From pycyn@aol.com Wed Jan 16 08:43:33 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 16 Jan 2002 16:43:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 77529 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2002 16:43:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Jan 2002 16:43:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 2002 16:43:32 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.25.) id r.9f.2125a5be (4234) for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:43:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9f.2125a5be.297707ad@aol.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:43:25 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Can an atheist really understand religious text? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9f.2125a5be.297707ad_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_9f.2125a5be.297707ad_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/15/2002 5:13:35 PM Central Standard Time, lee@piclab.com writes: > Funny; it seemed to me that Bar-Elli's point was so trivially and > obviously wrong, that any attempt to connect it with reality or > understand it better was futile. > Connection with reality maybe, but look at his definition. If someone actually met that definition, he would clearly be unable to understand any kind of god-talk, since his beliefs would in no way connect with the presuppositions of that talk, nor could he adapt to those assumptions without a core change, essentially ceasing to fit the definition. This is a philosophic point, after all, so probably not very interesting, but at least it is trivially true (well, there are other epistemologies, though they are even less less plausible than the one behind this). --part1_9f.2125a5be.297707ad_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/15/2002 5:13:35 PM Central Standard Time, lee@piclab.com writes:


Funny; it seemed to me that Bar-Elli's point was so trivially and
obviously wrong, that any attempt to connect it with reality or
understand it better was futile.


Connection with reality maybe, but look at his definition.  If someone actually met that definition, he would clearly be unable to understand any kind of god-talk, since his beliefs would in no way connect with the presuppositions of that talk, nor could he adapt to those assumptions without a core change, essentially ceasing to fit the definition.  This is a philosophic point, after all, so probably not very interesting, but at least it is trivially true (well, there are other epistemologies, though they are even less less plausible than the one behind this). --part1_9f.2125a5be.297707ad_boundary--