Hi Platt -- > A dictionary definition of a word constitutes empirical evidence? > That apparently means empirical evidence now includes what is > cited by an authority -- a very shaky interpretation of empiricism > it seems to me. The physical senses upon which empiricism rests > do not observe word meanings.
I think you are being excessively analytical. A dictionary definition is no more an "authority" than the alphabet is. Surely the use of words to express feelings and communicate ideas is shared experience in a literate culture. In fact, it's what we're all doing here. I don't know how you define "empiricism", but inasmuch as what is common practice is observed and experienced, it counts as empirical evidence, wouldn't you agree? [Ham, previously]: > The point I was trying to make is that faith itself is not a bad thing, > and that ending or eradicating it would be denying the spirituality of man > upon which all conviction and trust is based. [Platt]: > Right you are. But it goes beyond spirituality. Scratch the bottom > of any belief and you'll find faith. Personally I place great faith in > Beauty. I guess my notion of "spirituality" is more expansive than yours. It includes value-sensibility, for example, such as the appreciation of beauty, freedom, and wonderment. I don't "have faith" in these things; I feel them, participate in them, make them part of my being. I suspect you do, too. Value sensibility is the very essence of human beingness. So what is the basis of your argument? [Ham, previously]: > [Submission] is the evil we are fighting in the Islamic world. > We should not conflate it with "faith", "theism", or even > "religious intolerance" which is really a form of discrimination. [Platt]: > Yes. There are plenty of religious bigots around. As for the evil we are > are fighting, it is not so much total submission to the will of a divine > that > is evil (although that's bad enough) but the initiation of physical force > for reasons other than self-defense against physical attack. Use of physical force is a human decision. The compulsion for violence may be criminal behavior or psychotic (in which case we say the aggressor is "not in his right mind"). It may be an act of self-defense or one's duty to defend one's country as ordered by a duly appointed military commander, either of which is assumed to be a rational decision. Or, it may be the order of a renegade issued in the name of a deity or prophet, to whom the perpetrator has totally submitted himself. This cannot be considered a rational act, since neither the aggressor nor the decision-maker is free to act on his own behalf or on behalf of a sovereign nation. Unprovoked acts of violence against humanity are irrational, immoral, and expose the evil of absolute submission. Essentially yours, Ham P.S. Your book has been inscribed and will be delivered to the post office on Monday morning. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
