And you, Stathis, are very kind to assume that I "know' a right position from a
wromng one. I may be in indecision before I denigrate...
On the contrary. if someone 'believes' the 6 day creation, I start speculating
WHAT "days" they could have been metaphorically, starfting before the solar
system led us to our present ways of scheduling. Etc. Etc. Accepting that
whatever we 'believe' is our epistemic achievement, anything 'from yesterday'
might have been 'right' (maybe except the old Greeks - ha ha). in their own
rites.
Sometimes I start an argument about a "different" (questionable?) belief just
to tickle out arguments which I did not consider earlier. But that is my dirty
way.
I am a bad judge and always ready to reconsider.
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
John,
Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent belief
systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their beliefs must
be wrong - even in the absence of other information. You're much kinder to
alternative beliefs than I am, but in reality, you *must* think that some
beliefs are wrong, otherwise you would hold those beliefs! For example, if you
say you don't personally believe the earth was created in six days, but respect
the right of others to believe that it was, what you're really saying is that
you respect the right of others to have a false belief. I have no dispute with
that, as long as it is acknowledged.
Stathis Papaioannou
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:07:52 -0500
Stathiws,
no question about that. What I was trying to stress was the futility of
arguing from one belief system (and stressing its solely expanded "truth")
against a different "truth and evidence" carrying OTHER belief system.
BTW: don't schyzophrenics (maybe multiple personalitics) accept
(alternately) ALL the belief systems they carry? (=layman asking the
professional).
IMO we all (i.e. thinking people) are schizophrenix with our rather elastic
ways of intelligence. Beatus ille qui est "onetrackminded"..(the 9th
beatitude).
To your initial sentence: do you believe (in YOUR criteria of your beliefs)
that TWO people may have absolutely identical beliefs? I am almost certain that
as your immune system, DNA, fingerprint and the other zillion characteristics
are not identical to those of other animals, the mental makeup is similarly
unique.
We are not zombies of a mechanically computerized machine-identity (Oops,
no reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?) idem, non est idem.
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
John,
You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different
criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, "those old Greeks sang songs
about their gods' miraculous exploits, really seemed to believe in them, and on
top of that were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the Iliad and Odyssey
must be true", then they would be consistently applying the standards they
apply to the Bible. Of course, they don't: other peoples' religious beliefs are
subjected to rational scrutiny and (rightly) found wanting, but their own
beliefs are special.
Stathis Papaioannou
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:17:57 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis:
is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system
ONLY with a person
who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout
catholic and an excellent
biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind,
he answered:
"I never mix the two together". Tom is an excellent natural scientist
and has brilliant
arguments in it, as long as it comes to his 'other' belief system -
what he, quite
inderstandably - does not want to give up.
We all have 'second belief bases' in our multiple schizophrenia of
intelligence.
Some have 'Platonia', some 'primitive matter view' - it is your
profession.
Do you really think you can penetrate one by arguments from another?
John M
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
