Nomadic Thoughts

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing this as a good study.

For instance, she writes something akin to what you've written: "Trying to understand how an atheist or theist thinks without actually being one or the other is incoherent and ultimately impossible. In other words, you'll never find a Christian that fully agrees with an atheist's characterization of Christianity and vice versa."

It's not impossible, for if it were, then social science wouldn't be possible at all. And, if one believes social science is possible, just that understanding between these two groups is impossible, then this has to be demonstrated and not taken-for-granted

In other words, you'd have to posit that, WRT this particular sphere of social life, there is something completely different at work -- a departure from the way the rest of social life works -- and you'd have to lay out some very basic ontological descriptions and explanations for why this is so.

But, this would be performatively contradicted by the informal study to which you point. After all, she is claiming that she understands them and understands their language.

So, understanding isn't the problem. What she seems to be pointing at is that reconciliation and agreement isn't possible with regard to this issue. And, she may also be concerned that while atheists try to take the time to understand (sometimes -- and I've seen plenty who do not), the people she encounters on message boards and the like do not.

The problem with this informal study, to my mind, is that it takes place in places that have been specifically carved out for religious adherents to meet (at least as described at the blog).

Not surprisingly, peeople are not interested in conversations about thing with which they have no interest. Were they interested in dialogue between atheists and thesists, they'd be in such a space.

If I'm a feminist, and I'd like a place to discuss those issues and how we can go about solving problems of interest to us, then the last thing I really want is to have to deal with people who are there simply to try to argue us out of our feminism or mock or ridicule. It's a time sink and, ultimately, pointless since the person's come to the forum -- or so it appears to the established group -- simply to troll and start fights. They aren't _interested_ in listening to the other side and learning from them -- and vice versa.

So, to me, a better study would have been one where people are either there to have cross-camp dialogue OR go to spaces that ostensibly discuss some other issue, where there is likely to be both theists and non-theists. A feminist discussion group for isntance. A conservative discussions group. Any place where people are united for some other reason and where they _do_ have a common language about something ohter than religious belief or lack thereof.

anyway, this is long enough.

Enjoy your classes this semester.

"Bitch" points out that she has a hard time with this "study". The author herself admits that it is hardly sound in it's results. However I have found, much like she, these are in fact the responses one gets when discussing the subject matter.

I find this to be very interesting and would like to see it taken further, sampling a larger group. That would be a daunting and tedious task however.

Thanks for the info Will. It might be worth discussing on the new forum (http://blog.markbillings.us/forum).

Mark-Backfill