rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/29/85)
Quite recently, I found this article (perhaps in seminal form, it is so long ago I'm not sure) that was submitted by me in response to a followup article by Gary Samuelson. I repost this again today for the following reasons: 1) To see how far we've actually come in debating all of this, 2) To examine what questions still remain unanswered or even unacknowledged. 3) To try to open newer paths that might get us out of a repetitive rut. Yes, it's nasty at times. I've been known to be nasty. But at times it's probably more straightforward, direct, and clean than recent work. I enclose some comments regarding their applicability to more recent discussion. It is long. But I do hope it serves as a refresher as to where we've been, and maybe where we're going. 11/2/83: (or maybe earlier, one can never tell with these archaeological -------- dating techniques :-) >I am going to try to answer (briefly, volumes have been written on them) >the questions posed by pyuxn!rlr. (Such a name). | This is the type of constructive criticism and intelligent discussion that one finds in letters from bunkerb!garys (alias Gary Samuelson). In previous discussions with him, he has complained about others' lack of these qualities. My name is clearly contained in the header and footer to my articles. If garys chooses to use impersonal login titles instead of "Christian" names, I will return the favor. [THIS IS THE "NASTY" PART, OR ONE OF THEM. I'D VENTURE THAT BOTH SIDES WERE SOMEWHAT ABRASIVE (AND IN SOME CASES CONTINUE TO BE SO). PART OF THIS, I PROPOSE, WAS (AND IS) CAUSED BY FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THAT WHICH THE "OTHER SIDE" TAKES FOR GRANTED---MANY TIMES WE ASSUME THAT OTHERS MAKE THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE DO. I HAVE CONTENDED THAT RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS DO MAKE THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS AS EVERYONE ELSE, PLUS SOME OTHERS. I HAVE TRIED TO SHOW WHERE AND WHAT THESE ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTIONS, AND WHY THEY SEEM TO ME TO BE A SPECIAL CASE AMONG BELIEVERS WHEN RELIGION COMES UP. INTENSE DISCUSSION IN THE ABSENCE OF THE REALIZATION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES IN ASSUMPTIONS CAN BECOME CAUSTIC.] >>It would seem that a fundamental principle of religionism (the belief in the >>desire or need for a religion, esp. for all people) is a low opinion of human- >>ity. >There is historical justification for a low opinion of humanity, is there >not? Rhetorical gibberish to the contrary notwithstanding, Adolf Hitler, >Josef Stalin, etc. etc. were quite human. Humanity is so low, it has >even produced religionists :-). This rather clearly puts the religionist point of view in perspective. People stink. We are all scum. Take a look at Hitler and Stalin and see why. It's rather easy to see that garys has a very low opinion of people in general. Why does he bother to associate with scum like us? Apparently, only those who have been saved (lured) by religionism (specifically fundamentalist religionism) are worthy human beings because they admit that they are scum and pray to god for forgiveness. I won't even bother to dignify your statement by giving counterexamples, but note that a large number of such counterexamples are of the non-religious variety. Human beings are a product of the environment they live in, and those like Hitler and Falwell thrive in societies where there is fear and terror of authority, usually promoted by religionists. They often use the religionists and their followers as the base for their power. [DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR? PAUL DUBUC AND I HAVE RECENTLY BEEN HAVING THIS SAME ARGUMENT! STILL, RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS ASSOCIATE ANYTHING NON-RELIGION WITH THE WORST EXAMPLES OF NON-RELIGION. "ALL SYSTEMS THAT DO NOT INVOLVE RELIGION ARE EQUATED WITH HITLER AND STALIN---THE VERY SAME EXAMPLES USED BY PAUL DUBUC. YES, THIS IS ANOTHER SOMEWHAT "NASTY" PART. THE CONTEMPT FOR FUNDAMENTALIST RELIGIONISM RUNS DEEP HERE. PERHAPS DUE TO THE INTRANSIGENT NATURE OF GARY'S REPLIES. OR PERHAPS DUE TO MY OWN PREJUDICES. ] >>Without god, ... our very existence could only be based on pure chance. >Actually, that is one of the more common arguments put forth in favor >of God's existence. If our existence is based on pure chance, thought >and reasoning included, then in what sense is 'rationality' different >from 'irrationality'? Is 'rational' simply a synonym for 'lucky'? Because the lack of a god would mean that our existence came to pass by pure chance, there must be a god. Could someone please run that by me again? [I WAS SMUG HERE, BUT THE POINT IS THE SAME, AND THE QUESTION IS STILL UNACKNOWLEDGED. BECAUSE LACK OF A GOD WOULD MEAN THAT OUR EXISTENCE IS BASED SOLELY ON CHANCE, THERE MUST BE A GOD, BECAUSE OTHERWISE MY LIFE WOULD NOT HAVE DIRECTED INTENDED PURPOSE. THIS IS THE VERY TYPE OF WISHFUL THINKING I HAVE SPOKEN TO REPEATEDLY.] >>This is one reason why the notion of "humanism" is so frightening to religion- >>ists; it promotes the idea of humans being in charge of their own destiny, as >>far as their bodies and minds can take them, and not subject to the whims of >>an incorporeal entity. (The other reason that religionists fear humanism is >>that such a belief, if widely held, would shake their power base out from >>under them.) >This sort of nonsense... Let me use the same form of argument: >"One reason why the notion of "religionism" is so frightening to humanists >is that it promotes the idea of human beings being held responsible for >their own actions, and accountable to a higher authority, rather than free >to indulge their every whim, no matter what the consequences to others. >(The other reason that humanists fear religion is that such a belief, if >widely held, would shake their power base out from under them)." Apparently there is something "nonsensical" about what I said regarding why religionists fear humanism. I hope that someday garys will tell me what that is. I will now (hopefully) clearly delineate why I think *his* analogy is nonsensical. (Watch here, garys, how I make specific points about each issue and corroborate. You might learn something.) [NASTY!] (1) Religionism does not promote the idea of human beings being held responsible for their actions; it teaches that they MUST adhere to a written code that they had no say in, or face eternal damnation; how is that responsible?; the tenets of humanism state that human beings determine their own moral code, and that it adhere to the concept that one person's rights end when imposition an another begins. (2) Yes, humanists fail to see the need for people to be accountable to any extraspecial (ex-tra-spee'-shee-al: a made-up word meaning outside of the species) entity; why do you feel that there is such a need?; is it related to your low opinion of people? (3) Humanism, as I've already stated, places limits on indulging whims; see, we did it without help from a bible or anything!!! (4) The notion of any power group fearing the loss of their power base is a given, so TOUCHE', garys! What is happening today is that those who feel no need to depend on a possibly non-existent entity for daily guidance and control are making strides in determining their own destiny (including women, gays, atheists, artists, and others). The problem is that 1) this causes massive changes in the fabric of society, since many formerly controlled people now see themselves as free, 2) these changes affect society as a whole, 3) those unwilling to cope with the problems associated with these changes (because, while they are beneficial to other individuals, they are detrimental to them) seek to re-establish the "old order" as described in, guess what, the bible. [YES, REAL NASTY AGAIN. YOU WILL REMEMBER, THOUGH, THAT I WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO HAD COMPLAINED ABOUT LACK OF SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT (ONLY BLIND ASSERTION) FROM THE SIDE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF. THE ARNDT FRACAS SERVES ONLY TO HIGHLIGHT THIS: ASSERTION ALONE DOES NOT PRESENT A REASONED ARGUMENTATIVE POINT; ASSERTION WITH SUBSTANTIATION AND/OR LOGICAL REASONING DOES.] >>Why must there be a god? >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? >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. 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) but us modern folk KNOW that the sun isn't god, right? This effect can also be attained by worshipping teddy bears and the tooth fairy. 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... [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. BUT THE QUESTION THAT WAS INSINUATED THEN AND HAS BEEN ASKED SINCE HAS GONE UNANSWERED: 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?] >3. Search for meaning. I believe that God exists because, otherwise, > human existence in general, and my life in particular, would be > meaningless. If there is no God, then there is no real purpose > for my existence, and I want very much to believe that there is > a purpose for my existence. It is wrong for me to say that no one should believe in god. Some people need this belief system or else they will feel either helpless or purposeless, and I think it does help for some people. However, I also feel that such a belief is childish, in that it is based on a picture of the world that you *want* to see and not the way evidence shows it to be. Again, belief in one's self and in humanity would do just as well (if not better, because it eliminates the need to externalize one's dependencies). But, promotion of the belief that garys expounds here, that human life is meaningless without god, is repugnant, and smacks of mindlessness. My life, and the lives of many others, are very meaningful without any god, thank you. [SOMEONE THOUGHT ENOUGH OF THAT LAST SENTENCE, I RECALL, TO SEND ME A NOTE OF PRAISE FOR SAYING IT. I WAS SAYING THE SAME THINGS THEN REGARDING WISHFUL THINKING (THOUGH PERHAPS NOT AS WELL CODIFIED). THEY HAVE STILL GONE UNACKNOWLEDGED.] >4. Sufficient cause. I believe that God exists because I do not > believe that the material universe is self-sufficient. The > existence of thought is not sufficiently explained by purely > random actions. This is based on the notion that "if we can't explain it, it's unexplainable", which somehow again leads to "there must be a god". This is a very anthropocentric point of view, that if humankind doesn't understand something, it is un-understandable. This anthropocentrism manifests itself, interestingly enough, in Judaeo-Christian thought (odd, wouldn't you think?), when it puts forth things like "god created the earth as the focal point of the universe, and created man as its ruling species". This says a lot more about "man" than about "god". My personal belief is that the universe is "explainable" and "understandable" in its entirety from a physicalist point of view, but that we may never have the knowledge or vantage point to do so. [INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THIS RELATES BACK TO THE DEBATE WITH WINGATE OVER THE DEFINITION OF "NATURAL" AND "SUPERNATURAL" (the realm that god is supposed to be in). THAT LAST SENTENCE ABOVE SOUNDS BOLD, UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND HOW "PHYSICAL" IS DEFINED. THE QUESTION IS: IS PHYSICAL "THAT WHICH EXISTS", SUCH THAT IF GOD EXISTS, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PHYSICAL IN NATURE BECAUSE EXISTENCE IMPLIES PHYSICALITY? OR IS PHYSICAL "THAT WHICH HUMANS CAN OBSERVE", SUCH THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF NATURAL/PHYSICAL AND SUPERNATURAL/ NON-PHYSICAL ARE SOLELY BASED ON CURRENT BOUNDARIES OF HUMAN OBSERVATION? IF SO, IS THIS ANYTHING BUT ARBITRARY? IF YOU CLAIM IT MEANS "ALL THAT HUMANS CAN *EVER* OBSERVE", BY WHAT BASIS DO YOU PREDETERMINE THAT BOUNDARY, OR EVEN THAT THERE *IS* A BOUNDARY?] >5. Conscience. I believe that God exists because I have a sense > of morality; that some actions are 'good' and some actions are > 'bad'. I believe that this sense of morality has a basis in > reality, and that if there were no God, there would be no sense > of morality, or morality at all. I fail to see why this is so. Maybe it's obvious to you, but if I were you I'd think twice about anything I thought was "obvious". Again, I think the notion of "one person's rights end where imposition on another person begins", which I feel to be a fundamental facet of humanist (or whatever) thought, sums it up. Apparently, so did Jesus, when he summed it all up in different words ("Do unto others..."). I would think the notion of an organized religion the way Christianity is today (perhaps un-organized religion is a better phrase), where imposition of beliefs and laws from a book is the rule, would have Jesus spinning in his grave. (Maybe that's why god had him resurrected, to prevent his burning a hole in the ground :-) [THAT WAS PROBABLY THE FIRST TIME I USED THAT JOKE. AND MAYBE IT WAS THE FIRST TIME I USED THE "ONE PERSON'S RIGHTS END ..." NOTION AS WELL. BUT NOT THE LAST. :-] >>What is the difference between praying to god for help and helping >>yourself? > >The same as the difference between discussing a problem with a friend >and trying to work out a solution with no help. The human friend may >give you good advice, and point out a solution you might not have >thought of on your own, but you might still implement the solution >yourself. My own feeling is that it is great to ask other people (living entities) for advice and help. When one "asks god" or "prays to god", since I obviously have doubts about the existence of a god, I feel that this is merely introspection. Again, it works for some people if they believe it is god, when in reality it is their own introspection. Maybe this is what is meant by the statement I quote below... >>If the Lord helps those who help themselves, isn't prayer just >>a methodology for getting yourself in the frame of mind to help yourself? > >The statement that the Lord helps those who help themselves is not >biblical, as far as I know. It is often used as a copout as to why >someone should not be obligated to help another. Agreed. I think the statement is indeed biblical, though, and is a perfect example of quoting the bible to suit one's needs. [I WAS PROVEN WRONG HERE: I THINK LAURA MENTIONED THAT IT COMES FROM AESOP.] >If a person believes that there is really a god out there listening >to prayers, and that that god is able and willing to guide us in >some way, then prayer is more than a method of altering one's frame >of mind. Prayer does in fact alter one's frame of mind, but it >does more. What you seem to call prayer I would call 'meditation' >or 'contemplation'. How God answers prayer is another subject >about which volumes have been written. Your paragraph assumes the existence of the god in question, which is of course where we differ. My opinions on the non-existence of god have already been put forth and explained. >>What is wrong with the idea that, as long as I don't interfere in the rights >>of other human beings, I should be free to live to my best potential as I >>see fit? >In one sense, there is nothing wrong with it. Supposing that God does >exist, wouldn't you expect that living up to your best potential >would include understanding yourself in relationship to God? If god existed, why would I be obliged to understand myself in relation to it? Do you (or I) establish understanding about our relationships to every single thing in the universe? You constantly assume that god must hold some special position of authority (specifically over you and all other people). Why? This is YOUR assumption (desire?) about the nature of god (not necessarily his :-). Think about it. >In another sense, there is one thing wrong with the idea: it seems >quite clear from current and past discussions that no two people >can always agree on what rights each should have. Only the god you choose to believe in is perfect. Human beings are not. (Is this another reason that you feel that there must be a god?) Experiments like democracy are the ways that people try to establish their own guidelines and rights without external imposition. To believe the bible as the ultimate arbiter of people's rights is to impose your arbitrary standards on everyone. Why? [THIS IN TURN BRINGS US RIGHT BACK TO THE CURRENT DEBATE, IN WHICH I CONTEND THAT THE NOTION OF IMPOSITIONAL MORALITY, ALONG WITH THE TERROR THAT GOES WITH IT, IS AN INHERENT PIECE OF CERTAIN RELIGIOUS BELIEF, AND THAT MANY ARE NOT AT ALL ASHAMED OF THIS NOTION AND ARE PROUD TO CARRY IT FORTH.] -------------------------------- What conclusions can we draw? 1) We're still arguing about the same things, only we've become more entrenched and have better codified our positions with cute buzzwords like "wishful thinking". 2) The basis for disagreement continues to be the differences in basic assumptions between the two sides; neither side seems to really appreciate the fact that the other side makes a different set of assumptions than *they* do. I still contend that religious believers are making assumptions based on wishful thinking, that they hold to the SAME assumptions that I and others do regarding the world at large, but that they add a different set of assumptions for the special case called religion. One witnesses the extreme people like Arndt who scream "This is my point of view, it says so in the bible. See? What are you going to do about it?" (usually followed by a derogatory insult...) Do ALL religious believers (like Marchionni and Nichols, for example) *assume* that others hold to their assumptions regarding religion? Are they aware of the assumptions they are making? Am I?? I hope this proves to open new fertile ground for discussion instead of further entrenchment. -- "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I dunno." Rich Rosen {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham) (02/01/85)
[This line does not exist.]
I'm going to regret getting into this, but Rich Rosen's article
("Blast from the past...") seems to deserve at least some response.
I agree, basically, with the two conclusions Rich draws at the end
of the article (Did I just say "agree"? Impossible! :-) ), although
I would state differently some of the subpoints of conclusion #2.
[R. Rosen:]
> What conclusions can we draw? 1) We're still arguing about the same things,
> only we've become more entrenched and have better codified our positions with
> cute buzzwords like "wishful thinking". 2) The basis for disagreement
> continues to be the differences in basic assumptions between the two sides;
> neither side seems to really appreciate the fact that the other side makes a
> different set of assumptions than *they* do. I still contend that religious
> believers are making assumptions based on wishful thinking, that they hold to
> the SAME assumptions that I and others do regarding the world at large, but
> that they add a different set of assumptions for the special case called
> religion. One witnesses the extreme people like Arndt who scream "This is
> my point of view, it says so in the bible. See? What are you going to do
> about it?" (usually followed by a derogatory insult...) Do ALL religious
> believers (like Marchionni and Nichols, for example) *assume* that others
> hold to their assumptions regarding religion? Are they aware of the
> assumptions they are making? Am I?? I hope this proves to open new fertile
> ground for discussion instead of further entrenchment.
Conclusion #1 is fairly obvious by this time. Having read net.religion
for several years now, I find it interesting to watch the cycles:
"Oh, yes, they're starting the {teleological/problem-of-evil/evolution/
homosexuality/validity-of-the-Bible/are-Mormons-Christians/...} argument again."
I suppose philosophers and theologians have been running in these
same little circles for millennia.
Regarding conclusion #2, arguments between people with widely differing
basic assumptions are fascinating to watch; it's like seeing inhabitants
of two different planets trying to converse. Which brings me to the
concluding sentences of the paragraph quoted above. It is easy to assume
others share one's own assumptions if one's conversations on metaphysics
and epistemology take place mainly among those who do share one's beliefs;
most noticeably, this happens when one discusses religion almost solely
at a church (synagogue, meeting-house, etc.) which reflects one's own
religious tradition. Are we aware of our assumptions? Sometimes.
Are we aware that some reasonable people make different assumptions?
Only, I think, if we have actually met some of these reasonable-but-different
people (rather than merely having heard their beliefs caricatured).
And that, for me, is one of the values of this newsgroup: I can
hear people of different beliefs present their ideas in their own words.
It's healthy to be reminded that some intelligent people disagree with me.
I still disagree with the claim that the only basis or confirmation for
religious assumptions is wishful thinking, but this argument has
*certainly* been argued to death already. If it's any consolation,
I also disagree with the reverse claim (which I have heard often from
preachers) that non-Christians hold their disbelief solely on the basis
of wishful thinking.
------------------
"Travel broadens the mind."
N. L. Tinkham
duke!nlt