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: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
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 everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Jan 10 2007 - 15:11:52 PST