|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 21:03:04 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | And whether a belief is about the natural world or is about an abstract personal or emotional truth is independent of whether it is rational or irrational. |
I disagree. If it is not a claim, it cannot be irrational. If it is sufficiently nebulous, it is meaningless as a claim, and I don't see how something meaningless can be irrational. If it is about a personal perspective, it is not a factual claim about reality. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 21:06:57 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: OK, now I'm lost here.
As I have clearly indicated, I did not agree with the equivocation of the danger of belief in a nebulous diety with religious extremism.
It is, however, at it's root, an embracing of the irrational. |
The level of danger is one factor. The level of irrationality is another factor. What I'm saying is that not only is the more nebulous belief less dangerous than extreme literal religious beliefs, but it is also less irrational. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/02/2008 21:07:27 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 04/02/2008 : 23:44:35 [Permalink]
|
I may agree that there are differing degrees of absurdity, but a thing is either rational or not, within the scope of reason or not. There are no shades of rationality.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 09:32:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I disagree. If it is not a claim, it cannot be irrational. If it is sufficiently nebulous, it is meaningless as a claim, and I don't see how something meaningless can be irrational. If it is about a personal perspective, it is not a factual claim about reality. |
I don't see how a belief, whether it's about reality or a "personal perspective," if it's not rational (not based upon a logical reasoning process) can be thought of as being not irrational.
Actually, I don't even understand how a "personal perspective" could not be about reality in some way or another. Even a person believing that he gets "a sense of deep solace out of the act of praying" is a claim about reality which is testable in principle.
Can you provide an example of a belief that is not at all about reality? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 11:11:49 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | I may agree that there are differing degrees of absurdity, but a thing is either rational or not, within the scope of reason or not. There are no shades of rationality. |
Okay, I see what you are saying, and when you put it that way, I suppose I agree. If we are simply classifying something as either rational or irrational, no shades would come into play. I was using the term as interchangible with absuridity, or in the same way that Sam Harris uses the term idiotic in this article:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html
| Mormonism, it seems to me, is—objectively—just a little more idiotic than Christianity is. It has to be: because it is Christianity plus some very stupid ideas. For instance, the Mormons think Jesus is going to return to earth and administer his Thousand years of Peace, at least part of the time, from the state of Missouri. Why does this make Mormonism less likely to be true than Christianity? Because whatever probability you assign to Jesus' coming back, you have to assign a lesser probability to his coming back and keeping a summer home in Jackson County, Missouri. |
That said, it needs to be regarded that things are not all classifies as rational or irrational. There are also things to which rationality does not apply. These are things which might be put forth as statements, but are not claims of fact meant to be taken literally. Consider the guy wearing the "Best Dad in the World" T-shirt. Many statements are made which are meant to express a feeling, a mentality, a personal perspective, but are not a claim about reality.
Here's another example: I unfortunately caught a few minutes of some reality show on Fox where the contestant had to answer questions with a "yes" or "no", and she would win or lose based on whether her answers were considered accurate according to a lie detector test she'd taken. All of the questions up until the end were cut and dry questions about reality, such as "Have you ever wished you were married to someone else?" and "Have you ever cheated on your husband." The one she finally got wrong was "Do you think you're a good person." This question was absurd to require a yes/no answer for because the term "good" is so subjective in the first place, and also, someone's perspective on whether they are generally good or bad will vary with mood and circumstances. If someone says, "I'm a good person." it isn't a statement which could be objectively dubbed false or true.
So take this from the first chapter of a book I'm currently reading: "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" by retired Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong: I am indeed a passionate believer. God is the ultimate reality in my life. I live in a constant and almost mythical awareness of the divine presence. I sometimes think of myself as one who breathes the very air of God or, to borrow an image from the East, as one who swims in the infinite depths of the sea of God. Liek the psalmist of old, I have the sense of God's inescapableness. I am what I would call a God-intoxicated human being. Yet, when I seek to put my understanding of this God into human words, my certainty all but disappears. Human words always contract and diminish my God awareness. They never expand it.
The God I know is not concrete or specific. This God is rather shrouded in mystery, wonder, and awe. The deeper I journey into this divine presence, the less any literalized phrases, including the phrases of the Christian creed, seem relevant. The God I know can only be pointed to; this God can never be enclosed by propositional stateme |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 11:38:37 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
| I haven't found the words yet to fully describe exactly what this sort of statement means. |
It means that a lot of people hold irrational beliefs. Not exactly shocking news.
When Spong (thats a great name) says he can point to his god, he is making a claim about reality.
When Spong (giggle every time I type or read that... SPONG!) says he constantly fails to describe his god in "human words" (as opposed to what, dolphin words?) he is essentially admitting that his belief is irrational.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 11:48:08 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | I don't see how a belief, whether it's about reality or a "personal perspective," if it's not rational (not based upon a logical reasoning process) can be thought of as being not irrational. |
Again, this comes down to how people are using the term "belief." People very frequently do not use that word to mean having confidence in the truth of something's literal existence. Plenty of examples of alternative uses of the term "believe" from the show "This I Believe":
When Carole Chabries says "I believe in the body's unpredictability and frailty, in its heartbreaking splendor." she means that she has, through personal experience, come to appreciate the complexities and frailties of the human body.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89160520
When Yo Yo Ma says "I believe we must look beyond the voice we've been assigned, and find our place among the tones and timbre of human expression." he means that his embrace of multicultural influences in his career has enriched his life and music.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87960790
Sister Helen Prejean writes: | Belief and faith are not just words. It's one thing for me to say I'm a Christian, but I have to embody what it means; I have to live it. So, writing this essay and knowing I'll share it in a public way becomes an occasion for me to look deeply at what I really believe by how I act. |
In her essay, she never mentions anything about her literal beliefs about God, Jesus, or an afterlife, but is far more concerned with serving the needs of people suffering in this life. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17845521
| Actually, I don't even understand how a "personal perspective" could not be about reality in some way or another. |
In some way or another? Oh come on! When skeptics criticize religious beliefs, they are very much criticizing the literal claims of those beliefs. If push comes to shove, we could say that everything that ever comes out of anyone's mouth is in some way or another about reality, because it is something in reality that ultimately resulted in their saying what they said! Even the guy who says he murdered his wife 'cause God told him to we could say is speaking about a mental condition which caused him to hear voices and act on his own psychotic condition, which is very real. But let's not compare oranges and apples. | Even a person believing that he gets "a sense of deep solace out of the act of praying" is a claim about reality which is testable in principle. |
In principle? If someone is describing how they feel or their way of conceiving of something, how is that currently verifiable? They aren't saying it lowers their blood pressure or anything else about their physical body. They aren't even saying it is good or bad for their physical health. They are just describing feelings and/or thoughts they have about it, and the only current way of gathering those truths is by trusting a person's word. Here we also get into the realm of values. Someone who has a severely debilitated child might say that their life has been deeply enriched by the pains and joys of the experience. How do we test whether their life was really enriched by the experience? Surely having to care for a sick child would be stressful and probably have more negative consequences on the caretaker's health than benefits. These are subjective evaluations. The only way to scientifically verify them would be to prove that the person is making an honest statement.
Some things people value for their own sake. Art doesn't do a damn thing to help anybody. Lots of people think and argue that it does, but they are full of shit. Art uses up resources in a way which does nothing to quantitatively improve anyone's life. We could say the same about a lot of things that people incorporate into their lifestyles, including religion. There are things which we just value 'cause individuals or groups of individuals - for lack of a better term - like them a whole lot. Except that like is not a powerful enough term to express how these people regard these things, so we end up with other words, many of which have associations with irrational beliefs, even if they are not utilized that way by all individuals who apply such terms.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/03/2008 11:49:40 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 11:58:22 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | When Spong (thats a great name) says he can point to his god, he is making a claim about reality. |
No, he's not. If he is, then you should be able to rephrase this claim using different words, and have the meaning be unchanged. He is using a poetic phrase.
| When Spong (giggle every time I type or read that... SPONG!) says he constantly fails to describe his god in "human words" (as opposed to what, dolphin words?) he is essentially admitting that his belief is irrational. |
Saying that words are inadequate to describe certain concepts is not irrational and not new. I will never be able to express the response that certain Mark Rothko paintings evoke in me. I can only say inadequate things such as "I am deeply moved by this." all the white knowing that the statement is horribly inadequate. That is one of the reason we have words which only describe more nebulous concepts, such as "spiritual". One might say that I have a spiritual experience while looking at certain Mark Rothko paintings, and saying this no longer seems inadequate. However, it also, communicates no more information describing the experience I'm having. All it does really is get across the intensity of how profound the experience feels from my point of view. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/03/2008 11:59:20 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 12:07:03 [Permalink]
|
No, he's not. If he is, then you should be able to rephrase this claim using different words, and have the meaning be unchanged. He is using a poetic phrase.
|
I can point to god = god exists.
A claim about reality.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 14:31:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Again, this comes down to how people are using the term "belief." People very frequently do not use that word to mean having confidence in the truth of something's literal existence. Plenty of examples of alternative uses of the term "believe" from the show "This I Believe":
When Carole Chabries says "I believe in the body's unpredictability and frailty, in its heartbreaking splendor." she means that she has, through personal experience, come to appreciate the complexities and frailties of the human body.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89160520 |
And yes, it's a perfectly rational belief, and the implied claim - that she has "come to appreciate the complexities and frailties of the human body," as opposed to not appreciating them and lying about it - is about reality. Rewording it only changes the part of reality in which she believes, it doesn't eliminate any claims about reality.When Yo Yo Ma says "I believe we must look beyond the voice we've been assigned, and find our place among the tones and timbre of human expression." he means that his embrace of multicultural influences in his career has enriched his life and music.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87960790 |
Same thing here, except his claim is a moral claim ("we must"): he believes that embracing multicultural influences make everyone's lives better, and that's a claim about reality.Sister Helen Prejean writes: | Belief and faith are not just words. It's one thing for me to say I'm a Christian, but I have to embody what it means; I have to live it. So, writing this essay and knowing I'll share it in a public way becomes an occasion for me to look deeply at what I really believe by how I act. |
In her essay, she never mentions anything about her literal beliefs about God, Jesus, or an afterlife, but is far more concerned with serving the needs of people suffering in this life. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17845521 |
Yes, and serving the needs of people suffering here on Earth is certain real.| Actually, I don't even understand how a "personal perspective" could not be about reality in some way or another. |
In some way or another? Oh come on! When skeptics criticize religious beliefs, they are very much criticizing the literal claims of those beliefs. |
Indeed, when some fundie tells me that a woman's place is in silent servitude, he (or she) is making a claim about reality - and a moral claim at that. And since such a claim will almost always be based on the alleged authority of the Bible, it will not have been reached through a process of logical reasoning, and thus is irrational.| If push comes to shove, we could say that everything that ever comes out of anyone's mouth is in some way or another about reality, because it is something in reality that ultimately resulted in their saying what they said! Even the guy who says he murdered his wife 'cause God told him to we could say is speaking about a mental condition which caused him to hear voices and act on his own psychotic condition, which is very real. But let's not compare oranges and apples. |
But this is the central core of our miscommunications, marf. I don't know where to draw the line between "reality" and "not reality" when assessing your statements about "literal claims about reality." I'm asking you to show me how I can differentiate between the two, but I'm getting back vague distinctions that I can't apply because I don't see any difference between (for example) an emotional state and the brain chemistry that goes along with it. "I like chocolate," to me, is a claim about reality, no different from "the Earth is 6,000 years old."| Even a person believing that he gets "a sense of deep solace out of the act of praying" is a claim about reality which is testable in principle. |
In principle? If someone is describing how they feel or their way of conceiving of something, how is that currently verifiable? |
Things need not be currently verifiable in order to be rational or irrational. They need to be testable in principle in order to be examined scientifically (the existence of the Christian God is not testable in principle, much less currently verifiable).| They aren't saying it lowers their blood pressure or anything else about their physical body. |
Yes, they are: a "sense of deep solace" must be the result of brain chemistry. There isn't any evidence of anything else, mind is an emergent phenomenon of brain. If there's no difference in brain activity between "a sense of deep solace" and some other emotional state, then something would have to be seriously wrong with our current neuroscience.| They aren't even saying it is good or bad for their physical health. |
Doesn't matter.| They are just describing feelings and/or thoughts they have about it, and the only current way of gathering those truths is by trusting a person's word. |
Actually, no, it's not. That's just the easiest way. I expect fMRI techniques (or other sorts of "brain scans") for differentiating emotional states will progress as time goes on, but we don't have to go that far today. All we need to do is gather data on how people act, outwardly, when they have "a sense of deep solace" and verify that the person making the claim about prayer leading to such a state acts in a manner consistent with the data we've gathered.
For a more concrete example, if I say "chocolate is my favorite flavor" and you wish to verify this alleged truth claim, you can covertly surveil me and document my flavor choices and other statements over time. If I consistently pick strawberry when chocolate is available, you'll know that either I'm lying about my favorite flavor, or perhaps that I'm allergic.| Here we also get into the realm of values. Someone who has a severely debilitated child might say that their life has been deeply enriched by the pains and joys of the experience. How do we test whether their life was really enriched by the experience? |
I'm sure by now you might have some idea of how to test just that. You may not be able to test it, but that's why I said that when people say "I believe..." that I tend to give them the benefit of a doubt and assume that they aren't lying to me.
But this is all irrelevant to whether such beliefs (about reality) are rational. Rationality isn't decided by the actual truth value of a statement ("I have $20 in my wallet" may be a wrong but rational belief if my wife took my money and forgot to tell me).
Someone who says that his/her life was "enriched" by something tends to mean that overall, it was a learning experience that has had a positive impact upon his/her life. Since we've got reams of data saying that education is generally a good thing, believing that your life has been "enriched" by some experience is a perfectly rational belief.
I've never seen a live tiger in my office. My wall clock has always been in my office. If I were to develop the belief that my wall clock keeps tigers away, it would be irrational due to its poor logic, despite the fact that such a belief agrees with all the available evidence(!), and despite the fact that I don't have easy access to tigers with which to test my belief (but it is, in principle, testable). Obviously, something keeps tigers away from my office, but much more rational hypotheses would involve geography and/or their lack of keys.| Some things people value for their own sake. |
And whether those values are rational or not depends upon the method through which they were derived.| Art doesn't do a damn thing to help anybody. Lots of people think and argue that it does, but they are full of shit. Art uses up resources in a way which does nothing to quantitatively improve anyone's life. |
What happens when you sell a piece, marf?| We could say the same about a lot of things that people incorporate into their lifestyles, including religion. There are things which we just value 'cause individuals or groups of individuals - for lack of a better term - like them a whole lot. Except that like is not a powerful enough term to express how these people regard these things, so we end up with other words, many of which have associations with irrational beliefs, even if they are not utilized that way by all individuals who apply such terms. |
You've lost me. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 15:58:33 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | And yes, it's a perfectly rational belief, and the implied claim - that she has "come to appreciate the complexities and frailties of the human body," as opposed to not appreciating them and lying about it - is about reality. Rewording it only changes the part of reality in which she believes, it doesn't eliminate any claims about reality. |
You are missing my point. When she said "I believe in the body's unpredictability and frailty, in its heartbreaking splendor." she was not saying that she believes unpredictability and frailty of the body exist. She was using the phrase "I believe…" to communicate a strong, personal appreciation for something she experienced.
| Same thing here, except his claim is a moral claim ("we must"): he believes that embracing multicultural influences make everyone's lives better, and that's a claim about reality. |
I don't 100% agree. If you introduced Yo Yo Ma to a musician who has made a career that they love out of writing and performing music within their own given tradition, I doubt he would proclaim the person morally deficient, or wrong, or necessarily less fulfilled or less good than himself. I think you are a making a wrong assumption when you say that he believes that multicultural influences would make everyone's life better. If you read his whole essay, it is very particular to his personal experiences growing up in a culturally pluralistic and therefore confusing environment. When he says we, I doubt he's talking about all human beings. He specifically speaking to those who identify with his experience. Also, the value of embracing multicultural influences, the idea that they make his or anyone's life better is a subjective judgment of value, not something measurable. Unless he makes a more specific claim, such as this: If you embrace multicultural influences, you will smile more often," it isn't yet a claim which could be evaluated scientifically no matter how sophisticated our technology and body of knowledge about reality becomes.
| Yes, and serving the needs of people suffering here on Earth is certain real. |
Again, missing the point. My point was that this was another way of looking at how we define "belief" and apply the word in common discussions. The Sisters insists that beliefs are about actions more than words. She is basically saying that people whose professed beliefs don't line up with their actions don't really believe what they profess. I find this to be a considerably useful argument when speaking about how prevalent religious belief really is. Most people in the modern world do not live their lives in a manner which reflects literal belief in traditional religious ideas, and like this nun, I find this discrepancy to be a significant indicator of peoples true beliefs.
| But this is the central core of our miscommunications, marf. I don't know where to draw the line between "reality" and "not reality" when assessing your statements about "literal claims about reality." I'm asking you to show me how I can differentiate between the two, but I'm getting back vague distinctions that I can't apply because I don't see any difference between (for example) an emotional state and the brain chemistry that goes along with it. "I like chocolate," to me, is a claim about reality, no different from "the Earth is 6,000 years old." |
Fair enough. Let me try this: Instead of saying the difference is between claims about reality and not, let's say the difference is about claims of |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 16:59:49 [Permalink]
|
^^^ how about an edit for formatting?
Can't even read that post as it is now... |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 18:17:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
^^^ how about an edit for formatting?
Can't even read that post as it is now...
|
Agreed. Turn the slash at the beginning of marf's second paragraph into a closing square bracket, and it all looks good.
BTW, you can "reply with quote" to a message, make subtle changes and preview it to see the results, but that's more work than most of us want to do, I'm sure marf or a mod will fix it soon enough. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 19:42:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
You are missing my point. When she said "I believe in the body's unpredictability and frailty, in its heartbreaking splendor." she was not saying that she believes unpredictability and frailty of the body exist. She was using the phrase "I believe…" to communicate a strong, personal appreciation for something she experienced. |
Yes, she was making a statement about reality. As you translated, she was saying "that she has, through personal experience, come to appreciate the complexities and frailties of the human body." That is a flat-out assertion of fact. Whether or not she really appreciates anything more or less because of her experiences is actually true or false (or somewhere in between).
It is - again, in principle - testable, through simple observation. For example, we can falsify it by observing her doing something that, if she really did appreciate the complexities and frailties of the human body, she would not do. Just like we can falsify someone's asserted strict pro-life stance by hearing them say that his ex-wife should be shot in the head.
And again: this isn't about rationality, but whether or not some statement or other should be considered to be "about reality."| I don't 100% agree. If you introduced Yo Yo Ma to a musician who has made a career that they love out of writing and performing music within their own given tradition, I doubt he would proclaim the person morally deficient, or wrong, or necessarily less fulfilled or less good than himself. I think you are a making a wrong assumption when you say that he believes that multicultural influences would make everyone's life better. If you read his whole essay, it is very particular to his personal experiences growing up in a culturally pluralistic and therefore confusing environment. When he says we, I doubt he's talking about all human beings. He specifically speaking to those who identify with his experience. Also, the value of embracing multicultural influences, the idea that they make his or anyone's life better is a subjective judgment of value, not something measurable. Unless he makes a more specific claim, such as this: If you embrace multicultural influences, you will smile more often," it isn't yet a claim which could be evaluated scientifically no matter how sophisticated our technology and body of knowledge about reality becomes. |
I think you're really reaching, in the above paragraph, to find things to not agree with. If my statement were simply changed to "he believes that embracing multicultural influences makes some people's lives better," half your disagreement would necessarily drop away. As for the rest: of course moral statements are subjective, but that doesn't remove them from reality. "Killing sheep is good" is false from the shepard's point-of-view but true from the wolf's. Once again, whether something is objectively measurable is beside the point.| Again, missing the point. My point was that this was another way of looking at how we define "belief" and apply the word in common discussions. The Sisters insists that beliefs are about actions more than words. She is basically saying that people whose professed beliefs don't line up with their actions don't really believe what they profess. |
BINGO! She's actually testing people's professed beliefs against the literal reality of their actions! You've made my point for me, marf!
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 20:14:59 [Permalink]
|
I apologize for the formatting error. Thought I had checked it for major errors, but I guess not. Thanks for fixing it, Dave.
I will respond more tomorrow after work. Gotta sleep now. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/03/2008 20:15:17 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Why religious people are so arrogant
