On 31 Oct 2003, at 11:33 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: religious/political question Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:11:29 +0000
On 31 Oct 2003, at 10:31 pm, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 31 Oct 2003 at 21:28, William T Goodall wrote:
Hence it is a non sequitur.
Why? Because I'm attacking something YOU believe in for a change?
My belief that your English comprehension skills are rather poor?
Well, my English comprehension skills are extremely good, yet I don't see what you're referring to. Rather than sniping at Andy with one-liners, would you please explain the distinction? Quite frankly, I don't detect one here.
You must have missed the bit that was snipped just above the above. I see Jan understood it anyway. However, I shall repeat it here (with a strong feeling of deja vu, since this actually all got discussed at length last November!)
I said (in a previous post)
It is actually. First Andrew argued that the definition 'A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion' meant religion qua religion and was not a figurative usage of the word.
Then he said " I'm perfectly willing to argue that many people in these days worship capitalism as a religion, quite seriously."
Now it seems to me that for this to make any sense he must mean something other than "I'm perfectly willing to argue that many people in these days pursue capitalism with zeal, quite seriously."
But if he does mean something different than that, then he is using a different definition of religion than the one he used in the first paragraph.
Hence it is a non sequitur.
Now I'll go through that again, and I'll comment it for you so you can follow.
It is actually. First Andrew argued that the definition 'A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion' meant religion qua religion and was not a figurative usage of the word.
Andrew got this definition from dictionary.com I believe where the results for religion would be:-
1) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
creator and governor of the universe.
2) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3) The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Andrew wanted to characterize my position as being religious. Since he knows I am an atheist the only definition in this list that could be applicable is (5) so he picked it.
Unfortunately, as Dan Minette pointed out last year this definition 'can equally be applied to mountain climbing, biking, etc.' - because it is not a definition of religion at all, it is a definition of the figurative usage of the word religion as applied to things that are not religion at all in a normal sense.
The sentence 'He brushed his teeth religiously every night' is perfectly intelligible English under sense (5) of the word religion as given above, but to go from there to claiming that the tooth brushing was an actual religious act in anything other than a figurative sense would be to demonstrate a woeful lack of understanding of how the English language is used.
Then he said " I'm perfectly willing to argue that many people in these days worship capitalism as a religion, quite seriously."
My interpretation of this statement is that Andrew is using the word religion here in a distinctly different sense than is described by definition (5) above. As I explained below in my previous email:-
Now it seems to me that for this to make any sense he must mean something other than "I'm perfectly willing to argue that many people in these days pursue capitalism with zeal, quite seriously."
The sentence "I'm perfectly willing to argue that many people in these days pursue capitalism with zeal, quite seriously." is what Andrew's statement is equivalent to, if he is using the word religion in the sense given in (5) above.
But this clearly isn't what he means because to 'be willing to argue...quite seriously' that 'many people ... pursue capitalism with zeal' is banal rather than forceful or surprising in the way that the structure of his comments leads me to suppose he thinks it is.
So Andrew has unconsciously drifted away from the definition of religion as (5) that he quoted at the start to a different definition of religion which he does not make explicit.
But if he does mean something different than that, then he is using a different definition of religion than the one he used in the first paragraph.
So Andrew starts by giving a (mistaken) definition of religion. Then he implicitly uses a different definition of religion later in his rant.
Hence it is a non sequitur.
And hence it is a non sequitur.
-- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"Aerospace is plumbing with the volume turned up." - John Carmack
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
