Date: Mar 17, 2014 7:14 PM
Author: kirby urner
Subject: Re: How science shaped modern 'rejection of religion'
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
<< SNIP >>
> > 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.
Looks like you're having it both ways here: you consider your usage
mainstream, and yet most people won't have thought as deeply as you have.
I'd go with "thinking deeply" as the premise (you do that) and conclude
you're struggling to maintain a connection with the mainstream, but its
maybe a losing battle at this point? Time will tell.
> 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.
I'm not if favor of making you the judge. We'll decide what's a private
language. It's not your call in any way.
You were right to see deism in tension with theism at least.
Thomas Jefferson, a deist, cut up the Bible to assemble the passages he
liked in the order he thought best.
He was thumbing his nose at the Council at Nicaea and later the Council of
Trent. So? That's the kind of behavior "Founding Fathers" indulge in,
what should we expect? Ben Franklin is another one of my heroes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea (theist but not deist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent (another convergence of
> > (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.
The only people I can think of who don't take risks, unauthorized by
"proofs", are those suffering from catatonia in mental hospitals, and
they're taking a very risky course indeed.
So yes, by your definition, I'm religious, but so is anyone functional on
this planet. Religious atheists abound with many theist less religious than
> It wouldn't hurt those 4 persons to reflect on what I am saying.
Given 4 persons plus you and me are about the sum total of active parties
on this list these days, I'm thinking approximately 4/6 of your audience
considers you verging on incomprehensible, but nevertheless exuding self
confidence in having know-it-all-sounding opinions on everything.
That seems to be the impression but correct me if I'm wrong (someone
correct me other than RH that is).
> Bob Hansen