Re: Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports
At 09:19 AM 7/7/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- 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. I admit that I might have phrased that better by not using myself as the teacher in the example: that was simply the first example I thought of. but then I would taking that path with you and that would be counter productive. I don't mean to be difficult here, but the statement You might personally KNOW, but should be open to the possibility that others don't seems to suggest, or at least allow for, the possibility that someone participating in the discussion may KNOW some information which the others in the discussion do not. If such a person is a participant, shouldn't that person contribute to the discussion to the best of his/her knowledge and ability? Perhaps my example about teaching was not the best one I could have used: I was simply trying to say that there are situations where it is clear that one person in a group has knowledge which the others do not have but are interested in obtaining, so it seems reasonable for that person to share his/her knowledge with the others. If the classroom setting seems too structured, the same thing (ideally) happens in a department seminar, a business meeting, or a simple bull session where all the participants are (more or less) equal: a person who has particular information shares it with the others so they may have it. Let em see if I can help. The Idea here is that two equaly intelegant people I think this, or the examples I gave above, has little to do with the intelligence of the participants -- everyone in each of the situations is presumably of comparable intelligence -- but one of knowledge which one or more people may have acquired through study and experiences which others in the group may not have had. 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. However, the statement I referred to above seems to allow for the possibility that some person (A) may KNOW that (X) is true, which would seem to be a stronger statement that (A) believes that (X) is true. Assuming, then, that such a person exists, how should s/he participate in the discussion? 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. Is faith here the same thing as knowledge? IOW, I think what I am asking here
Re: Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports
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. No, our situation is more like a seminar. We all know a lot about some subjects, and less about others. You need to be respectful, and not assume you know more than others. Does this mean that the statement You might personally KNOW... was intended specifically for John? : ) No, it was directed at all religious people who feel that they can talk others into their faith. As I understand St. Paul, faith is not something one picks up by being argued with. We have different data and viewpoints, and are trying to work out what is true. In that sense, I'm asking for a spirit of scientific inquiry. Some also think it's useful during a scientific or academic inquiry to consult those who have spent significant time studying the subject and who have taught the subject. --Ronn! :) If they have anything useful to say. It's certainly possible to have studied something but not be able to articulate what one has learned. What I was saying is that if you can't articulate your knowledge, yelling at people won't help. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports
At 07:46 AM 7/8/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: 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. No, our situation is more like a seminar. We all know a lot about some subjects, and less about others. You need to be respectful, and not assume you know more than others. Does this mean that the statement You might personally KNOW... was intended specifically for John? : ) No, it was directed at all religious people who feel that they can talk others into their faith. As I understand St. Paul, faith is not something one picks up by being argued with. True. Remember the tale of the Zen hot dog vendor. We have different data and viewpoints, and are trying to work out what is true. In that sense, I'm asking for a spirit of scientific inquiry. Some also think it's useful during a scientific or academic inquiry to consult those who have spent significant time studying the subject and who have taught the subject. --Ronn! :) If they have anything useful to say. It's certainly possible to have studied something but not be able to articulate what one has learned. What I was saying is that if you can't articulate your knowledge, yelling at people won't help. I hope I haven't been guilty of yelling at anyone in the past, and I will try not to do so in the future. If I feel I have something to contribute, I will try to be articulate. --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports
At 09:41 AM 7/8/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 08:42:43AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I hope I haven't been guilty of yelling at anyone in the past, and I will Not that I know of. try not to do so in the future. If I feel I have something to contribute, I will try to be articulate. I am still awaiting one of your divine predictions. At the moment, so am I. ;-) --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports
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! :) Ronn Blankenship Instructor of Astronomy/Planetary Science University of Montevallo Montevallo, AL Disclaimer: Unless specifically stated otherwise, any opinions contained herein are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent the official position of the University of Montevallo. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports
--- 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
Re: Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports
Ronn!Blankenship 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. No, our situation is more like a seminar. We all know a lot about some subjects, and less about others. You need to be respectful, and not assume you know more than others. We have different data and viewpoints, and are trying to work out what is true. In that sense, I'm asking for a spirit of scientific inquiry. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports
At 02:44 PM 7/7/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: Ronn!Blankenship 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. No, our situation is more like a seminar. We all know a lot about some subjects, and less about others. You need to be respectful, and not assume you know more than others. Does this mean that the statement You might personally KNOW... was intended specifically for John? We have different data and viewpoints, and are trying to work out what is true. In that sense, I'm asking for a spirit of scientific inquiry. Some also think it's useful during a scientific or academic inquiry to consult those who have spent significant time studying the subject and who have taught the subject. --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. If you aren't, there really isn't much to say, is there? (Which is why I usually stay out of religious discussions.) Yea, the word religious is now commonly used to describe topics where one or either side will not listen to reason. For Aithiests and agnotstics it is easy to -adopt- an agnostic view for the sake of arguement, But for a religious person even considering accepting an agnostic view would be sinfull, and they would want to avoid it. = _ 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
Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports
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. If you aren't, there really isn't much to say, is there? (Which is why I usually stay out of religious discussions.) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
