--- Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 01:23 PM 7/4/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote:
> >iaamoac wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
> > > > probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration.
> > >
> > > But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that
> > > one does not seriously believe? Why should those who disagree with
> > > agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint?
> >
> > "Agnostic" means "not knowing", right? I don't really
> >see that there is much to DISAGREE with there. You might personally
> >KNOW, but should be open to the possibility that others don't.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure what you are getting at in the last paragraph. Let's change
> the topic under discussion from religion to astronomy (or math, or physics,
>
> or some other subject at which you may be considered an expert). When I go
>
> into the classroom, it is assumed that I know something about the topic,
> and that it is not just a possibility but a certainty that the students in
> the class do not know as much about it as I do. So what I do is to share
> as much of my knowledge of the topic with them as is possible. However, it
>
> seems as if the above is saying that instead of sharing my knowledge with
> others, if they do not already know what I know, I should pretend that I
> don't know either? Is that the correct interpretation, or am I misreading
> what the above says?
>
>
>
> >If you aren't
>
>
> ...open to the possibility that others don't know (?) ...
>
>
> >, there really isn't much to say, is there?
>
>
>
> But since I am open to the possibility that others don't know as much as I
> do about certain topics, I am willing to share what I do know in order to
> help others learn more about those topics. Do we agree, or am I missing
> the point you were trying to make?
>
>
>
Ronn, I think you are missing the point. You are getting cought up in
alternate interpritations of the words being used. You have gone off down a
metiforical path which has little to do with the original conversation. I
could easily repond with "Take yourself out of the position of teacher and
treat the others in the disagreement as if they were equals." but then I
would taking that path with you and that would be counter productive.
Let em see if I can help.
The Idea here is that two equaly intelegant people have a disagreement on of
somthing or other we wil call (X). Person (A) believes that (X) is True, but
person (B) does not. If they are going to have an enlightened disagreement
where each is open to the posability that they migt be wrong they should each
start from a position that the -truth value- of A is unknown, and then
describe to the other how a postition of truth or falsification is reached.
Persons of faith tend not to want to engage in this type of discussion about
their faith. Even though they are willing to have (and often require) this
type of discussion on every other topic.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
