rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) (02/08/85)
> Various reasons why people believe in God. > Note: Even though I use the first person below, I do not claim > that all of the reasons listed below are airtight (I made this > statement in the original article, but Pesmard conveniently didn't > quote that part; in a 335 line article, one would think that nothing > would be left out). The "335-line article" was, with the addition of bracketed capitalized portions and the opening and closing comments, *EXACTLY* the same article that was posted n+? months ago. You frequently omit sections of articles you excerpt from, no? If I had included ALL of your articles followed by my own commentary in each followup, by now we'd both be writing articles of infinite length, thus disproving many modern accepted laws of mathematics. :-) > More important note: I am not going to provide serious replies > to Pesmard's responses, for the following reasons: > (1) This is net.flame, not net.religion. Remember, Gary, that *you* chose the newsgroup in which to followup. I have been sending followups to net.religion where the subject was meant to be discussed. > (2) I did that before; Pesmard claims, I guess, that I have > not answered his questions; what he means is that he didn't > like my answers. But I did try. You certainly did try. The whole article of yours which I was responding to consisted precisely of your answers to my questions. I spent hundreds of lines pointing out what I felt to be holes in your answers, either faulty logic or erroneous assumptions that you choose to make while others do not (I feel, with good reason). It means much more than "I did not like your answers." It means I found fault with them. Something you can't seem to accept. Why? In the next article (part 5.2), I try to respond to Gary's specific points and reiterations about his earlier answers. -- "I don't understand. Is it modern?" Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) (02/08/85)
[IN THIS ARTICLE, GARY SAMUELSON HAS RE-ADDRESSED AND REITERATED POINTS FROM THE "TIME CAPSULE" ARTICLE ORIGINALLY EXCERPTED FROM. AND I HAVE RESPONDED (I HOPE) BY SPECIFICALLY RE-ASKING MY QUESTIONS FROM THE GROUND FLOOR, ATTEMPTING TO ASK QUESTIONS THAT ARE, IF NOT ASSUMPTION-FREE, CLEAR IN WHAT THEIR ASSUMPTIONS ARE. I HOPE THE ANSWERS (AND I DO HOPE THERE ARE ANSWERS) WILL BE FASHIONED SIMILARLY.] >>>Why must there be a god? [from my original article reproduced in "BLAST"] > I tried to answer this question as if it were phrased, "Why do > people believe in God?" As it stands, the question is unanswerable > (not that Pesmard asks questions because he wants answers). [SAMUELSON] Nice assumption on your part there, Gary. I'll let you in on the assumption that I (perhaps erroneously, perhaps not) made in asking the above question. (Please note, Gary, that even though my question was perhaps phrased badly, answering a completely different question from the one asked is in general not considered to be proper argumentative technique.) Since there is no hard evidence to support the existence of a deity, one would normally work (in your average non-religious oriented analysis) from the assumption that the thing for which there is no evidence does not exist. Without evidence showing proof of a thing's existence, or its observed effect on the "physical" world, via Occam people would generally assume that it does not exist until evidence of a viable nature presents itself. The *possibility* that it may is left open, if and only if evidence presents itself. However, obviously some people do believe in the existence of a deity despite the lack of realistic evidence. One can only assume that 1) these people have a different set of criteria for acceptability of evidence, and/or 2) they have some vested interest in believing that certain outcome of analysis that they believe to be true. Quite possibly both. I think we have shown endless times that the nature of the subjective evidence offered in favor of religious belief is tainted: How come your subjectivity shows a different world view than some- one else's? Which one is right? WHY is his/hers wrong and YOURS right? If he/she is being deceived, how can you be sure it is not YOU who has been deceived? (Not to mention the way the brain is known to impose patterns onto events and phenomena and observations that upon closer examination are shown to be quite wrong---like "recognizing" someone at the airport and realizing that it wasn't them after all.) With that in mind, the only other reason that such people might readily accept the notion of the existence of a god is precisely because they already believe it to be so: they hold the existence of god as an assumption, an axiom, and work ALL analysis of the world from there. "Why is life full of problems? Because god designed the world that way knowing that it would be best for us not to have a perfect life but rather to struggle and learn." Contrast this with the simpler, less presumptive notion that life is full of problems because all those problems are simply a part of the natural flow of things, based on what we observe and codify as physical laws. We experience them as problems because they conflict with our wishes for a world ordered around our lives, and because such conflicts are inevitable in a world with trillions of organisms and objects caught up in the "natural flow". I contend that all such analysis of the world by religious believers, and the answers offered in such analysis, stem directly from an a priori assumption of the existence of god. Lewis' works are prime examples. Thus my question is: why DO you presume the existence of god as a given (obviously I and many others simply do not), if not because you have some vested interest in believing that it is so, what I have endlessly and perhaps monotonously labelled as WISHFUL THINKING? > I don't know WHY God is; he simply is. In the words of that great philosopher, Ken Arndt, "See?" Given the flawed nature of what you call evidence, given the need to assume god as an axiom to use as the basis for one's analysis, a reasonable person must ask "Why do you make such an assumption unless it is because you WANT to do so, because you wish it to be so?" >>>1. Authority. I believe that God exists because people whose >>> judgment I respect have taught me so. It seems unfashionable >>> to believe anything these days because of authority, yet there >>> is no escaping authority. Any claim to evidence rests upon >>> an appeal to authority, in that some qualified authority must >>> find and interpret the evidence. The real question is, what >>> constitutes a qualified authority? >>Believing in something simply because an "authority" tells you to? A few >>questions to ask: What qualifies a person as an authority? (He/she knows >>a lot about the bible, therefore he/she should know if god exists or not.) >>What are the potential reasons that someone in a position of authority might >>want you to believe this? > Repeating my own question back to me is intended as an answer, I guess. You guess correctly. I am asking why you accept the authorities you choose to accept? You don't accept non-Christian authorities, but on what basis do you do choose not to do so. Did you mean your own question rhetorically, as if to say it's obvious which authorities are qualified--"the ones I listen to"? Or do you have a means of determining qualifications on a reasoned basis? Are you in agreement with Arndt when he simply quotes authorities who have the "great insight" to hold the same point of view that he does? There's a good reason that it's "unfashionable" to believe things simply because an authority (self-proclaimed?) makes a statement: believing such statements based on who makes the statements rather than on what supporting evidence is provided IS faulty reasoning. I will repeat your own question back to you once again: What constitutes a qualified authority? >>>2. Testimony. I believe that God exists because of the effect >>> that that belief has had on my life, or on the life of some >>> one else. In other words, some one whose life has desireable >>> characteristics attributes those characteristics to the existence >>> of and belief in God. >>It is true that many people with a strong belief in god have led happier and >>better lives as a result. It is that *belief*, the feeling that there is >>something good watching over, that reinforces such positive thinking. > Proof by vigorous assertion again (note asterisks). How do you *know* there > is nothing in it but the strength of belief (which I admit is considerable) ? More importantly (and more correctly from a standpoint of reasoned discussion), what evidence do you have that 1) something more exists, and 2) that that something more is the cause of the effect? If you cannot supply any, what is your assertion if not an assumption? And why do you make it? >>A belief in one's self can do the job just as well (and on a more >>mature level) than belief in externals. The same effect can be found >>in sun worshippers, (where a belief that the sun is "watching over" >>you promotes a positive life)... > I wonder how many sun worshippers Pesmard knows... >>...but us modern folk KNOW that the sun isn't god, right? > There's nothing especially intelligent or wise about modern > folk vis-a-vis ancient folk. What chronological snobbery. Thank you, Gary. That was my point. Us "modern folk" KNOW that the sun isn't god, so we (by and large) don't worship it. But we do (some of us) continue to worship an (imaginary?) incorporeal entity based on the same assumptions made by the ancient sun worshippers. If "there's nothing especially intelligent or wise about modern folk vis-a-vis ancient folk", perhaps that's why so many "modern folk" employ a belief system that is just as much based on assumption as those of the "ancient folk". Or are you saying that us modern folk ARE more intelligent/wise because WE (some of us) believe in the "real" god? (as perceived by whom?) >>This effect can also be attained by worshipping >>teddy bears and the tooth fairy. > I wonder how many teddy bear worshippers and tooth fairies Pesmard knows... Quite a few, Gary. And they have just as much supporting evidence in favor of their beliefs as you do. Which is my point, again. I hope that the questions asked here were phrased in an unambiguous enough way that reasonable answers can be offered. The next article, part 5.3, is mostly flames at some of Gary's more abusive and manipulative argumentative strategies, so if that's not your cup of tea, feel free to skip it. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) (02/08/85)
>>>>The need to have such externals to >>>>believe is, to me, a sign of immaturity, akin to the belief that there >>>>must be a god because... [ROSEN - original article] >>[ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A REPEATED QUESTION THAT GETS GLOSSED OVER REPEATEDLY. >> I DON'T ASK IT DIRECTLY HERE, PARTIALLY BECAUSE IT HADN'T GELLED COMPLETELY >> IN MY OWN MIND AS TO HOW TO PHRASE IT AT THE TIME. [ROSEN - comments] > Swell, so I am being criticized for not answering a question that > hadn't been asked yet... [FLAME ON] That's right, Gary, excerpt random sections of paragraphs to tell a complete lie in order to make your "point". I'll no longer have any regrets about calling you a fascist. The original comments paragraph above mentioned how I was asking questions related to the notion of wishful thinking, but my phrasing in the original article had not been quite perfect, as the concept of how subjective "evidence" is tainted had not completely gelled in my mind. Some thoughts take time to develop, Gary. They grow from an evaluative process. Unlike assumptions which take only an instant. The question was still asked (although not directly asking about wishful thinking/preconception in those words), and you still answered with an answer the viability of which I questioned. >> SINCE MANY HAVE CLAIMED THAT "OTHERS" (e.g., >> Catholics) HAVE BEEN LED ASTRAY AND MISLED, THROUGH READING THE SAME >> SOURCE MATERIAL, HOW CAN YOU BE SURE THAT IT IS *THEY* WHO WERE LED >> ASTRAY AND NOT *YOU*? WHAT IS YOUR BASIS FOR THAT DECISION? YOUR >> OWN SUBJECTIVE FEELING? DON'T THEY IN THEIR OWN SUBJECTIVE >> FEELING BELIEVE THAT IT IS *YOU* WHO ARE MISLED? HOW CAN YOU DETERMINE >> THE ANSWER WHEN YOU KNOW THE SOURCE OF THE DETERMINATION IS YOUR OWN >> SUBJECTIVITY, WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE VERY UNRELIABLE AND >> SELF-DETERMINING (i.e., believing in patterns it chooses to make use >> of)? DO YOU DOUBT THE EXISTENCE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SUBJECTIVE, >> OR ARE YOU JUST IGNORING THEM WITH REGARD TO RELIGIOUS BELIEF?] > Fine, the bottom line is that no one can be 100% sure of anything; > not even Pesmard Flurrmn. Yet you have never expressed any doubt > about your assumption that there is no God. You've obviously never fully read any of my articles, judging from the blatantly incorrect assumption here. I have expressed numerous times my personal fascination with the possibilities of what such an entity might be like. But I don't assume ANY of those possibilities as absolute truth or anywhere near it, as you have. It is clear to me from the way you phrase your analyses, from the way your answers to questions stem from a priori assumptions about the preconceived nature of what the deity must be like, that you are engaging in what I have referred to as presumptive wishful thinking, and that your analyses are thus tainted. I may be wrong, and you are free to prove me wrong (by other than asserting that it's just not so), but I have presented my reasons for this position, and I would like a reasoned rebuttal, if possible. -- BRIAN: "You're all different!" CROWD: "YES, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT!" Rich Rosen MAN: "I'm not ... " {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr