XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins   
   From: RaanOne@One.org   
      
   "Kermit"  wrote in message   
   news:2b38d8c5.0409112144.3c5e982a@posting.google.com...   
   > "Raan"  wrote in message   
   news:...   
   > > "Kermit"  wrote in message   
   > > news:2b38d8c5.0409020948.460a359a@posting.google.com...   
   > > > "Raan"  wrote in message   
   > >  news:...   
   > > > > "Atman"  wrote in message   
   > > > > news:9ht9j0dc6j99vm68iq8i7ifl99cqmu9fe2@4ax.com...   
   > > > > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:52:31 +0000 (UTC), "Raan"    
   > > > > > wrote:   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > >So to reason and apply that reason by means of the self   
   correcting   
   > >  objective   
   > > > > > >methods of science is to have as dogmatic a faith as any religion   
   is   
   > >  that   
   > > > > > >right.  And I suppose mathematics as it is applied to engineering   
   is   
   > >  just   
   > >  an   
   > > > > > >occult magical system.  You might want to reassess your view.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > Nope!  Many of the belief systems, religious or otherwise, that   
   are   
   > > > > > being denounced by Secular Humanism also claim to have scientific   
   > > > > > support or even scientific proof on their side.  All to often   
   people   
   > > > > > ignore data that does not fit there view point.  This includes   
   those   
   > > > > > who support Secular Humanism.  The observer is effecting that   
   which is   
   > > > > > being observed.  The interpretation of scientific data is very   
   > > > > > subjective.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > Secular Humanism has received a bad name due to actions taken by   
   > > > > > Communist states under the banner of state sponsored Secular   
   Humanism.   
   > > > > > Much like many religions receive a bad name due to the actions of   
   > > > > > extreme fundamentalists in their groups.  The Communist state   
   replaced   
   > > > > > God and all to often the state then decides that it's OK to   
   execute,   
   > > > > > imprison,  torture,  or re-educate all people who express any   
   > > > > > religious or spiritual beliefs.  Hundreds of millions died in   
   Russia,   
   > > > > > China, Vietnam, and other Communists countries.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > Bottom line is that all dogma, fanaticism, fundamentalism, and   
   > > > > > extremism can be dangerous, even under the name of Secular   
   Humanism.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > >  Agreeing to respect other people's right to hold and publicly   
   express   
   > > > > > their beliefs, even those religious beliefs that you disagree   
   with,   
   > > > > > has proved to be the only workable solution.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > >   
   > > > > And is universal tolerance tolerant of intolerance?   
   > > > > Beliefs are ignorance posing as knowledge.   
   > > > > The limitations of reason and science do not negate them.   
   > > > > Many think themselves reasonable that are not.   
   > > > > And many label themselves other than what they are.   
   > > > > My disagreement is with belief itself and none in particular.   
   > > > > These sentences may be out of order but there you have it.   
   > > >   
   > > > Raan, you have a powerful emotional response to the word "belief".   
   > > > Since many people use it properly, it would probably be best if you   
   > > > got over this, or you will not be able to have a rational conversation   
   > > > with a lot of folks, including those who share most of your ideas.   
   > > >   
   > > > We should no more surrender our use of the word "belief" just because   
   > > > some religious fanatics misuse it, then we should give up the words   
   > > > "theory" or "science".   
   > > >   
   > > > Kermit   
   > >   
   > > To believe is to hold something to be true... without conclusive   
   evidence.   
   > > I add that last part as an implication of the actual proper usage of the   
   > > word, because if there were conclusive evidence one would certainly hold   
   it   
   > > to be true but one would not need to claim any belief it since it has   
   been   
   > > factually proven.  I do not say for example that I believe my name is   
   Raan,   
   > > because that is a given and established fact.  Moreover one may adopt a   
   view   
   > > as workable without therefore holding it as being true in actuality and   
   > > therefore would not be believing it.  As to why you think it should   
   follow   
   > > that I should give up the words "theory" or :science" I don't see how   
   that   
   > > follows at all.  Since you have fixated on what you construe as my   
   apparent   
   > > emotional reaction to the word "belief" does this mean you have not   
   > > considered the basis for my objection to belief itself?   
   >   
   > If you look up the word "belief" in the dictionary, you will see that   
   > the first definition given is simply "thinking that X is true". We all   
   > think many things about the universe, and except for closed systems of   
   > logic such as arithmetic, all assertions are provisional. This is not   
   > the same as believing something because it gives emotional   
   > satisfaction. Like you, I find this way of "thinking" apalling, yet   
   > acknowledge many seem to do it.   
   >   
   > "Believing in" a value or worldview or action is thinking that it is   
   > worthwhile, worth committing to. This is the second definition for   
   > "belief". ("I believe in Jesus!" "I believe children should be seen   
   > and not heard.") I think your emotional response (or, "I believe your   
   > emotional response") is a conditioned reaction to the fundamentalists   
   > propensities for conflating the two meanings.   
   >   
   > It is not that giving up the use of "theory" or "science" logically   
   > follows, it is merely that the same people misuse these words too. But   
   > they are good words, and if we gave up their use we would have to find   
   > others with the same meanings. In a few years, the anti-science   
   > cultists  would simply be misusing *those words.   
   >   
   > Humpty Dumpty unwittingly warned us of the dangers of using words in a   
   > uniquely personal way. I  just thought you should know that for most   
   > folks, when they say they "believe X is true", they merely mean they   
   > "think X is true".   
   >   
   > Believing *that communism exists is different from believing *in   
   > communism.   
   >   
   > When people discuss an issue, it is sometimes worthwhile to consider:   
   > do they really agree, but think they don't, because they use a word   
   > differently?   
   > Or do they really disagree, but don't realize it, for the same reason?   
   >   
   > Kermit   
      
   Philosophically speaking the use of a word can be defined as a term within   
   that given philosophical context, dictionary definitions notwithstanding.   
   The philosophy within which belief in any case can be seen to be an error is   
   Skepticism.  Secular Humanism aligns itself with skepticism and in so doing   
   must adhere to its tenets to be self consistent, but of course human nature   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)