The human speaking in the present in front of us is subject to history, eventually biology and the 'big bang' of a universe evolving. I doubt, say, that Molly and I speak the 'same' language of words, though over the years it's clear we do share a great deal of meaning. I find the credibility of conviction difficult - indeed credibility itself as a weapon in argument. Incredulity, on the other hand, does not have to make comfort impossible, and without thought of reconstruction, deconstruction is not true to itself, relying on belief in a better society after all truth revealed in the main destruction (so anarchy is very religious). I don't know what has Molly believing in a beneficent god. It doesn't matter to me. Molly's Molly. I would be lying if I evinced religious conviction - she isn't. More dangerous are creeps like Tony Blair evincing conviction.
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:01:28 AM UTC+1, archytas wrote: > > Tony sounds a lot like Wittgenstein in his 'lectures on religious belief', > perhaps most easily summarised by the end of his paper 'lecture on ethics'. > 'My whole tendency and I believe the tendency of all men who ever tried to > write or talk Ethics or Religion was to run against the boundaries of > language. This running against the walls of our cage is perfectly, > absolutely helpless. Ethics so far as it springs from the desire to say > something about the ultimate meaning of life, the absolute good, the > absolute valuable, can be no science. What it says does not add to our > knowledge in any sense. But it is a document of a tendency in the human > mind which I personally cannot help respecting deeply and I would not for > my life ridicule it'. > > I suspect we are alien. Maybe to ship across space-time, we had to assume > extremely primitive form (space weather is a killer of advanced biology and > technology), and at some point we get advanced enough to set up a > 'receiver' that will allow our more advanced yet previous civilisation to > come? To get to Mars in reasonable time, it would be handy to have a base > there to fire fuel at our ships to slow them down*.* > > > *It is harder than Wittgenstein says not to ridicule. We might expect the > best team to win in games like rugby league - yet I would say my team lost > in the semifinal because an injury put out our best passer, meaning the > replacement was in his position and unable to give the winning pass (I'd > have managed on my Zimmer). This left the team that beat us the best team > in the final. Then they got a man sent off for two dire punches (in a rush > of blood) and lost to the third best team. The black swan flies! Maybe > life is tough and then you die. The rules of conviction and conversion in > religion are not rational, and rules are always subject to gaming and fate. > It is a mistake to think science and religion speak the same language, > though what is said shares the same actors and (my guess) the same deep > iconography.* > On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 11:21:51 PM UTC+1, Molly wrote: >> >> I don't agree that everything reasonable is factual but there you have >> it. We are probably both wrong. >> >> On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 5:31:43 PM UTC-4, facilitator wrote: >>> >>> Once faith leaves the realm of "unreasonable" it becomes fact. Your >>> belief system may incorporate faith, but it is not necessary. You can >>> claim belief in substantive things or ideals or nor at all. It is a >>> mechanism. Facts and probabilities are also part of a valid belief system >>> but faith requires that the adherent relies on the metaphysical. >>> >>> On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:59:37 PM UTC-4, Molly wrote: >>>> >>>> I whole heartedly disagree with your last statement here. Faith can be >>>> beyond reason, but doesn't need to be necessarily. It is reasonable for me >>>> to believe that living by the ten commandments can lead to as good a life >>>> as living by Stephen Covey's 7 habits. It may not be reasonable to believe >>>> that after I have lost everything of value in this world, the Lord will >>>> provide and things will get better. My experience is, they do. Is it >>>> because I believe? That might be a reasonable explanation. >>>> >>>> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
