----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 5:26 PM Subject: Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
> On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 05:10:41PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > > Let me give a personal counter example. We took a homeless young > > women into our house for a year. When we did it; I realized that > > there was the potential for tremendous risk; we didn't know her _that_ > > well and it was possible that she would try to blackmail me with > > claims that I made advances on her; that she would bring unsuitable > > folks in the house; use drugs; etc. > > > > But, I asked myself if I was a real Christian or not; and took the > > risk. It was a matter of me believing in the unprovable; my belief > > that her life was just as important as my own. > > > > I realize to many, this would be an example of how I am irrational. > > Not to me. > > What if you had hosted three such women, had disasters with all three, > causing successively greater difficulties for you, your family, and > each woman, despite your having taken increasing precautions with each > succeeding woman due to past experience? Would you host a fourth? If so, > would you take the same approach you took before? > > > Yet, beliefs in ideas that are subject to emperical testing are > > undaunted in the face of contradictory evidence. > > Is there no empirical evidence that could cause you to reconsider the > existence of a god? You mean on the order of the Lapalcian illusion actually having been true, thus showing an inconsistancy with free will? I don't think such evidence exists; but if you would like to propose a test, I'll listen. > > You mean the fact that we grow in understanding is a point against > > religion? > > I don't think so. That would be a point in its favor. So, you seem to > admit that religion is subject to empirical investigation? Otherwise, > how do "we grow in understanding"? Mental masturbation? OK, I spoke loosely. The development of religeous ideas is historical. The interpretation of this development does not lend itself to testing. So, if I were speaking correctly, the grown in understanding is just one reasonable way to interpret the results. > If you do admit that religion is subject to empirical investigation, > then what empirical evidence could cause you to reconsider the existence > of a god? > > Look at the atheistic (or a-religeous) philosophies developed in the > > last 150 years. Most of them have had a rather sorry track record in > > providing meaning and support for human rights and the self-worth of > > humans. > > You almost seem to assume that one must adopt an ideology. Most everyone who has done much thinking at all has a worldview. If someone presents that in good faith; its usually easy to see the roots of that worldview. Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
