Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue

From: <daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:37:28 -0500

Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>> ...
>> Late James Higgo would have perhaps added that many trends in the
Buddhist traditions have much in common with Platonism and Plotinism.

Brent Meeker wrote:
>Theism is the belief that the world was created by a single
omnipotent, superhuman agent who cares about human behavoir and
intervenes in worldly events. 
> 
>Is that your theory?? 
> 
>Brent Meeker
>Atheism is not a religion, just as a vacant lot is not a type of 
>building, and health is not a form of sickness. Atheism is not a 
>religion. 
>  --- Jim Heldberg, San Francisco Atheist Coordinator 
 
The above quote from Heldberg would have made sense if, instead of
"atheism", he used a word like "anti-religion-ism". Religion should
not be equated with theism or theology. For instance Buddhism is not
theistic, but it is a religion.

I do agree with you, Brent, that theism, or theology, is not a good
word for Bruno's beliefs. (But I don't totally agree with your
definition of theism, as it is closer to monotheism, since you included
the word "single".)

Back on Bruno's beliefs, perhaps a word like spirituality would be a
step in the right direction, away from theology. It is also a step
away from the word "psychology". "Psychology" is often associated with
trying to figure out what is wrong with the psyche, whereas
"spirituality" opens it up to an exploration of the unknown.

The word religion locks into the idea of a set of beliefs about
reality, even beliefs that can't be proved, but also adds a set of
beliefs that certain ways of living, traditions and/or rituals are
required to live life properly. Theists and atheists alike can ascribe
to a religion, as I've already noted above (e.g. Buddhism). But I
would say the word religion is also too specific (in that it adds the
ways-of-living) to refer to Bruno's beliefs, at least at this point, if
I follow him correctly.

Speaking of religion and beliefs, Bruno, I recall that Confucius said
something like, "To know that we know what we know, and to know that we
don't know what we don't know: that is true knowledge." If I am
correct, interpreting Bp as "knowing p", could this be translated into
the following two propositions?

Bp -> BBp
~Bq -> B~Bq = D~q -> BD~q = Dp -> BDp (where p=~q)

I would say that these propositions take faith, which is in the realm
of spirituality. However, I would also say that we have to hold to
these propositions to stay sane, and also to do science and explore the
unknown.

Tom
Received on Wed Jan 04 2006 - 17:02:52 PST