tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post4115377584923055713..comments2023-03-24T05:41:17.603-07:00Comments on OutsideTheBox: The Problem of Evil V. God: Perpetrator or Responder?Cliff Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comBlogger182125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-90130330369979286432009-05-16T14:22:00.000-07:002009-05-16T14:22:00.000-07:00Hi, Psi!
Surely you can't be saying you think tha...Hi, Psi!<br /><br /><I>Surely you can't be saying you think that christianity is a myth along with those others?</I>If you use "myth" in the sense of "ancient story" rather than "imaginary fairy-tale", I'm OK with it.<br /><br />From Wikipedia:<br /><I>The term "mythology" sometimes refers to the study of myths and sometimes refers to a body of myths.[1][2] For example, comparative mythology is the study of connections between myths from different cultures,[3] whereas Greek mythology is the body of myths from ancient Greece. The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;[4][5] however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity.[5][6] In the field of folkloristics, a myth is conventionally defined as a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.[7][6][8] Many scholars in other academic fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways.[8][9][10] In a very broad sense, the term can refer to any traditional story.[11][12][13]</I>Rich G.Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-88448977587745685142009-05-15T22:49:00.000-07:002009-05-15T22:49:00.000-07:00Hi Rich,
Surely you can't be saying you think tha...Hi Rich,<br /><br />Surely you can't be saying you think that christianity is a myth along with those others?<br /><br />Just a slip of the brain?<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />PsiPsiloiordinaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12235629211359287564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-51524613199285709752009-05-15T14:45:00.000-07:002009-05-15T14:45:00.000-07:00I've been drawn into the TV show LOST, and there i...I've been drawn into the TV show LOST, and there is a thread on LostPedia regarding the season finale that is currently discussing many of the ideas that have been posted here. Is Jacob symbolic of God/Jesus/Set/(?), and is he good/evil/morally ambiguous? To what extent are the themes drawn from Egyptian/Greek/Roman/Christian mythology?<br /><br />Thoughts anyone?Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-81227412162516398602009-05-10T05:28:00.000-07:002009-05-10T05:28:00.000-07:00BTW Cliff,
This video summarises our discussions ...BTW Cliff,<br /><br />This video summarises our discussions so far about your reasons for belief;<br /><br /><A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector?ytsession=J5132HK5JhOkHAQtlDwoXepevQEQkaxvmr2ZXwYyQmBFi4gByQmTlzYOuSGePc7PgpQTilWPIs6U-wccmI7gf1Wy7i161IZvuIkdKiTsqNmJLIiTIJCqNl_fRO9FHfY_x-G-PfhbRgMPaVNjW0GN2ATRli0Ws1klz4kbmwkCBqgrQ9UKpBD5fDaeziwchNBy6BB7ozoEaF5CUbU1C6Fk8atvQn5I2U2zxYErdm50_CAEMt8BjnnK_SHHwpaKbXe0uOF7GBqFQ0cX_Hk2AxsZxUQD1p5SR81cnFTGdD2Aa03yGITBM2smjgoi1jlluDrX" REL="nofollow">The Great Debate</A>Are you going to cover off why you have your particular religion anytime soon?<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />PsiPsiloiordinaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12235629211359287564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-23881525080978673522009-05-09T22:56:00.000-07:002009-05-09T22:56:00.000-07:00Isaac,
For my part I commend your patience and pe...Isaac,<br /><br />For my part I commend your patience and persistence.<br /><br />Logical argument married with politeness, a patient approach and a willingness to be lead around the houses and yet try to keep to the point simply does not work with everyone.<br /><br />Nice try though.<br /><br />Rich,<br /><br />Thanks for a fascinating glimpse into your way of looking at the world.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />PsiPsiloiordinaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12235629211359287564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-70874984762902027972009-05-09T13:54:00.000-07:002009-05-09T13:54:00.000-07:00For my part, I apologize to Cliff Martin for hoggi...For my part, I apologize to Cliff Martin for hogging this comment stream for the last two weeks.<br /><br />Whatever charitable impulse was involved (in attempting to make a simple concept clear) should have been balanced by whether it was an appropriate thing to do on someone else's personal blog.Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02902123247585964087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-3965941168034297842009-05-08T14:36:00.000-07:002009-05-08T14:36:00.000-07:00Isaac:
As I've said, you'll find the definition.....Isaac:<br /><br /><I>As I've said, you'll find the definition...</I> <br /><br />My question was more global than that. What is <I><B>your</B></I> underlying assumption about life, the universe and everything?Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-35966150160791591102009-05-08T13:29:00.000-07:002009-05-08T13:29:00.000-07:00As a deceptively light aside I would comment;
"oo...As a deceptively light aside I would comment;<br /><br />"ooh ooh ooh the funky gibbon"<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />PsiPsiloiordinaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12235629211359287564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-44448345680181121112009-05-08T12:24:00.000-07:002009-05-08T12:24:00.000-07:00Rich G. > Not his. Yours.
As I've said, you'l...Rich G. > <EM>Not his. Yours.</EM> <br /><br />As I've said, you'll find the definition on page 127 of the philosophy professor's book <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=9CMmAAAACAAJ&dq=being+logical+a+guide+to+good+thinking" REL="nofollow">Being Logical</A>.<br /><br />I can only claim credit for pointing out his definition.<br /><br /><br /><br />Rich G. > <EM>What is *your* dogma?</EM> <br /><br />It seems clear that you want to quarrel about something.<br /><br />It isn't clear to me what you want to quarrel about or why I should be interested.Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02902123247585964087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-25471186847657067432009-05-08T10:42:00.000-07:002009-05-08T10:42:00.000-07:00Isaac:
Not his. Yours.
What is *your* dogma?Isaac:<br /><br />Not his. Yours.<br /><br />What is <I><B>*your*</B></I> dogma?Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-46260673981459496412009-05-08T10:25:00.000-07:002009-05-08T10:25:00.000-07:00Rich G. as I said "on the charitable assumption th...Rich G. as I said "on the charitable assumption that you would like to understand the philosophy professor's definition that I shared, I will try to help."<br /><br />Your statement makes clear that you are uninterested in understanding the philosophy professor's definition.Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02902123247585964087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-61910698555967659772009-05-07T08:54:00.000-07:002009-05-07T08:54:00.000-07:00Isaac:
Let's cut to the heart of it all...
What ...Isaac:<br /><br />Let's cut to the heart of it all...<br /><br />What <I><B>*is*</B></I> your dogma?Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-80786591901375173212009-05-06T18:24:00.000-07:002009-05-06T18:24:00.000-07:00Rich G. > So, if I follow your reasoning...
L...Rich G. > <EM>So, if I follow your reasoning...</EM> <br /><br />Let's break the example down:<br /><br />#1 "...is society benefited from dispelling all such beliefs ...?"<br /><br />#2 "...billions of people find solace and comfort in them..."<br /><br />#3 "...some such beliefs have been credited (by some) for mental and physical healing, and overcoming destructive addictions?" <br /><br /><br />Here's the definition: <br /><br />"... when we selectively omit significant information because it would weigh against a position we are promoting. The result of those omissions is a serious distortion of the subject under discussion."<br /><br /><br />The "subject under discussion" is #1.<br /><br />We are given some "significant information" #2 and #3 all of which weighs for one position on the "subject under discussion". <br /><br />(The position that society is not "benefited from dispelling all such beliefs" because benefits asserted in #2 and #3 are lost.)<br /><br />We are not given any "significant information" that weighs against that position on the "subject under discussion".<br /><br /><br />If there really is no "significant information" that weighs against that position, then nothing significant has been omitted and this is not an example of "special pleading".<br /><br />However, if (just to take the obvious case) the benefits asserted in #2 and #3 could be obtained in other ways rather than lost, then "significant information" that weighs against that position has been omitted and this is an example of "special pleading".<br /><br /><br /><br />(The assertions you listed seem out of context, without any "subject under discussion".)Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02902123247585964087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-37396106077138641872009-05-06T07:48:00.000-07:002009-05-06T07:48:00.000-07:00Isaac:
Rich G. > And just who is going to be t...Isaac:<br /><br /><I>Rich G. > And just who is going to be the arbiter who will say which information is necessary or significant?<br /><br />Isaac > Those who take part in the discussion.<br /><br />In the example I asked you to consider, we were just given information that promotes one answer.</I>So, if I follow your reasoning, I can reject (or at least challenge) the following assertions:<br /><br />"Drunk drivers have been blamed for traffic fatalities" <br /><br />"Cigarette smoking may cause lung cancer"<br /><br />"Seatbelts save lives"<br /><br />all because the relevant information about other ways of obtaining similar results has been conveniently left out. i.e. What else kills people in traffic crashes? Are there other causes of lung cancer? What else can I do to save my life? <br /><br />You gotta be consistent here.<br /><br />I thought the whole point of your initial definition was neglecting to state information that is <B>REQUIRED,</B> to make the assertion true for one person and not for another, not simply leaving out <B>potential</B> alternative explanations that apply to everyone.Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-88569485429245888002009-05-05T12:24:00.001-07:002009-05-05T12:24:00.001-07:00Rich G. > And just who is going to be the arbit...Rich G. > <EM>And just who is going to be the arbiter who will say which information is necessary or significant?</EM> <br /><br />Those who take part in the discussion.<br /><br />In the example I asked you to consider, we were just given information that promotes one answer.<br /><br />That's no more than we might expect from an honest salesperson.Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02902123247585964087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-45294889927097795902009-05-05T12:24:00.000-07:002009-05-05T12:24:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02902123247585964087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-15520806859477892112009-05-05T07:31:00.000-07:002009-05-05T07:31:00.000-07:00Isaac:
Once more, not "unless he included all pos...Isaac:<br /><br /><I>Once more, not "unless he included all possible explanations and alternatives" but unless he included all "significant information".</I> <br /><br />And just who is going to be the arbiter who will say which information is necessary or significant?Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-23216485902286241602009-05-04T11:17:00.000-07:002009-05-04T11:17:00.000-07:00Rich G. > For, in order to be complete, ... unl...Rich G. > <EM>For, in order to be complete, ... unless he included all possible explanations and alternatives - else someone would say that relevant information was being left out.</EM> <br /><br />Once more, not "unless he included all <STRONG>possible</STRONG> explanations and alternatives" but unless he included all "<STRONG>significant</STRONG> information".<br /><br /><br />In the example I asked you to consider, we were given no information at all about any alternatives.<br /><br />We were just given information that promotes one answer. <br /><br />The example I asked you to consider is definite.Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02902123247585964087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-18454192390693159722009-05-04T07:20:00.000-07:002009-05-04T07:20:00.000-07:00Psi:
Perhaps you should simply write your own dic...Psi:<br /><br /><I>Perhaps you should simply write your own dictionary?</I> <br /><br />Naw... I just prefer to use definitions that are, well, definite.<br /><br />Cheers<br />Rich G.Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-14282048014856477172009-05-03T23:08:00.000-07:002009-05-03T23:08:00.000-07:00Hi Rich,
Perhaps you should simply write your own...Hi Rich,<br /><br />Perhaps you should simply write your own dictionary?<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />PsiPsiloiordinaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12235629211359287564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-17443024282915833432009-05-03T14:48:00.000-07:002009-05-03T14:48:00.000-07:00Isaac:
Let's just quit beating that horse. I sim...Isaac:<br /><br />Let's just quit beating that horse. I simply do not accept your line of reasoning, and the harder you try, the more unreasonable I see it becoming. For, in order to be complete, no one could make any argument or assertion at all unless he included all possible explanations and alternatives - else someone would say that relevant information was being left out. That would be the death of any dialogue.Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-82439922269866398082009-05-02T18:00:00.000-07:002009-05-02T18:00:00.000-07:00Rich G. > We have to be told THAT?
I daresay ...Rich G. > <EM>We have to be told THAT?</EM> <br /><br />I daresay there are people who don't know all the things that you know.<br /><br />So an honest witness (or philosopher) lays out the whole truth - "also working with horses is credited (by some) for mental and physical healing, and overcoming destructive addictions, also ..."<br /><br /><br /><br />Rich G. > <EM>Cliff wasn't stating, nor implying, that spiritual beliefs were the only way to any benefits - only that they are *one* way that *may* have *some* benefits.</EM> <br /><br />We are asked to assess benefits to society - "... is society benefited ...?"<br /><br />For sake of argument, say all the credited benefits can be obtained in some other way. <br /><br />In that case there would be no unique benefit, and there would be no loss of benefit to society - just a different way of obtaining the benefit.<br /><br />If we are to answer "... is society benefited ...?" we need all the relevant information - we haven't been given all the relevant information, we've just been given the information that promotes one answer.Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02902123247585964087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-1148462735123633042009-05-02T11:02:00.000-07:002009-05-02T11:02:00.000-07:00Isaac:
We are not told there are other ways to ob...Isaac:<br /><br /><I>We are not told there are other ways to obtain those benefits.<br /><br />That there are other ways to obtain those benefits is relevant and significant to the assessment we're asked to make.</I> <br /><br />We have to be told THAT? <br /><br />We all know that there are numerous ways to receive comfort, emotional strength, healing and the like. That would be restating the common and obvious human condition. Cliff wasn't stating, nor implying, that spiritual beliefs were the only way to any benefits - only that they are *one* way that *may* have *some* benefits.<br /><br />A city bus MAY take me downtown, but again, it may take me somewhere else, or I may ride a bicycle. But if I do not state that there are even more alternatives, have I misled anyone with the information that I have left out? Or can't I simply say "I have taken a bus downtown." without it being taken as a 'special pleading'? <br /><br />I stand by my assertion that the unstated information is irrelevant to the argument. Maye not irrelevant in an overall sense, but still irrelevant to the point being pressed.Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-80484006425651065922009-05-02T10:24:00.000-07:002009-05-02T10:24:00.000-07:00Rich G. > You know what you just admitted?
We...Rich G. > <EM>You know what you just admitted?</EM> <br /><br />We can all see what I said - "[special pleading] isn't about the truth of the words that were said in the statement..."<br /><br />If the words that were said in the statement are not true then we don't need to bother about "special pleading", we can immediately reject the statement outright.<br /><br />We only need to bother about "special pleading" when we take the words in the statement to be true - for sake of argument the truth of the words is a given.<br /><br />"special pleading" isn't about the truth of the words that were said in the statement because that's a given.<br /><br />"special pleading" is about whether significant information has been left out of the statement.<br /><br /><br /><br />Rich G. > <EM>... isn't about the universe of truth, ii only means not to leave out relevant truth.</EM>I have not suggested it was "about the universe of truth".<br /><br />The definition I shared said '... <STRONG>significant</STRONG> information ...'.<br /><br />In bold I said '<STRONG>significant</STRONG> information is being omitted, that is "special pleading"'.<br /><br /><br /><br />Rich G. > <EM>That point was that sometimes placebos work.The fact that there are other remedies that also work is irrelevant to the point being made.</EM>Here's what Cliff said, April 23, 2009 6:49 AM <br /><br />"Supposing all beliefs in a deity are bogus. Even if that were so, is society benefited from dispelling all such beliefs when billions of people find solace and comfort in them? And some such beliefs have been credited (by some) for mental and physical healing, and overcoming destructive addictions?"<br /><br />We are asked to assess benefits to society - "... is society benefited ...?"<br /><br />We are not told there are other ways to obtain those benefits.<br /><br />That there are other ways to obtain those benefits is relevant and significant to the assessment we're asked to make.Isaac Gouyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02902123247585964087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-44859716499133658902009-05-02T08:39:00.000-07:002009-05-02T08:39:00.000-07:00Psi:
This is pretty much red handed, caught in th...Psi:<br /><br /><I>This is pretty much red handed, caught in the act, quote mining to rival anything from a creationist.<br /><br />I think you should apologise to Isaac.</I>Wha Fo'?<br /><br />If I have mischaracterized what was written, you may have a point. But I didn't.<br /><br />And what's with the attempt to lump me in with creationists?<br /><br />More to the point:<br /><br />Isaac:<br /><br />I still reject your attempted example. What was being left out was irrelevant to the point being made. That point was that <B>sometimes</B> placebos work. The fact that there are other remedies that also work is irrelevant <B>to the point being made</B>. The fact that certain facts may have been left out does not address the truth of whether or not placebos have been observed to 'work'. This does not hinge on those other facts, but upon the truth of the observation.Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.com