Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #460424 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mimus99 <mimus99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-21 17:13 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-12-24 09:48 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 173 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Childhood's End mimus99 <mimus99@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 17:13 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-12-22 06:20 -0800
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-22 14:41 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2016-12-22 17:53 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-12-25 01:06 -0700
Re: Childhood's End Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2016-12-25 17:49 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-12-23 12:31 -0800
Re: Childhood's End David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-12-25 07:40 -0600
Re: Childhood's End Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-12-22 06:57 -0800
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-22 16:11 +0000
Re: Childhood's End news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) - 2016-12-22 19:11 +0000
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-23 11:57 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 12:17 -0700
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-22 21:21 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 14:04 -0700
Re: Childhood's End David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-12-25 07:44 -0600
Re: Childhood's End Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-12-22 21:52 -0800
Re: Childhood's End David Harmon <source@netcom.com> - 2016-12-25 09:30 -0800
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-25 20:48 +0000
Re: Childhood's End "John F. Eldredge" <john@jfeldredge.com> - 2017-01-04 18:08 +0000
Re: Childhood's End ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2017-01-04 18:50 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 10:29 -0700
Re: Childhood's End Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2016-12-22 14:34 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 15:02 -0700
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-22 23:28 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 16:29 -0700
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-23 01:24 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 20:11 -0700
Re: Childhood's End Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-12-23 01:05 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 22:23 -0700
Re: Childhood's End Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 10:09 -0600
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-23 16:50 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-12-23 09:07 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 09:20 -0700
Re: Childhood's End tsbrueni@gmail.com - 2016-12-31 20:40 -0800
Re: Childhood's End David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2017-01-01 09:24 -0600
Re: Childhood's End tsbrueni@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 12:38 -0800
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-23 12:08 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 09:22 -0700
Re: Childhood's End "John F. Eldredge" <john@jfeldredge.com> - 2016-12-23 19:17 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-12-23 12:31 -0800
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-23 12:03 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 09:23 -0700
Re: Childhood's End Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-12-23 09:45 -0800
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-24 04:32 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-12-25 01:13 -0700
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-25 15:03 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-12-25 08:02 -0800
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-25 20:51 +0000
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-22 11:31 -0700
Re: Childhood's End Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-12-23 12:29 -0800
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-23 14:23 -0700
Re: Childhood's End Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2016-12-23 15:40 -0800
Re: Childhood's End "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-12-24 09:09 -0500
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-24 07:33 -0700
Re: Childhood's End "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-12-24 11:01 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2016-12-24 08:56 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2016-12-24 17:01 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-12-24 10:11 -0800
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-26 11:20 -0700
Re: Childhood's End Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2016-12-26 14:06 -0800
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-26 16:00 -0700
Re: Childhood's End Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-12-26 22:36 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Juho Julkunen <giaotanj@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-27 16:08 +0200
Re: Childhood's End Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2016-12-27 12:06 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2016-12-27 13:05 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2016-12-27 18:32 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2016-12-27 19:42 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2016-12-27 21:21 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-12-28 08:28 -0800
Re: Childhood's End David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2017-01-01 09:15 -0600
Re: Childhood's End Juho Julkunen <giaotanj@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 12:32 +0200
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-27 13:23 -0700
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-27 23:02 -0500
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-27 21:08 -0700
Re: Childhood's End Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-12-27 13:17 -0800
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-27 23:00 -0500
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-27 21:39 -0700
Re: Childhood's End Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 08:14 +0100
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-28 00:56 -0700
Re: Childhood's End "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 08:52 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-12-29 04:41 -0800
Re: Childhood's End "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 08:16 -0500
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-29 13:12 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 10:25 -0700
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-28 17:40 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2016-12-28 14:45 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2016-12-28 21:30 -0800
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-29 13:52 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2016-12-29 12:54 -0800
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-28 18:11 -0500
Re: Childhood's End David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2017-01-01 09:16 -0600
Re: Childhood's End Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2017-01-01 09:56 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2016-12-28 21:33 -0800
Re: Childhood's End "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 00:42 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2016-12-29 09:46 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-12-30 09:42 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-30 12:48 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 13:14 -0700
Re: Childhood's End Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2016-12-29 08:20 +0000
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-29 07:31 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-12-29 05:49 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2016-12-29 14:47 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2016-12-29 09:55 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> - 2016-12-29 12:13 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2016-12-29 20:37 +0000
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-30 14:55 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> - 2016-12-31 10:12 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-01-01 19:31 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> - 2017-01-02 10:22 -0800
Re: Childhood's End David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2017-01-03 21:59 -0600
Re: Childhood's End tsbrueni@gmail.com - 2017-01-03 21:33 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> - 2017-01-03 22:13 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2017-01-04 00:46 -0800
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-04 02:02 -0700
Re: Childhood's End hamish.laws@gmail.com - 2017-01-04 02:39 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2017-01-04 11:29 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> - 2017-01-06 20:42 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2017-01-07 00:01 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> - 2017-01-07 10:57 -0800
Re: Childhood's End ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2017-01-07 19:08 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2017-01-07 15:46 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2017-01-07 05:53 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2017-01-07 20:43 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2017-01-01 12:17 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2017-01-02 13:20 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2016-12-29 09:49 -0800
Re: Childhood's End Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2016-12-29 20:41 +0000
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-29 12:26 -0700
Re: Childhood's End Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-30 12:50 -0800
Re: Childhood's End David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2017-01-01 09:21 -0600
Re: Childhood's End Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 12:31 -0700
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-28 16:11 -0700
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-28 18:34 -0500
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-28 23:40 -0700
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-29 07:41 -0500
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-29 12:27 -0700
Re: Childhood's End Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2016-12-29 12:55 -0800
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-30 15:03 -0500
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 14:35 -0700
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-31 13:24 -0500
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-24 13:08 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2016-12-24 18:52 +0000
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-24 14:03 -0500
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-24 21:37 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2016-12-24 17:02 -0800
Re: Childhood's End "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 20:20 -0500
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-25 16:50 -0500
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-25 23:00 +0000
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-25 17:00 -0700
Re: Childhood's End "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 19:06 -0500
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-25 22:37 -0500
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-25 02:37 +0000
Re: Childhood's End "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 21:58 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2016-12-24 20:07 -0800
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-25 06:18 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2016-12-24 21:53 -0800
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-25 16:52 -0500
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-25 23:04 +0000
Re: Childhood's End "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 19:01 -0500
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-25 23:15 -0500
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-26 04:22 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-25 22:03 -0800
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-26 07:01 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-26 11:39 -0800
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-26 22:09 +0000
Re: Childhood's End wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-27 23:03 -0500
Re: Childhood's End "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-12-24 14:43 -0500
Re: Childhood's End djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-24 21:36 +0000
Re: Childhood's End Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2016-12-24 14:34 -0800
Re: Childhood's End David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-24 15:43 -0700
Re: Childhood's End "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 20:18 -0500
Re: Childhood's End Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2016-12-24 09:48 +0000
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 07:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o42vmv$lbv$1@panix3.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #461064 |
In article <3ph96ct5in2s1qaj93npabp8qa4fvs64qm@4ax.com>, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> said: > Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: >> William December Starr wrote: >> >>> Let's start with "Fred tells me that X is an objective fact. I am >>> unable to rigorously test that for myself..." and follow the two >>> main paths therefrom: >>> >>> (1) "but a subconscious Bayesean analysis based on what I think I >>> know of reality leads me to believe that, for my purposes at hand, >>> X is _likely enough_ to be true that I should act as if it is" >>> >>> and: >>> >>> (2) "but I nonetheless believe X to be 100% objectively true." >>> >>> I don't think that eliminating the propensity for people to >>> will-nilly go down path (2) would greatly undermine their ability to >>> peruse path (1). >> >> (1) and (2) are the same thing. > > Only from an external viewpoint. Internally (and wds has very > intentionally used "I" in the formulation above) they are very > different. Thank you. I simply can't view "I have uncertainty, but I'm muddling through the best I can" and "I have certainty" as being the same thing. They're just... different. -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 05:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <80f28612-c42b-4f5d-b642-6eca18f1fa19@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461076 |
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 5:31:29 AM UTC-7, William December Starr wrote: > In article <3ph96ct5in2s1qaj93npabp8qa4fvs64qm@4ax.com>, > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> said: > > Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: > >> William December Starr wrote: > >> > >>> Let's start with "Fred tells me that X is an objective fact. I am > >>> unable to rigorously test that for myself..." and follow the two > >>> main paths therefrom: > >>> > >>> (1) "but a subconscious Bayesean analysis based on what I think I > >>> know of reality leads me to believe that, for my purposes at hand, > >>> X is _likely enough_ to be true that I should act as if it is" > >>> > >>> and: > >>> > >>> (2) "but I nonetheless believe X to be 100% objectively true." > >>> > >>> I don't think that eliminating the propensity for people to > >>> will-nilly go down path (2) would greatly undermine their ability to > >>> peruse path (1). > >> > >> (1) and (2) are the same thing. > > > > Only from an external viewpoint. Internally (and wds has very > > intentionally used "I" in the formulation above) they are very > > different. > > Thank you. I simply can't view "I have uncertainty, but I'm muddling > through the best I can" and "I have certainty" as being the same thing. > They're just... different. Internally, yes, but when the uncertainty is on the order of 0.00001%, the external behavior is similar. Except that fanaticism is less likely. Thus, I think and perceive, thus I know that I am a conscious being. I *believe* that the people around me are conscious like myself, and have real feelings, and thus it matters how I treat them. I may not be certain, but I am very nearly certain - certain in any practical sense, uncertain only in an abstract philosophical sense. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 14:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4b8a6cpptpfr4ki509ie5n4pkuhc3mb9lj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #461076 |
On 29 Dec 2016 07:31:27 -0500, wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote: >In article <3ph96ct5in2s1qaj93npabp8qa4fvs64qm@4ax.com>, >Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> said: > >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: >>> William December Starr wrote: >>> >>>> Let's start with "Fred tells me that X is an objective fact. I am >>>> unable to rigorously test that for myself..." and follow the two >>>> main paths therefrom: >>>> >>>> (1) "but a subconscious Bayesean analysis based on what I think I >>>> know of reality leads me to believe that, for my purposes at hand, >>>> X is _likely enough_ to be true that I should act as if it is" >>>> >>>> and: >>>> >>>> (2) "but I nonetheless believe X to be 100% objectively true." >>>> >>>> I don't think that eliminating the propensity for people to >>>> will-nilly go down path (2) would greatly undermine their ability to >>>> peruse path (1). >>> >>> (1) and (2) are the same thing. >> >> Only from an external viewpoint. Internally (and wds has very >> intentionally used "I" in the formulation above) they are very >> different. > >Thank you. I simply can't view "I have uncertainty, but I'm muddling >through the best I can" and "I have certainty" as being the same thing. >They're just... different. I worry that there are people who *don't* see that those are different things. It would explain why people come up with the "but science is a religion too - checkmate, atheists!" rubbish. Cheers - Jaimie -- "Don't drag me down to your level, meat." -- Red Robot #C-63
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 09:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <o43ije$s7q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #461087 |
On 12/29/2016 6:47 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote: > On 29 Dec 2016 07:31:27 -0500, wdstarr@panix.com (William December > Starr) wrote: > >> In article <3ph96ct5in2s1qaj93npabp8qa4fvs64qm@4ax.com>, >> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> said: >> >>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: >>>> William December Starr wrote: >>>> >>>>> Let's start with "Fred tells me that X is an objective fact. I am >>>>> unable to rigorously test that for myself..." and follow the two >>>>> main paths therefrom: >>>>> >>>>> (1) "but a subconscious Bayesean analysis based on what I think I >>>>> know of reality leads me to believe that, for my purposes at hand, >>>>> X is _likely enough_ to be true that I should act as if it is" >>>>> >>>>> and: >>>>> >>>>> (2) "but I nonetheless believe X to be 100% objectively true." >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that eliminating the propensity for people to >>>>> will-nilly go down path (2) would greatly undermine their ability to >>>>> peruse path (1). >>>> >>>> (1) and (2) are the same thing. >>> >>> Only from an external viewpoint. Internally (and wds has very >>> intentionally used "I" in the formulation above) they are very >>> different. >> >> Thank you. I simply can't view "I have uncertainty, but I'm muddling >> through the best I can" and "I have certainty" as being the same thing. >> They're just... different. > > I worry that there are people who *don't* see that those are different > things. It would explain why people come up with the "but science is a > religion too - checkmate, atheists!" rubbish. > The reason I am saying they are the same is because humans don't consciously make decisions. All the real decision making is "below" the level of conscious thought. What research has been done on how humans think over the last several decades has found that all the conscious part of the process does is _justify_ the decision with effectively zero input into _making_ the decision. Reading (2), WHY does he "nonetheless believe X"? -- Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey. Winter 2016 survey began Dec 01 and will end Feb 28
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 12:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8ac9342c-d92a-41c8-9f73-95c19466b7f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461087 |
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 6:47:36 AM UTC-8, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote: > On 29 Dec 2016 07:31:27 -0500, wdstarr@panix.com (William December > Starr) wrote: > >Thank you. I simply can't view "I have uncertainty, but I'm muddling > >through the best I can" and "I have certainty" as being the same thing. > >They're just... different. The things religious people have said in conversation with me have rarely included the second quote much. > I worry that there are people who *don't* see that those are different > things. It would explain why people come up with the "but science is a > religion too - checkmate, atheists!" rubbish. Well, I think they're different things, *and* I'm an atheist, and yet I think science is a religion. Frankly, I don't think it's useful to define "religion" in a way that excludes "science", except that if your use for a definition of "religion" is to help you heap scorn upon religion, then yes, a definition that excludes "science" will be more helpful for *that*. So you're still free to insult me, but you're going to have to try harder. Joe Bernstein -- Joe Bernstein, writer and tax preparer <joe@sfbooks.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 20:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gtsa6chfa5hk228golqbqu8no2ncbpeofk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #461119 |
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:13:08 -0800 (PST), Joe Bernstein
<joe@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 6:47:36 AM UTC-8, Jaimie Vandenbergh
>wrote:
>
>> On 29 Dec 2016 07:31:27 -0500, wdstarr@panix.com (William December
>> Starr) wrote:
>
>> >Thank you. I simply can't view "I have uncertainty, but I'm muddling
>> >through the best I can" and "I have certainty" as being the same thing.
>> >They're just... different.
>
>The things religious people have said in conversation with me have
>rarely included the second quote much.
>
>> I worry that there are people who *don't* see that those are different
>> things. It would explain why people come up with the "but science is a
>> religion too - checkmate, atheists!" rubbish.
>
>Well, I think they're different things, *and* I'm an atheist, and yet
>I think science is a religion. Frankly, I don't think it's useful to
>define "religion" in a way that excludes "science"
Then I don't think we have any common ground to meet on for this
discussion, so I won't try.
>, except that if
>your use for a definition of "religion" is to help you heap scorn
>upon religion, then yes, a definition that excludes "science" will be
>more helpful for *that*.
None of that is anything I would do.
>So you're still free to insult me, but you're going to have to try
>harder.
Wasn't intending to. If you'd earlier said "but science is a
religion too - checkmate, atheists!" I didn't see it, and it wasn't
aimed at anyone here.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
When the ad says "Kills 99.9 percent of bacteria!" my reflexive
response is "...and the 0.1 percent left can bench-press a truck"
-- David Staples, asr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 14:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o46e44$p1l$1@panix3.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #461119 |
In article <8ac9342c-d92a-41c8-9f73-95c19466b7f8@googlegroups.com>, Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> said: > Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote: > >> I worry that there are people who *don't* see that those are >> different things. It would explain why people come up with the >> "but science is a religion too - checkmate, atheists!" rubbish. > > Well, I think they're different things, *and* I'm an atheist, and > yet I think science is a religion. Frankly, I don't think it's > useful to define "religion" in a way that excludes "science", > except that if your use for a definition of "religion" is to help > you heap scorn upon religion, then yes, a definition that excludes > "science" will be more helpful for *that*. For me, a _necessary_ component of a religion is that it calls upon its followers to believe woo-woo stuff that exists outside the realm of the proveable or disproveable. E.g., God. Science generally doesn't do that. -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 10:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <12906830-a264-406f-9004-4bebe2a59ade@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461200 |
On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 11:55:50 AM UTC-8, William December Starr wrote: > In article <8ac9342c-d92a-41c8-9f73-95c19466b7f8@googlegroups.com>, > Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> said: > > Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote: > >> I worry that there are people who *don't* see that those are > >> different things. It would explain why people come up with the > >> "but science is a religion too - checkmate, atheists!" rubbish. > > Well, I think they're different things, *and* I'm an atheist, and > > yet I think science is a religion. Frankly, I don't think it's > > useful to define "religion" in a way that excludes "science", > > except that if your use for a definition of "religion" is to help > > you heap scorn upon religion, then yes, a definition that excludes > > "science" will be more helpful for *that*. > For me, a _necessary_ component of a religion is that it calls upon > its followers to believe woo-woo stuff that exists outside the realm > of the proveable or disproveable. E.g., God. Hmmm. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure no such belief is a necessary component of Confucianism. Maybe not Shinto either. Buddhism is more complicated; one can argue that, for example, karma (which doesn't mean, in Buddhism, what you probably think it means) is "woo-woo stuff", and even the Buddhist version appears to be "outside the realm of the ... disproveable". Taoism - well, theoretical Taoism doesn't look even slightly "woo-woo" to me, but practical Taoism is nothing but "woo-woo", so who knows? (Practical Shinto introduces some of this too, but not nearly as much.) Moving on to the theistic religions, I'm not sure to what extent either Judaism or Hinduism cares about belief as opposed to practice; I think in both some beliefs are *forbidden*, notably Christianity, but I'm not sure any are *required*. (You can definitely be a Jew without repeating or believing the Shema, just not a particularly *good* Jew.) The only other surviving ancient cult outside East Asia known to me is Zoroastrianism; it wouldn't surprise me if they cared more about belief, but I'm not sure, and again, since most surviving Zoroastrians are now a caste in India, it may be different in reality from in theory or in the past. The missionary religions (except maybe Buddhism) - Christianity, Islam, Manichaeism if there are any left, most of the newer thingummies like Sikhs, Bahai, and so forth - do seem to care about belief in the undisproveable. An older example, Jainism (probably older than Buddhism and much less missionarily effective), may not, but does feature lots of karma theory. > Science generally doesn't do that. As I've argued here before, the thing science does best is epistemology. It has this in common with, in particular, Buddhism. It's also pre-eminent in cosmology and other such explanatory fields, even though it insists that nothing it says in these is final. It doesn't do metaphysics well at all, doesn't care about eschatology (but incidentally offers a really bleak one), is somewhat deficient in ritual aka practice (though things like hand- washing are closely comparable with undisputedly religious rituals), and its focus is on this life rather than the hereafter, like Judaism, Confucianism, and Shinto at least. Basically, I think it's silly to come up with a definition of "religion" that excludes most East Asian religions, but one that includes them has a hard time excluding science. My working definition of "religion" is one I got from Walter Kauffmann, better known as a translator of Nietzsche than as a philosopher in his own right; he argued, more or less, that a religion is a *language* for thinking and talking about fundamental things. I'm not wedded to this definition, but if for the sake of argument you accept it, then science is quite obviously such a language. So there's at least one reasonable way one can argue that science is a religion. More to the point, I am an actual human being who considers science *my* religion, so I'm a little baffled to be told that I'm not allowed to think that. I don't expect to convince anyone this time, any more than I did last time ten years or so ago, but I hope I've anyway made the case a bit better. Joe Bernstein -- Joe Bernstein, writer and tax preparer <joe@sfbooks.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 19:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20170101a@crcomp.net> |
| In reply to | #461304 |
Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> wrote:
> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 11:55:50 AM UTC-8, William December
> Starr wrote:
>
>> In article <8ac9342c-d92a-41c8-9f73-95c19466b7f8@googlegroups.com>,
>> Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> said:
>
>> > Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>
>> >> I worry that there are people who *don't* see that those are
>> >> different things. It would explain why people come up with the
>> >> "but science is a religion too - checkmate, atheists!" rubbish.
>
>> > Well, I think they're different things, *and* I'm an atheist, and
>> > yet I think science is a religion. Frankly, I don't think it's
>> > useful to define "religion" in a way that excludes "science",
>> > except that if your use for a definition of "religion" is to help
>> > you heap scorn upon religion, then yes, a definition that excludes
>> > "science" will be more helpful for *that*.
>
>> For me, a _necessary_ component of a religion is that it calls upon
>> its followers to believe woo-woo stuff that exists outside the realm
>> of the proveable or disproveable. E.g., God.
>
>
> Hmmm. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure no such belief is a
> necessary component of Confucianism. Maybe not Shinto either.
> Buddhism is more complicated; one can argue that, for example, karma
> (which doesn't mean, in Buddhism, what you probably think it means)
> is "woo-woo stuff", and even the Buddhist version appears to be
> "outside the realm of the ... disproveable". Taoism - well,
> theoretical Taoism doesn't look even slightly "woo-woo" to me, but
> practical Taoism is nothing but "woo-woo", so who knows? (Practical
> Shinto introduces some of this too, but not nearly as much.)
>
> Moving on to the theistic religions, I'm not sure to what extent
> either Judaism or Hinduism cares about belief as opposed to practice;
> I think in both some beliefs are *forbidden*, notably Christianity,
> but I'm not sure any are *required*. (You can definitely be a Jew
> without repeating or believing the Shema, just not a particularly
> *good* Jew.) The only other surviving ancient cult outside East
> Asia known to me is Zoroastrianism; it wouldn't surprise me if they
> cared more about belief, but I'm not sure, and again, since most
> surviving Zoroastrians are now a caste in India, it may be different
> in reality from in theory or in the past.
>
> The missionary religions (except maybe Buddhism) - Christianity, Islam,
> Manichaeism if there are any left, most of the newer thingummies like
> Sikhs, Bahai, and so forth - do seem to care about belief in the
> undisproveable. An older example, Jainism (probably older than
> Buddhism and much less missionarily effective), may not, but does
> feature lots of karma theory.
>
>> Science generally doesn't do that.
>
> As I've argued here before, the thing science does best is
> epistemology. It has this in common with, in particular, Buddhism.
> It's also pre-eminent in cosmology and other such explanatory
> fields, even though it insists that nothing it says in these is
> final. It doesn't do metaphysics well at all, doesn't care about
> eschatology (but incidentally offers a really bleak one), is
> somewhat deficient in ritual aka practice (though things like hand-
> washing are closely comparable with undisputedly religious rituals),
> and its focus is on this life rather than the hereafter, like
> Judaism, Confucianism, and Shinto at least.
>
> Basically, I think it's silly to come up with a definition of
> "religion" that excludes most East Asian religions, but one that
> includes them has a hard time excluding science. My working
> definition of "religion" is one I got from Walter Kauffmann, better
> known as a translator of Nietzsche than as a philosopher in his own
> right; he argued, more or less, that a religion is a *language* for
> thinking and talking about fundamental things. I'm not wedded to
> this definition, but if for the sake of argument you accept it,
> then science is quite obviously such a language. So there's at
> least one reasonable way one can argue that science is a religion.
> More to the point, I am an actual human being who considers science
> *my* religion, so I'm a little baffled to be told that I'm not
> allowed to think that.
>
> I don't expect to convince anyone this time, any more than I did last
> time ten years or so ago, but I hope I've anyway made the case a bit
> better.
Thank you for your eloquent interesting post. Sometimes your writing is
difficult for me to understand. (That's a good thing BTW.) This isn't
one of those times.
You say that science is your religion. Bravo! You know what? As of this
moment it's my second religion.
There's a behavioral aspect to my own definition of science. A scientist
has to put it in writing (or make a drawing or it). _Illustrated Guide
to Home Chemistry Experiments_ (Thompson) says it all for me:
"Write it down" [said Thompson's father after Thompson
becomes absorbed in a chemistry set given to him as a Christmas
present during his childhood]. "A scientist records what he
observes. If you don't work methodically and write down what
you observe, you're not a scientist. You're just playing
around."
_Cryptionomicon_ (Stephenson) is a complex story. It's complexity forced
me to record my observations of the story as it was read. Today my
effort pays off, because it enables me to share this passage:
Randy and Amy had spent a full hour talking to Scott and
Laura last night; they were the only people who made any effort
to make Amy feel welcome. Randy hadn't the faintest idea what
these people thought of him and what he had done, but he could
sense right away that, essentially *this was not the issue*
because even if they thought he had done something evil, they
at least had a framework, a sort of procedure manual, for
dealing with transgressions. To translate it into UNIX system
administration terms (Randy's fundamental metaphor for just
about everything), the post-modern, politically correct atheists
were like people who had suddenly found themselves in charge of
a big and unfathomably complex computer system (viz. society)
with no documentation or instructions of any kind, and so whose
only way to keep the thing running was to invent and enforce
certain rules with a kind of neo-Puritanical rigor, because
they were at a loss to deal with any deviations from what they
saw as the norm. Wheres people who were wired into a church
were like UNIX system administrators who, while they might not
understand everything, at least had some documentation, some
FAQs and How-tos and README files, providing some guidance on
what to do when things got out of whack. They were, in other
words, capable of displaying adaptability.
Thank you,
--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
Among scientists are collectors, classifiers, and compulsive tidiers-up;
many are detectives by temperament and many are explorers; some are
artists and others artisans. There are poet-scientists and philosopher-
scientists and even a few mystics. - Sir Peter Brian Medawar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 10:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <42c315c7-e02c-4733-9bdd-0f63d979a87b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461389 |
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 11:33:18 AM UTC-8, Don Kuenz wrote, in reply to me, a post which it would embarrass me to quote all of, but I want to comment on this: > _Cryptionomicon_ (Stephenson) is a complex story. It's complexity forced > me to record my observations of the story as it was read. Today my > effort pays off, because it enables me to share this passage: > > Randy and Amy had spent a full hour talking to Scott and > Laura last night; they were the only people who made any effort > to make Amy feel welcome. Randy hadn't the faintest idea what > these people thought of him and what he had done, but he could > sense right away that, essentially *this was not the issue* > because even if they thought he had done something evil, they > at least had a framework, a sort of procedure manual, for > dealing with transgressions. To translate it into UNIX system > administration terms (Randy's fundamental metaphor for just > about everything), the post-modern, politically correct atheists > were like people who had suddenly found themselves in charge of > a big and unfathomably complex computer system (viz. society) > with no documentation or instructions of any kind, and so whose > only way to keep the thing running was to invent and enforce > certain rules with a kind of neo-Puritanical rigor, because > they were at a loss to deal with any deviations from what they > saw as the norm. Wheres people who were wired into a church > were like UNIX system administrators who, while they might not > understand everything, at least had some documentation, some > FAQs and How-tos and README files, providing some guidance on > what to do when things got out of whack. They were, in other > words, capable of displaying adaptability. The problem of the church that should have been, and wasn't, founded by the New Left and its heirs is one I've worried about for decades. Some comments inspired by this quote: 1. There are well-documented systems available even to atheists. I had a boss decades ago who didn't believe, but was frustrated by the lack of a coherent alternative. I gave him a Miss Manners book. Etiquette is *not* a complete replacement for a church - as witness China, where Confucianism, which is essentially etiquette on a gigantic scale, has never been enough - but it sure helps. At some level, even the people I don't like to acknowledge kinship with clearly recognise this. Political correctness is, after all, at bottom a system of etiquette. 2. Not all churches take advantage of their ability to do adaptability well. Fundamentalisms are often primarily intended to decrease adaptability. For example, the Puritans to whom Stephenson compares the atheists. 3. It's a pity that people alienated by such churches take getting rid of churches, *instead of* doing adaptability, as the cure for their wounds. 4. Although we're about to have our first non-Christian president in centuries, I'm pretty sure post-modern, politically correct atheists are not in charge in the US. I don't think they're in charge in Europe, and I doubt the Chinese Communist Party includes many post- moderns (though of course they do have *their* version of political correctness). The parts of society that post-moderns and such *are*, to some extent, in charge of in the US and probably in Europe - higher education, media, entertainment - are all disproportionately loud and articulate, so they loom larger than they really are. Joe Bernstein -- Joe Bernstein, writer and tax preparer <joe@sfbooks.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 21:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <7u-dnXXd19Gy7vHFnZ2dnUU7-b-dnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #461449 |
On 2017-01-02, Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> wrote: > 4. Although we're about to have our first non-Christian president in > centuries, [*] Dave, tell me more, tell me more -- \/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tsbrueni@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 21:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d89596a5-f060-4dc9-878d-260445d73342@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461449 |
On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 10:22:28 AM UTC-8, Joe Bernstein wrote: > 4. Although we're about to have our first non-Christian president in > centuries, I'm pretty sure post-modern, politically correct atheists > are not in charge in the US. What makes you think that Donald Trump is non-Christian? I have read that Trump is Presbyterian. Which US Presidents were non-Christian?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 22:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <robertaw-AC5406.22130503012017@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461517 |
In article <d89596a5-f060-4dc9-878d-260445d73342@googlegroups.com>, tsbrueni@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 10:22:28 AM UTC-8, Joe Bernstein wrote: > > > 4. Although we're about to have our first non-Christian president in > > centuries, I'm pretty sure post-modern, politically correct atheists > > are not in charge in the US. > > What makes you think that Donald Trump is non-Christian? > > I have read that Trump is Presbyterian. > > Which US Presidents were non-Christian? Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. -- "We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement." Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_. —----------------------------------------------------- Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-04 00:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <006dfef1-50c8-4f2e-80a6-eb819a47876a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461517 |
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 05:33:37 UTC, tsbr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 10:22:28 AM UTC-8, Joe Bernstein wrote: > > > 4. Although we're about to have our first non-Christian president in > > centuries, I'm pretty sure post-modern, politically correct atheists > > are not in charge in the US. > > What makes you think that Donald Trump is non-Christian? > > I have read that Trump is Presbyterian. Does he act religious? Does he keep all the Ten Commandments on any day of the week? (with particular attention to days beginning with the letter S) I say an atheist is anyone who - like me - doesn't practise religion that involves gods. If there are gods after all then I think they will see it the same way. People who worship and people who don't. > Which US Presidents were non-Christian?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-04 02:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <o4idku$8rl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #461524 |
On 1/4/2017 1:46 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote: > On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 05:33:37 UTC, tsbr...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 10:22:28 AM UTC-8, Joe Bernstein wrote: >> >>> 4. Although we're about to have our first non-Christian president in >>> centuries, I'm pretty sure post-modern, politically correct atheists >>> are not in charge in the US. >> >> What makes you think that Donald Trump is non-Christian? >> >> I have read that Trump is Presbyterian. > > Does he act religious? > > Does he keep all the Ten Commandments on any day > of the week? I'd say you could find a lot of presidents not keeping all of the Ten Commandments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hamish.laws@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-04 02:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20407857-b4b6-4e88-9649-e70c8fd85b4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461524 |
On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 7:47:01 PM UTC+11, Robert Carnegie wrote: > On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 05:33:37 UTC, tsbr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 10:22:28 AM UTC-8, Joe Bernstein wrote: > > > > > 4. Although we're about to have our first non-Christian president in > > > centuries, I'm pretty sure post-modern, politically correct atheists > > > are not in charge in the US. > > > > What makes you think that Donald Trump is non-Christian? > > > > I have read that Trump is Presbyterian. > > Does he act religious? a) define acting religious b) compare it to all the other presidents > > Does he keep all the Ten Commandments on any day > of the week? (with particular attention to days > beginning with the letter S) I think you'll find a fair few presidents who've failed that test > > I say an atheist is anyone who - like me - doesn't > practise religion that involves gods. If there are > gods after all then I think they will see it the > same way. People who worship and people who don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-04 11:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dbf689d8-4edb-4376-b301-b3598064eaf8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461527 |
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 10:39:39 UTC, hamis...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 7:47:01 PM UTC+11, Robert Carnegie wrote: > > On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 05:33:37 UTC, tsbr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 10:22:28 AM UTC-8, Joe Bernstein wrote: > > > > > > > 4. Although we're about to have our first non-Christian president in > > > > centuries, I'm pretty sure post-modern, politically correct atheists > > > > are not in charge in the US. > > > > > > What makes you think that Donald Trump is non-Christian? > > > > > > I have read that Trump is Presbyterian. > > > > Does he act religious? > > a) define acting religious Let's see - contemptuous of women... yeah, he has that. Point taken. > b) compare it to all the other presidents > > > Does he keep all the Ten Commandments on any day > > of the week? (with particular attention to days > > beginning with the letter S) > > I think you'll find a fair few presidents who've failed that test > > > > I say an atheist is anyone who - like me - doesn't > > practise religion that involves gods. If there are > > gods after all then I think they will see it the > > same way. People who worship and people who don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-06 20:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <57cdf8ce-2f57-4681-bf74-c6f9d8943b71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461517 |
On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 9:33:37 PM UTC-8, tsbr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 10:22:28 AM UTC-8, Joe Bernstein wrote: > > 4. Although we're about to have our first non-Christian president in > > centuries, I'm pretty sure post-modern, politically correct atheists > > are not in charge in the US. > What makes you think that Donald Trump is non-Christian? > > I have read that Trump is Presbyterian. I guess I was moving the goalposts. It used to be perfectly OK for someone who'd never seen the inside of a church or a Bible to claim to be Christian because that person had never thought about the topic, or some such. Nowadays that may still be OK in everyday life, but candidates are held to a higher standard. They're usually expected to attend some house of worship regularly, and ones claiming specifically to be Christian and Republican are often expected to be "born again". (Oddly, the first president who claimed that was a Democrat.) Anyway, Trump managed to fail every single test thrown at him in this regard during the campaign. So maybe he's a Christian by the genial "All Americans are Christians unless they specifically deny it" standard of my childhood, but not by most of the standards I hear people, and not just in the political context, talk about today. > Which US Presidents were non-Christian? Well, Jefferson was my confident fallback, but lessee, English Wikipedia here we go again. Madison seems to have paid no attention to religion at all, so it depends, again, on how you define "non- Christian". (adherents.com, cited by a Wikipedia page I cite below, muddies things: he attended an Episcopal church while in office - something some presidents have avoided, whether from fear of unfairness, or of hassle for the churches, I don't know - but wrote hostilely about organised religion later in life.) Monroe's religious *views* are described as even more unknown, but he attended church regularly. After that, hmmm. There seems to be considerable sentiment in favour of the idea that both Adamses were Unitarian. They seem to have considered this a Christian faith; though I'm dubious of that in the general case, they seem to have kept enough of the Trinitarian Christian beliefs that it may in some sense have been true of them. In any event, it isn't clear to me that their actual church at the time was actually declared as Unitarian at the time. (adherents.com quotes a Unitarian source saying that it had been so declared by 1753, but I'm not sure I can rely on that in this context.) Fillmore and Taft are also said to have been Unitarians, but Taft at least also seems to have considered himself Christian. Eisenhower seems to have been raised among the non-Trinitarian Jehovah's Witnesses (who went by a different name at the time), but joined a Presbyterian church upon taking office. English Wikipedia starting with JQA isn't as interested in presidents' religious views, but has an article summarising its opinions on the subject: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States> The big news here, anyway, is that my "centuries" may have been wrong, because Lincoln and his successor Johnson are dubious cases. Here's a whole article, I kid you not: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Abraham_Lincoln> (It parallels: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Thomas_Jefferson>.) As for Johnson, Wikipedia on him quotes him from a 1930 biography: "As for my religion, it is the doctrine of the Bible, as taught and practiced by Jesus Christ." Lincoln seems to me to be a much much more complicated version of something similar; and while he never *joined* a church, he did regularly attend one with his wife and kids. So maybe Jefferson really is the only one, and my "centuries" correct after all. On the other hand, it sounds like Trump has been going to church for quite a while, so by the standards I've been trying to apply (being more impressed by action than by doctrine) I was probably wrong in the rest of that sentence. Joe Bernstein -- Joe Bernstein, writer and tax preparer <joe@sfbooks.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 00:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <55t07cdev90irl0i2ohbidn6hn82hr9in5@reader80.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #461806 |
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 20:42:23 -0800 (PST), Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> wrote: >There seems to be considerable sentiment in favour of the idea that >both Adamses were Unitarian. They seem to have considered this a >Christian faith; though I'm dubious of that in the general case, they >seem to have kept enough of the Trinitarian Christian beliefs that it >may in some sense have been true of them. In any event, it isn't >clear to me that their actual church at the time was actually >declared as Unitarian at the time. (adherents.com quotes a Unitarian >source saying that it had been so declared by 1753, but I'm not sure >I can rely on that in this context.) Why would you doubt it? Incidentally, I was raised Unitarian, and when the merger with the Universalists happened (1961?) I got interested in the denomination's history, and over the next few years I did some research. The original Unitarian theology was that Jesus of Nazareth was human and not divine (though his parentage was a matter of some polite disagreement within the church), but that he was divinely inspired and that the Bible was indeed holy writ. This changed over time, but really only after 1850, so the Adamses almost certainly considered themselves Christian. > Fillmore and Taft are also >said to have been Unitarians, but Taft at least also seems to have >considered himself Christian. There are still Unitarians who consider themselves Christian, though they may well be a minority within the UUA. -- My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 10:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <81efc53c-da0f-4546-8067-0d009d02c6d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461809 |
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:01:39 PM UTC-8, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 20:42:23 -0800 (PST), Joe Bernstein > <joe@sfbooks.com> wrote: > >There seems to be considerable sentiment in favour of the idea that > >both Adamses were Unitarian. They seem to have considered this a > >Christian faith; though I'm dubious of that in the general case, they > >seem to have kept enough of the Trinitarian Christian beliefs that it > >may in some sense have been true of them. In any event, it isn't > >clear to me that their actual church at the time was actually > >declared as Unitarian at the time. (adherents.com quotes a Unitarian > >source saying that it had been so declared by 1753, but I'm not sure > >I can rely on that in this context.) > Why would you doubt it? Because my experience is that when someone with an apparent investment in a topic starts talking about antecedents, there's a strong tendency to simplify them into really clear antecedents. In this case, it's certainly possible that the Quincy church one day hung a new sign saying "Sorry, we aren't Puritans any more, we're Unitarians", and that that day came in 1753. At the other extreme, 1753 may have been the year that a pastor was appointed whose writings in the 1790s, after he retired, sound Unitarian to modern Unitarians. I'm not sure what the psychological term is for the kind of thing I'm talking about; it isn't confirmation bias but is something of the sort. I'm tempted to call it expectation bias. (Mind, Abigail Adams, a pastor's daughter, is quoted at the site declaring herself unambiguously Unitarian. I don't seriously doubt the veracity of the quote. But she wasn't president.) > > Fillmore and Taft are also > >said to have been Unitarians, but Taft at least also seems to have > >considered himself Christian. > There are still Unitarians who consider themselves Christian, though > they may well be a minority within the UUA. Well, Universalism is a great deal less heretical by traditional Christian standards - what happens to sinners in the afterlife is way more flexible than the nature of God, as witness something like Purgatory, which is really halfway to Universalism all by itself. Unitarianism, though, violates the Nicene Creed, and I'm not all that happy with calling that "Christian". [1] People in the 19th century surely were more familiar with this sort of thing than we are today, not because they were more religious, but just because they were better educated in history. Taft preceded the merger, so was Unitarian proper, not just a Universalist brought in. I'm not sure what he was thinking; it's hard to believe his education didn't reach that far. I didn't find much about Fillmore, but given Lincoln and Johnson soon after him, and the fact that he wasn't himself elected president (though he should've been), wouldn't be shocked if he didn't particularly identify as Christian. Joe Bernstein [1] English Wikipedia sv "Nicene Creed" notes that what I'm thinking of, the explicitly Trinitarian creed, is a later document than the original Nicene Creed of AD 325 - possibly written in 381, certainly adopted by 451, and despite that date accepted by all the churches descended from the contending parties at the Council of Chalcedon. -- Joe Bernstein, writer and tax preparer <joe@sfbooks.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written
csiph-web