[ExI] [extropy-chat] Changing Other Poster's Minds

[Samantha Atkins]

spike wrote:
>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Fred C. Moulton
>>     
> ...
>   
>>>> On 4/29/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I had the good fortune while I was a Christian conservative...
>>>>         
> ...
>   
>> As far as I know there has not been a study of the religious background
>> of participants on this email list.  However I would not be surprised
>> that there would be quite a few from fundamentalist backgrounds.  And I
>> think there is a reason for this.
>>
>> My hypothesis is that fundamentalist religious movements often have a
>> strong emphasis on be doctrinally correct and thus place a high value on
>> study of the text of that religion... Fred
>>     
>
>
>
> Fred these are some very astute insights, thanks.  As a former
> fundamentalist christian, now atheist, my view is very close to yours, with
> an addition.
>
> In any debate, the participants must find some basic agreement, without
> which there can be no meaningful discourse.  In dealing with religious
> beliefs, I witness so much meaningless debate because there is disagreement
> on a most basic question.  This question is not whether or not the belief is
> true, but rather what is the nature of the belief.  The basic question upon
> which the participants must agree is this: does it matter whether or not a
> belief is true?
>
> Most of us here have a fundamentalist's outlook: of course it matters.  But
> to many non-fundamentalist believers, it really does not matter whether or
> not a belief is true.  The terms true and false do not really apply to their
> religion.  For most, religion is a philosophy.  It would be like asking is
> democrat or republican true?  Those terms do not apply, these are
> philosophies.  They hold some true and some false notions, with much gray
> area.  A philosophy would not be like a science, in which true or false are
> applicable and it matters.  Fundamentalists treat religion the same as a
> science.
>
> After thinking about this for years, long after realizing that the religion
> I knew was not true, I finally realized that it matters to me if my religion
> is true.  I love true things.  Religion should be treated as any scientific
> theory.  In that sense, altho I am now an atheist, I still have the
> fundamentalist's outlook, ja?
>
>   

hahaha.  Not in the least.  I would need to assume that the people that 
look at religion as really "philosophy" and that it would seem also 
assume that philosophy is not really philosophy and doesn't really 
require a love of truth and search for it but is more some rather murky 
"philosophy of life" are in fact the correct and most mature and "right" 
ones.  But this is again as assumption of right vs. wrong and  even true 
view versus false so this is no escape from your assumed position that 
to care about truth is to be a fundamentalist.    I wish that 
fundamentalists cared about the truth.  I do not believe  that the 
majority of them do at all.   They care only to assert that they have 
the only Truth while not needing to understand or inquire at all.  This 
is not at all the same thing.   But I am very sure you know that.

- s