I stand by my logic. I was questioning what I thought unquestioned
assumptions, and a reread doesn't persuade me that I was wrong. If, as you
paraphrase, Peter came to feel that there were certain requirements
necessary to being fully human it would seem reasonable to ask what "fully
human" means. As it is, he gave us the requirements, but not what they're for.
I think it's amply clear from Peter's post that the "if" here isn't a
question but a way of saying "given that," or, "if, as I think is the
case." Prefixing an if to a statement, in any case, doesn't make it somehow
immune to analysis.
As to "either/or," belief/non-belief is rather like being a virgin--one is
or one isn't. The only other option is "I don't know," and in my clinical
practice I did once work with a young woman who really didn't know. In the
matter of belief "I don't know"is either a cry of anguish or an admission
that it's not an issue to which one devotes much thought. Neither seem to
apply to Peter as he presents his thoughts.
But I begin to feel a little strange talking about Peter as if he weren't
in the room, and I'd rather hoped that if I were mistaken he himself would
answer. Especially if he has an idea about the "fully human." A pretty
important concept, despite its elusiveness, even to non-believers.
As to "You're free to believe whatever makes you happy," you seem not to
notice irony. And I thought that failure was a purely American virtue.
I simply don't understand your final quip, tho I expect that it wasn't
meant kindly.
Mark
At 07:12 PM 3/9/2004 +0000, Lawrence Upton wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: 09 March 2004 18:46
>Subject: Re: God & Religion
>
> >It must be nice to know what the phrase "fully human" means.
>
>I had to go back to Peter's to see what it was he said which I couldnt
>remember and there was nothing there meriting this
>
>He said he came to feel you can't be fully human... etc
>
>and that was as strong as it got
>
>seems to me you're the one who thinks they *know things
>
> >You seem to think that those of us for whom religion is at best an object
> >of anthropological and psychological study can't "take to ourselves the
> >world we are in, interiorise it," that we're in that sense less "fully
> >human."
>
>that's pushing it - What you quote from has an _if_ in it, nor is it about
>you. You're stuck on either / or; and I don't think Peter is. The likelihood
>is that youre not going to agree; but in rejecting what he says in this way
>it seems to me that you are demanding of him that what he says be assessed
>as an either / or position and it isnt and either / or position
>
> >relative "humanity" of those around you. You're free to believe whatever
> >makes you happy.
>
>How very USAmerican!
>
> Sanity would require that that set of beliefs be capable
> >of modification by experience.
>
>and expediency presumably
>
>
>L
|