be simultaneously dead and alive. Even to me, this conversation is clearly pointless to continue. You either didn't read those quotes, didn't understand them, didn't think people with the day job of thinking about the logical consequences of quantum theory had anything meaningful to say about the logical consequences of quantum theory, or were in a really big hurry to tell me that I was wrong. I'll take Socrates as an authority over Fowler; thanks. -- C, mama to three year old nursling |
#485
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
In article 4EENf.299$ia3.215@fed1read08, "Circe" wrote:
Pardon me for interrupting, as it's not my history being discussed here, but I had always assumed that the rights were inalienable in a moral sense -- ie,that it was unthinkable rather than impossible to violate them. It clearly ISN'T unthinkable, though, is it, else people would never do it. Let me rephrase. I had always assumed that the rights were inalienable in a moral sense -- ie, that it was unthinkable (to a respectable person) rather than impossible to violate them. -- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "... if *I* was buying a baby I'd jolly well make sure it was at least a two-tooth!" Mary Grant Bruce, The Houses of the Eagle. |
#486
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
|
#487
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
wrote in message oups.com... bizby40 wrote: Yes, words mean things. And one of the meanings of believe is "To expect or suppose; think," *all* of which have meanings that include uncertainty! In fact, one definition of suppose is "To believe, especially on uncertain or tentative grounds." Also, "To consider to be probable or likely". So you can consider something to be probable or likely but on uncertain or tentative grounds, and so while you believe it to be true, you are quite open to the possibility that it might not be. Sure. You can think that probably P is true. You just can't think that P is probably true; in the real world, it ultimately turns out to be that either the keys are on the table, or they're not. The keys never turn out in actual fact to be probably on the table. There's a fact of the matter. Claiming that probably P and claiming that absolutely P still involve claiming P, which means ~P is false. No duh. Why must you be so pedantic? You've talked about teaching, and how you are concerned about being able to reach your students. Well, you remind me of a teacher that I had in high school. One day he talked about the difference between "pretty" and "beautiful". He asked what we thought it was, and people tossed out a lot of answers and he kept saying, "no, that's not it." Finally we gave up, and he said something like, "Trying to improve upon beauty will ruin it. Pretty can be improved upon." And went on to talk about how make-up can improve a pretty face, but destroy a beautiful one, etc. Even at the time it seemed like an odd class. In retrospect I don't think he was trying to teach that day -- I think he was falling in love and was too wrapped up in the thought of her beauty to think of mundane things like teaching. But at the time I just thought how unfair it was. There's no clear cut answer to the difference between pretty and beautiful, and many of our answers were just as valid as his. But he didn't want to listen, only to insist. As a teacher you can do that kind of thing. You can insist your students parrot back whatever you want them to, because you hold their grade in your hands. You can also talk over their heads, talk in circles, and let them all know that you think they are dumb when they don't "get" what you are saying. You can do that, but you won't end up teaching very much that way. Bizby |
#488
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
In article .com,
" wrote: dragonlady wrote: The point is, if the quantum phsyicists are right, by logical extension, the cat MUST be simultaneously dead and alive. Even to me, this conversation is clearly pointless to continue. You either didn't read those quotes, didn't understand them, didn't think people with the day job of thinking about the logical consequences of quantum theory had anything meaningful to say about the logical consequences of quantum theory, or were in a really big hurry to tell me that I was wrong. Or you didn't read what I actually wrote. Yes, I know the cat isn't both dead and alive -- what Schrodinger was doing with his thought experiment was taking what, *according to him at the time* was the logical extension of what the quantum physicists were saying. I'm just saying it's an interesting thing to contemplate. Sort of like a zen koan. I'll take Socrates as an authority over Fowler; thanks. Depends -- on what topic? Have you read Fowler, or are you just assuming he's not worth reading because I've cited him? Are you at all familiar with his work, or are you rejecting him as an authority out of hand? Frankly, that doesn't seem very logical -- certainly not worthy of an academician. If you really care about how people hold their beliefs, their faith, and perhaps how that might affect them as students, you might read him; he's quite well respected, though not without his critics. (But then, no one ought to be without critics.) In spite of what you obviously think of me, I would undoubtedly do quite well in your class. I'm quite capable of doing the sort of work you value. -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
#489
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
wrote in message
oups.com... 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. Or maybe there is a third proposition that encompasses both "God exists" and "God doesn't exist". Just because we haven't thought of it yet doesn't mean it isn't possible. All I'm saying is that in some cases, two apparently contradictory propositions may be resolved by a third. Sort of like the way in which string theory *might* encompass both mechanical theories in physics (which currently contradict one another in some basic ways). -- Be well, Barbara |
#490
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
bizby40 wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Sure. You can think that probably P is true. You just can't think that P is probably true; in the real world, it ultimately turns out to be that either the keys are on the table, or they're not. The keys never turn out in actual fact to be probably on the table. There's a fact of the matter. Claiming that probably P and claiming that absolutely P still involve claiming P, which means ~P is false. No duh. Why must you be so pedantic? That is exactly what people have been denying throughout this thread. How can it be wrong for me to say it if it's so clearly true? -- C, mama to three year old nursling |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How Children REALLY React To Control | Chris | General | 444 | July 20th 04 07:14 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |