<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Melynda, Ron,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Even statements like:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>"The square root of blue recrystalizes sodomy."</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>can have emotional meaning and appear to have cognitive
meaning and other kinds of meaning, if people use them often
enough.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>To answer directly your question and request for an example:
common examples used daily like the one above, where people claim the
statements are true, but can find no way to demonstrate their truth (or
clearly explain their meaning without contradicting themselves
and having to invoke the concept "mysteries"):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>"God is love."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"Christ is God."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>However, the truth of statements like:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>"My house is located in Idaho."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"Leather soles do not last forever."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"The probably aren't any unicorns in Laird Park."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"There exist many different infinite Abelian groups."</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>are testable.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>So are almost all the claims in elementary physics books, for
example. We are successfully able to send persons to and
retrieve them from the moon, find tumors with CAT scans, and establish
property boundaries in Latah County by depending on the <STRONG><FONT
size=5>truth</FONT></STRONG> of these statements. Therefore, those
who are of the opinion of that the <STRONG><FONT
size=5>truth</FONT></STRONG> of certain kinds of statements are not
testable by repeated observations are living in a fantasy world.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Whatever the meaning of any statement, except for
esthetic/emotive purposes, if the statement cannot be understood in such a way
that its truth, falsity, or probability can determined and applied, then 'tis
folly to rely upon it,' whatever it means, however comforting/reassuring it is,
or whatever fantasies it helps to fulfill. While you and I may share a set
of ethical values, I do not need the unverifiable alleged approval/instruction
of some alleged god(s) or other superstitious beings/forces to persuade me to
act in ways I deem ethical. Of course I have and do make ethical mistakes,
but I try to find them and to correct them by observation, education, and
reconsideration.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><STRONG><FONT size=5>Further</FONT></STRONG>, another test for
the truth or falsity of a group of statements is logical consistency. If a
group of statements contain a contradiction (a falsity), then until I see an
example of a true contradiction, I will continue to disbelieve/reject such
combinations of statements.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>I repeat<STRONG><FONT size=5> </FONT><FONT size=6>the dilemma
for the thoughtful believer</FONT></STRONG>: If our conduct and the
attainment of an orgasmic eternal life is so important, if some alleged
god(s) really love us and therefore want us to achieve/earn this alleged eternal
life, then why the hell are the rules of achievement so fraught with
contradictions, confusions, disagreements, disclarities, hatred/war generating
elements, etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Why is determining truth of the rules for behaving
as some alleged god(s) desire toward our fellow creatures and thus attaining
eternal bliss not as easy as determining the rules for building a bridge or
successfully worming a dog (both of such actions would seem to be much less
important than a attaining blissful eternal life), if some powerful,
omnibenevolent god(s) are in charge? You would expect this/these very
powerful, beneficent god(s) would be able to write or cause to be written a
clear <EM>Getting to Heaven for Dummies</EM> manual, instead of the raft of
alleged, confusing, contradictory, fantastic, war/hatred generating holy
books claiming to have <EM>the truth</EM> various people now
believe.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>From an earlier post:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Ron Smith says:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>"I say Christ is God. You say He is not. Christ being God is the
cornerstone of my faith. By you saying He is not God, you are saying my faith is
wrong. Dont feel bad about it. We cant all be right. That would be
silly."</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Unintentionally perhaps, Ron has pointed to something that
might be of significance to many of us:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>In Ron's faith and many other faiths, the only way to some
alleged ecstatic, eternal life is by believing and affirming certain statements
as true.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>My guess is that for many of the religious, an ecstatic,
eternal life is the main event, allegedly infinitely paling anything and
everything that occurs here on earth. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Isn't it a bit perplexing that an alleged omnipowerful,
omnibeneficient God would present such difficult, confusing, yea contradictory
instructions for achieving/earning such a coveted goal. Wouldn't the
hypothesis that this alleged God is either indifferent or diabolically sadistic
be more consistent with the evidence at hand?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><STRONG><FONT size=5>Even a periodic, straightforward,
unequivocal, unmistakable demonstration of her/his/its
existence/wishes/intentions would certainly be a more effective way to market
its/his/her program.</FONT></STRONG> Instead we are left with a welter of
confusing (the Virgin Mary allegedly appears on a grilled cheese sandwich),
contradictory, indecipherable, intransigent, hate and war generating claims
with not only rancorous disagreement, but worse yet, without no method, so far
discoverable, to find the truth. Again, this seems to support the
hypotheses of either [1] an alleged god(s) of vastly different properties than
those proclaimed by his/her/its earthly followers or [2] no god(s) at
all.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>I am sorry my blunt statements offends you, because I
believe that you and many other believers are thoughtful, ethical persons, but
in the spirit of the citation from <EM>Mark</EM> previously given: for me,
good works are very important. Conversely, I see giving demanded, slavish
love to some alleged god(s) who is/are so weak that it/she/he/they cannot
operate and judge objectively without that "love as a ransom payment" as a
pathetic, sick, (and grossly insulting to a powerful,
beneficent god, if one exists) belief.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>There whole thing sounds like a story made up by an
ineffective/incompetent parent who can not earn love/respect but seeks to coerce
it by lies, fairy tales, and brutal threats.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Wayne</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=4>From: "Melynda Huskey" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:mghuskey@msn.com"><FONT size=4>mghuskey@msn.com</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>To: <</FONT><A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:35 AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gary Larson on one of today's
headlines</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=4>> In pursuance of Moffett's
First Axiom, I'll wade in here (but I promise to <BR>> keep it reasonably
brief!).<BR>> <BR>> Wayne writes:<BR>> <BR>> "When searching for
"the truth" it may be useful to understand that some <BR>> statements are
neither true nor false. For example:<BR>> <BR>> " 'The square root
of blue recrystalizes sodomy.' "<BR>> <BR>> "Just because words can be
strung together in an apparently syntactically <BR>> correct sentence doesn't
mean the sentence has a comprehensible, literal, <BR>> testable
meaning."<BR>> <BR>> This example demonstrates an interesting property of
language: it can be <BR>> used to construct syntactically correct
nonsense statements--thus allowing <BR>> us to derive rules of syntax for
individual languages, and even, <BR>> potentially, basic principles about
language itself.<BR>> <BR>> Wayne goes on to say,<BR>> <BR>> "In
your quest for "the truth" you might watch out for these kind of <BR>>
assertions. Religion, philosophy, politics, etc. are rife with such
<BR>> statements. These assertions are generally recognizable by the
practical <BR>> impossibility of being neither unequivocally confirmable nor
falsifiable or <BR>> for the establishment of any significant probability of
thier truth. The <BR>> latter two cases is often especially the
case."<BR>> <BR>> But here I believe you're drawing a false conclusion,
Wayne. There is a <BR>> categorical difference between syntactically
flawless nonsense sentences, <BR>> which by their nature are not intended to
contain meaning for speakers, and <BR>> sentences which do not contain
literal or testable meanings, but which have <BR>> some contingent and
deferred meaning for speakers. Your implication, of <BR>> course, is
that such statements as "In the beginning was the Word" are <BR>> simply
nonsense, on a par with your "square root of blue," while other <BR>>
statements are verifiably true--say, "You just can't prove the existence of
<BR>> God."<BR>> <BR>> As a student of post-modern French linguistics
and theory, I have to smile <BR>> at the notion that any language at all is
literal or testable. There is a <BR>> certain naivete in the belief
that some words are more literal than others. <BR>> The free play of
the signifier means that all meaning is contingent, <BR>> endlessly dependent
on a chain of connotations without any ultimate <BR>> referents outside the
system of language. What seems quite demonstrably a <BR>> fact
contained in a literally true sentence to you is itself as subject to <BR>>
slippage, incoherence, and misprision as any prophetic utterance by Habbakuk
<BR>> or Nahum.<BR>> <BR>> Secondarily, it seems to me quite dangerous
to assert that language must be <BR>> subject to tests of literality in order
to be comprehensible. Since there <BR>> is no meaningful connection
between a signifier and a signified, what can <BR>> literality mean?
Inherent in the notion of literal, testable, language is <BR>> the premise
that some kinds of experience are more "real" than others, and <BR>> that you
or I can determine the reality of another person's experience by <BR>>
comparing it to our own. I find both of these ideas nearly impossible to
<BR>> defend, owing to the circularity of the proof, "I experienced it,
therefore <BR>> it is real."<BR>> <BR>> Hurrah for Derrida!<BR>>
<BR>> Melynda Huskey<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
_____________________________________________________<BR>> List services
made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities of
the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><FONT
size=4>http://www.fsr.net</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>
<BR>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=4>>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR>>
<BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>