rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/14/85)
}> What makes you think that evidence used to analyse non-religious phenomena }> also applies to religious phenomena? [DUBUC] } }What is the difference between "non-religious phenomena" and "religious }phenomena"? Aren't you ASSUMING a difference to exist? Aren't you assuming }your conclusion: that there is some sort of fundamental difference? [ROSEN] > I think there is a difference. Maybe I am assuming it. Aren't you assuming > there isn't; assuming your conclusion? [DUBUC] Shall I "GRRRR!" again? Again, I'm NOT assuming in advance that there IS such a difference. > I think the concept of God we are talking about implies a difference. Thus you are a priori making the assumption about a concept of god and THEN claiming that that concept *implies* a difference. I agree. It does. But then, it *is* another a priori assumption. > If we are talking about a supernatural God I wouldn't include him in the > natural. If we are talking about a natural one, then let's quit here. I > don't believe one exists either. Well, I'll ask again: define supernatural as being distinct from natural. If you define it based on human observational capabilities (that which we can't see), realize that that's hopelessly bogus since 1) the boundaries of observation change with time and technology and 2) it's anthropocentric to claim that that which we can't see IS different from that which we can. > You spent a lot of time GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRing at me in this article, insisting > that I was wrong to say thay you were defending the assumption that there > is no God. Look at the words I capitalized in your first paragraph. Sounds > like you're trying to validate that assumption to me. Read again the last sentence in that paragraph: | The *possibility* that it may exist is left open, but such a possibility | evinces itself if and only if evidence is presented to support it. [ROSEN] }Important point here. Attributing something to "natural but as yet unexplained }causes" seems to be a more rational step than attributing it to god. Unless }of course you assume god in advance. I mean, who is jumping to conclusions, }the one who says "I'm not sure what the cause of that is but let's investigate" }or the one who says "I know what the cause is--it's god!!!"? > It may be a more rational step to you, but it seems to involve the assumption > that God wasn't the cause (because you assume he doesn't exist? > GRRR! I know.) I honestly don't think you do know. It's more rational because it FAILS to make use of an unproven assumption in its analysis. By removing as many unproven assumptions as possible from your precepts in analyzing a phenomenon/situation, you ipso facto get closer to the truth. Do you understand what I'm saying here? > "As yet unexplained causes" is a catch-all for anything you can't explain. As defined by the Department of Redundancy Department. :-) > So what kind of evidence do you want for the existence of God that won't fit > into this catch-all? ... > > The problem I'm trying to point out is that you demand evidence, but what > conceivable evidence would suffice for you? ... > > OK, Rich, why don't you just tell me what your criteria are so I don't have > to guess? I thought you wanted some kind of physical evidence. What kind? Again, I'm not the one demanding evidence for anything. You are the one who seems to be trying to postulate what evidence would be needed to convince me (for whatever reason). I'm simply choosing not to jump to conclusions about those "as yet unexplained things". }> If God is not a machine but has a will for those who beleive in him, then why }> should he be concerned about just proving the mere fact of his existence to }> everyone? [WHY, INDEED!!] If he did, what is to prevent them from saying, }> "OK, God exists. So What?". There is no gaurentee that people will follow }> the implications of his existence or even understand them. They might as }> well not believe. } }What is WRONG with their saying "OK, God exists. So what?". You seem to }be making some assumptions about precisely what the "implications" are }in advance, and about whether or not there will be any [implications]. }Why should we worry about "preventing" them? "They might as well not believe." }You are claiming some sort of knowledge of what is required of people if they }learned of the existence of god, are you not? > Well, the God I believe in has implications for that beleif. I don't think > I am under any constraint to support the existence of any other God. I don't > believe there is any other God. Yes, the god you believe in. In the very questions you ask in "}>" paragraph above ("If god is not a machine...") lie the in-advance presumptions about god's nature. Your analysis of the "possibilities of godness" are based on those presumptions you make above about god's nature. You make it seem like the "implications" you mention are a *given*, not a result of analysis of evidence or of possibilities of god. Thus it would seem that you are presuming them in advance as part of your belief system: there is a god, and it is like this. If you start off with those tenets as assumptions rather than reaching them as conclusions based on analysis, then THAT is wishful thinking: you believe those tenets because you WANT to. }> The whole point if the previous long paragraph is that I could take }> any concieveable "evidence" that meets your criterion for viability and }> "skepticize" it. } }The whole point of most of what I've been writing on the subject is that *you* }(and others) DO accept any conceivable evidence and ignore less presumptive }(what you might call skeptical) possibilities in favor of what you choose to }believe. > I don't exclude God's existence, if that's what you mean. What I mean is that you don't consider the possibility of a universe in which there is no god or in which god is not of the form you perceive it to be. Earlier, I mentioned that such possibilities (especially the absence of something extraordinary as part of an unproven assumption) is a more rational point to start from in analysis. }> You assume your own framework for interpreting evidence allows you to draw }> valid conclusions. What constitutes evidence of a "viable" nature? To me }> and you, it may be different things. ... You assume that the explanation }> that is consistent with your worldview is correct. } }The "worldview" is formed by the conclusions, not the other way around. }In religious belief, it would seem to be quite the other way around. > A chicken-and-egg problem. How do you draw conclusions without an > interpretive framework (worldveiw)? I think its OK to say the conclusions > modify one's worldview, but I doubt whether they can be said to produce it. On the contrary, a worldview formed before such rational interpretation is bound to be laced with erroneousness and presumptiveness. The "framework" you speak of may be summed up in rationality, reasoned logic, and the scientific method, which I contend are not the demons you might perceive but rather things that you yourself would readily use in analysis, precisely because they simply offer the best available means of analysis: not just themselves, but those methods that can be shown to offer equal rigor and accuracy. > I still don't see how your criteria are less presumptive. You think they > are stricter. I think they are narrowed to exclude the possibility of God's > existence. On the contrary (again), as I mention above, they involve working from fewer unproven and preconception-laced assumptions. Which is by its very nature bound to be more accurate. > I've speculated on God's non-existence myself. So I guess you > would have to agree that I don't have a vested interest in His existence. > Actually I see a lot of advantages to his non-existence (short-term, but > that's all I'd care about if God didn't exist). It sounds like your speculations seem a trifle biased. Are you saying that advantages would include things like freedom to do what you want without fear of god, while disadvantages would include the absence of heaven (et al)? I'm assuming (you didn't offer the results of those speculations, so it's the best I can do at the moment), but it would seem that your speculations may be based on things like "What if all the things I assume about god did not exist?" and then making value judgments about their worth in their envisioned absence. -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr