HFQ Official Snippet #15 Merry Christmas!

Thanks for this Christmas present, RFC. I was away from my computer yesterday so got the surprise today. Going from the time stamps looks like you came home from midnight service and set this up for us.

Christmas blessings to you and yours!

Correction to my earlier post above: the sections below constitute my post and should not have appeared in italics

Just to confuse things even further, there is Clarke's Third Law, that "Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic." You could extend that to say it's indistinguishable from Godly powers as well.

To add my 2 cents worth to the "knowledge & belief" debate, in my opinion it is a perfectly defensible position for someone to say "I do/do not (delete as applicable) believe there is a God, but in my judgement, there is no proof one way or the other." What in my opinion is fundamentally indefensible (and in my opinion totally abhorrent) is for somebody to force their beliefs on somebody else. This is Clyntahn's position, i.e. "You will accept what I say or we will kill you and your family, slowly and painfully.

And finally, I'll add my name to the lists
(a) of people who have thanked RFC for his Christmas present, and
(b) of those who have expressed their curiosity about what's just appeared on or near the Seridahn River.

Alistair wrote:Thanks for the Christmas gift DW -I am sure I speak for all who visit this thread when we say we appreciate it-

What a terrific snippet. Thanks Mr Weber. Poor Sandaria and Aivah. Must be such a shock. Hopeful they wi be able to accept what Merlin has told them

Kufat wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:Ehhh... agnosticism has it that we cannot know one way or the other.

Not necessarily. Short version:
Strong agnosticism: We can't know.
Weak agnosticism: I don't know.
Both of the above fall under weak atheism, which is the first definition you used. Of course, we could argue about the meaning of know 'til the cows come home...

There is another definition possible for Agnosticism and it is not weak atheism.

Atheism is rejecting the very possibility of the existence of God.
Agnosticism is either not knowing (your definition) or believing in a god (or god properties which is not exactly the same) but thinking too that none of the religions can be right, because by definition God itself is unknowable. This is a rather modern view that makes possible to embrace the main tenets of most religions while rejecting the churches/temples/whatever surrounding them.

Kierkegaard (sp?) is often said to be representative of this variation (agnostic theism)

Peter2 wrote:Correction to my earlier post above: the sections below constitute my post and should not have appeared in italics

Just to confuse things even further, there is Clarke's Third Law, that "Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic." You could extend that to say it's indistinguishable from Godly powers as well.

To add my 2 cents worth to the "knowledge & belief" debate, in my opinion it is a perfectly defensible position for someone to say "I do/do not (delete as applicable) believe there is a God, but in my judgement, there is no proof one way or the other." What in my opinion is fundamentally indefensible (and in my opinion totally abhorrent) is for somebody to force their beliefs on somebody else. This is Clyntahn's position, i.e. "You will accept what I say or we will kill you and your family, slowly and painfully.

And finally, I'll add my name to the lists
(a) of people who have thanked RFC for his Christmas present, and
(b) of those who have expressed their curiosity about what's just appeared on or near the Seridahn River.

Good morning, Peter! To be VERY clear -- and this is an area where it is extremely important to be clear -- I did not mean to suggest that the position you outline is indefensible, I am only suggesting the category or categories it represents. Indeed, I think theism, atheism and agnosticism are all completely defensible. Which is ultimately part of what makes Clyntahn's position so abhorrent (well, that plus the fact that other people's beliefs are their own business and no-one else's). Regardless of the strength of our own convictions, a bit of humility concerning our own fallibility is not only prudent, it's essential. In the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, from the very bowels of Christ, consider that you might be wrong!"

Thank you and Merry Christmas! And Happy New Year! And many more!

Peter2 wrote:Correction to my earlier post above: the sections below constitute my post and should not have appeared in italics

Just to confuse things even further, there is Clarke's Third Law, that "Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic." You could extend that to say it's indistinguishable from Godly powers as well.

snip

Minor nit. Clarke's third law (as is generally quoted is"

Any sufficiently advance technology is indistinguishable from magic.

My bolding.

Although relevant in this context, it will (on Charis at least if Merlin gets his way) become increasingly untrue, as once the concept of technology sets into a society, then it should read

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from advanced technology

Sargon wrote:
[snip]

Good morning, Peter! To be VERY clear -- and this is an area where it is extremely important to be clear -- I did not mean to suggest that the position you outline is indefensible, I am only suggesting the category or categories it represents. Indeed, I think theism, atheism and agnosticism are all completely defensible. Which is ultimately part of what makes Clyntahn's position so abhorrent (well, that plus the fact that other people's beliefs are their own business and no-one else's). Regardless of the strength of our own convictions, a bit of humility concerning our own fallibility is not only prudent, it's essential. In the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, from the very bowels of Christ, consider that you might be wrong!"

Can I hasten to say that I wasn't getting at you in any way? In fact, I agree 100% with every word you wrote.

I was making the point that not all these points of view are mutually exclusive, and that there is a perfectly valid position which includes elements of theism and agnosticism, just as there is one which covers a mixture of atheism and agnosticism, because the fields are different. Theism and atheism are matters of faith, and gnosis and agnosticism are matters of knowledge.

History is replete with instances of what people "know" being proved erroneous (although personally, I don't think any proof either way is likely to arrive any time soon in this particular area). Furthermore, the odds are that in time the new "truth" that replaces the old will be proved just as fallible in its turn. Any scientist worth his salt can state his position according to what he or she judges to be true, but must recognize the possibility of being proved wrong, and accept it with as good grace as he or she can when it happens, because happen it will.

Minor nit. Clarke's third law (as is generally quoted is"

Any sufficiently advance technology is indistinguishable from magic.

My bolding.

Sorry, my bad – I was relying on a 50-year-old memory.

Although relevant in this context, it will (on Charis at least if Merlin gets his way) become increasingly untrue, as once the concept of technology sets into a society, then it should read

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from advanced technology

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please could you elaborate?

Peter2 wrote:

fallsfromtrees wrote:Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from advanced technology

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please could you elaborate?

Fallsfromtrees seems to be saying that sufficiently advanced technology is only indistinguishable from magic by the insufficiently educated. To the sufficiently educated, sufficiently advanced technology is just that.

Or something like that.