Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Death To Religion] Re: *strong confidence* is less slippery...(Cont.)

Expand Messages
  • n1n31nchn3rd
    Mark wrote: ... You don t talk to me anymore? Guess I WON the debate.
    Message 1 of 149 , Nov 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark wrote:
      ...


      You don't talk to me anymore? Guess I WON the debate.
    • Mark
      ... apologize if you have already given evidence this claim; I would have missed it since I just recently acquired a chance to respond to these threads. ...
      Message 149 of 149 , Nov 20, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --rj sundseth wrote:
        > Mark wrote:
        > > Mark wrote:
        > > > > > > -M: They are complimentary and equal. Science(vijnana)
        > > > informs religion(sattarka) and *sattarka* guides *vijnana*.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > R.J.: What do you mean by religion guides science? I
        apologize if you have already given evidence this claim; I would
        have missed it since I just recently acquired a chance to respond
        to these threads.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > -M: Science gives us models and understanding, but it
        doesn't tell us what relevent research is, nor how to live life.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > R.J.: Why do you claim that science does not give us
        relevant research? In other words; what are your justifications for
        this claim?
        > > > >
        > > > > > -M: There are two different issues here:
        > > > > > 1. Relevent research.
        > > > > > 2. The determination of what relevant research is.
        > > > > > Science can give us relevant research, but it is up to our
        > > > > subjective biases to determine what constitutes this
        relevancy.
        > > > >
        > > > > > R.J.: Which is why we have knowledge, which is the
        strongest form of faith there is. To use the word faith in place of
        the word knowledge is to be purposefully ambiguous.
        > > > >
        > > > > -M: No, most knowledge is NOT faith-based. It is only faith-
        based when it is held with the highest confidence compared with
        competing forms of knowledge.
        > > > >
        > > > > Knowledge: The psychological result of perceiving, learning
        or reasoning.
        > > > > R.J.: You cannot have knowledge without complete confidence
        in whatever it is you perceive or learn or reason.
        > > >
        > > > -M: I disagree. Knowledge can be vague, mushy and
        contradictory.
        > >
        > > > R.J.: Then you are disagreeing with the definition of
        knowledge, and then without even saying what you define knowledge to
        be, you say that it is "vague, mushy, and contradictory."
        >
        > > -M: The psychological result of perceiving, learning or
        reasoning can be vague, mushy, and contradictory.
        >
        > >R.J.: Explain, please.
        >
        > -M: Say two people give different accounts of the same event.
        > The knowledge would be: "person A said X, and person B said Y"
        > Other forms of knowledge could come into play such as "person A is
        a better witness, but person B did take a picture, but person A has
        a more reasonable story, but person B says that he knows another
        witness..."
        > The complexity of the real world makes knowledge of it almost
        > innately vague, mushy, and contradictory, especially since people
        > can't even agree on the fundamental presuppositions of our
        worldviews.

        >R.J.: Both A and B have knowledge. What that knowledge is has not
        been spelled out in your hypothetical case, making YOUR account of
        this scenario, vague, mushy, and contradictory.

        -M: And likewise your account as well. So knowledge can be vague,
        mushy, and contradictory.

        > > > > >D:...but I think religion is obsolete in the modern
        > > > world.
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > -M: They aren't disappearing, because they WORK.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > R.J.: Once again; what do you mean by they "WORK"?
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > -M: Religions can give us sustainable happiness.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > R.J.: If so, it seems to be a confused and artificial
        > > > happiness.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > -M: Maybe both sustainable happiness and confused and
        artificial happiness. How would this be TESTED?
        > > > >
        > > > > > R.J.: Thinking about things.
        > > > >
        > > > > -M: Thinking, introspection, and sharing with others?
        > > > >
        > > > > R.J.: Yes. Without the need of religion.
        > > >
        > > > -M: The process of communication eludes to a worldview with
        faith- based axioms. Communication and formal thought are religious.
        > >
        > > > R.J.: According to you, everything is religious.
        > >
        > > -M: Knowledge isn't religious until formalized and acted upon -
        > this is what makes it faith-based.
        >
        > > R.J.: Would you agree that "knowledge" can be defined as "views
        > about the world"?
        >
        > -M: Yes, but this is different than a worldview.
        > R.J.: You are saying that a "worldview" is different than "a
        view about the world"?
        >
        > You are making less and less sense in ALL of the things we are
        debating.
        >
        >
        > ---------------------------------------
        > Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
        > [...]
        > Main Entry: welt·an·schau·ung
        > [...]
        > Etymology: German, from Welt world + Anschauung view
        > : a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world
        especially from a specific standpoint.
        > [...]
        > ---------------------------------
        >
        > -M: Merriam-Webster does have this synonomous with *worldview*.
        >
        > R.J.: And what exactly is the relevance of citing a definition
        of this word that is hardly ever used and so far has only proven
        that "etymology" might be synonymous with "worldview"? As far as I'm
        concerned, etymology is the study of the definitions of words, and
        how they relate to what they are referring to; isomorphisms of what
        is real and how we represent what is real in language.

        -M: I said that this is a synonym.

        >RJ: Where are you going with this?

        -M: Religion is a faith-based worldview. Science is not
        comprehensive enough to be a worldview, so its just *religious*
        instead of being *a religion*. Its religious because it is faith-
        based.

        > > > > > > > >B: 'Alternative Medicine' still exists despite the
        fact that it doesn't work.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > -M: Formalized worldviews(religions, including your
        own) will not disappear.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > >D: Fragmentation in knowledge is a problem;
        consilience is the answer. Religion isn't necessary for consilience.
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > -M: Religion IS necissary for consilience because
        it informs us of our goals, while science and logic are merely
        descriptive.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > R.J.: I am unfamiliar with the word "consilience," and
        i could not find it in my dictionary either. What does it mean?
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > -M: *Unification of knowledge* - EO Wilson has a boring
        > book with this title.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > R.J.: Thank you.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >B: If we want consilience then religion is probably
        the last place to look for it given how fragmented the whole thing
        is.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > -M: Religion is the ONLY way to have consilience.
        Formalization requires axioms held in faith - this is religious.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > R.J.: Please give me the definition of "religion" you
        are citing for this claim; I have found no such definition
        suggesting that faith in an axiom is religion.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > -M: Religions are faith-based worldviews, as all
        worldviews are, because their axioms are held with faith.
        > > > >
        > > > > > > R.J.: That is not what I asked. I asked you to cite the
        definition of religion you are using to claim that faith in an
        axiom is religion.
        > > > >
        > > > > > -M: These were my starting definitions. I have since
        argued them toward my own definitions:
        > > > > > -----------------------
        > > > > > Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
        > > > > > [...]
        > > > > > Main Entry: 1faith
        > > > > > [...]
        > > > > > 3 : something that is believed especially with strong
        > > conviction;
        > > > >
        > > > > > R.J.: You might want to look up the word "belief".
        > > > >
        > > > > > [...]
        > > > > > Main Entry: re·li·gion
        > > > > > [...]
        > > > > > 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with
        > > ardor and faith[...]
        > > > >
        > > > > > R.J.: Which is NOT "faith based world view", as you have
        > > defined it.
        > > > >
        > > > > -M: I have argued toward different definitions.
        > > > >
        > > > > R.J.: Which you yourself defined. If I define the word
        banana as meaning "rigor and persistence", you will understand what
        I mean when I say that "I search for knowledge with banana", But it
        would mean the same thing if I said "I pursue knowledge with
        dedication", the only difference being that The latter is easier to
        understand because I am using definitions that are already
        understood.
        > > >
        > > > -M: I have the standing definitions as a result of debate.
        This is how its done.
        > >
        > > > R.J.: You are making less and less sense, especially since
        you said in the other thread that faith is not a worldview, yet
        religion is a faith-based world view.
        > >
        > > -M: Faith is not a worldview but *a faith* is.
        >
        > >R.J.: So single examples of faith are worldviews,...
        >
        > -M: All religions are faiths
        > All religions are worldviews
        > Worldviews are religions if they are acted upon, which makes the
        > worldview also a faith.
        >
        > >RJ: but once we use the plural form of faith, the whole sum of
        > worldviews ceases to be views of the world?
        >
        > -M: Faiths are religions.
        >
        > >M: Faith is just a strong conviction.
        > >
        > > R.J.: Not according to you previously. You said that faith was
        > a "conviction strong enough to be acted upon". That is far more
        > specific. Which one is it?
        >
        > -M: Faith is just a strong conviction, specificly one that is
        strong enough to act upon.
        >
        > >M: If this faith is foundational of a worldview,
        > > then it is *a faith* and also a religion.
        >
        > >R.J.: Once again; why does the "world-view" nonsense disappear as
        > soon as we consider faith as encompassing all individual faiths?
        >
        > -M: Where does worldview disappear? When does faith encompass all
        > individual faiths?

        >R.J.: That is what I asked you. Do you mind answering?

        -M: I wasn't connecting your questions and I still am not, but I
        will pretend to understand you.

        The difference between a *worldview* and a *paradigm* is that a
        worldview is axiomatic in its overall goals to life in general,
        while a paradigm, like science, will serve a large but more specific
        function within that worldview - in the case of science, it is the
        formation of predictitive models.

        *A faith*/religion is something that is more personal than
        collective, however it can be both.

        So if my religion was Kashmir Shaivism, my religion would also be
        Markism. And your religion is RJism.

        shanti
        Mark, Seattle
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.