User talk:David Hockey

VfD on Developing A Universal Religion
David,

First of all, I want to thank you for coming to Wikibooks and publishing original content here. I added a longer and more detailed explaination about what should happen to this Wikibook you have been working on. Keep in mind that by publishing on Wikibooks you are asking for other people to come and change the content... potentially to something very different from what you originally intended to write. If you don't mind that happening with what you have left here, Wikibooks is the best forum for you to try and exchange your ideas. While not apparent from just poking around on a few pages, contributing to Wikibooks is a very social experience and you will get to meet people with a very wide variety of opinions, backgrounds, and philosophies.

Thank you also for introducing a theological Wikibook to this project. Of just about any subject, this is one that can be incredibly controversial. Keep in mind that what we (other active contributors) are trying to do is raise the standards of this project to give more credibility to what we are doing here.

With whatever happens, don't take criticisms about your book personally. We really do apreciate all attempts to add content to this project, and you have certainly added a real series of books here. It is my objective to help you out and make these books successful. I see that you have end notes to each chapter, and perhaps some of the casual readers are not aware of the citations you are using to back up your claims. The NPOV (Neutral Point of View) is perhaps one of the hardest things to learn how to write here on any Wikimedia project, particularly if you have written with a strong POV in the past. Vent your ideas on the discussion pages, and give an idea for where you are going with a particular module. Discussion pages also tend to have a stronger POV on them although I have seen some very successful content be very well written as a result of trying to mesh together various points of view into something more universal.... which seems to be the point of your book anyway.

Again, thanks for being on Wikibooks, and I hope that you are willing to contribute to other worthwhile projects as well. --Rob Horning 16:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Rob:

Thank you for your nice comments. I do understand that anyone can edit and change what I have written. I very much like this idea and hope that editing can improve what has been written. I don’t even mind if the consensus is to completely change the book’s focus: if that is what people of the world think is best, then it is OK with me.

But, if the vote is to delete the last part (Developing A Universal Religion), could I offer to send a [free] email copy to anyone requesting it? (And, again, letting the majority make the decision about the legitimacy of making such an offer.) David H 14:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I don’t know if replying in my User Talk is the best way to reply to you, so I’ll send a copy of this to your email address. David

Candidates for speedy deletion
I removed speedy deletion notice, I thing it was a mistake from me. Poeple should decide about this book at VFD. --Derbeth talk 22:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Derbeth. David

David H 22:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism
I've started reading your book. It's interesting as far as I have read but slightly marred by what seem to be some slightly careless statements regarding world opinion and world resources. I've added notes to the talk pages of the pages I read, Developing A Universal Religion/1. Why Bother?/3. Why Do Anything?, Developing A Universal Religion/1. Why Bother?/1. Why Develop A Universal Purpose?. I'm using the word criticism in its most neutral meaning here. --kwhitefoot 22:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned pages
You can always mark page for deletion: just insert delete template. --Derbeth talk 16:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please comment
Please comment on a book of yours at VfD. See Thinking And Moral Problems, Religions And Their Source, Purpose, and Developing A Universal Religion. Thanks -- LV (Dark Mark) 14:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the email, LV. I have noted what I think on the VfD. David Hockey 15:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What is this about, please?
THe following was added to my user page, but I do not understand why, or what it means. So I have moved it here. Can someone tell me why it was put on my user page, please. (Worse, they used my name and entered it as though it were me entering it!) David Hockey 20:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It must have been a stupid joke or something. In future, just delete such text. --Derbeth talk 21:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks. But is anyone able to enter revisions using my signature/name? David Hockey 15:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Major rewrite proposed
I was reading some of you work on consciousness, in particular Moral Decisions. Although I agree on many positions you've advocated, you seem to have missed the boat on this page. Do you have any basis for asserting that the non-religious (whether subconsciously or consciously) adopt a random metaphysical purpose to live by? I don't think that sounds plausible, and contradicts much of contemporary thinking (at least so far as I'm aware). I've proposed a re-write on the talk page - it's not terribly detailed, but I've outlined some of the positions I'd be advocating, and the sources I may use. Please comment on my interpretation of what you've written, and your thoughts on the changed I'd like to make. I plan on reading thought the sections concerning neuroscience in more detail and making changes there as well.  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 02:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Mike.


 * Moral problems and practical problems are both, simply, problems. (With moral problems being defined by the mind of an individual, whereas practical problems are defined by the environment outside of the individual.)


 * To solve any problem “satisfactorily” the solution must achieve the purpose sought. Thus, to send people to Mars, all the practical problems that reality (i.e., the universe) confronts us with have to be solved. And each of these smaller practical problems will have a purpose to be accomplished. I.e., all practical problems are solved by accomplishing/achieving a purpose.


 * Surely “moral” problems must be solved in a similar fashion? Are there any “moral” problems that are solved by not meeting a purpose?


 * But, if the solution to a practical problem is to be “satisfactory,” then it must work within the confines of reality—the universe.


 * However, the solution of a “moral” problem is “satisfactory” (to the individual posing the moral problem) if it works within the confines of the individual’s mind. That individual correctly states that he/she has solved the moral problem (whereas others might agree or disagree, depending upon what they think in their minds).


 * Thus, I do not think that there can be a Universal Morality.


 * “Do you have any basis for asserting that the non-religious (whether subconsciously or consciously) adopt a random metaphysical purpose to live by?”


 * No, I don’t think that a “random metaphysical purpose” would be much use to anyone!


 * But I do think that a carefully worded metaphysical purpose is needed if a global civilization is to survive. I try to give reasons for asserting this in Part Four: Developing a Universal Religion.


 * David Hockey 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you certainly seem to make the case for that conclusion rather concisely - that people with no religion must adopt "some" (read: "any" or "any random") purpose by which to live. If that's not what you meant, I suggest you rewrite it yourself, since that's how it comes off.
 * Surprisingly, your comments above seem to be implying a sort of moral relativism: "If it's OK in your own mind than that's all that matters." Well, I don't think that's true, and neither would anyone who seriously understands morality. Eichmann may not have been an antisemite, but we still hung him - and with good reason.
 * I may simply start a book on moral philosophy instead of rewriting that section of your book. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Mike, I do not think that people must adopt a purpose by which to live. I am sure that most people do not do this.


 * But I do contend that moral decisions must be solved in the same way that practical decisions are solved. Of course, their “environment” differs (that’s why we try to solve them in different ways.)


 * And I do think that, if one wants a “satisfactory” solution to any problem, moral or practical, then some “satisfactory” result must be obtained. It is this desired result that constitutes the “purpose” one must have.  David Hockey 14:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)