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.

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

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

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

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.

wrote:

Claiming that probably P and claiming that absolutely P still involve
claiming P, which means ~P is false.

To make that even more explicit:

Claiming that probably P and claiming that absolutely P *both* involve
claiming P, which means you are logically claiming that ~P is false in
any formal system.

It doesn't mean you are certain that ~P is false. It doesn't mean you
won't change your mind. It doesn't mean you think the belief is true
for all people. It doesn't mean you've got any evidence. It doesn't
mean you're right.

When Stephen Hawking believed there wasn't a black hole at Cygnus X-1,
he thought the belief that there was a black hole at Cygnus X-1 was
wrong.

When Barbara (Circe) believes that she doesn't like the taste of
brussels sprouts, it means that she thinks that the belief that Barbara
(Circe) does like the taste of brussels sprouts is wrong.

If you believe that someone will arrive at your house soon, it means
that you think that the belief that someone will not arrive at your
house soon is wrong.

That's always what it means to have a belief. It's a propositional
attitude, an attitude that a given proposition is either true, or
false.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

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

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

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

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