Lee Corbin wrote:
> Samantha writes
> > > "Dead certain"? Obviously, I have to be much less certain
> > > that there is something wrong with how they think, than I
> > > am that what they think is wrong. Suppose that someone
> > > adamantly believes that NASA's people walking on the moon
> > > was a hoax. I'm 99.9% convinced that they're wrong. I'm
> > > only about 80% convinced that there is something wrong with
> > > *how* they think. But what else am I supposed to think?
> > Giving no brain examples that have nothing at all to do with the
> > complexity of the topic at hand and with the richness of
> > spiritual believes strikes me as a dishonest (intentionally or
> > not) tactic. It belittles by the implication that spirituality
> > is equally as odious through and through as morons who think
> > walking on the moon was faked.
> Samantha, J.R. and I were trying to describe each
> separate category of religious attitude separately
> when we wrote some of the things we did. This was
> in reference to people that you might consider
> religious fundamentalists. Please don't
> think that it is implied that what is true of
> some religious people is necessarily true of
> all religious people.
> > > Suppose that I have a computer program that gives what I
> > > think is a 99.9% chance of being a wrong answer. I simply
> > > MUST entertain the hypothesis that there is something wrong
> > > with the program.
> > Another poor and off-topic analogy that obscures far more than
> > it clarifies. Why not just say you don't want to engage this
> > question further? Because you sure aren't really engaging it
> > with this type of response.
> True! I just don't have time, really. I really do intend
> to continue the discussion of spirituality and so forth.
> > > There comes a point in disagreeing with people who seem
> > > reality challenged that one cannot be blamed for inquiring
> > > as to why they are so bad at understanding the world.
> > It is precisely because I am not reality challenged that I must
> > consider spirituality and in some ways embrace it. Reality,
> > including those aspects most consider spiritual, has butted
> > heads with me a few times to many to do otherwise. Do you take
> > into account that I just might be just as deeply honest and have
> > every bit as much integrity as you do despite the fact I see
> > some things differently than you?
> Of course you do! This has just been a terrible miscommunication.
> Evidently in our efforts at rather Aristotelian classification of
> all people who claim religious beliefs---and hence our effort to
> be as correct as possible---we, or at least I was having difficulty
> talking about, as evolved in the discussion J.R. and I were having,
> the case of people who, say, belief everything in the bible.
But you have not classified all people who claim religious
beliefs. At one end you have turned spirituality into humanist
generalities that don't grasp the essence of the matter, at the
other end you have spoken a lot about utter cretins who happen
to be religious. The middle was waved at by suggesting people
there were "just being fashionable". (?!) The people on this
list and in the general world who are in no such categories were
never cataloged at all. Not only that but their very existence
was called into question.
> > If I am mistaken you have given me no grounds for seeing that I
> > am here.
> Yes, exactly so.
> > If anything you seem to be clinging harder to the
> > position that those who affirm some parts of religion or
> > spirituality are damaged in their thinking processes.
> My claim is vastly broader than that. Anyone who is
> sufficiently reality challenged---again not anyone on
> this list---I simply begin at some point to wonder
> what is wrong or damaged in their ability to think.
Your claim is broader than stating that anyone who affirms any
part of religion/spirituality is damaged in their thinking
Since a large part of this conversation is hopefully engaging
people on this list who do have some use for spirituality I
don't see how comments supposedly about the subject that aren't
applicable to those you are in conversation with can not be seen
as either portraying a very negative view of all spirituality
including that exhibited by people on list or of pulling on only
extremes to make a point and again not engaging the subject or
the people here.
> > You also seem to have some difficulty seeing (or
> > admitting anyway) that this position is a tad extreme.
> My examples were a tad extreme, because I was trying
> to be comprehensive, that's all.
Huh? You can't be comprehensive by only giving examples from
one extreme end of the spectrum or by defining out of existences
people who don't fit your preferred categorization.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:48 MDT