Do believers really believe?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

suit yourself. But taking on Seattle and possibly nonseq on this one seems roughly akin to battling bitter, belligerent windmills.

So be it. I don't dislike either individual. Nor am I frightened by the blow-back.

[All-American]

I think both sides ought to lay down their arms on this one. It is unreasonable for somebody to tell another person that they don't really believe what they profess to believe.

It is also quite stylish to do so these days. We had a discussion the other day in our Roman Revolution class on religion and its effect upon Roman society, and the notion that most Romans didn't really believe in the religion that they publicly professed. Cicero is the golden boy for those who so argue. In public, he would praise the gods and cite their aid, especially in the Catalinarian orations, whenever it served his own interests. In private correspondence, however, he openly disparaged and dismissed theology. But what is likely true in the case of Cicero is almost certainly not true in the case of the Pontifex Maximus, Julius Caesar. Everything we have from Caesar suggests that he personally, deeply, and intensely believed in the intervention of the gods, and was influenced by that belief in his personal affairs. For future generations to dismiss his belief as feigned is itself a self-serving gesture.

And what has been true of the evaluation of the beliefs of the ancients holds true today. For whatever reason, atheism, the world's "fastest growing religion," feels an intense need to win over its own converts, even post mortem (just like us, come to think of it). It would do them credit if no reasonable or intelligent being gave any credence to the divine, and this article is just one more example of the attempt to explain away the fact that many do.

As for the other side of the argument, once you've stated and explained your argument such that the other side understands what you are arguing, why do we feel the need to quibble over semantics? They know what we mean when we say that we "know." They understand what kinds of evidence have compelled us to state our belief in terms that strong. If they still don't buy it, cui malo?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Says the man who has taken a magic marker to the Bible.



Teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.

Be a fundamentalist, I actually hope to learn to think about theological matters, not simply regurgitate stuff without thought. A fundamentalist approach requires little thought and automon logic. But that approach appears irrational to me.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Exactly.

The problem I have with the semantic debate involves terminology. For a person to be speaking or discussing "knowledge" in the vernacular one is usually referring to empirical observation. Unless one is claiming a personal visitation by Deity himself, I don't find it reasonable in our language to claim knowledge without making a linguistic distinction.

But if tooblue is comfortable with his convictions, then he need not protest too much.

The issue of knowledge is NOT as easily prosecutable as you would like to suggest. In this very thread you chide Tex for wanting people to conform to his way of thinking and then with this very post you do that which you find offensive!

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by All-American

And what has been true of the evaluation of the beliefs of the ancients holds true today. For whatever reason, atheism, the world's "fastest growing religion," feels an intense need to win over its own converts,

Ironic, isn't it, that atheism has become the most evangelical of faiths.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

does not fit the definitional confines of the common language.

But it does councilor ...

Knowledge:
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

The issue of knowledge is NOT as easily prosecutable as you would like to suggest. In this very thread you chide Tex for wanting people to conform to his way of thinking and then with this very post you do that which you find offensive!

Most disagreement really is about linguistic distinctions. I submit your disagreements are not as vast as one would admit, if everybody used the same definitions.

However, fundamental members of our culture seem unwilling to acknowledge the distinctions required by empiricism as opposed to a broader dialectic, such as one embraced by you.

[BarbaraGordon]

I'm actually curious about Whyte's other question: Why, if government serves as such an ineffective vehicle for the Christian agenda, do we insist on infusing a religious rhetoric into our political discourse?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

But it does councilor ...

Knowledge:
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things

Philosophy has an entire branch of study pertaining to knowledge and if you're going to rely upon such an incomplete usage, then go ahead and be sloppy, because I don't accept that definition as complete enough to satisfy a proper examination of the subject.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I'm actually curious about Whyte's other question: Why, if government serves as such an ineffective vehicle for the Christian agenda, do we insist on infusing a religious rhetoric into our political discourse?

Authority.

Politics is about emotion more than reason, and if one can summon authority from on High, one resorts to a power that cannot be questioned.