Re: OT More pens (was Re: Phoneme winnowing continues)

From: "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>
Subject: Re: OT More pens (was Re: Phoneme winnowing continues)


> > Many of the people who believe in God would say that they've seen enough
> > evidence to convince them, placing the existence of God as a fact in
their
> > worldview.
>
> But what evidence?  Can you point it out and say "this is why I believe"?
> Can you disprove alternate explanations?   Such evidence is universally
> unscientific.  That doesn't mean invalid, it just means that different
> standards apply.  And the curriculum taught in public schools uses the
> standards of science.
Universally unscientific?  Yes, more below.  Different standards?  Yes,
again, more below.

> > I've seen enough evidence to convince me that the sky is blue,
> > and that is a fact in my worldview, yet no one would consider that on
the
> > religious side of the line.
>
> Because it's easily reproducible: look up.  What?  You're blind?
> Well, then you can go by the fact that *every*single*person*
> who has ever looked up at the sky has asserted that it's blue
> (or whatever term in their language encompasses that wavelength).
> There are no alternative sky-color "religions" maintaining that
> it's actually red, or yellow, or what have you; there have been no
> wars fought over the alleged color of the sky.  And that is why
> the blueness of the sky is not a religious topic.
Agreed on the color of the sky not being a matter of debate.

I would classify beliefs about God in the same way as I would knowledge of
any individual person.  For example, I know that my brother would be very
happy if I got him a ticket to an upcoming Sharks game.  I've never actually
tried this, but I know he'd enjoy it.  (If only I had any money...)  This
knowledge is indeed unscientific, but I don't know anyone who'd consider it
"religious".  In order for me to believe this, I would hold it up to a
certain level of verification by my own observation and understanding of my
brother.  What I know about God is in the same vein.  Yet people would
consider that "religious".  What I'm wondering is _why_ that is religious.

If it's because there is some debate as to the existence of that person, I
don't think that's the distinction.  If I claimed to know something about
some cousin or uncle that other people in the family said didn't exist, that
wouldn't be a "religious" belief, would it?

My basic question is this - What makes something a religious piece of
knowledge versus a non-religious piece of knowledge?

Reply