On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:27 PM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Most scientists fall under deism. They are fine with references to "god", "mother nature", or just "nature", if only to provide a point of reference in a philosophical discussion. > > Some scientists fall under theism. They worship a god. > > > The above and what follows comprise a good example of how RH puts a private spin on his words, which he sometimes bothers to share, as here, and other times considers poetic license to just use in his special way.
No private spin, I not only went on my own usage, I also consulted several sources and reduced it to the brief narrative I posted.
> If we don't understand him (and a few here seem to not, and have said as much) its a kind of autism on our part.
It is. A form of autism that is. An inability to recognize or utilize the mechanisms of natural language.
> We just don't "feel it" the way he does (RH is famous for defining knowing as a kind of feeling).
Actually, this wasn?t about ?feeling? as in the ?art? discussions with Joe. This was simply a distillation of ontology. My narrative stands as a very good distillation.
> In that case, I'd say every human is religious as we simply don't have the luxury of proof most the time.
So, you understand.
> Physics is about ballistics, not when it's OK to shoot. Life is trial and error. "Just guessing" is an everyday fact of life.
Guessing is just that, guessing. Guessing with a belief not founded on evidence or science, is faith, which is religious.
> Atheism, in its simplest use, means not believing in a god. In practice however, extreme atheism often involves disproving god. But atheism does not mean not being religious. All people are religious in some way. We believe in things we cannot prove. I think "how religious" you are depends on how "careful" you are with the conclusions you reach based on your unproven beliefs. > > > I understand your meaning, as shown above (it applies when gambling, risk taking), but is this how people generally talk?
Most people don?t think deeply or as formally as I do. Some people think they think deeply but are only following directions. Toss the directions, and yes, they look silly. Also, most people, even if the think deeply sometimes, don?t do it as often as I do.
> Do people say "I'm an atheist but of course I'm also deeply religious because I take many risks in my life with no science able to tell me in advance if I'm being foolish?.
In my narrative I noted that *religious* is often associated with god and god worship, but we have right here on this forum used that word in a different context, to describe the thinking behind some people in the math wars.
> So the "irreligious" or "not religious" would seem insane in some way, in the RH lexicon.
My narrative was in the context of GS?s post and request. Simplified?
1. Everyone is religious. We believe in things that cannot be formally derived. 2. Theism involves believing and worshipping god. 3. Atheism involves not believing nor worshipping god. 4. Agnostic is not caring about (2) or (3).
> To sum up: RH has a private language that may be hard to penetrate.
I have used private language before, and this is certainly not an instance of that.
> Occasionally he shows his hand and we realize what a strange deck of cards, one of a kind, this guy is dealing with. > > One must exert caution before risking a lot on this horse, given the penchant for crypto-poetic meanings. > > By the way, I think it's fine to "think different" and to put a spin on words. > > What gives such thinking currency is: > > (a) a willingness to define terms when required and > > (b) an internal consistency, an abiding by the rules, a showcasing of one's meaning > > and also > > (c) an awareness that one is developing a lot of quirky meanings and so a corresponding ability to bridge to a more mainstream way of talking > > I'd say the jury is still out on how influential RH's thinking will be. I think most of the doubts expressed so far have been around (c).
Regarding (c), there have been doubts raised by 4 people here, but I have dozens (at least) that disagree with those 4. And the study of those 4, whether they are aware of it or not (obviously not) have deepened my understanding of natural language and how some people fail with it. Most of those failures seem to occur when the language user has adopted a very specific and narrow usage of the word. They hardcode the words, and worse, the emotion attached to the word in the context they first heard it. This seems to be your issue here. By my ontology above, you are religious, which you even seem to agree with, yet, irregardless of the context I put that *use* of the word *religious* in, you can?t get out of your head the image of a church going god worshiper.
It wouldn?t hurt those 4 persons to reflect on what I am saying.