Posted by zeugma on March 29, 2006, at 17:06:33
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679 » zeugma, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 19:54:11
> I didn't mean to imply that there's anything wrong with following in the faith of one's ancestors. It's actually rather lovely. I feel a real kinship for my ancestors' faiths even if I didn't choose to follow them, and I can certainly understand choosing to follow them.>>
I did not mean to imply such either.
As for what i said about convergence- we don't interpret beliefs. We either have them or not. Someone who believes, e.g., that modafinil can eliminate the need for sleep, has a belief that I cannot be brought to see the sense of, either intuitively or deductively. I can understand *why* someone has such a belief (perhaps they accept the testimony of an eminent researcher). And perhaps I am wrong. In a world turned upside down.
Nobody believes what they think is wrong. That seems trivial, self-evident, but it causes a big problem for those who argue for relativism (if e.g. you believe that no one can know the truth, or that the word 'truth' cannot be adequately defined so as to be useful, then it appears that your level of belief is staggering- what is a belief, that you do not believe true? Easy answer: Someone else's belief. It can't be yours.)
>
> I was just repeating what I said to my less than impressed fellow students. Perhaps I should add that I was in Catholic school. :) I was just being a bit retroactively amused with myself.>>I use that expression too, almost compulsively. There is something about being amused with oneself that has an intrinsically retroactive character.
:-)
-z
poster:zeugma
thread:624709
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060322/msgs/626235.html