diversity and tolerance

[Fist and Faith]

Heh. Sorry. Meant googol.
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

[aliantha]

Heh. Sorry. Meant googol.
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

That's an actual number, is it?

SB used it too:

Even Dawkins who would agree with you (and Vraith) that even if the possibility is Googles to 1...

I mean, my math edumification stopped with Calculus for Dummies in college, so I coulda missed something...

[Fist and Faith]

Yeah, you coulda... One followed by a hundred zeros.

[Vraith]

It's really a pretty small number, especially compared to a googolplex [which is 10 to the googol-th power]...about which:

television personality Carl Sagan estimated that writing a googolplex in numerals (i.e., "10,000,000,000...") would be physically impossible, since doing so would require more space than the known universe provides.

...a number I find neither diverse, nor tolerable.

[Fist and Faith]

I quite agree. I have no tolerance for things that come in groups of a googolplex. "I just invited a few friends" indeed!

[Fist and Faith]

Even if you don't respond - and it's all just repetition anyway, eh? - I'm getting this out of the Tank.

The things is, rus, I don't need to understand Orthodoxy. As I've said many times, that's nowhere near the first step. Before I'd care to learn Orthodoxy, or any specific belief system, I'd need to have reason to believe there is a creator of any sort. Then I'd want to see if I could find out specifics about the creator.

I don't post to tell you your beliefs are wrong. You can describe and define your beliefs all you want, and I won't argue. But when you tell me that mine are wrong, and/or you try to make yours the law of the land, I'm gonna oppose you. Under those circumstances, I'm gonna point out the lapses in rationality, logic, and evidence. Endlessly. Until you find the words to convince me that you're right.

OK.
That really is the end of the discussion.
FWIW, I really doubt that my ideal will become the law of the land - or the Land - so you can probably relax. All I've tried to do is to offer a level of explanation of the opposition - to offer a more intelligent and thought-out view than the one commonly portrayed in the media.

FWIW, you have shown that your faith is not the intentionally malicious kind that many are. Burning in Hell, for example. Actually, I don't know what you think happens to people like me, but the fact that you're not sitting back, all smug and righteous about how you'll be in paradise and I'll be in eternal torment is a good deal better than many "Christians."

And I have come to understand a difference between your and others' beliefs about homosexuality. I think. Heh. If I'm right, you don't think it's always a choice. You think some people are born homosexual. And you don't think they can become heterosexual. (Obviously, I absolutely disagree about it being a problem in any way, or that it is a sin - by any definition of the word - that the sinner can only make right by never giving into the desire to act on the feelings.)

And I feel that I've done the same on lapses on your part.

Alas, you've only said, repeatedly, that, since your beliefs cannot be wrong, what I say must be inaccurate. Therefore, I must not really have thought about what I say I've thought about. Which is ridiculous. Refusing to consider that I may actually think what I claim to think - dismissing the possibility that many people in the world, even many here, cannot be right about their own understanding of themselves - simply because it doesn't fit into your beliefs, is just crazy. That's equal to the atheist saying that, no matter how many people say they experienced what, nobody can have had any actual experiences of God, Jesus, or any other supernatural being or thing. It doesn't fit into his worldview, so it cannot have happened. But that's stupid, right? How can anyone tell you that what you experienced was really just wishful thinking, or an alcohol-induced hallucination, or a bad burrito, or a bad reaction to medication, or whatever? How can anyone be so incredibly arrogant that they believe, "Since I haven't experienced X, nobody can have experienced X."?

Only I'm not willing to do it endlessly.

Well, I'm not endlessly giving you the need to. I'm not telling you that it's impossible for you to believe what you say you believe. And I'm not telling you you must consider same-sex couples to be equal to opposite-sex couples. The only reason you have to point out lapses you believe you see on my part is that you want to point out lapses you believe you see on my part.

But I do respect that you think these things important. That's why I tentatively labeled you "Turnbull". It really is a complement on my part.

I could try this. I see that it's online, and it's a story. I am entirely turned off by his writings, but I haven't tried anything of his with a plot.

[Cybrweez]

Is it a matter of thinking someone doesn't really think they understand themselves, or someone understanding themselves, and being wrong? Its certainly common to have an understanding of yourself, that everyone who knows you thinks is wrong, whether on deep, spiritual matters, or something simpler like personality.

[Fist and Faith]

Yes, such things do happen. But it's different when many people - of both genders, all ages, from many different cultures, from all over the world - all claim to have the same worldview (I don't believe in any creator, deity, or afterlife.), and the same attitude about that worldview (Not a problem. And I'm glad that's my attitude, since not liking the situation wouldn't change it.). It's not as easy to dismiss when the worldview and attitude are arrived at from many different directions.

And yet, rus does just that.

[rusmeister]

Even if you don't respond - and it's all just repetition anyway, eh? - I'm getting this out of the Tank.

The things is, rus, I don't need to understand Orthodoxy. As I've said many times, that's nowhere near the first step. Before I'd care to learn Orthodoxy, or any specific belief system, I'd need to have reason to believe there is a creator of any sort. Then I'd want to see if I could find out specifics about the creator.

I don't post to tell you your beliefs are wrong. You can describe and define your beliefs all you want, and I won't argue. But when you tell me that mine are wrong, and/or you try to make yours the law of the land, I'm gonna oppose you. Under those circumstances, I'm gonna point out the lapses in rationality, logic, and evidence. Endlessly. Until you find the words to convince me that you're right.

OK.
That really is the end of the discussion.
FWIW, I really doubt that my ideal will become the law of the land - or the Land - so you can probably relax. All I've tried to do is to offer a level of explanation of the opposition - to offer a more intelligent and thought-out view than the one commonly portrayed in the media.

FWIW, you have shown that your faith is not the intentionally malicious kind that many are. Burning in Hell, for example. Actually, I don't know what you think happens to people like me, but the fact that you're not sitting back, all smug and righteous about how you'll be in paradise and I'll be in eternal torment is a good deal better than many "Christians."

And I have come to understand a difference between your and others' beliefs about homosexuality. I think. Heh. If I'm right, you don't think it's always a choice. You think some people are born homosexual. And you don't think they can become heterosexual. (Obviously, I absolutely disagree about it being a problem in any way, or that it is a sin - by any definition of the word - that the sinner can only make right by never giving into the desire to act on the feelings.)

Hi Fist,
I do appreciate that you have recognized those things about me. I usually don't get any of that in your posts (and I imagine you could say the same about the reasonable things I recognize in yours - a quality of Chesterton's that I simply haven't learned to live up to - appreciation of one's opponent).

And I feel that I've done the same on lapses on your part.

Alas, you've only said, repeatedly, that, since your beliefs cannot be wrong, what I say must be inaccurate. Therefore, I must not really have thought about what I say I've thought about. Which is ridiculous. Refusing to consider that I may actually think what I claim to think - dismissing the possibility that many people in the world, even many here, cannot be right about their own understanding of themselves - simply because it doesn't fit into your beliefs, is just crazy. That's equal to the atheist saying that, no matter how many people say they experienced what, nobody can have had any actual experiences of God, Jesus, or any other supernatural being or thing. It doesn't fit into his worldview, so it cannot have happened. But that's stupid, right? How can anyone tell you that what you experienced was really just wishful thinking, or an alcohol-induced hallucination, or a bad burrito, or a bad reaction to medication, or whatever? How can anyone be so incredibly arrogant that they believe, "Since I haven't experienced X, nobody can have experienced X."?

First of all, I fully recognize that you can see my beliefs to be wrong. My conclusion that they are not wrong (my certainty) is based on an amalgam of experience and reason, and it is made after, not before those chains. Since you didn't have the same experiences and haven't reasoned the same way I do, I'm not surprised that you have come to different conclusions.
But you seem to mean that I still ought to doubt my own conclusions - I should evidently always hold a thought in my own head that I might be wrong. That I may never be certain of my own conclusions.

I do admit that you think what you think. The only thing I think we disagree on on that is conclusions. Just as you think I hit certain walls and do not think further, so I think you hit certain walls and do not think further. On meaning after death; ie, transcendent meaning, for example.

If what I believe is true, then my logic follows. It is then NOT crazy. If it is true, then people really are deceitful in their own hearts - to themselves. people lie to themselves, and therefore, extremely often do not understand themselves. We are capable of creating enormously complex webs of falsehood to justify what we do and how we live, our choices in life. Even I recognize this about myself and take it into consideration. The person who does not do this is in deadly danger of not understanding himself at all.

Only I'm not willing to do it endlessly.

Well, I'm not endlessly giving you the need to. I'm not telling you that it's impossible for you to believe what you say you believe. And I'm not telling you you must consider same-sex couples to be equal to opposite-sex couples. The only reason you have to point out lapses you believe you see on my part is that you want to point out lapses you believe you see on my part.

So the only reason is 'I do it because I want to'.
I guess I am doing the impossible then. They said it couldn't be done. Then I went ahead and did it!

But I do respect that you think these things important. That's why I tentatively labeled you "Turnbull". It really is a complement on my part.

I could try this. I see that it's online, and it's a story. I am entirely turned off by his writings, but I haven't tried anything of his with a plot.

I'd actually recommend some Father Brown stories. They are much shorter and more along the lines of entertainment. Sherlock-Holmsian, with the important twist that this busybody priest who seems to have nothing to do but be around when somebody is murdered (or whatever) uses the enormous knowledge of human psychology that priests get from hearing confession (more than any psych major in college can) to solve the mystery.

[Fist and Faith]

First of all, I fully recognize that you can see my beliefs to be wrong.

Really, I don't. I only don't recognize them as right. I don't have reason to believe they reflect reality. Could be your beliefs are right, but I have only ever seen evidence that mine are right, and have never seen evidence that yours are.

My conclusion that they are not wrong (my certainty) is based on an amalgam of experience and reason, and it is made after, not before those chains. Since you didn't have the same experiences and haven't reasoned the same way I do, I'm not surprised that you have come to different conclusions.
But you seem to mean that I still ought to doubt my own conclusions - I should evidently always hold a thought in my own head that I might be wrong. That I may never be certain of my own conclusions.

I do admit that you think what you think. The only thing I think we disagree on on that is conclusions. Just as you think I hit certain walls and do not think further, so I think you hit certain walls and do not think further. On meaning after death; ie, transcendent meaning, for example.

If what I believe is true, then my logic follows. It is then NOT crazy. If it is true, then people really are deceitful in their own hearts - to themselves. people lie to themselves, and therefore, extremely often do not understand themselves. We are capable of creating enormously complex webs of falsehood to justify what we do and how we live, our choices in life. Even I recognize this about myself and take it into consideration. The person who does not do this is in deadly danger of not understanding himself at all.

That's not quite right, either. I think it's terrible that accepting your worldview - even aspects of it that you are not yet aware of, but, when they are presented to you at some future date, will accept,no matter what - forces you do ignore or dismiss objective facts.

The analogy I have given before (and don't worry, I will point out the flaw with it myself) is perfect pitch in music. Some people can hear a bar of metal fall to the pavement, and tell you what note it made. Or the hum of a flourescent light. Or a car horn. Or any randomly played note on any instrument. Or any source that produces any sound that contains a pitch. And many can tell you which keys on the piano sounded if you drop a couple of basketballs on the keyboard. I cannot do any of this. I don't have perfect pitch. Tell me what one note is, and I can tell you what any other note is; but I need that initial orientation. In fact, I had had years of piano lessons before I was even aware of this thing called perfect pitch, and it blew my mind when I found out about it.

Somehow, these people hear something in sounds with pitch that the rest of us do not. They can't tell me what it is. But it's there. It's a fact, easily demonstratable any number of times by many people.

If our worldviews forced us to ignore it, to tell them, "No, you don't hear some quality in that noise that I do not", we would be idiots.

So, I am back to us. I have never had anything that would be called a "religious experience." If there is anything out there that is other than the physical reality that I can experience, directly or with the help of instruments that we've made (Geiger Counters, sensors that pick up emissions in the radio frequencies, etc), then it is entirely closed off to me. I can't imagine why, but that's doesn't matter. As far as I can tell, such things do not exist. End of story.

The thing is, there's millions of people who say they do experience supernatural things. Not merely the people who were brought up in a particular religion, and adhere to it simply because they never thought to question it, but people who claim to have actually experienced the supernatural. Directly and intimately. And they're not all drug users. Or the victims of sense-deprivation. Or years of abuse. Or anything else. The flaw with my analogy is that, unlike perfect pitch, this kind of thing is not demonstratable in any way. But how wise and/or intelligent would it be for me to say, "No. You did not. You can't prove it, and I have never experienced it. Therefore, it did not happen. There's another explanation." And I'm sure, often enough, it is another explanation. But every one of the millions of times anyone in history, from every race, culture, age, and gender has experienced it? How unimaginably arrogant would I be to think that I have an unassailable worldview that proves such a thing is not possible, just because I haven't had such an experience?? How phenomenally illogical is that thinking?? In the face of millions of first-hand accounts, it would be the height of... I'm not sure what... to say, "No. It never happened to me, therefore it never happened to anyone."

And that is exactly what you are doing. Because your mind cannot see a path from A to Z on this issue, nobody's mind can. Therefore, anyone who says they have found a path is wrong. Self-deluded. Based on no evidence to the contrary, other than accepting a worldview that cannot be proven, you dismiss the objective fact of millions of people who claim to have gone from A to Z. Not just some, who you may know personally. Heck, I'm sure some haven't thought it through. I don't know any, but I'm willing to believe it. But, as with me and those who claim to have had a religious experience, it's impossible to say that what every one of them claims to have experienced is wrong. Yet you do it.

And hey, you go right ahead. You are entitled to believe whatever bizarre things you want to. I'm not seeking you out to tell you you're wrong to believe them. Just stop telling me that you know the hearts and minds of millions of people - especially me - better than we know ourselves. It's not only insulting, but it shows that your faith is the opposite of what you want people to think it is. Rational/reasonable/logical. It is blind acceptance of what you are told to believe. It does not attempt to understand things that do not fit into it - perhaps fit those things into the worldview. It simply declares that they do not exist.

Only I'm not willing to do it endlessly.

Well, I'm not endlessly giving you the need to. I'm not telling you that it's impossible for you to believe what you say you believe. And I'm not telling you you must consider same-sex couples to be equal to opposite-sex couples. The only reason you have to point out lapses you believe you see on my part is that you want to point out lapses you believe you see on my part.

So the only reason is 'I do it because I want to'.
I guess I am doing the impossible then. They said it couldn't be done. Then I went ahead and did it!

I don't actually follow that. But the point is, I don't point out things about your beliefs that I disagree with, and tell you you're wrong. You do that to me. At which point, I argue.

I'd actually recommend some Father Brown stories. They are much shorter and more along the lines of entertainment. Sherlock-Holmsian, with the important twist that this busybody priest who seems to have nothing to do but be around when somebody is murdered (or whatever) uses the enormous knowledge of human psychology that priests get from hearing confession (more than any psych major in college can) to solve the mystery.

Will you kindly settle on something!!

[rusmeister]

First of all, I fully recognize that you can see my beliefs to be wrong.

Really, I don't. I only don't recognize them as right. I don't have reason to believe they reflect reality. Could be your beliefs are right, but I have only ever seen evidence that mine are right, and have never seen evidence that yours are.

OK. Stalemate.

My conclusion that they are not wrong (my certainty) is based on an amalgam of experience and reason, and it is made after, not before those chains. Since you didn't have the same experiences and haven't reasoned the same way I do, I'm not surprised that you have come to different conclusions.
But you seem to mean that I still ought to doubt my own conclusions - I should evidently always hold a thought in my own head that I might be wrong. That I may never be certain of my own conclusions.

I do admit that you think what you think. The only thing I think we disagree on on that is conclusions. Just as you think I hit certain walls and do not think further, so I think you hit certain walls and do not think further. On meaning after death; ie, transcendent meaning, for example.

If what I believe is true, then my logic follows. It is then NOT crazy. If it is true, then people really are deceitful in their own hearts - to themselves. people lie to themselves, and therefore, extremely often do not understand themselves. We are capable of creating enormously complex webs of falsehood to justify what we do and how we live, our choices in life. Even I recognize this about myself and take it into consideration. The person who does not do this is in deadly danger of not understanding himself at all.

That's not quite right, either. I think it's terrible that accepting your worldview - even aspects of it that you are not yet aware of, but, when they are presented to you at some future date, will accept,no matter what - forces you do ignore or dismiss objective facts.

The analogy I have given before (and don't worry, I will point out the flaw with it myself) is perfect pitch in music. Some people can hear a bar of metal fall to the pavement, and tell you what note it made. Or the hum of a flourescent light. Or a car horn. Or any randomly played note on any instrument. Or any source that produces any sound that contains a pitch. And many can tell you which keys on the piano sounded if you drop a couple of basketballs on the keyboard. I cannot do any of this. I don't have perfect pitch. Tell me what one note is, and I can tell you what any other note is; but I need that initial orientation. In fact, I had had years of piano lessons before I was even aware of this thing called perfect pitch, and it blew my mind when I found out about it.

Somehow, these people hear something in sounds with pitch that the rest of us do not. They can't tell me what it is. But it's there. It's a fact, easily demonstratable any number of times by many people.

If our worldviews forced us to ignore it, to tell them, "No, you don't hear some quality in that noise that I do not", we would be idiots.

So, I am back to us. I have never had anything that would be called a "religious experience." If there is anything out there that is other than the physical reality that I can experience, directly or with the help of instruments that we've made (Geiger Counters, sensors that pick up emissions in the radio frequencies, etc), then it is entirely closed off to me. I can't imagine why, but that's doesn't matter. As far as I can tell, such things do not exist. End of story.

The thing is, there's millions of people who say they do experience supernatural things. Not merely the people who were brought up in a particular religion, and adhere to it simply because they never thought to question it, but people who claim to have actually experienced the supernatural. Directly and intimately. And they're not all drug users. Or the victims of sense-deprivation. Or years of abuse. Or anything else. The flaw with my analogy is that, unlike perfect pitch, this kind of thing is not demonstratable in any way. But how wise and/or intelligent would it be for me to say, "No. You did not. You can't prove it, and I have never experienced it. Therefore, it did not happen. There's another explanation." And I'm sure, often enough, it is another explanation. But every one of the millions of times anyone in history, from every race, culture, age, and gender has experienced it? How unimaginably arrogant would I be to think that I have an unassailable worldview that proves such a thing is not possible, just because I haven't had such an experience?? How phenomenally illogical is that thinking?? In the face of millions of first-hand accounts, it would be the height of... I'm not sure what... to say, "No. It never happened to me, therefore it never happened to anyone."

And that is exactly what you are doing. Because your mind cannot see a path from A to Z on this issue, nobody's mind can. Therefore, anyone who says they have found a path is wrong. Self-deluded. Based on no evidence to the contrary, other than accepting a worldview that cannot be proven, you dismiss the objective fact of millions of people who claim to have gone from A to Z. Not just some, who you may know personally. Heck, I'm sure some haven't thought it through. I don't know any, but I'm willing to believe it. But, as with me and those who claim to have had a religious experience, it's impossible to say that what every one of them claims to have experienced is wrong. Yet you do it.

And hey, you go right ahead. You are entitled to believe whatever bizarre things you want to. I'm not seeking you out to tell you you're wrong to believe them. Just stop telling me that you know the hearts and minds of millions of people - especially me - better than we know ourselves. It's not only insulting, but it shows that your faith is the opposite of what you want people to think it is. Rational/reasonable/logical. It is blind acceptance of what you are told to believe. It does not attempt to understand things that do not fit into it - perhaps fit those things into the worldview. It simply declares that they do not exist.

Obviously, we don't accept each other's analogies - although I certainly get yours.
It's a little more worthwhile to state that your idea that "my worldview forces me to 'ignore' objective facts" is a misrepresentation of what said facts actally mean. As always, it is the interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves (which you are, in fact, interpreting) that matters and causes us to classify some of the facts as more important, less important, or not important at all.

I've never had a religious experience in the sense you describe, either. In fact, when I first converted, I specifically reminded myself not to create any false feelings in my imagination, but only to accept whatever was given.

Again, I do see that people can see a path from A to Z. And yes, I believe their reasoning is wrong in doing so - and one of the reasons is the tremendous human capacity for self-deception. But there are other reasons. I do not think it impossible that I could abandon faith - but I do think it improbable in the extreme that reason could be the cause. Emotive reasons are far and away the most likely. It is often something like having one's children killed, or some other total catastrophe, that causes people to turn from faith. But people who have had an adult education in a faith once accepted are not, generally speaking, reasoned out of it. Most people, as Lewis pointed out, simply drift away - drop out little by little, or have an emotive factor.

If we wish to be rational, not now and then, but constantly, we must pray for the fit of faith, for the power to go on believing not in the teeth of reason but in the teeth of lust and terror and jealousy and boredom and indifference that which reason, authority, or experience, or all three, have once delivered to us for truth.

CS Lewis

I haven't been so tested yet. I'm afraid that such a time will come. And I am training my habit of faith.

I think you make an enormous leap from my proposition that there are some things common to men that we CAN and DO (pretty much all of us) know about them, to your idea that I think I can simply pronounce what everybody thinks and believes. I deny the latter and insist on the former. Everyone fears death. You may fight over the word 'fear', I think it a matter of semantics. I believe I can know that no one really wants to die; that even at the last second the unhappy suicide hopes for a deus ex machina that will change the circumstance that causes his/her unhappiness (before the final overwhelming of hope by despair). I think I CAN know that. I DON'T think I know all, or even many of the thoughts running through others' minds.

As for the rest, insulting, blind, arrogance, pride, etc... I won't even argue that anymore. I've said what can be said to show that you misunderstand. Nothing else that I say will change that for you. You want not to be sought out? Wish granted. I can ignore your posts if that is what you wish.

Well, I'm not endlessly giving you the need to. I'm not telling you that it's impossible for you to believe what you say you believe. And I'm not telling you you must consider same-sex couples to be equal to opposite-sex couples. The only reason you have to point out lapses you believe you see on my part is that you want to point out lapses you believe you see on my part.

So the only reason is 'I do it because I want to'.
I guess I am doing the impossible then. They said it couldn't be done. Then I went ahead and did it!

I don't actually follow that. But the point is, I don't point out things about your beliefs that I disagree with, and tell you you're wrong. You do that to me. At which point, I argue.

Does this mean that all I need to do is find a thread where you jumped in and responded to me when I was talking to somebody else? Seriously, I think we've both done our share of pointing out, without necessarily having been addressed by the other.

I'd actually recommend some Father Brown stories. They are much shorter and more along the lines of entertainment. Sherlock-Holmsian, with the important twist that this busybody priest who seems to have nothing to do but be around when somebody is murdered (or whatever) uses the enormous knowledge of human psychology that priests get from hearing confession (more than any psych major in college can) to solve the mystery.

Will you kindly settle on something!!

I actually ought to start a GK Chesterton thread. ( But I'd probably get as many responses as I got in Doriendor Corishev over the history of public education - nobody knows about it and nobody wants to know about it.)
The Chesterton.org site is the best place to begin to learn about him.
chesterton.org/
and a fraction of his enormous bibliography (available to read/copy/download here): www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/
and a mega-links page so you get that I do not admire him in isolation:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/04/gk-chesterton-colossal-genius-links.html
Lots of essays and articles by quite a few people there.

Just getting a sense of the enormous breadth of the man (I mean as a writer, his size and weight aside), the scale of his writings, which extend FAR beyond Christian apologetics - which is all you have read to date, I believe, and that only a very little. That's no put-down - I've read probably less than half of his writings myself, and me an expert on the man. It would take no less than a decade simply to be able to say that you had read all of his publications. (A full-time student could probably do it in half the time - if that was his major and only study.)
But anyone could simply write a lot of stuff, of course. And much of it would probably be not very good. That's what makes GKC so staggering - that he correctly predicted so much of what would happen if the world went the path prescribed by GB Shaw and HG Wells - which it pretty much has - in a word, that what he says is relevant today. Change certain terms - maybe 'British' to 'American', 'Chamberlain and Churchill to 'Clinton and Bush' (or Obama), and simply translate the popular terms of the time for the popular terms today 'companionate marriage' to 'common-law marriage', for example, and he is talking about what we read and write today.

It took me several books to get used to him. I was helped along by his many aphorisms, which I got right away and found really powerful, deep and true: chesterton.org/discover/quotations.html
(So probably you ought to start off with that before going on to "The Ball and the Cross".)

[Fist and Faith]

It's a little more worthwhile to state that your idea that "my worldview forces me to 'ignore' objective facts" is a misrepresentation of what said facts actally mean. As always, it is the interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves (which you are, in fact, interpreting) that matters and causes us to classify some of the facts as more important, less important, or not important at all.

I agree. And I'm not saying that the fact that so many people claim what I claim is proof that our claim is true; I only say that, since it's very far from an isolated incident, which might easily be ignored, it's worth looking into. Exactly the case with me looking at all the people who claim to have had a "religious experience." The difference between you and I is that I do not say those people are wrong, that they have not had a religious experience. I don't have any way of knowing that they haven't. They may be right. I only know that I have not had one, and their experiences cannot be for me what they are for them.

As for this particular case, you say I am interpreting the facts. True enough. I am interpreting first-hand facts. You, otoh, are interpreting them (to the degree that you are interpreting them. Really, you're dismissing them.) third-hand. You do not experience these facts. Nor do you examine what those who do experience them say. What you do is interpret them through what others who do not experience them - the OC, Lewis, Chesterton - say about them.

Again, I do see that people can see a path from A to Z. And yes, I believe their reasoning is wrong in doing so - and one of the reasons is the tremendous human capacity for self-deception.

That's an explanation for why reasoning can be wrong. It's not evidence that reasoning is wrong in this (or any) instance.

But there are other reasons. I do not think it impossible that I could abandon faith - but I do think it improbable in the extreme that reason could be the cause. Emotive reasons are far and away the most likely. It is often something like having one's children killed, or some other total catastrophe, that causes people to turn from faith. But people who have had an adult education in a faith once accepted are not, generally speaking, reasoned out of it. Most people, as Lewis pointed out, simply drift away - drop out little by little, or have an emotive factor.

If we wish to be rational, not now and then, but constantly, we must pray for the fit of faith, for the power to go on believing not in the teeth of reason but in the teeth of lust and terror and jealousy and boredom and indifference that which reason, authority, or experience, or all three, have once delivered to us for truth.

CS Lewis

I haven't been so tested yet. I'm afraid that such a time will come. And I am training my habit of faith.

I'm not interested in whether or not you abandon your faith. I think faith is an extremely good thing for many people. Even life-saving for many. (Those who were headed toward self-destruction throuth substance abuse, criminal lives, etc.) I just think your faith could use a dose of reality and objective reasoning. Primarily because it might get you to stop saying I do not know what I say I know. But also because I don't like seeing a worldview that must deny and ignore things that are presented.

I think you make an enormous leap from my proposition that there are some things common to men that we CAN and DO (pretty much all of us) know about them, to your idea that I think I can simply pronounce what everybody thinks and believes. I deny the latter and insist on the former.

You ARE pronouncing that what I think and believe is inaccurate. And your pronouncement is not based on a first- or second-hand understanding of what I think and believe.

Everyone fears death. You may fight over the word 'fear', I think it a matter of semantics. I believe I can know that no one really wants to die; that even at the last second the unhappy suicide hopes for a deus ex machina that will change the circumstance that causes his/her unhappiness (before the final overwhelming of hope by despair). I think I CAN know that. I DON'T think I know all, or even many of the thoughts running through others' minds.

I'd be surprised if you could speak for all suicides. I think it's a very complex issue. I'm sure some do think and feel what you say. I'm sure some are mentally ill, and don't really know what's going on. I'm sure some don't want to die, but can't make life better. I'm sure some are happy to be dying.

[rusmeister]

It's a little more worthwhile to state that your idea that "my worldview forces me to 'ignore' objective facts" is a misrepresentation of what said facts actally mean. As always, it is the interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves (which you are, in fact, interpreting) that matters and causes us to classify some of the facts as more important, less important, or not important at all.

I agree. And I'm not saying that the fact that so many people claim what I claim is proof that our claim is true; I only say that, since it's very far from an isolated incident, which might easily be ignored, it's worth looking into. Exactly the case with me looking at all the people who claim to have had a "religious experience." The difference between you and I is that I do not say those people are wrong, that they have not had a religious experience. I don't have any way of knowing that they haven't. They may be right. I only know that I have not had one, and their experiences cannot be for me what they are for them.

As for this particular case, you say I am interpreting the facts. True enough. I am interpreting first-hand facts. You, otoh, are interpreting them (to the degree that you are interpreting them. Really, you're dismissing them.) third-hand. You do not experience these facts. Nor do you examine what those who do experience them say. What you do is interpret them through what others who do not experience them - the OC, Lewis, Chesterton - say about them.

Again, I do see that people can see a path from A to Z. And yes, I believe their reasoning is wrong in doing so - and one of the reasons is the tremendous human capacity for self-deception.

That's an explanation for why reasoning can be wrong. It's not evidence that reasoning is wrong in this (or any) instance.

But there are other reasons. I do not think it impossible that I could abandon faith - but I do think it improbable in the extreme that reason could be the cause. Emotive reasons are far and away the most likely. It is often something like having one's children killed, or some other total catastrophe, that causes people to turn from faith. But people who have had an adult education in a faith once accepted are not, generally speaking, reasoned out of it. Most people, as Lewis pointed out, simply drift away - drop out little by little, or have an emotive factor.

If we wish to be rational, not now and then, but constantly, we must pray for the fit of faith, for the power to go on believing not in the teeth of reason but in the teeth of lust and terror and jealousy and boredom and indifference that which reason, authority, or experience, or all three, have once delivered to us for truth.

CS Lewis

I haven't been so tested yet. I'm afraid that such a time will come. And I am training my habit of faith.

I'm not interested in whether or not you abandon your faith. I think faith is an extremely good thing for many people. Even life-saving for many. (Those who were headed toward self-destruction throuth substance abuse, criminal lives, etc.) I just think your faith could use a dose of reality and objective reasoning. Primarily because it might get you to stop saying I do not know what I say I know. But also because I don't like seeing a worldview that must deny and ignore things that are presented.

I think you make an enormous leap from my proposition that there are some things common to men that we CAN and DO (pretty much all of us) know about them, to your idea that I think I can simply pronounce what everybody thinks and believes. I deny the latter and insist on the former.

You ARE pronouncing that what I think and believe is inaccurate. And your pronouncement is not based on a first- or second-hand understanding of what I think and believe.

Everyone fears death. You may fight over the word 'fear', I think it a matter of semantics. I believe I can know that no one really wants to die; that even at the last second the unhappy suicide hopes for a deus ex machina that will change the circumstance that causes his/her unhappiness (before the final overwhelming of hope by despair). I think I CAN know that. I DON'T think I know all, or even many of the thoughts running through others' minds.

I'd be surprised if you could speak for all suicides. I think it's a very complex issue. I'm sure some do think and feel what you say. I'm sure some are mentally ill, and don't really know what's going on. I'm sure some don't want to die, but can't make life better. I'm sure some are happy to be dying.

"No I don't!"
"Yes, you do!"
"No, I don't!"
ad nauseum

It's no use, Fist.
I even said that my reason is what, in part, brought me to faith, and you say that I could use "a dose of reality and objective reasoning". You say that I "interpret" things 3rd hand through what, say, Lewis, etc says. I say that what they say resonates with my own experience and I find it to be true.

All worldviews deny and ignore interpretations of things that are presented to them - if they deny the worldview itself. That or the people abandon the worldview. They categorize what they think more likely to be true - the interpretation of their worldview or an opposing interpretation. And not surprisingly, most people go with the interpretation of their own world view, preferring the body of knowledge that they have accumulated to one they have not and what it would mean to abandon it. And yet I did abandon my old one. I converted.

As to the rest, I'm really tired of going the fifty (or whatever rounds). I could keep coming back point-by-point, but I won't. When I get that someone thinks they really don't understand (not necessarily agree, just understand) and wants to, I'll comment. When I get that people think they already understand my POV (although I see from their comments that they don't) I won't. What I dream about (and had hopes of finding here) was the kind of both debate and relationship that Chesterton carried on with Shaw. Foes to the end, and also good friends. They violently denied each other's POV - in public yet - and still paid home visits to each other. I don't expect people to agree with me. I don't mind being told I'm wrong. But being told I'm nuts and have no logic at all (or pretty much so) is a discouraging factor in continuing discussions.

Thanks for putting in as much time as you have, though! I get the honor that you have done me, and offer a bow of thanks!

[Fist and Faith]

You say that I "interpret" things 3rd hand through what, say, Lewis, etc says. I say that what they say resonates with my own experience and I find it to be true.

This says it perfectly. A third-hand dismissal of me. You don't know what I know. Lewis doesn't know what I know. But he tells you I must be wrong, and that's the end of the matter. You don't need to know anything else.

There's no "Yes it is." "No it isn't." about this matter. We are not arguing about what I feel to be true vs what you feel to be true. We're arguing about what I know of myself vs what you feel about what I claim to know of myself.

[duchess of malfi]

I think you make an enormous leap from my proposition that there are some things common to men that we CAN and DO (pretty much all of us) know about them, to your idea that I think I can simply pronounce what everybody thinks and believes. I deny the latter and insist on the former. Everyone fears death. You may fight over the word 'fear', I think it a matter of semantics. I believe I can know that no one really wants to die; that even at the last second the unhappy suicide hopes for a deus ex machina that will change the circumstance that causes his/her unhappiness (before the final overwhelming of hope by despair). I think I CAN know that. I DON'T think I know all, or even many of the thoughts running through others' minds.

But things are not that easy - not that black and white.

Not everyone fears death.

If you have ever spent a large amount of time around terminally ill people you will learn firsthand that some of them are ready to die - they welcome it. They do not fear the death - they fear the continuing pain and illness but not the coming death.

Having been someone with a chronic disease (non fatal) that caused me very serious health issues (for a couple of weeks my kids were checking me all of the time to see if I was still breathing) let me assure you that when your body gets ready for death following a long and debilitating illness certain things begin to occur. You slip into sleep a lot. You begin to feel very mentally detached from the world and everything and everyone in it. Even getting to the bathroom is exhausting beyond description. After a while you..are ready to just slip away in your sleep. There is nothing to be frightened of when you are in that state. Heck, you do not have the energy to be frightened. To have died then would have been laying down a heavy burden and taking a welcome nap.

When you have suffered for a long time, been ill for years - to slip away into sleep can seem like be a blessing, a gift. You do not have to climb that damned mountain anymore. You can finally be at peace.

I learned then that death is nothing to be afraid of. It can be a great friend to those who are physically worn out due to long illness. I do fear pain and illness. I do not want to be away from the people I love. But death itself can be a great gift under some circumstances.

While I do not seek out death, when my appointed time does come - I know it means I will be heading into peace and rest.

Why be afraid of that?

[Avatar]

If you have ever spent a large amount of time around terminally ill people you will learn firsthand that some of them are ready to die - they welcome it. They do not fear the death - they fear the continuing pain and illness but not the coming death.

The very example I was going to use Duchess.

*shrug* Personally, I don't want to die. But I'm at peace with the fact that it's something I don't have a choice about.

--A

[rusmeister]

I think you make an enormous leap from my proposition that there are some things common to men that we CAN and DO (pretty much all of us) know about them, to your idea that I think I can simply pronounce what everybody thinks and believes. I deny the latter and insist on the former. Everyone fears death. You may fight over the word 'fear', I think it a matter of semantics. I believe I can know that no one really wants to die; that even at the last second the unhappy suicide hopes for a deus ex machina that will change the circumstance that causes his/her unhappiness (before the final overwhelming of hope by despair). I think I CAN know that. I DON'T think I know all, or even many of the thoughts running through others' minds.

But things are not that easy - not that black and white.

Not everyone fears death.

If you have ever spent a large amount of time around terminally ill people you will learn firsthand that some of them are ready to die - they welcome it. They do not fear the death - they fear the continuing pain and illness but not the coming death.

Having been someone with a chronic disease (non fatal) that caused me very serious health issues (for a couple of weeks my kids were checking me all of the time to see if I was still breathing) let me assure you that when your body gets ready for death following a long and debilitating illness certain things begin to occur. You slip into sleep a lot. You begin to feel very mentally detached from the world and everything and everyone in it. Even getting to the bathroom is exhausting beyond description. After a while you..are ready to just slip away in your sleep. There is nothing to be frightened of when you are in that state. Heck, you do not have the energy to be frightened. To have died then would have been laying down a heavy burden and taking a welcome nap.

When you have suffered for a long time, been ill for years - to slip away into sleep can seem like be a blessing, a gift. You do not have to climb that damned mountain anymore. You can finally be at peace.

I learned then that death is nothing to be afraid of. It can be a great friend to those who are physically worn out due to long illness. I do fear pain and illness. I do not want to be away from the people I love. But death itself can be a great gift under some circumstances.

While I do not seek out death, when my appointed time does come - I know it means I will be heading into peace and rest.

Why be afraid of that?

I feel that to the people I've spoken to regularly, I've already answered these questions.

Whether you say "fear" or "don't want to" (and in what you quoted I said "don't want to") - I mean the same thing by it. I don't mean that everyone is quaking in their boots - I mean that they would prefer to live in good health and with whatever personal crises they have solved.

So when you say "welcome it", I get that you mean that they may prefer it to their current state. What I mean is that they would even more prefer not to be ill or sad or frightened and be alive.

Knowing that people don't want to die - that they want to live in health and relative comfort, and that when they do die, they want their life and death to have some kind of meaning - that they want to die for something, that no one is willing to die for nothing, no one desires a senseless death, I say that we can know these things - about everyone. Of course, you could show me a truly mentally ill person that could no longer distinguish between their own desires, or other exceptions - and I would say that such cases are both abnormal and extreme, and so I don't talk about them.

So the main thing I'm speaking out against is the idea that I can't possibly understand other people on such questions - as if they were aliens with desires incomprehensible to me. I think I can claim to know that none of you truly want to die - that even if someone professed such a wish, they really desire a correction of their suffering that grants them life - even though they may believe such a correction impossible or hopeless. Normal people do not desire the end of everything that they have become or learned.

FWIW, my sister-in-law is an RN that spends plenty of time around the terminally ill and tells me about it sometimes. I grant little personal experience with such people, but still think I know what I know. (Don't we all.)

Your beliefs may assure you of peace and rest. But even mine don't. I hope for it - but have no guarantee. There's an awful lot to be agnostic about there.

[duchess of malfi]

Your beliefs may assure you of peace and rest. But even mine don't. I hope for it - but have no guarantee. There's an awful lot to be agnostic about there.

Not my beliefs. My personal experience of coming near to death following years of being sick.

I know death leads to peace.

It is a rest after years of pain and exhaustion.

Nothing to fear.

I would prefer not to die until my children finish school (that is the main thing that has kept me going) - but if and when I go, I know it will be putting down a heavy burden and passing into...something wonderful.

Nothing to fear.

[rusmeister]

Your beliefs may assure you of peace and rest. But even mine don't. I hope for it - but have no guarantee. There's an awful lot to be agnostic about there.

Not my beliefs. My personal experience of coming near to death following years of being sick.

I know death leads to peace.

It is a rest after years of pain and exhaustion.

Nothing to fear.

I would prefer not to die until my children finish school (that is the main thing that has kept me going) - but if and when I go, I know it will be putting down a heavy burden and passing into...something wonderful.

Nothing to fear.

Even near-death experiences are not death itself. I'm rather skeptical of your ability to know, although you are free, of course, to believe what you want.

[Fist and Faith]

Whether you say "fear" or "don't want to" (and in what you quoted I said "don't want to") - I mean the same thing by it. I don't mean that everyone is quaking in their boots - I mean that they would prefer to live in good health and with whatever personal crises they have solved.

So when you say "welcome it", I get that you mean that they may prefer it to their current state. What I mean is that they would even more prefer not to be ill or sad or frightened and be alive.

I agree. Few people seem to want to die. If they did, they'd have killed themselves, eh? Even most of those who attempt suicide, and even most of those who succeed, gave signs - and even flat-out told people - that they were going to try.

At this point in my life I would rather be alive than dead. At all points in my life, in fact, if sometimes for no other reason than the fact that life will end in, at most, several decades, while death will be forever. But there's a lot of great things in this life, and I'll keep it going for a while if I can.

The thing I do fear is dying. The process scares me. It's often kinda painful, which, combined with the fact that its end is the end...

Knowing that people don't want to die - that they want to live in health and relative comfort, and that when they do die, they want their life and death to have some kind of meaning - that they want to die for something, that no one is willing to die for nothing, no one desires a senseless death, I say that we can know these things - about everyone.

Again, you're trying to speak of that which you do not know. The acceptance of meaninglessness (Which is very differenct from the belief in it without the acceptance of it. And that fear is not evidence that it is not the case.) is such an impossible thing for your mental/emotional makeup that you believe it is impossible for anyone else's. And, so, you simply repeat that anybody who claims to possess it is self-deluded, or hasn't thought it through, or whatever. And repeating that is the same as someone else endlessly telling you that you only believe in God because meaninglessness terrifies you, and that the other reasons you insist are actually the case are self-delusions. The outright refusal to accept that either your or my attitude is real, even if one cannot feel it him/herself, is... *sigh*

But I'm not sure on some specifics in what you just said. What kind of meaning do you want your death to have?

Your beliefs may assure you of peace and rest. But even mine don't. I hope for it - but have no guarantee. There's an awful lot to be agnostic about there.

Not my beliefs. My personal experience of coming near to death following years of being sick.

I know death leads to peace.

It is a rest after years of pain and exhaustion.

Nothing to fear.

I would prefer not to die until my children finish school (that is the main thing that has kept me going) - but if and when I go, I know it will be putting down a heavy burden and passing into...something wonderful.

Nothing to fear.

Even near-death experiences are not death itself. I'm rather skeptical of your ability to know, although you are free, of course, to believe what you want.

What experiences have given you greater ability to know that death is something to fear? You seem to be saying that death itself is the only experience that gives one the ability to know whether or not death is something to fear, but I don't imagine that's what you mean.