Superstition, Luck and Vodoo
- Thread starter rs7
- Start date
- Status
Since I expect to be challenged on this I will offer a pre-emptive explanation by way of analogy.
The wealthiest man in the world, in monetary terms, has a fixed sum of money that is greater than all other individual men. An absolute. But the term 'wealthiest' is a relative term, i.e. it only makes sense as a measuring device, wealthiest in comparison to who else. Similarly, absolute is concrete measurement but also a relative term in reference to 'partial,' 'somewhat' etc. or otherwise 'non-absolute'.
There are lots of people walking around with effective absolute certainty on a manner of things. It would seem many of you have absolute certainty that I am delusional (or would like to have it). Or if we want to be more mundane, you might have absolute certainty that the markets exist. Or that you exist. Or that words mean things. Whatever.
The point is, 'absolute certainty' as I use it is a term of measurement meant to convey the idea that just as there are certain things you effectively have zero doubts about, I have zero doubts regarding my faith in God. My absolute is concrete in that it has a 100 to 0 doubt ratio, but also 'relative' to your absolute certainties in terms of the idea I attempt to convey w/ comparable strength as your faith in chairs or markets or existence or what have you (oh yeah and also relative to my own certainty of mathematics/science etc). You can nitpick and say there is no such thing as 100%, or no such thing as a perfect circle or a totally unified subconscous etc. etc. but that is another debate and tangential to the thrust of the point.
I am not carving out a clay tablet here, I am attempting to convey the structure of an idea through the means of written communication. But the depth of confusion regarding simple terms like absolute and relative just goes to show that the answers aren't easy and there is more there than a shrug's worth of investigation.
Lundy, with respect I think you confuse opinion with fact.
When you have a strong belief it is too easy to start pigeon holing everyone in to 'us and them'. I know many Aethists but I am not aware that any of them are pretending to be God. Neither do they attempt to rule out a certaintity, they simply believe that they do not feel certain that there is a God. Do Aethiests accept themselves as the ultimate authority? Seems glib to me. In fact I would assert the opposite.
I think there is a difference between faith, which most people would acknowledge as a geniune state, and overwhelming religous belief. I have never yet met a deeply religous person, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Bhudist etc who did not feel that their beliefs, their opinions of reality, where the absolute truth. This is very hard to accept for non religous people and even others of differing religions.
I'm not saying it's wrong but for me, it just seems all too easy. 'We are good and the credit for everything we like is ours, non believers are bad and should be blamed for everything wrong including - and this is the bit that really makes me smile - intolerance'.
I once had a lengthy discussion with David Ike. He is the Illuminati believer who thinks there are evil people who can change into lizzards or whatever. His faith is unshakeable. Believes in a conspiracy theory. Can't agree with him though.
I wish happiness to all whatever you believe.
Cheers
I agree that many conclusions people reach seem too easy, but we can apply that critique across the board.
The 'We are good, nonbelievers are bad' is a complete straw man. I do not believe that and the bible does not teach that, despite popular perception.
There are plenty of yokels and wolves in sheep clothing who make Christianity look bad, but again that is true of every single belief system. There are bad atheists, bad buddhists, bad agnostics. Every discipline has its share of monsters and faulty reasoners. That is a reflection of individuals' shortcomings and misinterpretations, not of Christianity itself.
I submit that the only rational way to judge a belief system is to examine the central teachings impassionately and to strip away the "noise" of popular perception and following. Go to the source, double check your sources, and make judgments from there.
that statement is, again, clearly against the trend. here's an experiment from a couple of years ago (i recall there was another one just a few months ago, but i was unable to find a link):
http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/pr.html
wow, bingo! a world would be much happier place if popular religions would be stripped of their ability to cultivate intolerant people.
- jaan
- Status