Darren New wrote:

> Fair enough. Myself, I've never seen black people discriminated against. 
> Yet I don't doubt it happens.

I, too, have seen little serious discrimination against black people, 
but it certainly
happened, lot lot more in the past than in present, I'm glad to say. I 
don't doubt either
that real a brutal acts of violence were perpetrated against black 
people by non-blacks.
You may tired of this theme, but "discrimination" and "discriminated 
against" in their
modern usages are the creation of politicians and the media and in 
themselves have little
emotive content. "Mistreatment" might be a more concrete, though perhaps 
less
impressive term. Generally, that's what I, at any rate mean, by 
"discrimination" in the context
we're using it here. Of course there are many subtle ways of ostracizing 
a person which
might not be describe by either term. An these are possibly the most 
damaging in the long
run -- and, of course, I've seen that against black people, and about 
any "kind" of people
you might name.


>> "Bible Belt" is a media term, pejorative and emotive, with no descriptive value.

> Google, Princeton, and wikipedia all disagree. As do the Dutch, apparently.

OK, if the term has a descriptive meaning what does it mean to you? :)

David

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:07:05 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:

> andrel wrote:
> A believer "knows", he/she will often deny believing as that
>> suggests that there is another option. I know that no god exists, but
>> at the same time acknowledge that others know that God does exist. An
>> outsider who does not share the same believe/knowledge may classify it
>> as (merely) a believe, for the believer it is knowledge. So whether it
>> are synonyms or not depends on the observer.
> 
> Well, of course one is free to use any word to mean anything one likes,
> and if it comforts one in one's faith to use "know" to mean "believe",
> one is free to do so. But if one wants what he says or writes
>   to be understood .... :)

Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first, through 
the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive certainty.  I've 
always considered "belief" to be something that is "knowledge gained 
instinctively, with such a certainty that it forms a basis for what you 
do in your life".  I've not completed my own pontifications on this 
definition, but I do consider many people I know who are religious to 
have this kind of certainty about their beliefs - a certainty that makes 
it "knowledge" from their point of view.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:00:40 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> The non-faithful say "I believe X", meaning "I might be wrong, but I
> think this is the truth", while saying "I know X" means "I'm virtually
> certain this is the truth."
> 
> So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a
> non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know what
> attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't believe in
> god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually give me a
> convincing reason for me to believe in god, at which point I would know
> why."

This is a much better way of saying what I just tried to say....Thanks!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first, through 
> the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive certainty. 

I think you're mistaken, except to the extent that instinctive certainty 
gives you knowledge of instinctive processes. I'll grant you that you can 
know you're hungry via "instinctive certainty", but not about how the 
universe started.

> I've 
> always considered "belief" to be something that is "knowledge gained 
> instinctively, with such a certainty that it forms a basis for what you 
> do in your life".  

I wouldn't call that knowledge, and it's generally not how the word is defined.

The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without the 
justification, you just have a "good guess".

> but I do consider many people I know who are religious to 
> have this kind of certainty about their beliefs - a certainty that makes 
> it "knowledge" from their point of view.

I think arguing that faith is knowledge for "some people" is just diluting 
the term.

What do you call knowledge that's the kind that's actually congruent with 
the real world?  I.e., not the "instinctive" knowledge?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
>> The faithful think that believing is more "complete" thank knowing. As 
>> long as you believe, it overrides whatever you might know.

> Are you speaking from experience?

To some extent, yes.

>> So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a 
>> non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know 
>> what attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't 
>> believe in god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually 
>> give me a convincing reason for me to believe in god, at which point I 
>> would know why."
> 
> It's unwise to attribute to someone a meaning different from what he has 
> actually said.

I wasn't talking about what he said. I was talking about my experiences in 
general discussing this sort of stuff. Jim just gave another good example: 
"I know *instinctively* that it's true."

> Of few of us, in ordinary conversation anyway, say precisely what we 
> mean. You use of the
> terms "faithful" and "non-faithful" are "interesting." :)

I was saying precisely what I meant. ;-)  Faith is that which turns belief 
into "knowledge", altho I obviously use that latter term losely.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> You may tired of this theme, but "discrimination" and "discriminated 
> against" in their
> modern usages are the creation of politicians and the media and in 
> themselves have little
> emotive content. 

Have you any evidence to back this assertion up?

> Generally, that's what I, at any rate mean, by 
> "discrimination" in the context
> we're using it here. 

Sure, as long as it includes (for example) not selling houses to people, or 
not giving them jobs, or things like that, even when it doesn't involve 
violence.

> Of course there are many subtle ways of ostracizing 
> a person which
> might not be describe by either term.

Sure. And when the president of the US gets up and says atheists shouldn't 
be considered citizens, it's pretty blatant there *is* prejudice going on.

> OK, if the term has a descriptive meaning what does it mean to you? :)

Did you look at the maps I posted, and the links to definitions? I thought
"southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is 
dominant" was pretty descriptive, didn't you?


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:10:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first,
>> through the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive
>> certainty.
> 
> I think you're mistaken, except to the extent that instinctive certainty
> gives you knowledge of instinctive processes. I'll grant you that you
> can know you're hungry via "instinctive certainty", but not about how
> the universe started.

I am not so certain about that.  But what you said (which I replied to 
later in the thread) actually more closely approximates what I'm trying 
to say here.  It's hard to explain.

>> I've
>> always considered "belief" to be something that is "knowledge gained
>> instinctively, with such a certainty that it forms a basis for what you
>> do in your life".
> 
> I wouldn't call that knowledge, and it's generally not how the word is
> defined.
> 
> The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without
> the justification, you just have a "good guess".

Justification comes in different ways for different people.  There are 
some ways that are commonly accepted, and some ways that are not.

>> but I do consider many people I know who are religious to have this
>> kind of certainty about their beliefs - a certainty that makes it
>> "knowledge" from their point of view.
> 
> I think arguing that faith is knowledge for "some people" is just
> diluting the term.
> 
> What do you call knowledge that's the kind that's actually congruent
> with the real world?  I.e., not the "instinctive" knowledge?

Learned knowledge.  But more to the point, instinctive knowledge isn't 
necessarily exclusive of learned knowledge.  I can instinctively know 
that objects that are farther away appear to be smaller, but I can also 
prove that scientifically.  That doesn't invalidate the instinctive 
knowledge.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I am not so certain about that.

I'm sorry.

>> The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without
>> the justification, you just have a "good guess".
> 
> Justification comes in different ways for different people.  There are 
> some ways that are commonly accepted, and some ways that are not.

Certainly. But there are certainly some situations in which it's easy to say 
"that's justified" and some in which it's easy to say "that's not 
justified."  Of course there will be boundary cases as people argue over 
whether whatever evidence is presented is sufficient justification.

> I can instinctively know 
> that objects that are farther away appear to be smaller, but I can also 
> prove that scientifically.  That doesn't invalidate the instinctive 
> knowledge.

That's actually learned knowledge. Sorry.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I am not so certain about that. 

Actually, I'd go so far as to wonder whether it makes sense to talk about 
knowledge as "instinctive".  What is it that everyone (modulo birth defects 
etc) knows when they're born? That's instinct. Knowing how to *learn* a 
language is instinctive, but is it really knowledge? Is a falling pebble's 
compliance with the laws of gravity caused by instinctive knowledge of 
gravity by the pebble? If not, why is knowing how to learn a language 
"knowledge"? Does yanking your hand out of the fire have anything to do with 
knowing it's hot?

And certainly a Christian's knowledge of the existence of God isn't 
instinctive, or people wouldn't take children to Sunday School and read 
passages out of the bible. Perhaps the tendency to religion or other such 
stories is instinctive, but again is that "knowledge" or just a natural 
tendency?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:47:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I am not so certain about that.
> 
> I'm sorry.

Don't be, it's part of my belief system, and I'm completely at peace with 
not being certain about some things.

>>> The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without
>>> the justification, you just have a "good guess".
>> 
>> Justification comes in different ways for different people.  There are
>> some ways that are commonly accepted, and some ways that are not.
> 
> Certainly. But there are certainly some situations in which it's easy to
> say "that's justified" and some in which it's easy to say "that's not
> justified."  Of course there will be boundary cases as people argue over
> whether whatever evidence is presented is sufficient justification.

Exactly my point.  People "of faith" (as you put it, I like that 
phrasing) have a certain certainty in the way that the universe works.  
It may not match reality at all, or it may partially mesh with reality, 
or it may coexist peacefully with reality.  There is a lot of uncertainty 
in the universe, and some people *need* that certainty of knowledge that 
there's something bigger out there.  That's fine with me; I don't 
necessarily need that sort of certainty that we're here for a purpose or 
whatever.

>> I can instinctively know
>> that objects that are farther away appear to be smaller, but I can also
>> prove that scientifically.  That doesn't invalidate the instinctive
>> knowledge.
> 
> That's actually learned knowledge. Sorry.

I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual 
cues.  I just knew it.  But the actual example isn't really the point, 
the point is that there are things that we instinctively know (you used 
hunger, that's a good one, or thirst).

Jim

Post a reply to this message