various topics
root
Hi Mike and others I hope you all got my apology that I posted.
<they seem to being cleaning up the net here and purging articles during
switch over of talk groups...>.
Again apologies for my earlier sarcasm. I would like to clear some
other possible misunderstandings in this posting though.... Firstly I was
posting to both talk.religion.misc and net.religion since Sept 19th -as it
was suggested- because the later group was shutting down. <It can take a few
weeks for articles to reach all non-backbone sites...>. I think further my
original intent was missed -as to my 'myth' posting- (perhaps my fault).
I did *not* mean *any* ridicule but simply wanted to show that there was
many sides to the issue, that being: -overly stereotyping- isn't a useful
scientific tool, unless you now *what* to include as data-. To be even
more clear, we all know there is an *assumption* that needs to be made in
order to know *how* to perceive the data to make since of it- the closer
we are at first the faster we zero in on it. And of course if the wrong
assumptions are used then *wrong* answers can happen. I was giving counter
examples to show that the issues *are* more complex then *some* people
appeared to have at times.
I have actually heard the term 'crutch' used to give light to this
idea. I want what we most want, -to give light to reason-, and clear issues
that might hinder solutions... I did this by method of questions and
*counter-example*... It seemed to me that people *might* be tending to
"miss the forest for the trees". Mike Huybensz in talk.origins article
<11...@cybvax0.UUCP> shows that the cause of the universe or of God
can't be argued one way or another by cause and effect, since at least
one similar assumption existed in both arguments that were going on!
Very true!...Wrong questions wrong answers, and note: The debate didn't
resolve anything true or false... Much time was waisted. Likewise I question
the seemingly oversimple view of Christians. For the sake of argument
why not assume that they are just as bright as the average public
as far as scientific method goes until proven otherwise. That is
to say that little study has been done to show otherwise. So we
should concentrate only on questions that *can* give the most insight
for the least effort.... Think of this like politics. You might
attack an issue but never talk about democracy (say the later is
what we *really* want to know about) The side issues may say much of
how certain people think but *not* the central truth...)
I will be more civil/humble here and point out that Mike's observations
in <11...@cybvax0.UUCP> about my 'myth' article <25...@watdcsu.UUCP>
had the *appearance* of dealing with a similar form of *cause and effect*
(ie. social services are like Chrsitianity in services ... therefore).
Which Mike shows such reasoning not to lead anywhere in his talk.origins
article. So now I'll rethink what he had in mind about my 'myth' article.
That is, he brings up observations to show us that what
Christians believe is not the *only way* to explain the cause of religion
no more no less.(Am I close?) Certain key words though, such as *simply*
being used as a conclusion and such, through me off the trail -so to speek-
and the jab 'psychotic fantasy' didn't help...I wish to put this aside and
explore the original points and the leason I learned...I *too* was pointing
out *observations* in my 'myth' postings to take issue to a point:
<That is *some* people do make connections *simply* which was
my concern. Just as Mike Huybensz was concerned that the cause and effect
issue in talk.origins *might* convince people. It's obvious this can be
a complex and a dangerous assumption.>
I only wanted to point out that simple connections are not
self-evident for the SAME reason as Mike pointed out! I feel so silly
this has got out of hand.... Actually sad because of the misunderstandings
it has caused.... What I should have done is to have been be civil in my
reply and just state the obvious *kind* of facts -causes and effect may
not follow- as above.
I was upset (as some were of me) for seeing facts *like* these
given in the light of conclusion....I had hoped that my posting comment
in 'Myth' would cause us all to be more careful in such generalizations...
New topic:.
I should have said that Bertrand Russell used the word
'contemptable' to describe those he *thought* not able to face life
without such aid as *he* thought *they* believed was 'myth' -*perhaps*
because of *need* (cannot face). As it is, the statement judges without
limitations. Even if he did *KNOW* they had a 'myth' the rest doesn't follow.
Likewise even if he then they could not face life *and* that they had a
myth *it DOES NOT follow that the facts have to be related*. Worse
he judges with 'contempt' and only as *if* he could state the facts were
related. One could further say that even *if* all the facts were known
if he should not rather have used the word 'sympathy' or 'sorrow'????
Please I ONLY mean to take this issue up so we don't fall into
the same trap. I also don't mean anything bad about Burtrand Russell.
We just should not pass these things up because we might agree with other
parts of what he has to say....
"... when people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make
themselves artificially stupid." Bertrand Russell in "Theory of Knowledge".
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
(The insight as to why Einstein said that is an open door to insight.
Misunderstood it can be *dangerous*....)
Closing thought...
Some say they have faith in science to understand what they yet
don't know. While some can say they have faith in God or something else.
The two need not clash. It does not follow that one need give up the
former for the later...
....Best regards
Mike Gore