thanks for understanding, Melanchonika.
You're right, it is easy to see from
your previous posts that you meant just
the opposite of "my truth, right or wrong."
And after i posted, i realized i said the same
thing you did, just in different words.
Thanks for being tolerant.
I remember when the astronomers decided to hold
a meeting on whether pluto would remain a planet,
or get demoted to orbiting rock status. and I
pointed the article out to my son. And I asked him
"Imagine you're a PhD in astronomy. And you have to go to a conference
with other smart people. The topic is 'What label do
we put on this rock orbiting the sun?' How would you feel
about that?" I know i was laughing inside, thinking
of this conference room with PhD's having a heated
debate on this topic. One angry physicist declaring
with unwavering conviction "Pluto is NOT a planet!" and a different
physicist taking the opposite opinion with the same determination.
And i tried to figure out the political motivations that would
drive these physicists to hold such a strong opinion on the labeling
of this rock. And these political motivations would be masked with
scientific 'reasons'. And the 'reasons' held by the opposing
viewpoint holder would be dismissed as irrelevant.
I know I'd be in the back of the room, not really caring,
yet having to seem like I care, cuz it's my job.
And wondering how all the difficult studies in physics had come down
to topics so childish.
And I remember when the catholic pope declared the
catholic idea of 'limbo' to be reversed.
Limbo is where non-baptized infants go, like a waiting room
for heaven. Since only baptized people go to heaven,
the thought-leaders had to create something to appease the faithful
who miscarried.
Well, the pope has decided that this idea, created 1500 years ago,
is now incorrect.
I was curious, how did he come to that conclusion?
What evidence did he use?
Or does he feel the whole concept of limbo is silly,
and he just used his power position to reverse the concept.
And how did he convince the other senior people of the catholic
church to accept his idea?
And since he did decide that a church 'truth' is now incorrect,
does he feel that ALL catholic doctrine, even christian doctrine,
exists as states of belief that can be changed as new individuals see fit?
I'm sure he remembers the 15th century pope declaring that
the earth revolves around the sun, and burning heretics who
challenged the earth-is-the-center idea.
An idea that is now accepted as true by the church.
I see the meeting of strong-willed individuals who pursued
astronomy as their career the same as the strong-willed
priests who pursued catholicism.
Both are just groups of people, fighting over concepts.
Unprovable concepts.
thanks for tolerating my rant :-)