From: mss2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Quantum (and untutored Zen) and Beliefs (was Re: Absolutes)
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:22:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.200321.11367@data-io.com> li@Data-IO.COM (Phyllis Rostykus) writes:

>Hmmm.. thought some more about this, and I don't really think that beliefs
>change what *is*.  Provable fact, verfied and cross-checked facts aren't
>changeable by belief.  Though perceptions of an event by different people
>may be different.  That's why I seperate the two.  The above is an example
>of a verfieable event and shows, perfectly, why belief can't change fact. 

>But belief of things which cannot be verified is may be true beliefs to 
>those that believe them.

	`The belief of things which _can_ be verified may be true
beliefs to those who believe them, if `true belief' equals `something
believed (by a given person) to be true'.  Doubtless many honest
people truly believed that the sun went around the Earth.  They were
incorrect, but they weren't liars.  If it's simply the honesty of the
beliefs that you're defending, then we have no disagreement."

>  No matter how they conflict.

>Does that make it any more clear?  "Is there a God?" is a question which
>cannot be verified.  "What's the result of the next toss of the coin." is
>something which can be verfied with the next toss of the coin.  Is the
>difference clear?

	"As I noted in another article, you assume your conclusion
here.  The whole difference between theists and nontheists is that
theists believe they have something which they consider verification.
I point out that the result of the next toss of the coin can't be
verified by a blind person, or someone who refuses to look at the
coin.  Neither can it be verified in the dark.  Does the coin not have
a result until sunrise, or until the second observer's eyes open?  For
the first already saw it-- or so he claims."


>It's the difference between asking "Are you a German national?" and "Are you
>a Buddist?"  *Being* a German is verifiable, there is documentation as to
>ones citizenary, usually; and it can be crosschecked by more than one
>person and verifiable by more than one person.  Someone can be verified as
>a German by an outside source.  Being a member of any relgion is a matter
>of belief.  There might be church record, etc.; but that is no proof that
>one actually believes in the tenants of that organization.   I'm recorded
>as being baptized in some Baptist church, but I am no Baptist by my
>beliefs.

	"I see the same problem here.  By Baptist theology, there _is_
someone who can see into everyone's hearts.  By Baptist theology,
Baptists have experiences which other people (with the exception,
perhaps, of closely related faiths) don't have.  Obviously, if Baptist
theology isn't true, then being a Baptist is unknowable.  But one
might as well say that if Baptist theology isn't true then Baptist
theology isn't true.  Perhaps being a Baptist is only knowable to
someone who's really a Baptist-- but then, only people who are awake
can (usually) tell the difference between being awake and being
asleep.  Dreaming people often think they're awake-- waking people
very rarely think they're actually dreaming.  Is being awake a
knowable state, then?

	"Conversely, accepting for the sake of argument that
nationality is so clear cut (though national registration is very new,
while nationality is centuries or millennia old) what if I blow up the
record office?  Has German nationality disappeared at a stroke?  Does
it reappear if I produce the microfilms I hid in my shoe?  What was
its state when I had it in my shoe but had no intention of telling
anyone?  If one only finds out for certain about ultimate reality
after one is dead, but everyone who's dead is aware and knows it, is
ultimate reality unknowable or is saying that the equivalent of
saying, "No one in my town can understand tensor calculus, so
therefore it can't be understood in principle"?  Conversely, how do
you establish that something is ultimately unknowable, as you seem to
presume the existence of a supernatural to be?"

Michael
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Indeed I tremble for my country
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 when I reflect that God is just."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
mschiffer@aal.itd.umich.edu	    Virginia (1784)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans