Brent:
I wonder if I can make a readable sense of this rather convoluted mix of posts?
I suggest the original should be at hand, I copy only the parts I reflect to.
My previous post quoted remarks go by a plain JM, the present (new) inclusions
as "----JMnow---- paragraphs.
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: Brent Meeker
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases
John M wrote (previously):
> Interleaving in* bold*(*-*
> John
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Stathis Papaioannou
> *Sent:* Monday, January 08, 2007 4:55 AM
> *Subject:* RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)
>
> Tom Caylor writes:
> ---SKIP
> >
> Stathis Papaioannou (SP:):
> People disagree on lots of things, but they also agree on lots
of things, many of which are on the face
> of it either incredible or unpleasant - because
the /_evidence_ / leaves them no choice. On matters of values and
religion, however, they disagree far more frequently. In the
case of values this is because they are not actually disgreeing about
any empirical or logical fact:
JM: --*who's empiria and who's logic? Are YOU the ultimate authority?--*
skip.
> --*Doesn't everybody. including yourself?--*
SP:>
> In the case of religion, people disagree because they are selective
> in the evidence they accept because they
> want to believe something.
JM:> --*Everybody's prerogative.--*
BM:
I'm not so sure. Of course it is everyone's *political* right to base their
beliefs on selective evidence - the institutions of government in liberal
Western democracies recognize autonomy of thought. But isn't there an ethical
duty base one's beliefs on all, or at least an unbiased sample, of the
available evidence? If you don't rationally base your decisions that affect
society, then I'd say you are a bad citizen - just as a person who sells his
vote is a bad citizen. I think we are too tolerant of religious irrationality;
in a way that we do not tolerate irrationality in any other field.
Historically this is because we want to allow freedom of conscious; we mistrust
government to enforce right thought. But just because we want to protect
personal beliefs it doesn't follow that we should be tolerant of those beliefs
when they are presented as a basis for public action.
-----JMnow:-----
"Ethical duty base"? I consider it culture-based and changing from
society-type to historical circumstances all over. See nelow a remark on the
nature of what we call 'ethics'/'morality'.
Upon your:
"...an unbiased sample, of the available evidence? " is showing.
Who is unbiased? We all live in our mindset (belief system) and call it
"true", etc. Available is the 'evidence' we so consider.
"I think we are too tolerant of religious irrationality;..." and "they" say
the same thing about the 'infidel' - and kill us. All in THEIR rationality. In
their intolerance. Do we want to be similar? down to 'their' level?
SP:> Jews believe that God spoke to Moses, but they don't believe that
God spoke to Muhammed. I don't think there is evidence that God spoke to either
of them, but if your standards of evidence are much lower than mine....
JM:>*who (else) told you which one is "lower"? Different, maybe.*
> and you accept one, you are being inconsistent if you don't accept the
other. That is,
> if you think the sort of evidence presented in holy books, reports of
miracles, religious experience, strength of
> faith in followers etc. is convincing, then pretty well every
> religion is equally convincing.
JM:>*Logical flaw: different religions accept different 'holy' books (their
own, that is).
You are in the joke when two people meet at the railroad station and one
sais: I am making a trip to a distant foreign country and the other sais: me
too, so why are we not
traveling together?*
BM:
Your seem to imply that religions and their different teachings are just
personal choices - like where to go on vacation. But in fact each one teaches
that their holy books are objectively true and the values in those books (as
interpreted by the appropriate religious authorities) are not subjective, but
are mandated by god(s) for everyone.
---JMnow:---
Seeing people changing their religions it is not mere implication.
Not many people keep their early childhood pristine faith (in whatever
religion) into later years of a hardened self. And none of the religions
teaches the 'holiness' of the OTHER religion's 'holy' books - different from
their own.
SP:
> That is not the case if you compare the evidence for a flat Earth
versus a spherical Earth, for example.
JM:> *(Watch out: Einstein reopened the scientific allowance for not only
a heliocentric, but a geocentric world with his NO preference in a relative
world (math would be complicated)*
BM:
But Einstein didn't allow for a flat Earth.
---JMnow------
Please, read again: I did neither write "Einstein allowed" nor "a flat
Earth". It was just an oratorial sideline.
*
Brent Meeker
---John Mikes---
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
