By BlogSpot Thinker
January 8, 2011
(Revised October 18, 2011)
This blog functions as a FAQ: a repository of frequently asked questions or frequently referenced concepts.
A primary BlogSpot Thinker goal is the facilitation of dialog, the exchange of perspectives and an increase in understanding of, with and for the local, national and global community. This blog series is not intended to steer readers toward specific positions on issues but rather to examine issues in order to identify important, yet underconsidered aspects of those issues with which readers can inform their own perspectives.
Definitions: Faith, God and Religion
Faith, appears interchangeably used to refer to both belief in God and, perhaps, more secularly, to the acceptance of a perspective in the absence of irrefutable proof. The intended writing convention appears to be to use the terms “faith” and “belief in God” independently, rather than interchangeably so that “faith” is used to refer to acceptance of a perspective in the absence of irrefutable proof.
Another important distinction appears to be drawable between the terms "God" and "religion". In my use of the term "God", I refer to the entity without further description. In using the term "religion", I refer to humankind's understandings regarding God. Multiple, varying and, sometimes, seemingly conflicting understandings about God seem to exist.
The BlogSpotThinker writing style appears reasonably considered to employ a formal tone. There are several well-intended purposes for use of this formal writing and discussion style.
One writing style that appears to suggest formality appears to be use of a conceivably large number of grammatical modifiers. The intention appears to be to convey concept detail and nuance regarding the apparently potentially complex concepts being discussed. These concepts appear to potentially have many subtle, yet quite material, parameters which, if not specified, appear to be reasonably considered capable of undermining context recognition and effective analysis.
One apparently typical use of grammatical modifiers intends to effect highly conservative presentation of perspectives. The intent is not for these writings to be presented as authoritative knowledge, but rather, as layman’s perspective offered for possible review. The perspectives might constitute ground-breaking insight or only exploratory conjecture. The conservative tone appears to be intended to help the reader avoid confusing one with the other.
This writing convention employs the term “appear” and its variations to remind readers that a perspective is presented as fallible, rather than authoritative, perspective, presented, nonetheless, in good faith. Written reference to “an assertion”, for example, might receive more scrutiny when referred to as “an apparently reasonable assertion” or a “possibly reasonable assertion”. The scrutiny appears to be a valuable asset to this type of discussion.
The phrase “appears to be reasonably considered to be…” appears to be intended to convey a good-faith report of, at least, the appearance of reasonableness as based upon (a) the perspective of the author and (b) the author’s recollection of apparent reports regarding the general public perspective.
Another writing convention appears to use terminology that might be reasonably considered to be formal in order to connote the context of a professional level of focus upon the issues, despite the apparently, generally voluntary nature of participation in the discussions, rather than an unfocused exchange of, perhaps, less substance. One example appears to be the use of the term “submit” rather than “offer” or “give”.
In addition, the BlogSpotThinker writing style is intended to convey to readers a posture of civility toward and respect for the commenters and their comments, regardless of level of agreement.
One example of such formality appears to be general convention of referring to (a) comment posts via timestamp (i.e., BlogSpotThinker 09/25/2011 09:00am), the ideas contained therein and third person references rather than (b) first person references such “you” and “I”. Timestamp reference appears to be reasonably considered to facilitate location and review of referenced comments. In addition, use of third-person reference appears to be reasonably considered to minimize the apparently general human tendency for first-person reference to more likely be perceived as addressing person, ego and self-worth rather than comments and issues. This hopefully minimized involvement of ego appears to be generally considered to maximize discussion benefit and minimize potential discussion interference.
The BlogSpotThinker discussion-quality writing conventions appear reasonably considered to be more tedious to both write and read than a less formal writing style. However, in consideration of the apparent gravity of the issues being addressed and of the apparent importance that the highest quality of study and discussion be afforded these issues, the benefit (from this perspective, at least), appears reasonably considered to be worth the effort.