Question for religious parents

"-L." 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.

This seems to happen to you a lot. Time to look in the mirror.

lol -- I knew before I opened your post what exactly
it was about. If you are so great at deciphering her
posts, go ahead and take a crack at it.

Here's an example:
"I am asking why you think that whether or not
you have *reasons* for believing a proposition has
any bearing on whether or not believing a proposition
is true means you think that it's true and not false.
Why having any why would have anything to do with
having what."

Then you and she can have lots of fun discussing
the lofty issues that my poor little brain can't
comprehend. Enjoy!

Bizby

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:


I suspect she means something like a situation
where you see things that appear to be contradictory
even though you believe them to be true. Often what
happens in those situations is that further information
resolves the apparent contradiction. Now, in a formal
logical sense, that's not the same as believing P and
not P at the same time; however, in practical, messy,
real-life terms is looks and feels like holding two
contradictory positions at the same time.

In a formal logic sense, it sounds like saying I believe P, and putting
on the qualifier that if you get reasons to believe ~P, you'll change
your mind. Which is just fine -- all I have been saying is that it
means you think that P. Therefore you think ~P is wrong.

It doesn't mean you think that P forever.

Actually, I don't think that's quite accurate.
In formal logic, there's only TRUE and FALSE and no
provision for anything in between. I think in the messy
real world, we often operate somewhere in between,
especially with complicated issues or unprovable issues.

Sure. You can say that you're confident that P, or that you're
tenatively in favor of P. You're still saying P, though.

This is exactly why I brought up Kip Thorne and Stephen Hawking. They
were both confident that P, and thought the other was wrong for
thinking not P.

Neither thought the other was being unreasonable. They just disagreed.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

dragonlady wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

I would say that if we say we believe something to be true, that we
think we're describing at least a little bit of reality correctly.
That we think it's true. That we think people who don't agree with it
are wrong.

I do not see how that can be incompatible with what you seem to be
saying. Would you please explain?

Because I refuse to believe that people who don't agree with me on these
issues are necessarily wrong.

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.

Based on what Chookie has said here, I'm fairly confident that Chookie
is wrong, and I can guarantee that Chookie is confident that I'm wrong.
It doesn't mean I think she's being unreasonable, or that I know that
I'm really going to turn out to be right. It means I believe something
she doesn't, that I assert a proposition is true that she asserts is
false.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

wrote in message
roups.com...
wrote:
I'm saying that beliefs have to say that a proposition is either true,
or false, and that if I think a proposition is true, that automatically
means that I think that people who think that proposition is false are
wrong.

I disagree with this one hundred percent. There are some things in
the world that I think are black and white, but it primarly has to do
with being kind to one another, or certain ethical or moral issues
which generally trascend religion

In general, I think that when people think the way you suggest above,
about anything, not just religoun, it creates unneccary conflict and
strife.

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.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

Barbara Bomberger wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com...
wrote:
I'm saying that beliefs have to say that a proposition is either true,
or false, and that if I think a proposition is true, that automatically
means that I think that people who think that proposition is false are
wrong.

In general, I think that when people think the way you suggest above,
about anything, not just religoun, it creates unneccary conflict and
strife.

I've never met anyone in my life before who disagreed with the
principle of non-contradiction once they knew what it was. It's an
interesting thing to learn about people.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

In article .com,
" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

I would say that if we say we believe something to be true, that we
think we're describing at least a little bit of reality correctly.
That we think it's true. That we think people who don't agree with it
are wrong.

I do not see how that can be incompatible with what you seem to be
saying. Would you please explain?

Because I refuse to believe that people who don't agree with me on these
issues are necessarily wrong.

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?

I'm not asking you to hold your beliefs the way I hold mine. You are
free to think that those who believe things that you do not believe are
wrong.

Including that I am wrong in thinking that I can believe something,
without believing that those who believe the opposite are wrong.

Fowler calls what I'm doing (or trying to do) -- the believing in
paradox -- "the rise of the ironic imagination". I generally find it a
comfortablee and comforting place to be.

It DOES require critical thinking about my beliefs and about my faith --
in a way that might not be comfortable for other people.

But, as I said, it's working for me.

Certainly, at least in part, I'm saying that all of these things are
ultimately unanswerable -- but that I have answers that I believe right
now.

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

In article .com,
" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
In article . com,
" wrote:


What I am saying is that *thinking critically and logically* involves
recognizing contradictions and rejecting them. I'm certainly not
saying that you don't learn things, or that you're not thinking
critically most of the time (I won't say all, because I don't think
brains act like that -- no one thinks critically all of the time.) I'm
saying that with respect to this particular claim, you *cannot* be
thinking critically until you recognize the contradiction and start to
figure out what it is that went wrong

And I'm saying that insisting that if two people hold contradictory
beliefs about God, thinking one of them must be wrong is a failure of
imagination.

I am not saying that one of the people has to hold a false belief, and
that one of them has to hold a true belief.

I am saying that each thinks the other is wrong, since they believe
something contrary.

Or else that they don't think they're talking about the way things
really are.

Or else that they haven't defined their terms precisely.

I am not saying that I hold two contradtory beliefs at the same time --
that's not the paradox -- it is that I attempt to hold my own beliefs
both firmly enough to take action based on them, and with the humility
of knowing that I could be wrong, and therefore someone else could be
right.

Good for you. 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?


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.

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

Circe wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Circe wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
I'm saying that beliefs have to say that a proposition is either true,
or false, and that if I think a proposition is true, that automatically
means that I think that people who think that proposition is false are
wrong.

I think this is a proposition on which we'll just have to agree to
disagree.
Maybe the problem is that you only apply the word "belief" to facts or
ideas
which you think apply universally, while I apply it both to things I
think
are universally true and to things I hold to be true for me that I
suspect
might not be true for others.

Considering that you just replied to a post in which I said, "I'm not
saying that
all beliefs have to be held by everybody,"

I didn't think you were saying this...

and "I'm not saying that all
beliefs have to apply to truths that are about everyone,"

...but it did seem to me that you are saying this! I'm not sure how else to
interpret the statement (paraphrased), "If I think a proposition is true, I
automatically think people who think it's false are wrong." In other words,
you seem to be saying that for you to consider something a "belief", it has
to be something for which there are only two possible positions--true in all
cases or false in all cases. Now, I suppose that means you can say "I
believe brussel sprouts taste bad to me" and have it be true without having
it apply to all people. What I'm trying to say is that most of my beliefs
with regard to the Big Questions are more along the lines of "I believe P
for me," which allows me to open to the possibility that people who believe
Not P can be equally right when it comes to the truth for themselves.

Sure. Like I said, presumably you believe that "Jesus is her personal
Messiah." All I am saying is that you cannot believe both that "Jesus
is her personal Messiah" and "Jesus is not her personal Messiah." It's
just fine with me if you get specific about what it is that you
believe. In fact I prefer it; it excludes more possibilities and
narrows the possible range of options you could be meaning to talk
about.

Maybe the real issue I'm struggling to explain here is that when it comes to
most of my beliefs, I doubt that there are simple yes/no, true/false
answers. So it is impossible for me to hold the position "P is true" (where
P represents some "big picture" question about the nature and meaning of
life) without simultaneously entertaining the possibility that not only is P
true, but Not P is true as well as P=X and P-X and any number of other
variations on P.

Again, it has nothing to do with how *confident* you are in your
belief. You can be confident that your keys are on the table and still
be wrong, or right. You just can't be both wrong and right at the same
time.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

In article .com,
" wrote:

Heisenberg, anyone?

Um, yeah. We can talk about Heisenberg if you'd like. Probably ought
to take it to email though.

Not really -- but I think his uncertainty principle is relevant here in
an odd sort of way.

Quamtum physics and theology seem very comfortable bedfellows, to me.


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.

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.

I figure if his CAT can exist simultaniously in both states, why not
God?

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