| [ Christian ] in KIDS 글 쓴 이(By): parsec ( 먼 소 류 ) 날 짜 (Date): 2001년 12월 1일 토요일 오전 04시 25분 40초 제 목(Title): Re: 데리다의 해체론과 성경의 이해 Huahh. That's your way of defining and understanding the belief. which yields the different conclusion from mine. I didn't choose to believe while logical thinking is possible, but you are insisting me to choose to believe although I can use my logic. --> When did I? YOU presented your belief in miracle as your example of the non-confliction of logic and belief. So I wanted to see the logic which was peacefully co-existing with the belief. But you had no logic to show me and now you grumble and erroneously say that I insisted you to believe even when logic is available. Now also you say you do not believe when logic can be used. Why not (according to your thought that logic and belief do not conflict)? I'm not(and I cannot) requiring you to. But I wish to know why you don't believe when logic is availble if the two do not conflict? I think I am not what you think I am. You can follow what you think you should be. Conclusion: I think the key difference is, you think: we can use our logic for everything. --> When did I? My thought is that you cannot call it logical when you get to the conclusion without using logic(whether it is possible or not). And it is NOT requesting to be logical on everything. In real life, we cannot apply logic on every decision. But in that case, I don't call it logical because the illogical act was inevitable. I think: there's somthing we cannot use logic. --> And you think you are not illogical when you do not use logic on deciding something that cannot be decided by logic. This is the difference between our lines of thought. This difference make our conclusion different. I believe miricle without any conflict of my logic and I don't think it is illogical. --> There you go! You can also choose not to believe miracle(though I don't insist to) without any conflict with your "logic". Only you chose to believe and there's no logic. I call it illogical according to the definition of the word 'illogical'. You said I was illogical in saying that logic and belief conflict each other, saying there's some case that logic and belief co-exist. But your 'example' of the co-existence of logic and belief had no logic in it. (If you want to be logical, you don't believe any miracle because it is illogical, right? If believe, you think you are illogical.) --> My thought: logical process (and its conclusion if any)is not an act of believing. and beliving is no logical process. thus they conflict. Clear? And is it clear that I do not insist you to accept this thought of mine? We'd better quit the threds at this point. You can add your oppinion on our difference. Keep you way, I will never mind your conclusions at least in you opinion about belief and logic although it sounds strange to me. --> You have already minded. Anyway it was a fruitful conversation because I learned that you think logic and belief do not make conflict if they are far away enough from each other. :) ◇ ~~~_ _ ∴ ~|~| | _/__, SEP. 11. 2001 _ ∴∴ _ ~ | | ＼ ` Armorica under a tat ,-| `,-,_| |__ | | | A ______|_|__|_|___|__|| | |__|_|_____________________________________ |