Re: "Lily" and religious references

[nessus@mit.edu (Douglas Alan)]

In article <m0pEbwV-000ilrC@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu>
chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (chris williams) writes:

>  The basis of our comfortable coexistence was a rule that neither
>  would attempt to convert the other. Each offered more leniency in
>  the others home. I didn't comment on their beliefs in their home,
>  and they didn't comment on my lack of beliefs in mine. Love-hounds
>  is neither your home or mine. It is a neutral space.

I feel like I am a fairly impartial observer on this issue, Chris,
especially since I share your beliefs on the supremacy of science and
the lack of a supernatural.  And it seems to me that you are the only
person here doing any obnoxious proselytizing in the recent past.
(Well, maybe Jorn too.)  Postings with religious materials by others
have been mostly of the following nature: "I've noticed some religious
references in some of Kate's songs.  I have found these religious
beliefs to be useful to me.  I've wondered if Kate shares these
beliefs.  I think she does."

Your response is to call these posters dupes who clearly cannot think
rationally for themselves and then assert that they require your
assistance to see the one true way of the world.

This is obnoxious.  This forum was created to encourage people to
express their ideas and say what they get out of Kate's art.  Not to
fall into your Scientifically Correct doctrine.

> I don't "believe" in anything. Sorry that you read it that way.

Of course you do!  Don't be ridiculous.  All systems of belief or
knowledge are based on assumptions or axioms.  Your assumptions are
Occam's Razor, Empirical Induction, etc.  These things cannot be
proved and must be taken on faith.  Science, just as religion, takes a
leap of faith -- it's just that the leap of faith is significantly
smaller, well-defined, and has shown itself to be reliable.

> If we accept that the song is fiction, her entire "proof"
> collapses. In most interviews Kate has supported the view that most
> of her songs to be considered fiction.

However, in this case, Kate has strongly implied that the she herself
has found the prayer described in "Lily" to be useful, which in turn
implies some amount of belief.

>   What? The charge of "Materialism" has been leveled at me before,
>   and (I may be completely on the wrong track with this) but it
>   seems to be one of those terms like "secular humanism" invented by
>   one group to bring another down to it's level.

This term "materialism" HAS been thrown at you before, in this group,
and we had this same silly argument before.  "Materialism" is a word
invented by philosophers to describe a philosophical position.
Philosophers coin terms all the time so that they can discuss a
philosophical notion without using an entire page every time they want
to refer to the notion.  Once a label has been made, however, it is a
powerful tool that can be used and abused by friends and enemies
alike.

"Materialism" is the position that the human mind or "soul" is nothing
more than the matter in the brain.  The term is usually also used for
somewhat softened positions which say that the mind is the *structure*
of the matter in the brain (rather than the matter itself), or that
the mind is a computer program which executes in the brain, the brain
being basically a biological computer.  The word "materialism" is
usually used in opposition with "dualism".  "Dualism" maintains that
mental states cannot be deduced from the physical state of the brain
because there is a supernatural component to the human mind.

I think that the word "materialist" (used in this manner) applies
perfectly well to you, as it does to me.

|>oug
   <nessus@mit.edu>