Re: Believing in Divine Destiny

From: Stathis Papaioannou <>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:24:36 +1100

On 2/28/07, John Mikes <> wrote:

> You, of all people, should realize that one belief system cannot reach
> over to
> another one. Logic - mindset is different, "facts" come in different
> shades, "evidence" is
> adjusted to the 'system', a belief system is a whole world.
> Brent makes the same mistake: to argue from his 'scientific' (is it really
> - in the
> conventional old sense???) mindset with statements of the faithful, but it
> is a
> geerally committed error - while you, a learned mind-scientist should know
> better.
> I am not on top of this myself: I fall frequently into arguing from my
> 'rational'
> worldview into the (rational for them) faith-induced mentality. was specifically arguing that the evidence for the
Qu'ran being the genuine word of Mohamed was good. That is an empirical
argument and I can accept it. But this misses the point because the more
interesting question is whether the Qu'ran is the word of God. has been proposing allegedly rational/empirical
arguments in support of this latter claim, but they are not nearly up to the
standard of the evidence that the Qu'ran was, indeed, written by the
historical figure Mohamed. Had said, "this is what I
believe to be the truth, so there", there is no gain in pointing out logical
or empirical inconsistencies, although there may still be a point in
examining the nature of faith, and how to decide which of the multitude of
conflicting faiths is true (sometimes religious people are perfectly
rational and scientific about every religion except their own, which strikes
me as cheating).

We are the (negligible) minority. "They" have less doubts than us.

Most of what is commonly called the western world today, with the notable
exception of the US, is agnostic, atheistic or just plain uninterested in

So I thank (whoever he or she may be) for the
> valuable intofmation about the Muslim culture and take it as that.

No doubt about it, he or she put a lot of work into the posts and even
writes reasonably well.

We will never get a jihadic self-sacrificer to accept that his expectation
> of the
> huris waitnig for pleasuring him 'over there' is unfounded. It is for him
> and who
> cares (in my view) for 'happenings' of our present (human) copmplexity
> after it
> dissolved (call it death) into disintegration?

You don't think we should even try to talk to them? Admitedly, they are far
more likely to listen to economic or political arguments than philosophical

A year ago or so Wei Dai put an end to religious discussions on the list.

Did he? I suppose we are straying from the list subject somewhat, but
overall the quality and relevance of the debate has remained very high over
the years, more so than some moderated lists.

That was in the Judeochristian domain. He was right on the button.
> Is the Judeochrismuslim argumental domain different?
> Such discussions cannot be resolved into any agreement of the 2 poles.
> Anybody arguing - MY - point?

What you've consistently said is that people may come from completely
different backgrounds and viewpoints and this does not mean we should
discount the non-standard viewpoint. However, at the very least, if someone
comes along and claims that they are following the standard rules of a game,
such as science, they can't complain if they are judged according to those

John Mikes
> On 2/26/07, Stathis Papaioannou <> wrote:
> >
> > But how do you know that the Qu'ran is actually the word of God? People
> > claim all sorts of things, and while it's often easy to prove that they
> > *claimed* these things (although as you rightly point out, with many
> > religions, such as Christianity, even this is not a given), the point is to
> > prove that these things are *true*. The more incredible-sounding, the more
> > proof is needed. If I tell you I had a conversation with my mother last
> > night you would probably have no reason to demand proof, but if I tell you I
> > had a conversation with God or aliens or Elvis Presley, then you'd be
> > foolish to just accept it, even if it can be shown that I genuinely believe
> > what I am claiming.
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> >
> > On 2/27/07, <> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Skip text
> > >
> > >
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 09:25:05 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:13 PST