|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
 Posted - 08/07/2005 : 19:04:35 [Permalink]
|
Instead of what we have, which is a discussion on what "discussion" means.
If all it's about is proving who has a better grasp of terms and definitions, then surely that is the sign that the whole thing has become an ego struggle rather that an attempt at a frank exchange of points of view.
Knowing that Eskimos have one trillion words for snow and no word for aardvark does not really help me make my point in a concise and understandable manner.
I sometimes think that the definition card is used most often when a person has lost grip of their argument and is looking to change tact. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
| Edited by - Dry_vby on 08/07/2005 19:06:19 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 20:00:06 [Permalink]
|
Apologies all around for my prior posts in this thread. I'm still stumped as to why the dictionary definition of "religion" is inadequate, though.
Oh, and just after hitting "post" this morning, I remembered that any U.S. government (Federal, State or local) which officially "recognized" religions would be violating the First Amendment of the Constitution unless such "recognition" were legally meaningless. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 20:05:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dry_vby...
Knowing that Eskimos have one trillion words for snow and no word for aardvark does not really help me make my point in a concise and understandable manner.
The idea that Eskimos have a huge number of words for "snow" is commonly accepted by linguists as a myth. In the Inuit (Eskimo) language the actual number of words for snow is generally considered to be more realistically on the order of fifteen. If I've said it once I've said it a billion times, you should not exaggerate. 
Counting Eskimo Words for Snow
Inuit Words for Snow
Sasha Aikhenvald on Inuit Snow Words: A Clarification
Also, it seems likely that many Eskimos today are aware of what an aardvark is. And in cases where it comes up in a discussion they would certainly need to refer to it by some mutually agreed upon and understood term. They'd probably call it an aardvark.quote:
Originally posted by Dry_vby...
I sometimes think that the definition card is used most often when a person has lost grip of their argument and is looking to change tact.
Although changing of tack (not tact) might sometimes be one's purpose in quibbling about definitions, I don't see any of that going on in the discussion above. I think there's simply an attempt to better explain their points of agreement, or perhaps disagreement. Without a fairly precise mutual understanding of the meanings of terms, effective communication, especially written communication, becomes nearly impossible.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 22:42:55 [Permalink]
|
To Dave W.
If you are going to insist that religions that don't actually believe in literal higher beings to “worship” in a conventional sense, still qualify as religions, then I must revert back to using the same term – worship – to describe some activities that religious Humanists engage in.
If “worship” is to mean adoration, then Humanism can be a “system of belief and worship,” and as such, qualifies as a “religion”.
If Quakers can be considered to worship the light in every human being, and Buddhists can worship the ideal of Enlightenment, why can't Humanists say they worship the value of every human beings, the concept of objective reality, and the concept that the universe obeys consistent natural laws?
I might add that the definition “system of belief and worship”, including the allowance that “worship” can refer to adornment, more opens the door to chess clubs and sports fans being considered religions than does my suggested definition. Like I said, religion is just one of those things that can't be defined perfectly accurately in one big lump. I never said my definition was perfect, nor did I say that the lack of a perfectly accurate definition was necessary to the term “religion” having meaning and being useful. I threw my definition out there as potentially more useful than the Cambridge definition. And it seems your disagreement about whether the Cambridge definition is more accurate or not depends on how we are defining words like “worship”.
We are limited, terribly so, by language. You seem to dismiss that point of mine with your first paragraph, but this conversation is demonstrating those limitations through are constant mis-interpretations of each other's intended meanings.
“We're supposed to realize our inherit biases, just as you're asking us to do, but seem reluctant to do yourself.”
I haven't told anyone on this forum that they are “religious” or “nonreligious”. You, however, have suggested that my “system of belief and worship” is not a religion.
Your persistence on about the chess club association is ridiculous. Chess clubs do not typically exhibit the first and third characteristics that I gave in my suggested definition of a religion. Not to say that a chess club couldn't culturally evolve into a religion, but most, probably all, existing chess clubs do not qualify by my stated definition as religions.
As for my third qualification being “unnaturally arbitrary” – you brought up the translation barrier. I can't begin to suppose how my third qualification would be translated into other languages, so I won't. But the qualification isn't arbitrary. The whole purpose of it is to exclude things that might exhibit one and two, but who insist they are not religious. For instance, I belong to a skeptic club. We do have a generally common belief system, and we do have rituals (meetings every month, picnics, etc.) But we aren't a religion any more than a chess club is a religion precisely because we don't identify as such and are not recognized by society as such.
Also, I first used “worship” in a non-ethnocentric way, and you turned around and said I could not count Humanist lectures and Darwin Day cards as forms of “worship”. So I reverted to using an ethnocentric definition of both “worship” and “religion” to point out how they are limiting. The fact that I used the term “worship” in two different ways (after first clarifying what definition I was using) shows I'm not myself being ethnocentric. Simply acknowledging difference cultural usages of the term.
You seem to be claiming that all humanists are religious humanists.
I have done no such thing, nor do I now assert that all Humanists are religious. Why the heck did you think I included point #3 in my definition!?
Plus, since all it takes to be "certified, legally recognized clergy" in the USA is a few bucks and an issue of Rolling Stone, it doesn't make a very strong argument in a relig |
"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 08/07/2005 22:48:13 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 22:46:00 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and just after hitting "post" this morning, I remembered that any U.S. government (Federal, State or local) which officially "recognized" religions would be violating the First Amendment of the Constitution unless such "recognition" were legally meaningless.
"Acknowledge" then, instead of "recognize". Obviously the government has to know what is and isn't a religion if it's going to not favor or inhibit religion. That was my point, which in context, I think was fairly obvious.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 16:26:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
[Originally posted by Dry_vby...[/i]
Knowing that Eskimos have one trillion words for snow and no word for aardvark does not really help me make my point in a concise and understandable manner.
The idea that Eskimos have a huge number of words for "snow" is commonly accepted by linguists as a myth. In the Inuit (Eskimo) language the actual number of words for snow is generally considered to be more realistically on the order of fifteen. If I've said it once I've said it a billion times, you should not exaggerate.
Counting Eskimo Words for Snow
Inuit Words for Snow
Sasha Aikhenvald on Inuit Snow Words: A Clarification
Also, it seems likely that many Eskimos today are aware of what an aardvark is. And in cases where it comes up in a discussion they would certainly need to refer to it by some mutually agreed upon and understood term. They'd probably call it an aardvark.
Hmmmmm.....
Very intresting, but a little to much on Eskimos and not enough on aardvarks.
Hell, there's not even a link to aardvarks.
Disappointing. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
| Edited by - Dry_vby on 08/08/2005 16:27:12 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
