Question for religious parents

In article . com,
" wrote:


What I am saying is that *thinking critically and logically* involves
recognizing contradictions and rejecting them. I'm certainly not
saying that you don't learn things, or that you're not thinking
critically most of the time (I won't say all, because I don't think
brains act like that -- no one thinks critically all of the time.) I'm
saying that with respect to this particular claim, you *cannot* be
thinking critically until you recognize the contradiction and start to
figure out what it is that went wrong

And I'm saying that insisting that if two people hold contradictory
beliefs about God, thinking one of them must be wrong is a failure of
imagination.

I am not saying that I hold two contradtory beliefs at the same time --
that's not the paradox -- it is that I attempt to hold my own beliefs
both firmly enough to take action based on them, and with the humility
of knowing that I could be wrong, and therefore someone else could be
right.

Do you think there is only one religion in the world that is right?
That everyone in the world ought to convert to it? Or that all
religions are wrong, and everyone ought to give up religion? How do YOU
understand the multiplicity of religions in the world?

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Chookie wrote:
In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

If I see two contradictory positions, I can embrace both while looking
for whatever Truth may come from their eventual resolution -- but, in
the meantime, I don't have to reject either one of them.

Can you truly embrace two opposing points of view, though, or is it just that
you can't make up your mind and waver between the two views?

I think in the sense that dragonlady is talking about
it, it is possible.

I am having trouble imagining how you could do it. Example?

I suspect she means something like a situation
where you see things that appear to be contradictory
even though you believe them to be true. Often what
happens in those situations is that further information
resolves the apparent contradiction. Now, in a formal
logical sense, that's not the same as believing P and
not P at the same time; however, in practical, messy,
real-life terms is looks and feels like holding two
contradictory positions at the same time.
It is also possible to suspend judgement on
things. E.g., you can believe God exists and be
confident in that belief as far as you are concerned,
but feel that it is arrogance to assert that those
who believe God does not exist are wrong. (I.e.,
you may believe that God exists and also that you
are fallible, which casts doubt on the truth of
your beliefs in a general sense, even though it doesn't
diminish the strength of your personal belief as
experienced by you.) Again, that's not quite the
same as believing P and not P at the same time,
but it does mean that belief in P doesn't mean
that someone is necessarily willing to assert
that not P is false outside one's reality.
And, of course, there's also the issue
of scope, depending on one's concept of reality ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

Chookie wrote:

That is a most unusual thing for a human, IME! Why aren't you interested in
getting others to share your beliefs? Most people I know are very keen to
share their ideas/thoughts/experiences, particularly if they believe they
could be helpful to others.

Really? I don't find that confusing at all. I think
it's quite possible to believe in P, feel those who believe in
not P are flat out wrong, and still believe that it is neither
necessary nor desirable to convince others that they're wrong
and you're right. Add in any sense of possibility that you
are not infallible, and it becomes even more likely that one
will choose not to go to the mat attempting to convince others
they're wrong.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

It is also possible to suspend judgement on
things. E.g., you can believe God exists and be
confident in that belief as far as you are concerned,
but feel that it is arrogance to assert that those
who believe God does not exist are wrong. (I.e.,
you may believe that God exists and also that you
are fallible, which casts doubt on the truth of
your beliefs in a general sense, even though it doesn't
diminish the strength of your personal belief as
experienced by you.

Lovely expression. Thank you.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
I think I've given the misimpression that I think everyone is totally
right. I don't -- I just don't think anyone is totally wrong.

Remember, this came about because someone said that a religious person
HAD to think their own religion was right -- and everyone else's was
wrong. I don't think that. I think my religion (both my formal
affiliation as a Unitarian Universalist, and my specific beliefs) are
ones that work for me. I think that many other people have found
religions that work for them. And I don't think they are wrong. I have
no desire to convert anyone of any faith who has found a religion that
is working to help them find Truth and Meaning. Heck, one of the
discussions we have in our church has to do with how important it is (or
is not) that our children grow up and stay Unitarian Universalists --
for most of us, we hope our children grow up and stay spiritually
healthy, and continue to seek and question, and if that means they find
a different faith, that's OK. I couldn't feel that way if I thought all
other religions were wrong.

Yes, yes, yes, on all counts! Very well said. And saves me the trouble of
writing a lot of posts, since it expresses pretty much what I have been
TRYING to say (apparently poorly!) throughout the thread.
--
Be well, Barbara

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 00:07:58 +1100, Chookie
wrote:

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

In article .com,
" wrote:

Why is it so hard to accept that it is possible to embrace the
paradoxical position that you both believc something, and at the same
time believe that others who disagree with you might not be wrong?

It's possible to do that. It's just not possible to learn anything
from it -- like I keep saying, you can prove that anything *and* *its*
*negation* are true. What's the point?

The point is making meaning of my life, and trying to see/understand
whatever it is at the heart of the universe.

What C (and I) are trying to work out is how you do that. I, at least, am
getting the impression that you are involved in late-night conversations that
go like this:

A: Blah, blah blah, and that's why I think God exists
Dragonlady: Oh, OK.
B: Blah, blah blah, and that's why I think God doesn't exist.
Dragonlady: Oh, OK.

Now if your RL personality is anything like your Usenet personality, this
impression *must* be wrong! How are you embracing these contradictions?

I have no interest in convincing anyone to believe what I believe about
those things -- though I have a deep passion for those discussions.

That is a most unusual thing for a human, IME! Why aren't you interested in
getting others to share your beliefs? Most people I know are very keen to
share their ideas/thoughts/experiences, particularly if they believe they
could be helpful to others.

Are you talking about share as in open discussion? If so I do that,
and I do also listen when other people share back with me. I can share
my dieas and thoughts even with other people who dont have the same
beliefs and it can be very enriching.

If you mean share, as in "convert" I have absolutely no interest in
getting others to necessarily share the same beliefs. Beliefs are an
individual thing/

Disclaimer: I have always, always, lived in an extremely diverse
communities, with many people who are devout in many faiths. I have
never had a problem with needed them to share these believs.

Barb
Of bu , or are you talking share as in

"Chookie" wrote in message
...
In article DPGNf.304$ia3.22@fed1read08, "Circe"
wrote:
But what you have been saying about RELIGIOUS belief is that if a person
believes one statement to be true, he or she cannot at the same time
maintain the belief that someone who holds the opposite opinion is also
correct. One or the other has to be RIGHT. And I'm saying that with
religious belief, as with opinions about another person's appearance or
about how brussel sprouts taste or about whether thong underwear are
comfortable, it is possible to fervently believe the truth of one's own
perceptions and reasoning without thinking that anyone who holds an
opposing
position is, by definition, wrong.

However, the difference to me is that a disgreement with someone over
Brussels
sprouts is not something that carries a great deal of *weight* for either
person, if I can put it that way. Your dislike of Brussels sprouts
doesn't
affect all areas of your conduct, your relationships, etc. "Are Brussels
sprouts tasty?" does not come up as one of Life's Big Questions!

You are clearly not a hater of brussel sprouts married to a lover of them
g!

In general,
taste questions affect only the individual, whereas religious questions do
not.

I could not disagree more profoundly. I think religious questions ARE as
individual as matters of taste. In fact, in a sense, I would say that
religious belief is the ULTIMATE expression of individual taste. True, what
one believes with regard to religion has a broader impact on one's life
choices than whether or not one likes brussel sprouts, and therefore has
more influence on the ways one interacts with and affects the lives of
others, but really, when it comes to how we are supposed to treat our fellow
humans, the world religions don't differ that greatly in terms of the values
they teach (i.e., don't murder, steal, abuse, injure, etc. are common social
values that all world religions emphasize, although there may be different
interpretations of when one crosses the line into murder, theft, etc.).

In what way does YOUR religious belief affect ME? Or mine you? Your
religious belief may well be an impetus to certain types of behavior on your
part which I might consider either to my (or society's) benefit or
detriment, but in the end, it's what you choose to DO based on your beliefs
that affects others, NOT the belief itself. And I suspect that, though we
hold quite different religious beliefs, our essential ideas about what
constitutes ethical behavior, about treating others with respect and
kindness, and about the value and wonder of creation are much more similar
than different and that, therefore, our behavior with regard to others isn't
much different.

This whole conversation is making me think of a series of books written a
while back by Piers Anthony called "Incarnations of Immortality". One of
the
books is about Death, or Thanatos. His job is to go and take souls from
dying people to get them to heaven. One time, he tries to take the soul
of
an atheist who doesn't believe in the afterlife. Contrary to what you
might
expect, the atheist's soul simply crumbles and slips away. Because the
atheist didn't BELIEVE in the afterlife, his truth was the REAL truth for
him--there WAS no afterlife.

But why was the atheist's version of truth ONLY real for him? Presumably
the
atheist believed that his Mum didn't reach an afterlife, since the
afterlife
doesn't exist. Why is his belief only powerful enough to affect his own
future, when he believes it is universally true?

Well, of course, we're only talking about a novel here, so I can't speculate
as to what the author thought. That said, maybe everyone's individual
version of reality turns about to be his/her reality in the end. Meaning
that for a person who believes in the afterlife, everyone in this life gets
to some form of the afterlife, while for anyone who doesn't believe in an
afterlife, no one has an afterlife. Sort of like the proposition in physics
that says that every time there's morre than one possible outcome of an
event, all outcomes actually occur and different realities split off into
different dimensions.

Note that I'm not saying I believe this, only that it is no more or less
likely to my mind that any of the other possibilities with regard to
afterlife belief.
--
Be well, Barbara

wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
I'm saying that beliefs have to say that a proposition is either true,
or false, and that if I think a proposition is true, that automatically
means that I think that people who think that proposition is false are
wrong.

I think this is a proposition on which we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Maybe the problem is that you only apply the word "belief" to facts or ideas
which you think apply universally, while I apply it both to things I think
are universally true and to things I hold to be true for me that I suspect
might not be true for others. If I agree with you that the definition of
"belief" only applies to propositions that we think are universally true,
then I agree that anyone who disagrees with my "beliefs" (so defined) are
wrong.

There are lots of beliefs that others hold that I think are wrong. It's not
that I'm incapable of considering an opposing position to be wrong. It is
only that I have many opinions and ideas that I also call "beliefs" that I
don't *necessarily* assume apply to others. I can believe something is wrong
from my perspective and still accept the possibility that, from a different
perspective, it might be right. And when it comes to the big, black box
questions, I am ESPECIALLY wary of assuming that my beliefs are universal
and even capable of considering the possibility that there is more than one
"right" answer.
--
Be well, Barbara

bizby40 wrote:

I *believe* that you obfuscate your meaning by making your
words as convoluted and circular as you can, and then
follow up with a "really?" or a "*boggle*" when someone
does not understand, thus attempting to put yourself on the
high ground and leave the poor befuddled simple-minded
fool on the ground.

And I believe that I use words as clearly as possible. Therefore we
disagree, and you think I am wrong, and I think you are wrong.

Which is all I've ever said through this entire thread.

I am definitely not trying to snow people; I am trying to explain this
in as many different ways as I can. Otherwise I wouldn't still be
trying to explain it.

Yes, people have reasons for their beliefs, at least hopefully, but
they're irrelevant to whether or not the belief is actually true and
whether or not holding a belief means that you're asserting that it has
a truth value.

People had reasons for thinking the Earth was flat. Good ones. I'm
not saying that people have to have reasons for their beliefs. I'm
saying that when they do believe P, that they think that P is true.
Not that it's false.

From dictionary.com:
be·lieve
v. tr.
1.. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2.. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3.. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
v. intr.
1.. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2.. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to
solve the problem.
3.. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in
free speech.
4.. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.
As you can see, "believe" covers a whole range from the firm
"to accept as true" to the ambiguous, "to have an opinion".
It appears that people's religious beliefs may fall anywhere
on that spectrum.

All of those definitions consist of *asserting* that a proposition is
either *true*, or *false*.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

dragonlady wrote:
In article . com,
" wrote:


What I am saying is that *thinking critically and logically* involves
recognizing contradictions and rejecting them. I'm certainly not
saying that you don't learn things, or that you're not thinking
critically most of the time (I won't say all, because I don't think
brains act like that -- no one thinks critically all of the time.) I'm
saying that with respect to this particular claim, you *cannot* be
thinking critically until you recognize the contradiction and start to
figure out what it is that went wrong

And I'm saying that insisting that if two people hold contradictory
beliefs about God, thinking one of them must be wrong is a failure of
imagination.

I am not saying that one of the people has to hold a false belief, and
that one of them has to hold a true belief.

I am saying that each thinks the other is wrong, since they believe
something contrary.

Or else that they don't think they're talking about the way things
really are.

Or else that they haven't defined their terms precisely.

I am not saying that I hold two contradtory beliefs at the same time --
that's not the paradox -- it is that I attempt to hold my own beliefs
both firmly enough to take action based on them, and with the humility
of knowing that I could be wrong, and therefore someone else could be
right.

Good for you. I think beliefs are more likely to be right if they are
modified in the face of future developments.

Do you think there is only one religion in the world that is right?
That everyone in the world ought to convert to it? Or that all
religions are wrong, and everyone ought to give up religion? How do YOU
understand the multiplicity of religions in the world?

I think that people believe in different propositions for different
reasons, and that if they all agreed on points of belief, that they'd
all be the same religious faith.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling