From: Kirk Steele (ksteele42@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Oct 17 2003 - 13:57:23 MDT
Your post is 74k. learn how to post please. DO NOT REPLY TO AN ENTIRE DIGEST WITHOUT CUTING AND PASTING. thank you
kirksteele
Rich Lawrence <rlawrence1@triad.rr.com> wrote:
I usually don't post as there are far more eloquent writers out there than
me. I would, however, like to throw my two cents in regarding this exchange
between LhyR of Chaos and rhinoceros and, as an aside, the exchanges
regarding the WSJ article on the "Brights". It seems that no matter what
"god" you happen to be discussing, your ability to understand this "god"
will always seem to fall short of the mark somehow and this will necessitate
going to either the person your are debating with for understanding or
his/her spiritual teacher/mentor/etc. In short, a belief in "god" always
results in some sort of intellectual sacrifice or tradeoff for the believer.
There also seems to be an underlying current of assumed certainty or a
promise of potential certainty of knowledge when you debate or read the
arguments presented by those who have a god-belief. This attitude was quite
noticeable in the "Brights" article. The assumption that the knowledge
obtained using the rational processes has a degree of uncertainty associated
to it because of the method by which it was obtained (in this case, through
our "fallible" senses). This, it is argued, makes that knowledge, at least
in the mind of a person who holds to a god-belief, somehow substandard. The
usual response, and Dinesh D'Souza doesn't disappoint us, is that the mind
that holds to a god-belief either has or will have some sort of certain
knowledge that is on a much higher level than can be obtained through mere
reason,
"The atheist foolishly presumes that reason is in principle capable of
figuring out all that there is, while the theist at least knows that there
is a reality greater than, and beyond, that which our senses and our minds
can ever apprehend."
I suppose, were I to be uncharitable, I could paraphrase the above sentiment
as; "Don't you worry! One day we will find out something that will finally
show you rationalists that we are not as stupid as we appear". But, I
wouldn't do such a thing.
While the statement of Kant and others regarding the fallibility of the
senses is true, it is interesting that by using the principles of
rationality we are about to identify these shortcomings and adjust
accordingly. Although, in the debate about the circularity of the earth way
back when, it is interesting to see who championed the correctness of the
sense information as a support for their case.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus-digest@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus-digest@lucifer.com]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 8:10 AM
To: virus-digest@lucifer.com
Subject: virus-digest V9 #272
virus-digest Friday, October 17 2003 Volume 09 : Number 272
[rest of post snipped for sake of server sanity.]
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 17 2003 - 13:57:46 MDT