What Book Changed Your Mind?

[Immanuel Can]

In other words you reckon that pestering people with your religious beliefs is perfectly acceptable social conduct. I'd advise you not to do it Australia, mate, because in this country that is absolutely taboo.

Honestly? If you're right, then it would be sad for Australia. For to close one's mind to new ideas and to refuse to hear what anyone says unless it's "acceptable" to current social practice is pretty much a definition of being thoroughly indoctrinated. Is it your position, then, that Australians consider themselves as having evolved beyond the need to learn? I would be surprised if it were so.

"Taboo" is an interesting choice of term, too. Because in its origin, it's religious: it's the Tongan word for "banned-because-sacred." So it would seem (again, only if you're right here) that Australians would be in the position of having been influenced by religion but now being oblivious to it, and too stubborn an unaware even to question their own assumptions.

Your judgment there would be harsh. I doubt you're correct. I have more faith in Australians.

[Hobbes' Choice]

In other words you reckon that pestering people with your religious beliefs is perfectly acceptable social conduct. I'd advise you not to do it Australia, mate, because in this country that is absolutely taboo.

Honestly? If you're right, then it would be sad for Australia. For to close one's mind to new ideas and to refuse to hear what anyone says unless it's "acceptable" to current social practice is pretty much a definition of being thoroughly indoctrinated. Is it your position, then, that Australians consider themselves as having evolved beyond the need to learn? I would be surprised if it were so.
...
Your judgment there would be harsh. I doubt you're correct. I have more faith in Australians.

What passes as a brain has once more failed you. The rejection of a creed does not necessarily have any sort of doctrine. You cannot be indoctrinated into a state of mind which is not a belief.
Australians have evolved past the indoctrination of religion and are free to make up their own minds against those that would enslave them as Christianity has previous done; whilst it supported the incarceration and deportation that has made Australia what it is today.

If you want to peddle your view then you ought to get a better argument, and no cry like a baby on the kerb who has just dropped his ice cream.\

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, if you think you are so clever then furnish details of a contemporary writer who is below par.

Trollin'

Christians might think themselves outside of historical guilt but any justice would have their creed at the centre of that abuse.

Trollin'

In mist cases the "PC" attitude is saving bigots and morons from their own stupidity.

Trollin'

Rawhiiiiide!

Sorry, Hobbes. I've tried to have a civil, productive conversation with you -- I really have -- but you're so fond of provoking that I can't find the human being behind all the posturing. Yes, trolling is fun -- for those who can be bothered -- however, I can't. Life is short...too short to be wasted on mere provocation-for-provocation's sake. And it's not anything like philosophy.

I'm not insulting you. It's not that I don't like you -- it's that I don't KNOW you, and am apparently not permitted to speak to the real person behind all that posturing and bluster. Your cyberpersona itself seems very contentious and gratuitously fractious... and I just have my doubts that you, as a person, are so taciturn and unreasonable, so utterly uninterested in developing a coherent line of thought and so absurdly dismissive of anyone who holds views you do not.

If I could ever speak to Hobbes the Man, that might be interesting. But to bandy lines with Hobbes the Troll...well, that goes nowhere. Henceforth I shall be, to quote the Bard, "scanter of my presence" in regard to your messages. It won't be personal.

Happy life to you.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Okay, if you think you are so clever then furnish details of a contemporary writer who is below par.

Trollin'

In other words you can't and were talking bollocks!

Christians might think themselves outside of historical guilt but any justice would have their creed at the centre of that abuse.

Trollin'

Once again you have no answer to this and were talking bollocks!

In mist cases the "PC" attitude is saving bigots and morons from their own stupidity.

Trollin'

Case in point. See above.

Rawhiiiiide!

Sorry, Hobbes. I've tried to have a civil, productive conversation with you
Three simple points for which you were struck dumb, then childishly called me a Troll.
I don't KNOW you,

One thing you got right/

[Obvious Leo]

In other words you reckon that pestering people with your religious beliefs is perfectly acceptable social conduct. I'd advise you not to do it Australia, mate, because in this country that is absolutely taboo.

Honestly? If you're right, then it would be sad for Australia. For to close one's mind to new ideas and to refuse to hear what anyone says unless it's "acceptable" to current social practice is pretty much a definition of being thoroughly indoctrinated. Is it your position, then, that Australians consider themselves as having evolved beyond the need to learn? I would be surprised if it were so.

"Taboo" is an interesting choice of term, too. Because in its origin, it's religious: it's the Tongan word for "banned-because-sacred." So it would seem (again, only if you're right here) that Australians would be in the position of having been influenced by religion but now being oblivious to it, and too stubborn an unaware even to question their own assumptions.

Your judgment there would be harsh. I doubt you're correct. I have more faith in Australians.

What I'm saying is quite correct. It is socially unacceptable to openly voice one's religious views in this country, as indeed it is in New Zealand where I also spend quite a lot of my time. No doubt there are many venues where consenting adults of like persuasion can get together to discuss such matters but religion is never a topic of conversation in the ordinary social discourse. This is not a matter of closing one's mind to new ideas but rather a matter of mutual respect.

After I told her that I was unable to believe in god at the age of 14, even my mother, who was quite a devout Christian lady, never once spoke to me again of her beliefs throughout the rest of her life. I never heard her raise the subject with anybody else either and this is perfectly typical polite conduct in my culture.

[Immanuel Can]

What I'm saying is quite correct. It is socially unacceptable to openly voice one's religious views in this country, as indeed it is in New Zealand where I also spend quite a lot of my time. No doubt there are many venues where consenting adults of like persuasion can get together to discuss such matters but religion is never a topic of conversation in the ordinary social discourse. This is not a matter of closing one's mind to new ideas but rather a matter of mutual respect.

Why, though? Why should one's religion -- presumably the most important feature of one's life -- be though of as too shameful to mention in public? What sort of sense would that make?

Today, we talk freely about our sexuality -- we parade our differences in the street. Everyone volunteers his or her opinion about politics, no matter how strong that opinion might be. Who is ashamed to speak of his philosophy today? And all sorts of previous taboos are breaking down. So what sense does it make to reserve shame for one's deepest beliefs?

If one really, really believes something, and is really convinced it is helpful to everyone, what sort of a miser would not gladly share it with other people?

I'm not saying you're misrepresenting the truth. I'm just astonished.

After I told her that I was unable to believe in god at the age of 14, even my mother, who was quite a devout Christian lady, never once spoke to me again of her beliefs throughout the rest of her life. I never heard her raise the subject with anybody else either and this is perfectly typical polite conduct in my culture.

Wow. Well, it seems to me that taboo is deserving of being questioned, at the least. Politeness is always quite possible, no matter what the subject matter. But not to speak of one's beliefs? It seems strange...rather repressive, actually.

[Obvious Leo]

Why, though? Why should one's religion -- presumably the most important feature of one's life -- be though of as too shameful to mention in public? What sort of sense would that make?

You are assuming that which you seek to establish. There may indeed be people for whom religion is the most important feature of one's life but in my country such people are a vanishingly small minority. Surely you would understand that the cultural zeitgeist is determined by the consensus views of the majority. Although nobody would seek to deny people the right to believe as they choose they themselves also have the right to insist that such beliefs are personal matters not suitable for general conversation. In different social settings the same could be said of topics such as politics or sex.

Everyone volunteers his or her opinion about politics, no matter how strong that opinion might be.

This is also exceedingly rare in my country. My wife and I have been together for almost 40 years and I wouldn't have a clue how she votes. Incidentally neither do I know if she believes in god or what she keeps in her bedside locker.

If one really, really believes something, and is really convinced it is helpful to everyone, what sort of a miser would not gladly share it with other people?

What sort of arrogant pillock could have such an insufferable self-regard? Is there no longer virtue in humility?

But not to speak of one's beliefs? It seems strange...rather repressive, actually.

It is the signature feature of an enlightened culture because all forms of belief are antithetical to the notion of human progress.

[Immanuel Can]

What sort of arrogant pillock could have such an insufferable self-regard? Is there no longer virtue in humility?

Oh, it has nothing to do with humility...or pride, for that matter. The same would be true whatever one believed strongly and thought stood to do others good. How many people are there who incessantly campaign for new diets, or shill for political parties, or go door to door for research donations, or recommend their favourite discount chain to their friends? They're not evil people, in most cases: they genuinely believe they stand to help humanity in some way. And it would be a real Scrooge who could begrudge them their intent, even if he didn't happen to believe what they said.

There's not a thing that's prideful about wanting to share one's benefits with others. In fact, failure to do so might well itself be a moral failing; for example, if you had the cure to cancer and told nobody, I think you'd probably recognize you were not being a particularly nice person, right? We all would. Likewise, if you strongly believed a diet would prevent it, the only moral thing for you to do would be to tell as many people as you could, as soon as possible, and plead for them to heed you. If they did not, a good person would persist; for to allow others to suffer unnecessarily, even if they are unaware of the truth of the value of your diet, would be unconscionable. If it really worked, nothing ought to stop you saying so.

But one could say it humbly and graciously, nonetheless.

But not to speak of one's beliefs? It seems strange...rather repressive, actually.

It is the signature feature of an enlightened culture because all forms of belief are antithetical to the notion of human progress.

Heh. That's not remotely tenable, if "belief" is taken in its general usage.

For example, I presume you "believe" in science, as do we all; but you have not done the experiments in which you trust. Even if you had, you would never have done the complete set of possible experiments, so as to know with absolute certainty what results they will produce. So for all the experiments you have not done, you have to exercise belief. And belief in science is warranted belief. So no problem there.

And that's not a criticism of you. For even the most diligent scientist relies on the word of other scientists, of his discipline generally, and of many other experts outside his own particular field. "Belief" is a human phenomenon, and religion does not have any special monopoly on it.

You must mean some kind of particular belief, I assume.

[Obvious Leo]

IC. I meant what I said when I said I don't believe in anything and this is precisely BECAUSE I'm a philosopher of science. Science and belief do not make for good bedfellows.

You seem to think that trying to persuade somebody to eat more green vegetables is no different from trying to persuade them to believe in leprechauns. I take a different view.

[Immanuel Can]

IC. I meant what I said when I said I don't believe in anything and this is precisely BECAUSE I'm a philosopher of science. Science and belief do not make for good bedfellows.

I don't want to sound imperious, but I would be remiss to let such a challenge stand unquestioned. For if you are indeed a philosopher of science, you could not possibly be unaware that science is based not on deductive certainty, but on inductive warrant. It's empirical and probabilistic, not absolute. That's fundamental to any understanding of scientific epistemology at all. The idea that science is "certain" is not even remotely plausible, except perhaps in the uninformed imagination of the general public, who sometimes admire the idea of science without actually comprehending the epistemological mechanics of the scientific method.

Now, induction means only probability, not certainty, and probability always entails an appropriate proportion of belief to close the gap between likelihood and conclusion. In fact, the whole purpose of science is to try to increase the probability value of our beliefs.

Thus, not only are the two occasional "bedfellows," but inevitable ones.

Michael Polanyi's "Personal Knowledge" is an excellent read on this subject. He was a master chemist and physicist, and one of the preeminent philosophers of science in the last century as well. His work on induction is less renowned than the derivative work of Thomas Kuhn, but only because he's far more technical, detailed and specific than the popular reader can handle. But you seem to have some knowledge, so I commend him to your attention. You will be glad you spent some time on him if you do.

[Obvious Leo]

I"m very familiar with Polanyi's work, thank you.

For the rest you made my argument for me about as well as I could have myself. Scientists do not believe things. They merely model the patterns of organisation in nature and such models always have a finite shelf life.

[Hobbes' Choice]

IC. I meant what I said when I said I don't believe in anything and this is precisely BECAUSE I'm a philosopher of science. Science and belief do not make for good bedfellows.

I don't want to sound imperious,.

But you do.

[Immanuel Can]

I"m very familiar with Polanyi's work, thank you.

Then why did your reject it? I assume you would have good reasons for doing so, since his case is very compelling. But I'm open to hearing your counterarguments to Polanyi.

Scientists do not believe things. They merely model the patterns of organisation in nature and such models always have a finite shelf life.

So you don't "believe" religion is wrong, you don't "believe" science is good, you don't "believe" you are speaking to real persons online, you don't "believe" Australia has a Prime Minister, you don't "believe" your doctor when he says you're healthy...

I think perhaps I'm going to need your definition of "believe": for going by ordinary usage of the word, you surely "believe" all these things, don't you?

[Obvious Leo]

IC. Obviously the word "believe" has a different meaning in different contexts of usage but your point is both disingenuous and obfuscatory. To say that I believe Australia has a Prime Minister is not an equivalent statement to saying that I believe the universe is the creation of a supernatural being, which is what this discussion is about. If you wish to claim otherwise then you're on your own because this is not a philosophical argument and I have better things to do with my time.

[Immanuel Can]

If you wish to claim otherwise then you're on your own because this is not a philosophical argument and I have better things to do with my time.

Heh. Hardly "on my own." In fact, "believe," in the sense in which I used it, means exactly what everybody means when they say "believe" every day.

To assert otherwise, you would have to create a stipulated definition (i.e. one of your own, used provisionally, for the purposes of present discussion, and for this purpose made more narrow and precise than ordinary usage will allow). All I was asking was what you would wish to stipulate regarding your personal understanding and usage of the word "belief," because you were clearly using it in some special way that nobody else does.

No aggravation intended. Please yourself.

Be well.