h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I explain at beginning of the entry that the scope of the entry is limited as follows:

"For the purposes of this particular entry the word 'belief' is taken to mean 'inspired belief': belief in a god, belief in a cause, belief in numinescence, belief in something greater than the believer. These days it is sometimes called a 'vision' (companies establish their vision, and then work out mission statements)."

The scope of the entry is the scope of the entry.

There is plenty of room for other entries discussing other kinds of belief, and for entries defining what belief may or may not be.

This entry is not any of those.



I assume one of three things:

1) You do not think that there is a sub-set of human beliefs which can be charactarised in this way - in which case this entry is not addressed to you.

2) You think that there IS a sub-set of human beliefs which can be characterised in this way, but that I have described in inaccurately - in which case please make some suggestions for a better way to describe it.

3) I am not going to post three, because I am - as my u-name implies - shooting from the hip today, and I am not - yet - sufficiently provoked by external circumstances to take it out on you.

Ben

3) I think that the subset exists, I agree with your description of it, but I'm such a bloody-minded b*****d that I'm disagreeing for the sake of being disagreeable. Is that about right?

No, it ain't that. I'm perfectly sincere - even if that makes me seem thick to you.

No. It does not make you seem thick to me.

As an amateur semiotician I am always fascinated when two people persistantly fail to communicate. So despite finding our conversations incredibly frustrating, in meta-analysis they are fascinating.

But - we do seem to have major problems communicating to each other. .

I remain interested in which of (1) or (2) is the case. Which is it?

B

I'm sorry but you can't address your stuff to non-critics only. I can't challenge your premises because you address your entry only to those who agree with them! Then you accuse persistent critics of inappropriate interest or malicious motives! Ever heard of argumentum ad hominem? You're good at it, I'll give you that.

The choice is another of your false dichotomies. I believe one can describe such a subset of beliefs; but I don't think that there's anything particularly special about it. I believe in a subset of beliefs about mathematics too, and infinitely many other examples are easily constructed. But, so what?

Belief is of little interest unless it's true belief. The only use for false beliefs is to demonstrate their falsity; thus leading to a closer approximation to the truth.

And you ad feminam.

The premises are the premises. Address them, and if they fall apart then the entry falls apart. I have withdrawn entries which fell apart before now.

But put a stake in the sand first.



Where have I accused you or other critics of malicious motives? I am unwilling to let that comment stand without proof.

And where have I accused you or other critics of inappropriate interest? (What the hell IS inappropriate interest - no-one has asked me for my date of birth or what colour knickers I am wearing).

B

I find disagreement far more desirable and stimulating than agreement. I guess I can't get enough of it. Nevertheless, I don't do serious wind ups just to provoke it. I do erm believe what I say.

"The choice is another of your false dichotomies. I believe one can describe such a subset of beliefs; but I don't think that there's anything particularly special about it. "

Ben: Are - but I do. But I am interested in heavy rock music, etymology, ways of cooking rice, and the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions to. Just because you are not interested in soemthing does not mean that no-one else may be.

A tad arrogant, here Toxxin.

"Belief is of little interest unless it's true belief."

To you. False beliefs are fascinating. *Why* do people do that? And what does it do for them. You are not interested in the question that the entry is asking and seeking to answer. No problem. I am not interested in the Football league, boy bands or PlayStation2. I am not arrogant enough to assume that there is nothing in those things to be interested in. They just don't do it for me.

"The only use for false beliefs is to demonstrate their falsity; thus leading to a closer approximation to the truth."

The only use for you - but the beliefs that I am talking about - religious, numinous and spiritual ones defy logicl. Which is interesting in itself. How do they do that?

Thanks for these posts.

B

"I find disagreement far more desirable and stimulating than agreement."

I noticed. It isn't very clever though.

I find seeking the answers to questions more interesting than disagreement. And for me finding out *why* people disagree is more interesting than looking at *what* they disagree about, though that usually comes into the answer somewhere.

I ask questions. I was born asking questions. I will die asking questions.

B

Please translate 'homenem' as person. Today somebody tried to say 'Walkwoman' to me. I explained that 'Walkman' way the inventor's name!

Do you really want me to cut and paste examples of AAH that you have used? I will if you insist. I've challenged your premises as both false or incoherent depending on whether one considers them empirically or conceptually (as far as the latter is possible). That *is* my stake in the sand. Justify the premises if you can? Examples aren't justification when I can easily supply counterexamples that you can't exclude. Please, just one example of my AAF if you can manage it eh

Why people disagree is psychology (my PhD subject). What people disagree about considered generally is philosophy; epistemology even (my first degree). Guess I'm interested in both but of late, more the latter.

Why do you say that disagreement isn't very clever. It's the whole basis of science. Einstein disagreed with Newton - and so we have relativity. Pretty clever stuff in my book. 'Not very clever' isn't AAH then? Doh!

You are right about hominem. I had forgotten that 'Vir' means a male human, and hominem just means a person.

You accused me first, sweetie. I have been patronising, and you have seen flicks of bad temper from me, not to mention exasperation. But not much else. If there has been more than that, and if apologies are due, then I apologise.

Nice to have such a classy and well-educated deconstructor.

B

No apologies required, and I hope I've managed to remain polite, if not actually self-mocking. I wouldn't have mentioned the qualifications if they hadn't cropped up and we weren't already stuck in to a debate. Guess I wish I hadn't even so

There was a presupposition in the sentance 'It isn't very clever'. The full sentence would read 'disagreement for the sake of it isn't very clever'. It was a reply to your statement "I find disagreement far more desirable and stimulating than agreement."

That is how you are.

That is fine.

I am how I am.

I have explained some of how I am to you.

Re: Einstein and Newton. Einstein had questions that Newton did not answer, and he went out and answered them for himself. This is different from the Vatican and Galileo. The Vatican disagreed with Galileo, but it did not go out and ask the same question and come to a different answer.

I has a question that no-one has answered. I went out and answered it to my own satisfaction.

The answer may be wrong. If there is an Einsteinian answer which trumps my Newtonian one, then I will go with the Einsteinian one.

But the question is still valid.

Ben

Har, har. I likes a woman wiv a bit o' spirit. Flash them eyes at me again me dear.

The question is still valid.

In fact all the questions I have asked you are still valid.

B

I carefully pointed out that I don't disagree for the sake of it.

How do you manage to do this? It was Galileo that disagreed with the Vatican. Not the other way round! The Vatican didn't like it much.

Please, PLEASE, tell me what the question was. I'm begging, honestly. Just tell me that and if it makes sense to me I won't bother you any more.

Why do such a large proportion of humanity feel the need for spiritual beliefs?