In a message dated 2/22/99 10:09:40 AM Central Standard Time, konsler@ascat.harvard.edu writes:
<< But you don't recognize that dogmatic rationalism can also become a toxic frame of mind. >>
Tell us how?
In a message dated 2/22/99 10:09:40 AM Central Standard Time, konsler@ascat.harvard.edu writes:
>>I would assert that you have to tell yourself when
you've had enough. But if, in your reflective moment,
you have established a principle as core to your beliefs
you would be foolish to let someone bully you
into thinking differently or acting out of sorts.<<
How would somebody "bully" you into thinking differently? All principles are in principle subjectable to rational criticism. Nobody has to bully me, they only have to make sense and rationally criticize. It's when they are incapable of doing this that people resort to bullying tactics. I couldn't imagine how you can bully somebody into making you think differently.
>>>It is possible to strongly disagree with somebody's views on faith, while
>respecting that person as a fellow human being. Why can't we "work
>together towards the fulfillment of our universal human goals" without
>agreeing on faith issues? What's wrong with agreeing to disagree?
Nothing. All I'm asking is that we leave the question of the good/evil or useful/uselessness of God/Religion/Souls/Faith on the table as unresolved, context dependent and rich with possible meaning.<<
As far as faith is concerned it is not on the table for me. It's resolved. Faith compromises rationality. I don't do that. It violates my values.
BTW, What are these "universal human goals" anyway? Did I miss a vote in the Reichstag? Remember, "universal" means everyone. I will be waiting to hear what these "universal human goals" are that I supposedly share with everyone. I was thinking it probably had something to do with genetically engineering humans for longer life spans, greater intelligence, and adaptations for space flight.
>> It is a principle I embody. I'm willing to agree to disagree forever. But
I will not flee the issue when adressed about it, and I will raise
it whenever I think it would be fruitful to do so. If the words I use
make people uncomfortable, then I will rationally criticise my own
motives and ask "am I doing this the best, least painful way I know
how? Is this really necessary?" As I think on those questions now,
My answer to both is yes.<<
You can't rationally criticize faith. That is a contradiction. If you do, its not faith no matter what you call it. This discussion doesn't make me uncomfortable, or cause pain, and it puzzles me why you describe it like such torturous love affair.
Reed: >>Two points. I tell you I find a word offensive: "Nazi". You now have a choice to use that word or use another to convey the same meaning. With the rich vocabulary at your disposal I can only assume it's intentional. What purpose did that serve. It's like I said, "don't touch me there" and you go poke, poke, poke.<<
Reed:
>That doesn't mean you don't think seriously about
>what people say to you. I just means that, at the
>moment of confrontation, you have to throw everything
>into fray...and then some. It's like a marathon, if
>you aren't sick and puking by the end, then you
>didn't really give it all you could.<<
This doesn't sound very reasonable. But it did inspire me to post under this screen name again. Face it Reed, you think if we don't agree that faith can be a good thing, then we are all logic nazis. There is nothing good that can be done by faith delusionally, that cannot be done better realistically without it. If thinking that makes me a logic nazi, then so be it.
>>Reed: This statement makes me a little wary. I stand by it.
In needs to be resolute. But I feel the need to make this
caveat: there is always a way to negotiate, one just
has to be creative enough to find it. To engage in
aggressive behavior is always an indictment of the
aggressor. Yes, I recognize the irony in that statement.
But sometimes you have to be resolute.
Reed<<
-Uber Mensch