Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
H Jim. No, you're not mistaken, that was me. The last part of my last post was that the discussion of knowledge was actually tangential to the belief thing as a belief. Of course it was certainly nice to have the discussion about knowledge and the various points of view presented I note your empiricist concern of "unsubstantiated", but don't worry I wouldn't go the whole epistemological route in a psych class. --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5872 or send a blank email to leave-5872-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
> *From:* Marc Carter [marc.car...@bakeru.edu] > *Sent:* Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:22 AM > *To:* Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > *Subject:* RE: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things? > > > That's certainly how I learned it. "Knowledge" is justified, true > belief. One can have true beliefs, but without justification they do > not rise to the level of knowledge. One cannot "know" something that > is false. Well, that is certainly the traditional definition of knowledge, but everyone (who studies epistemology) also knows (yes, knows) that it is an inadequate definition. Consider the legion of Edmund Gettier-style counterexamples. Ex: I look out a window to my backyard. I see (what appears to be) an orange. In fact, unbeknownst to me, it is made of plastic, and it is only half an orange. Behind it, unseen by me, is an actual orange. So we come to the question, do I "know" that there is an orange in the backyard? Most people would say "no" because I am decieved about so many aspects of the situation. Nevertheless, I have a belief (that there is an orange in the backyard) which is justified (by my observation) and which is true (there is indeed an orange in my backyard... I just can't see it). For the original Gettier paper (Analysis, 1963) see: http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html It is cited in virtually every epistemology text. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5871 or send a blank email to leave-5871-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
Too true. His paper was "The Fixation of Belief," not knowledge. I teach that
paper as "ways of coming to believe," but many texts use "ways of coming to
know."
That's such a great paper. Those guys were *smart*.
m
--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--
From: Bourgeois, Dr. Martin [mailto:mbour...@fgcu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:33 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
Here's one thing that I believe (as opposed to know) contributes to the
confusion: many research methods texts, when discussing C.S. Pierce's ways of
fixing beliefs (e.g., authority, tenacity, etc.), refer to them as ways of
knowing.
From: Marc Carter [marc.car...@bakeru.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:22 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
That's certainly how I learned it. "Knowledge" is justified, true belief. One
can have true beliefs, but without justification they do not rise to the level
of knowledge. One cannot "know" something that is false.
So beliefs that are not amenable to empirical justification or sound deductive
argumentation cannot be knowledge.
At least, that's how I was trained...
m
--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by Baker University ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for
the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be
protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal
rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please
immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5867
or send a blank email to
leave-5867-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
Hi James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca >>> Michael Smith 21-Oct-10 8:07 AM >>> Of course all of this discussion of knowledge has very little to do with my original context which was that the "God saved them" statement is a statement of belief not an argument (despite the ensuing 'argument' which was at best tangential :-) ). JC Sorry Mike, I believed/thought/knew (or thought I knew??) that you had written in a subsequent post that "I think I would agree that the statement [i.e., "God saved them"] wouldn't count as a scientific hypothesis, but not that it couldn't count as knowledge. To say that assumes a scientific world view where the falsifiability thing is king. It is conceivable, though, that one can have true knowledge without such knowledge being falsifyable in the least." Hence my concern about your (or someone else's??) use of the term knowledge (even more so the phrase "true knowledge") to refer to an unsubstantiated belief. Take care Jim --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5864 or send a blank email to leave-5864-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
Here's one thing that I believe (as opposed to know) contributes to the
confusion: many research methods texts, when discussing C.S. Pierce's ways of
fixing beliefs (e.g., authority, tenacity, etc.), refer to them as ways of
knowing.
From: Marc Carter [marc.car...@bakeru.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:22 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
That's certainly how I learned it. "Knowledge" is justified, true belief. One
can have true beliefs, but without justification they do not rise to the level
of knowledge. One cannot "know" something that is false.
So beliefs that are not amenable to empirical justification or sound deductive
argumentation cannot be knowledge.
At least, that's how I was trained...
m
--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--
From: Jim Clark [mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:57 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
Hi
Only by using the term "knowledge" in a quirky or loose way would it be
possible to say one has true knowledge without some sort of rational or
empirical justification (I'm not certain that falsifiability is the only such
criterion one can use). There is a discussion of this at
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Epistemology
That is, in more correct usage, knowledge implies or assumes justification in a
belief. Without sound justification, beliefs do not qualify as knowledge, no
matter how certain we might be about our unsubstantiated belief. Indeed, isn't
much of what we try to teach our students about how to substantiate beliefs
(i.e., hypotheses) so that beliefs/speculations/hypotheses become sound
knowledge about human behaviour? If we start to admit any strongly held belief
as being "true knowledge," irrespective of its justification, the discipline is
really lost. Of course, most people who do want to extend "truth" into a wider
domain usually are quite restrictive about what beliefs they want to admit as
true.
Take care
Jim
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca<mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca>
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by Baker University ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for
the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be
protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal
rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please
immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as:
mbour...@fgcu.edu<mailto:mbour...@fgcu.edu>.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13390.2bbc1cc8fd0e5f9e0b91f01828c87814&n=T&l=tips&o=5859
(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
or send a blank email to
leave-5859-13390.2bbc1cc8fd0e5f9e0b91f01828c87...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-5859-13390.2bbc1cc8fd0e5f9e0b91f01828c87...@fsulist.frostburg.edu>
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5863
or send a blank email to
leave-5863-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
That's certainly how I learned it. "Knowledge" is justified, true belief. One
can have true beliefs, but without justification they do not rise to the level
of knowledge. One cannot "know" something that is false.
So beliefs that are not amenable to empirical justification or sound deductive
argumentation cannot be knowledge.
At least, that's how I was trained...
m
--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--
From: Jim Clark [mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:57 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
Hi
Only by using the term "knowledge" in a quirky or loose way would it be
possible to say one has true knowledge without some sort of rational or
empirical justification (I'm not certain that falsifiability is the only such
criterion one can use). There is a discussion of this at
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Epistemology
That is, in more correct usage, knowledge implies or assumes justification in a
belief. Without sound justification, beliefs do not qualify as knowledge, no
matter how certain we might be about our unsubstantiated belief. Indeed, isn't
much of what we try to teach our students about how to substantiate beliefs
(i.e., hypotheses) so that beliefs/speculations/hypotheses become sound
knowledge about human behaviour? If we start to admit any strongly held belief
as being "true knowledge," irrespective of its justification, the discipline is
really lost. Of course, most people who do want to extend "truth" into a wider
domain usually are quite restrictive about what beliefs they want to admit as
true.
Take care
Jim
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca<mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca>
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by Baker University ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for
the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be
protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal
rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please
immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5859
or send a blank email to
leave-5859-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
Thanks for the link Jim. I would disagree that my previous post implies that one must use 'knowledge' in a "quirky or loose way". As your link shows, there is a recognized position of irrational knowledge (irrational, of course, without any pejorative connotation). Although I'm not implying that the belief that 'God saved them' is necessarily irrational. However, I don't think that not being an empirical statement automatically invalidates a statement as being knowledge. I also disagree that the assumption of empirical justification is the "more correct usage", rather it is the usage of term 'knowledge' in the empirical tradition. I agree that we do indeed (or at least should) " try to teach our students about how to substantiate beliefs (i.e., hypotheses) so that beliefs/speculations/hypotheses become sound knowledge about human behaviour?" But that is simply because we are teaching psychology. (I take exception, though, to the equating of beliefs with hypotheses-in-the-empirical-sense). Also, I don't think I implied that we should "...admit any strongly held belief as being "true knowledge," irrespective of its justification,..." to the field of psychology. If psychology is a science, then of course it must use the rational-empiricist view of knowledge. >"Of course, most people who do want to extend "truth" into a wider domain >usually are quite restrictive about what beliefs they want to admit as true." To me, this seems to be a swipe at any approach to knowledge that is not empiricist. Empiricism is only one approach to knowledge and it has its own problems and limitations. Of course all of this discussion of knowledge has very little to do with my original context which was that the "God saved them" statement is a statement of belief not an argument (despite the ensuing 'argument' which was at best tangential :-) ). --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5858 or send a blank email to leave-5858-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
Hi Only by using the term "knowledge" in a quirky or loose way would it be possible to say one has true knowledge without some sort of rational or empirical justification (I'm not certain that falsifiability is the only such criterion one can use). There is a discussion of this at http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Epistemology That is, in more correct usage, knowledge implies or assumes justification in a belief. Without sound justification, beliefs do not qualify as knowledge, no matter how certain we might be about our unsubstantiated belief. Indeed, isn't much of what we try to teach our students about how to substantiate beliefs (i.e., hypotheses) so that beliefs/speculations/hypotheses become sound knowledge about human behaviour? If we start to admit any strongly held belief as being "true knowledge," irrespective of its justification, the discipline is really lost. Of course, most people who do want to extend "truth" into a wider domain usually are quite restrictive about what beliefs they want to admit as true. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca >>> Michael Smith 20-Oct-10 6:14 PM >>> Chris wrote "Which is precisely why it doesn't count as a candidate for knowledge (for anyone remotely sympathetic to Popper)." I think I would agree that the statment wouldn't count as a scientific hypothesis, but not that it couldn't count as knowledge. To say that assumes a scientific world view where the falsifiability thing is king. It is conceivable, though, that one can have true knowledge without such knowledge being falsifyable in the least. --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=5841 or send a blank email to leave-5841-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5844 or send a blank email to leave-5844-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
Chris wrote "Which is precisely why it doesn't count as a candidate for knowledge (for anyone remotely sympathetic to Popper)." I think I would agree that the statment wouldn't count as a scientific hypothesis, but not that it couldn't count as knowledge. To say that assumes a scientific world view where the falsifiability thing is king. It is conceivable, though, that one can have true knowledge without such knowledge being falsifyable in the least. --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5841 or send a blank email to leave-5841-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
Michael Smith wrote: > >From my point of view, the "'God saved them' argument'"[is] simply a > >statement of belief (which, by the way, cannot be shown to be incorrect). > Which is precisely why it doesn't count as a candidate for knowledge (for anyone remotely sympathetic to Popper). Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5838 or send a blank email to leave-5838-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
I don't know if Stephen actually intended to mock the psychics, but Allen's response: "Stephen rightly mocks the psychics" is I think innappropriate. Because their world view (presuming the psychics believe they are truly psychics) differs from one's own does not give one the right to "rightly" mock them. The fact that Dawkins loves to mock, belittle, use name calling, and encourage disrespect of religion and religious people I think speaks to his adolescent-like emotional maturity and should not be emulated. >From my point of view, the "'God saved them' argument'" isn't intended as an argument and does not lead to '"a brittle kind of religiousness'". It's simply a statement of belief (which, by the way, cannot be shown to be incorrect). --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5830 or send a blank email to leave-5830-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
On 19 October 2010 Michael Britt wrote: >Our minister/priest (whatever they call him) this past Sunday >decided to discuss the "God saved them" argument during his >Sermon… Religion, he said, is a journey and we do not have >all the answers. Chris Green responded: >Michael Britt wrote: >> Religion, he said, is a journey and we do not have all the answers. >That's funny. I thought science was a journey and we didn't have all the >answers. :-) For the thoughtful religious person, the "funny" (meant of course in the sense of 'peculiar')* is surely superfluous. He or she may regard *both* that their particular sense of religion *and* that science conforms to that way of seeing them, each in their own sphere of relevance. From such a person's point of view the two statements are not necessarily mutually exclusive. (Whether they equally stand up to rigorous intellectual scrutiny in the terms expressed is another question, on which I have my own views (as do we all), best left for another day, and probably another listserv, one devoted to nothing else. :-) ) * 1936, Ian Hay, The Housemaster: What do you mean, funny? Funny peculiar or funny ha-ha? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/funny_ha-ha Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5817 or send a blank email to leave-5817-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
> >On 10/19/2010 8:22 AM, Michael Britt wrote: >> Religion, he said, is a journey and we do not have all the answers. > >On 10/19/2010 11:06 AM Chris Green wrote: That's funny. I thought science was >a journey and we didn't have all the >answers. :-) > That's funny. I thought that life was a journey and we do not have all the answers. . Robert W. Wildblood, PhD Adjunct Psychology Faculty Germanna Community College drb...@rcn.com --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5804 or send a blank email to leave-5804-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
On 10/19/2010 8:22 AM, Michael Britt wrote: Religion, he said, is a journey and we do not have all the answers. That's funny. I thought science was a journey and we didn't have all the answers. :-) Chris Green York U Toronto --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5803 or send a blank email to leave-5803-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
Allen, I was so entranced by the quote you posted that I went to the original article you posted (http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/reviews/Dawkins.htm). Fascinating stuff. Thanks for posting it. I'm printing it up to save. Beth Benoit Granite State College Plymouth State University New Hampshire --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5801 or send a blank email to leave-5801-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
Great quote Allen. Thanks. Michael Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: mbritt On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Allen Esterson wrote: > "It is a good question whether the Wittgensteinian account [previously > discussed] chimes very well with the self-understanding of believers, > and whether it matters if it does not. It has consequences for one > problem that troubles Dawkins, which is the extent to which even > atheists seem drawn to ‘respect’ the attitudes and beliefs of religious > people. Why should anyone ‘respect’ the belief that there is a china > teapot orbiting the sun? It is just dotty, and there is an end of it. > But if we see a religious tradition as a record of a culture’s ongoing > attempts to cope with fear and hope, life and death, gain and loss, > then it becomes a candidate for respect, just as much as the other > poetry and songs of our ancestors." --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5800 or send a blank email to leave-5800-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
Mike Britt started his thoughtful post: >I think most of us try to stay away from the >science vs. religion thing, but I might as well jump in... I really didn't see my post as yet another pot shot in the science vs religion skirmishes. (At this point nowadays I'm supposed to say that I'm sorry if anyone felt offended by what I wrote, I didn't intend to do so, not to mention that no animals or trees were hurt in the course of my writing and sending the post, and I must remember not to leave my TV on standby tonight.) I'm fascinated by the phenomenon of giving thanks to God for some peoples' lives being saved, whereas others have lost their lives (in the same, or corresponding circumstances) despite there being as much prayer devoted to them. Watching football (soccer to you lot :-) ) on TV one sees players crossing themselves as they come onto the pitch at a substitution (especially South American and African players, and perhaps to a lesser degree Spanish and Italian players). Obviously their teams sometimes win and sometimes lose, and the guy crossing himself every game must sometimes have bad days and sometimes good ones. And as far as I know, those who regularly have mediocre games don't cross themselves any less than their more talented colleagues – now there's an idea for a study which could win an Ignoble Prize. :-) Obviously the players know this, but it makes no difference. So surely something else must be going on other than a belief that God is going to give them a special boost that day. But what is it? I'll finish with a quote providing a way of looking at religion historically that I think is food for thought for atheists and agnostics, from the philosopher Simon Blackburn in a review of Richard Dawkins's book of essays *A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love*: "It is a good question whether the Wittgensteinian account [previously discussed] chimes very well with the self-understanding of believers, and whether it matters if it does not. It has consequences for one problem that troubles Dawkins, which is the extent to which even atheists seem drawn to ‘respect’ the attitudes and beliefs of religious people. Why should anyone ‘respect’ the belief that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun? It is just dotty, and there is an end of it. But if we see a religious tradition as a record of a culture’s ongoing attempts to cope with fear and hope, life and death, gain and loss, then it becomes a candidate for respect, just as much as the other poetry and songs of our ancestors." http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/reviews/Dawkins.htm Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org ----------------- Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things? Michael Britt Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:23:04 -0700 I think most of us try to stay away from the science vs. religion thing, but I might as well jump in... The explanation of 'God saved them" always seems to come up whenever anything "miraculous" occurs after a tragedy and it has always bothered me because of course, one could always wonder why God didn't save other people who died or why God allowed the terrible event to occur in the first place. I heard the "God saved them" argument so many times in the Catholic church that it was one of the reasons I became an Episcopalian. Our minister/priest (whatever they call him) this past Sunday decided to discuss the "God saved them" argument during his sermon and he said this kind of thinking "makes for a brittle kind of religiousness" because the opposite argument (why did God allow this to happen) makes just as much sense. His opinion was that he didn't know why the tragedy happened or whether God was involved at all. Religion, he said, is a journey and we do not have all the answers. That's a definition of religion I can live with. Michael Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5799 or send a blank email to leave-5799-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
I think most of us try to stay away from the science vs. religion thing, but I might as well jump in... The explanation of 'God saved them" always seems to come up whenever anything "miraculous" occurs after a tragedy and it has always bothered me because of course, one could always wonder why God didn't save other people who died or why God allowed the terrible event to occur in the first place. I heard the "God saved them" argument so many times in the Catholic church that it was one of the reasons I became an Episcopalian. Our minister/priest (whatever they call him) this past Sunday decided to discuss the "God saved them" argument during his sermon and he said this kind of thinking "makes for a brittle kind of religiousness" because the opposite argument (why did God allow this to happen) makes just as much sense. His opinion was that he didn't know why the tragedy happened or whether God was involved at all. Religion, he said, is a journey and we do not have all the answers. That's a definition of religion I can live with. Michael Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: mbritt On Oct 19, 2010, at 4:04 AM, Allen Esterson wrote: > Stephen Black wrote on the 33 rescued miners: >> Four psychics the government had hired to help >> find them said, "Forget it, they're all dead." > > > "Regardless of how it happened, the miners--and many faithful > viewers--are thanking God for their survival. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5797 or send a blank email to leave-5797-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
Stephen Black wrote on the 33 rescued miners: >Four psychics the government had hired to help >find them said, "Forget it, they're all dead." Stephen rightly mocks the psychics, but he could have gone on to give credit for the survival of the all the miners where it ultimately belongs: :-) "Regardless of how it happened, the miners--and many faithful viewers--are thanking God for their survival. " 'I was with God and I was with the Devil, they fought me, but God won. He took me by my best hand, the hand of God and I held on to him I never thought for one minute that God wouldn't get me out of there,' said Mario Sepulveda when he emerged from the mine this morning." http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7027154-chilean-miners-families-thank-god-for-rescue-prayers-for-miracle Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --- From: sbl...@ubishops.ca Subject:Why don't we hear more about such things? Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:40:17 -0400 The chief engineer at the mine in Chile where 33 miners were just rescued, describing how hopeless the situation seemed at first: "[He] remembers the early, gloomy days of the search, when initial drilling failed to find any trace of the men. Four psychics the government had hired to help find them said, "Forget it, they're all dead." http://tinyurl.com/2a3te78 Stephen --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5796 or send a blank email to leave-5796-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] Why don't we hear more about such things?
The chief engineer at the mine in Chile where 33 miners were just rescued, describing how hopeless the situation seemed at first: "[He] remembers the early, gloomy days of the search, when initial drilling failed to find any trace of the men. Four psychics the government had hired to help find them said, "Forget it, they're all dead." http://tinyurl.com/2a3te78 Stephen Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca -- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5788 or send a blank email to leave-5788-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
