Re: OT: Naked Ladies and other equally "godly" things

It is always a joy to discuss important ideas with thoughtful, polite 
individuals, and the posts of both Tom and Rosalie reveal them as such. 
In the same kind and gentle spirit with which they communicated, I would 
like to continue the discussion a little further without having it to 
take on the adversarial aspect of a debate.

Tom's Luther analogy offers a good illustration of a type of reasoning 
fallacy, but its application in this case is not clear. There are two 
different types of fallacies of logic or critical thinking that deal 
with group membership - one wrongly applies group characteristics to 
individuals and the other wrongly applies individual characteristics to 
a group. First, because I believe certain characteristics are true of a 
group, I believe all people in that group have that characteristic. That 
is commonly known as stereotyping, and most people recognize it. The 
second type of fallacy is similar, but subtly different. Because I 
believe that an individual has a certain characteristic, and I know that 
that individual is a member of a group, I believe that all members of 
that group have the same characteristic. That is not exactly the same 
thing as stereotyping - more like "negative extrapolation" or perhaps 
"guilt by association".  Tom believed I was guilty of this second error 
of thinking because he maintained I was assuming that Doris was 
criticizing Christianity (perhaps he really meant *all Christians*) when 
he believed she was really only criticizing a small sub-group (a group 
he characterizes as "churchy" (Doris's term), pious, and aggressive in 
"forcing their beliefs".  It may well be that I misinterpreted Doris' 
comments. She has not replied, so I do not know. I felt she was mainly 
speaking about her former mother-in-law individually, but I do feel she 
implied that that lady's faults were characteristic of "card-carrying, 
Bible-toting churchgoers", a phrase that seemed disparaging to me and 
might indicate that perhaps Doris was falling into the very logic trap 
of which Tom accuses me.

Luther's criticism of the corrupt policies and misinterpretations of the 
Catholic Church leadership, as Tom correctly points out, did not imply 
that Christianity as a faith was in error, nor the majority of 
Christians guilty of the same things as the leadership. Since he 
considered himself a Christian and his goals were to return the Church 
to functions and policies specified in Scripture and thus benefit 
Christianity, I would suspect that few (other than those accused) would 
make the error of assuming that Luther was anti-Christian. It is not 
clear that today's popular criticism of "churchy" people has the same 
lofty goal as Luther.

I stated before that I felt Doris' comments were an example of the now 
common practice of people being less sensitive to the feelings of 
Christians than other groups. Though I acknowledge that both Tom and 
Rosalie were not hostile in their posts, let me use their own choice of 
words to illustrate my point further. First, the use of the word 
"churchy": I think this is surely intended as a negative adjective and 
denigrates all meanings of the word church to Christians (the universal 
group of Christian believers, the local congregation, and the house of 
worship where Christians gather). Next, notice the use of the word 
"pious" and even "overly pious" as negative when referring to 
Christians. While I recognize that this word's secondary definition can 
have negative connotations of hypocrisy, its primary meaning is "having 
or exhibiting reverence and earnest compliance in the observation of 
religion". Why would this word, which should generally be used as a 
compliment, rather be turned around as a put-down? If using the primary 
definition, how can one be *overly* pious? Too much zeal for God? 
Hmmmm...Some of us think there is no such thing. :-)  And finally, why 
are vocal Christians characterized as "forcing their beliefs on other 
people"? Other religions, such as Islam, truly "force their beliefs" to 
the point of death for apostates, and sometimes all "infidels", yet it 
is Christians who are routinely condemned for proselytizing too 
aggressively.

Again, let me reiterate that I truly believe Doris, Tom, and Rosalie 
meant no harm to anyone, but I do believe that all their posts serve to 
prove my contention.

I'm done. I hope I have stated my view effectively and convincingly, but 
in any case, I promise I'll try not to extend this thread any 
further..... ;-)

Bill Wells (who just received his order from Superstition Gardens and is 
very pleased with it indeed...<VBG>


tomd@cals.lib.ar.us wrote:

> Hello Talkers:
>
> While I enjoyed Bill Wells response to Doris on the "churchy" posting, I
> believe he misinterpreted her comments.   I re-read Doris' posting, and I
> concluded she in no way disparaged Christianity ...she criticized 
> "churchy"
> people, the pious folks who are always going around trying to force their
> "beliefs" on other people.
>
> To assume that Doris was criticizing Christianity is analogous to assuming
> that Luther was anti-Christian for criticizing early Catholic Church
> leadership.
>
> I can't speak for Doris (who does a pretty good job herself), but I 
> believe
> she was merely disassociating herself from some specific sanctimonious
> comments.
>
> Bill, this is no more a criticism of you than your posting was of 
> Doris...I
> believe both of you were posting your sincere, well intentioned beliefs.
>
> I vote for Naked Ladies....but  Surprise Lilies is OK too.
>
> Tom
>
> Tom W. Dillard, Curator
> Butler Center for Arkansas Studies
> Central Arkansas Library System
> 100 Rock Street
> Little Rock, Arkansas  72201
> (501) 918-3054
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1707632694:HM/A=1155069/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-302> 
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index