This is really interesting. Here is a new study by Nicholas Epley at the University of Chicago.
The bottom line is this: When people ask themselves What Would Jesus Do?, they’re really asking What Would I Do?. We already know that people project their own views on to other people — it’s called false consensus bias. In the absence of reliable information about what a person thinks or a group of people think, we assume they think basically what we do.
Now, imagine the same principle applied to the most difficult-to-poll entity in the metaphysical universe: God. Forget the cell phone problem, this guy’s off the grid.
Thus, all we’re left with is speculation. Which goes a long way toward explaining Epley’s results. Here’s Not Exactly Rocket Science with a description of the experiment:
Epley asked different groups of volunteers to rate their own beliefs about important issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, the death penalty, the Iraq War, and the legalisation of marijuana. The volunteers also had to speculate about God’s take on these issues, as well as the stances of an “average American”, Bill Gates (a celebrity with relatively unknown beliefs) and George Bush (a celebrity whose positions are well-known).
Epley surveyed commuters at a Boston train station, university undergraduates, and 1,000 adults from a nationally representative database. In every case, he found that people’s own attitudes and beliefs matched those they suggested for God more precisely than those they suggested for the other humans.
Of course, correlation doesn’t imply causation – rather than people imprinting their beliefs onto God, it could be that people were using God’s beliefs as a guide to their own. Epley tried to control for that by asking his recruits to talk about their own beliefs first, and then presenting God and the others in a random order. And as better evidence of causality, Epley showed that he could change people’s views on God’s will by manipulating their own beliefs.
He showed some 145 volunteers a strong argument in favour of affirmative action (it counters workplace biases) and a weak argument opposing it (it raises uncomfortable issues). Others heard a strong argument against (reverse discrimination) and a weak argument for (Britney and Paris agree!). The recruits did concur that the allegedly stronger argument was indeed stronger. Those who read the overall positive propaganda were not only more supportive of affirmative action but more likely to think that God would be in the pro-camp too.
22 comments:
this doesn't surprise me at all. of course God thinks like we do- He made us. as for God changing His mind, He does that all the time. all of material existence is in a constant state of flux, only the underlying controlling natural laws have relative stability; only the unmanifest void all things come from and fall back into has absolute stability.
does this experiment provide evidence God does not exist? no, it doesn't even though it is clearly designed to do that for the researcher set up a method to control for the possibility that people were imprinting their ideas onto God, but did not set up some test to determine if God were imprinting His ideas on people, so there is a fundamental bias in the experiment; it was designed to prove the researcher's hypothesis and not to investigate nature.
God isn't a he though. Remember, God has a wife who by his own rules is one flesh with him, that makes her God too. How many times has God been married? According to all the tales, a lot. Krishna once married a thousand milkmaidens in one day. The Christian god did Mary, and some believe Jesus married Mary Magdalene, a temple prostitute, which according to my understanding would have made a whole lot of sense.
In all the universe there are always found two opposing principles or forces. These can be called masculine and feminine, positive and negative, or whatever. But, gravity has anti-gravity, magnetism has anti-magnetism, up has down, far has close, east meets west, and so on and so forth. so if there is a God and God did make the universe, They did it by combining opposites.
Mr. and Mrs. God, do they exist? What proof can be offered? In order to answer what proof it must be first determined by what criteria They are to be measured. If you want to measure something you have to have something to measure it with.
This research is interesting because it begs the question 'what do people mean when they say God?'
The concept of a human grey-beard patriarchal icon must be largely discredited as an existential answer, but then in absence of an alternative means of objectifying spiritual authority it is a logical reflection of societal prescription.
I like to ask how the change in social opinion reacts as it reflects the changes in societal prescriptions. So, as we become politically more cosmopolitan, how do we reform a sense of ethical ideal in order to maintain a sense of authority?
Lady Justice stands over the Old Bailey with scales in her left hand and a sword on her right hand, while the mythological Ariel stands over Broadcasting House, yet nobody questions these figurative representations - it seems obvious to me that 'God' is a collective amalgam and composite form of all idealised archetypes into which we project the whole of human knowledge, so how 'God' appears to any individual is a reflection of and upon that individual.
So for some it might be the laws of physics, while for others it might be a heroic prince of legend or the epitomy of a pure emotional state, whatever, it's just another Rorschach test.
Finding a proof or disproof of any deity is really missing the point of the process - what we believe (even to deny belief) is a means of identifying the self in order that we may affirm it more accurately in order that we discover/choose our purpose and are able to consciously work towards it.
If that means religiously watching Jeremy Kyle or Oprah because you think by going on the programme will help you sort your problems out, or having a poster of a pop star or sports star to inspire, or having a doll or action figure which you imbue your hopes and fears, thereby enacting situations to prepare oneself, so be it.
I actually find it funny that the science community seeks evidence to determine one way or the other, well d'uh, that's the mannerism prescribed by their method.
Everybody takes the world on their own terms, how we each do that is just a reflection of what those terms are and will help direct what they produce (scientists produce scientific products, artists art etc).
I personally hope popular opinion never swings too far in one direction or the other as that will mean the product of society will become unbalanced and lead to clashes - too much anything is bad for you, just as not enough is!
what is wrong with thinking of god as the sum of all interplay between opposing, supporting, and destroying forces at work in the universe and what lies beneath the universe?
letting god be not a being, but a state of beings and beingnesses.
OP, so you think too much rationality and truth is bad for us, do you think we need just a little "voodoo" in our lives, or maybe just at weekends?
You make it sounds like you have your own method for discovering reality which isn't "scientific" i.e. evidence based; perhaps you could explain it to a silly old scientist like me? maybe I could patent it and we could make a fortune out of "scientific products" :) And what is this "balance" you speak of, and how do you personally know what is or isn't balanced, are we in "balance" now or "dressing" to the left a little?
As someone cleverer than me once said "If something is for everything it is for nothing"
Liah, why not indeed!, why not redefine God as love, hate, water, air, cows or even taco bell; it's all the same thing really, self inoculating i.e. impossible to disagree with but I see no utility in it (see previous quotation)
On the contrary, Steve - I think the so-called rationalists aren't behaving nearly rationally enough.
It is fair to say a 'scientific' position is logically unreliable as a comprehensive answer to universal questions of existence - not least because there is still much debate at the heart of what constitutes science and the body of scientific knowledge is still growing.
In requiring a specific form of proof you pre-determine the form of solution to the question you set - in other words by judging according to your own preferred terms you necessarily produce preferred answers. Which means your argument is no more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I also think it is unsustainable for those in the avowed scientific camp to continue to criticise opponents' definitions from a position of contemptible ignorance of their beliefs.
The consequent tendency which many atheists fall prey to is to choose their evidence to fit their conclusions - which ironically calls into question the atheist commitment to evidence-based arguments.
Since logic demands that truth exists where all evidence coincides it is incumbent to settle the meta-debate and reach agreement on any terms of reference before any conclusion can be reached: you simply would not need to rely on a purely scientific form of argument if you weren't trying to confirm a specifically 'scientific' conclusion.
Amusingly, biblical authors understood this philosophical position and summarised it in a way which is still unsurpassed - 'judge not lest ye be judged'.
Judgement is not necessary where truth is apparent because that infers there is no disagreement, which accordingly means the existence of disagreement presupposes inexactitude: you may be more or less right, but any failure to reconcile all sides indicates a less than absolute - an incomplete - picture.
It is precisely the politicisation of what 'science' and 'religion' means that is the cause of disagreement - anyone who chooses to disagree does so by choice is necessarily guilty of politicising the subject.
I mean, I find it highly amusing to watch both sides freely admit to the political consequences they wish to promote as derived from their judgements, yet also listen to both deny this undermines any claim to objective disinterest.
OJ, isn't the basis of atheism (the dominant form of it, anyway) the lack of hard evidence for the supernatural?
If so, it's not up to the atheist to prove the non-existence of god, if such a thing is even logically possible. So how can atheists choose the evidence to support their position?
Or are you saying atheists are guilty of ignring evidence that would "disprove" their position, what ever that would mean? If so, to which evidence are you referring?
Sorry OP there are more straw-men here than I can shake a stick at.
Let me see if I understand your argument, you claim,
1)Science doesn’t know everything
2)Therefore religion and science are equally good ways of knowing things
Rubbish, an obvious non sequitur, they are both flawed systems of understanding the universe, religion much, much more so than science, which is why we don't fly planes designed by Bishops!
"Science pre-determines the form of the solution", please define “solution” you use slippery language to hide a glaring hole in your argument IMO; a scientific “solution” implies something that actually works in the real world, i.e. is testable; since religious “solutions” (i.e. God hates fags) cannot be tested then in what sense are they the same kinds of “solutions”?
As for Atheists not understanding beliefs, this is nonsense, the vast majority of Atheists used to be religious, they know all too well what it’s like to “believe”. Otherwise, your argument implies that there is knowledge available to the believer which is not available to the Atheist, if that is what you think then please give an example of such knowledge.
Atheists (generalising!) use any and all evidence to “fit” their conclusions; that’s what you do with evidence? I suspect you mean “cherry picking”, but in that case you need to provide examples of the “evidence” atheists don’t use to show your point and I think that’s where your argument collapses, because that stuff’s not real evidence. Also, it is trivial to turn this around and say that religion cherry picks evidence to make its conclusions, I’m sure I don’t need to provide examples of that!
You keep referring to this “other way of knowing”, so what form of argument isn’t "scientific" in the sense that it isn't made by a human brain, are you claiming that some arguments exist outside our brains?
I don’t think your Bible quote is relevant; it is a set of ideas that are being judged here not the people who hold them.
WRT Judgement, you conveniently blur the conversation at this point brining in politics and trying to make this question a "political" one whatever that means. Not so, it’s a simple question and a scientific one, either there are supernatural entities or there are not, so far, the evidence is on my side and not yours, but if any apologist or theist has new evidence they'd like to throw into the hat then don't be shy!
More slippery words, what does it mean to ask what inanimate objects "mean", what does Ayres rock "mean"?
Science knows what it is; unlike religion, there is only one version of science and it is universal regardless of culture, ethnicity, financial status or geography. Religion (or at least the current crop) on the other hand is a fragmented mess, a dangerous divisive man-made junk heap of primitive ideas that have (mostly) served out their useful purpose.
Mel, strictly speaking you are describing anti-theism, not atheism.
Steve, if you don't understand an argument you are unlikely to ever be able to argue against it in an effective way.
Firstly, you have confused the cause and effect of theoretical processes with existential canons.
Secondly, you consistently confuse fact with opinion.
Thirdly, you deliberately choose to take the narrow view of definitions in order to confirm your preferred conclusion, when the wider view would deny it.
Have you heard of the probability paradox?
As theoretical probability tends to zero the real probability remains absolute on a universal scale, which means until you can prove the chances of something are zero in all cases at all times then any confident denial based on the tendency is unreliable.
"Judge not lest ye be judged" was a warning to you, I'm afraid. You claimed it was not relevant because you were judging a set of ideas, rather than the people who hold them. I hope you appreciate the irony in your statement.
I don't think the position I described is anti-theism, which is "oppositiom to belief in god".
On the contrary, atheists are not, in general, opposed to belief in god - they are quite happy for the theists to believe anything they please.
For the atheist, the burden of proof is on the theist to provide evidence to support their beliefs if they want to win the atheist over (which it seems they often do). Given that, how is it that the atheists are cherry-picking the evidence? If you really believe this, could you cite some examples?
Steve, god is all those things you describe, love, hate, war, peace- even tacobell.
What you disbelieve in Steve is the same thing many believers believe in, a god who is a supernatural human being. Such a thing cannot exist because anything that does exist must be natural. There is no super-natural.
This for-and-against argument makes little sense. One side says "I believe in Santa Claus" and the other side says "I don't believe in Santa Claus".
I can see why the non-believers would get so upset at the believers, but neither side attempts to prove the existence of god.
Before such an experiment could be conducted there would have to be consensus on what god is. Failing that, any evidence collected could be rejected on the grounds that the wrong thing was being investigated.
It is a fruitless argument that makes both sides look silly. If atheism is superior, why does it engage in a debate that is fundamentally irrational? And why does religion engage in a debat that is framed as rational when it is clearly not?
GEEZ! can't everybody just get along? It doesn't matter that there are millions of kids believing in Santa Claus.
Mel, you may want to tell Steve that atheists are happy for anyone to believe what they want. If you really mean that he isn't one perhaps you can try telling him.
I have to admit I'm a bit confused why you're asking me to defend points I didn't make. I criticised the atheist argument of basing itself on a series of propositional fallacies - additional quantificational fallacies should only be dealt with subsequently.
I also disagree that there is any more burden of proof on theists over atheists, as the default position is by definition to be agnostic. To suggest otherwise is to tip the scales.
As it is this is just going round in circles and making everyone dizzy. I don't see any progress, nor do I see where any is likely to come from.
OP, It only goes around in circles because you guys avoid all the points and questions that are raised. As mel & I ask, what evidence do Atheists avoid?
Oh and how have you shown any argument to be based on propositional fallacies at all? You have simply asserted it from what I can see.
You guys are missing the point by a country mile here, the question of the existence of God (or not) is the foundational of the scaffold upon which rests the entire mass of divisive and harmful “faith based” thinking and activity on our planet. Now, of course you could argue that it is also the foundation for a lot of good things too and I wouldn’t disagree. If you feel as I do that the question of how we reconcile "getting along" with each other and the existence of such intolerant philosophies in the 21st century then it’s probably the 2nd most important issue human-kind faces (the 1st being climate change) If the foundations of these things can be shaken then who knows, perhaps lives might change for the better. As mel suggests, other than a vector with which to destabilise “faith” based thinking the question regarding what people actually believe or not is irrelevant, he doesn’t care, neither do I, so long as they keep it to themselves, which of course they cannot do by definition hence this blog and this conversation.
As for “progress”, from an atheist perspective there has been tremendous progress in the last few years on this issue, there are millions of blogs, web-sites, lectures, debates and campaigns publicly available now which would have been inconceivable only a few years ago, and after all we are discussing it freely and openly now, how can that be a bad thing?
And OP, you are right, the “default” position is technically agnostic, but that’s not exactly in the middle; the overwhelming weight of evidence (that you conveniently ignore in these arguments, like geology, cosmology, evolution, chemistry, physics etc.) is in favour of the atheist end of this spectrum hence the practical use of the word rather than the dictionary perfect use of it, as I think you have rightly pointed out in previous posts on this very blog, our language changes and evolves over time. But fine if it will make you happy technically I’m an agnostic (as I have said several times before), so what, it doesn’t change one single iota of evidence or thinking on this subject.
Steve, you've completely twisted the issue by conflating definitions and by attempting to put everything on your own preferred terms.
It is obvious that you have misconcieved the sense of meaning in 'faith'. 'Faith' is not specifically or exclusively reserved for religious belief, though it is often applied in this context.
Whatever you want to call it everyone has a framework of understanding, and faith or belief or implied confidence in the structural coherence of ones surroundings is a given requirement to contextualise existence and fill in for the gaps in our individual subjective knowledge.
You freely admit to your faith in material existence and yet you argue because material is 'foundational' your faith is justified - whilst arguing against all faith!
You then take the next step that it is because of some the consequences taken by people who don't subscribe to the same means of describing that framework as you that you think they are 'wrong'. But like I keep repeating existence is not axiomatic - we cannot choose that we are existing, otherwise we lose that choice!
Then again atheism cannot be inconsistent with religion since most religions have atheist sects within them - some stronger than others, and some as a central tenet of the faith.
So if you want other people to accept your terms you need to be more specific in your definitions, although then you'd have to stop going round accusing anyone of generalising (and worse) when we refer to what you intended.
All I ask for is a little consistency.
OP,
I'm not trying to be inconsistent (honest gov!) and I do understand the words you are using but I am genuinely struggling to understand the overall point you are making.
I'm not arguing about "all faith"?
For example, I have faith that my wife loves me but that's a faith based on evidence (i.e. she buys me Christmas presents) as are all "faiths" of that kind, including a faith in the material; when I say "faith" I'm talking about religious faith, surely that is obvious from the context of this conversation?
BTW when I put "(generalising)" in my previous post I was referring to me, not you, what I meant was I am about to make a generalised comment about atheists not that you were generalising.
Your argument (I think?) is about the subtle meanings of words and the scintilla of a possibility of a Deity unweighed against the mountain of evidence to the contrary. In simpler language, a "paper based" probability rather than a real one. My argument is about the practicalities of living peacefully with people intent on making "bad" (let's not call them wrong, if that is your objection) decisions based on false and imagined instructions from magic entities or corrupt clergymen (or indeed huckster scientists like L. Ron Hubbard et al)
I fully accept your point about "understanding the argument", however I feel it would only be a valid one if we weren't dealing with an unfalsifiable position like religious faith which is why I am confused why you make it so strongly? For example, what would be the point of trying to comprehend the significance of Venus rising for a Scorpio born on the apogee of Mars when I can simply point to evidence dismissing the entire practice of Astrology?
Hopefully consistent :)
It looks like Mr. Oj is winning this one hands down
Liah, well he kicks your butt regularly enough .... ;)
If anybody thinks there are any winners and losers in this thing then I've lost.
Steve, the point about 'evidence' seems to have been lost, so let me try again.
Any conclusions that can be drawn from whatever evidence is presented for or against the existence of a deity depends entirely on what the definition of 'deity' that is under consideration at that moment.
From my reading of the debate as framed here I can see some major confusion over the matter which I think needs to be cleared up.
In the classical world monarchs (such as the six caesars) were regularly deified during their lifetimes, so the term began to be used interchangably as a form of 'higher king'.
Typically the enduring representational figure of paricular deified monarchs created a godhead as an example of the particular incidence of the course of that reign, which, when merged with the practices of imperial cult to take on the appearance of unquestioning authoritarian dogma that creates the commonly understood meaning of today.
For example the old testament Nimrod is commonly identified as the Sumerian king Sargon the Great, who laid waste to the semitic lands during the Abrahamic period. His followers named themselves Sargon hoping that some of the magic would rub off, just as the Tudor Henry's named their sons.
The tradition continues and can be seen with with the naming of the pope, which indicates the scholastic tradition to be followed (Benedictine theology is normally considered orthodox and conservative).
So in many senses the ability to wield worldly power by proxy is comparable to the supernatural forces ascribed to modern 'gods'.
Clearly we need to be far more explicit about precisely what form of powers are being described before anybody starts making any sorts of claims one way or the other.
So while traditional religious texts ordinarily make meta-physical references of essence or character and 'spirit', the modernist atheist (in the marxian tradition) makes materialist references in-keeping with the physical sciences.
Understanding at least this single distinction in the definitions of usage enables both sides to be reconciled much more neatly and provides a much deeper explanation of what is at stake.
I mean, creation myths of the pre-modern age almost universally culminate in the founding of the political state which the state religion justified and reinforced, but since the enlightenment the study of history has enabled us to see much farther back in time and deeper into space, so we've translated the narrative structure into a means to explain the big bang (if that is indeed what happened).
In other words we are arguing both historiography and theology here.
So, like I say to any bible basher who approaches me in Broad Street - you tell me what you mean by 'god' and I'll tell you whether I can agree with that.
I have plenty of problems with religious doctrine, how religious institutions are constituted and the way they operate, but I've always been fascinated that religious building hold the relics of significant figures - apparantly Reading Abbey kept the foreskin of Jesus and the hand of Apostle James... relics... religion... it's supposed to be about maintaining the best standards in a cultural tradition.
http://www.britannia.com/history/berks/rdgrelic.html
Is that foreskin still around?
You know what we can do with cloning technology these days!
But to get back to our regularly scheduled programme...
Even according to a dictionary definition, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god - not someone who tries to disprove her existence, which I'm not sure is logically possible anyway.
What I'm trying to say (and, I think, Steve as well) is that the default position is to not believe in anything unless there is evidence for it. If it were otherwise, I'd have bought a lot of timeshares by now.
To push the analogy further than I probably should, I don't care how many people believe sales pitches for timeshares, provided they don't my taxes don't go to support them and provided they don't assert their superiority over me because I don't own one.
Jesus’ foreskin!! what a wonderful piece of local trivia, I wonder if they checked to see if it floated... :)
I would be daft to disagree with you that there aren’t many, many different manifestations of the idea of “God”, as you say, figure head, father, mother, love, light etc. I would even go further than you and say that there are probably as many different ones as there are human brains where the meme has taken up residence.
I think we’re getting to the crux of this thread, I believe you hit the nail on the head when you bring the word “evidence” onto the field, I think my point of confusion is why your definition of “evidence” includes "faith" based ideas?
When you say “whatever evidence is presented for or against the definition of ‘Deity’” this comment leads me to believe that you think that there actually IS evidence for a Deity or even the definition of one. Since there never has been any that that would conform to my normal definition of this term, i.e. as would be used in a court of law or in a scientific theory I have to conclude that either you know of evidence I do not OR that your definition of evidence is different from mine in that I constrain myself to empirical evidence.
Mel touched on this also, in that we all use empirical “evidence” in everyday life to validate the “truth” of things, like a bad time-share deal etc. (unless you are a banker who buys collateralised debt of course! ;). I can only assume that you are admitting “some other kind” of evidence that I would probably not consider to be evidence at all, i.e. revelation, dreams or perhaps instinct? This thought underpins my point, i.e. I don’t need to concern myself with the “definition” or the meaning of deities or religions because they are all based on a common predicate, i.e. you can know things without “evidence”, my contention is that this predicate is false because the evidence of our experience and ALL of the natural sciences attest to this.
My problem as an atheist is that I cannot prove this other than "beyond reasonable doubt"; however it’s a hollow victory for theists because I can't actually prove anything, and neither can they as you pointed out earlier. I can just say that balance of proof is massively tipped in my favour.
I would also point out that the Big Bang theory has plenty of empirical “evidence”, for example red shift, CMB, light element distribution, galaxy evolution etc. It is in no way similar or analogous to a creation myth like Genesis which has none; to think that its a corollary of faith based thinking is to misunderstand the nature and content of a formal scientific theory like this.
Like I said Steve, you're making a lot of assumptions and taking them all for granted because you've already reached your own conclusions. But clearly you prefer to derrogate to an epistemological debate on the nature of proof in order to justify flinging accusations around rather than explain any difference of opinion regarding the conception of this singular reality we share.
I'm quite amused by the level of your certainty in the 'big bang' theory, especially as it raises several significant questions you don't address (eg what came before it? what is quantum gravity?).
I also find it illustrative that you resort to dependence on dicotomous positions to justify your faith in progress. Obviously you think progress is a fixed position and there is a finite limit to the amount of potential knowledge.
But back to Jesus' foreskin. Interestingly it was given to HenryI in order to raise doubt about the purity of his jewishness, which gives a whole new realm of justification to philosophy of christian theology.
In practice it was the prime piece of evidence in the legal case which the Byzantines used to offer the patriarchate of Jerusalem to the King of England and start the first crusade, and effectively it had been offered as a standing prize for whoever made a defence of that crumbling empire.
Technically it marks the period around the great schism when chistianity made the transition from an earthly force into a heavenly realm. However there is reason to believe the Byzantine state justification was based on evidence (somewhat circumstantial by today's standards) that Jesus actual father was Roman, which springs back to Constantine's conversion and his codification of the biblical sources in order to promote that conclusion (there are literally thousands of hints to the identity peppered through the texts).
So we must understand the Christian religion in terms of Constantine's personal theology and the political ideology this represents and any disputation of the conception as was formulated in this is merely to disagree with those politics.
This brings me back to the word 'meme', which is no more than a synonym of 'politics'.
What anybody believes is a matter of subjective choice - it can be no other - though whether that choice is consciously made or imposed through passivity is a different matter entirely.
Therefore drawing conclusions about the existence or otherwise of 'god' is not the point of the exercise. To do so identifies the psychological uncertainties each person identifies and grapples for comprehension with.
But by asking questions about the nature of reality we find those mechanisms which help inform and improve the decision-making processes.
If I'm honest I have to admit I do look down my nose at anyone who is either prepared to take a side or who tries to create division in society by forcing other people to take sides on the matter of existence except as a matter of expediency - necessity is the father of all doubt and Frank Zappa formed the mothers of invention. As He said: it's a cosmic joke, man!
For me there is no question of what we see around us.
The only questions are why and how we see what's around us - which can be refined indefinitely.
So to understand the origins of dispute you really need to look back and undertand the mechanisms of knowledge formation. The paradox is created where shifts in comprehension begin, so anyone here should really be actively conscious of the cultural limitations inherent in the means of expressing ourselves (particularly linguistically) according to common reference points.
In the Constantine tradition of trinitarianism we can see how he instituted the mess when he established a unified tradition from the Roman, Greek and Jewish origins, which had borrowed words from each other to create new conceptual ideas and allowed overlapping meanings according to usage.
English is particularly wonderful for integrating languages too, but the word I love is 'logos', which can be translated equally according to different philosophic schools into 'law', 'science', 'god', 'holy spirit', 'word', 'sybmol' (among other things) - I think it was Jung who joked "each logos has its' own logic".
Anyway, as a linguist I get a thrill when people use similar words in different ways - a good recent one was how the ubiquity of misogyny has now enabled it to encompass meanings of misandry and is increasingly gender neutral - our certainty has so much to answer for!
Post a Comment