rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/02/84)
> This is in response to Rich Rosen. I'll start by admitting that I'm > not going to respond to most of his points, and save him the trouble > of saying so in his next article. I'm not going to respond to many > of his points because they have been repeated so often. I've found that people who don't want you to know the truth often don't need to lie, they simply omit and hope you won't notice. What Gary's last sentence above fails to relate is that my points may have been "repeated so often", but they usually go unanswered. Perhaps that is the real reason why Mr. Samuelson is not going to respond to those points, as others have also chosen not to do: they simply don't have answers to them. (Or else they have answers, but those answers are of the genre "because I believe it to be so [presumption]".) >>> What I said was that those who say >>> they won't believe unless a suitable (to them) laboratory experiment >>> was devised were going to be disappointed (on second thought, they >>> probably would be more disappointed if such an experiment could be >>> devised). [SAMUELSON] >> The final presumptive parenthetical remark notwithstanding, [ROSEN] > What's presumptive about it? Since you have stated many times > that belief in God is based on wishful thinking, I think it safe > to conclude that you do not wish to believe in God. Therefore, > anything that might convince you that God exists would come as a > disappointment, in that you would be led to do something you do > not wish to do. [SAMUELSON] My appeals to people I disagree with often take the form of asking them to use reasoning capacities that I think they might have to realize either the truth in some point of mine or the fallacy in one of theirs. But how can one expect results from an approach like that in light of the assumption-filled non-logic of the statement above. I paraphrase: since I believe that belief in god is wishful thinking, thus my choosing not to hold any beliefs in god is a result of wishful thinking (???). This is akin to Larry Bickford's statements about religion and worship; when I claimed that one had a choice NOT to worship, Larry said, no, everyone worships something. (Wingate claims I worship science, for example.) As long as assumptions like this ("everyone worships something") are allowable in one's mindset, so are assumptions like "there must be a god to administer justice" (without a priori explaining why there must be justice), etc. Am *I* engaging in wishful thinking when I assume that the people I am discussing things with have the ability and understanding to use their reasoning capabilities? As tempted as I am to say "Yes" (that would explain a lot), I don't believe that that is true. Which is why I persist in asking questions. > You cannot know that I am the one suffering from indoctrination. > You cannot know that you are not suffering from indoctrination. Fine. Given that neither of us can know whose approach is correct, let's take the one that makes the least assumptions about the universe and work from there. My approach assumes only that what enters our brains through our sensory inputs are inputs from a real universe, although we have seen the possibility (probability) of such input being distorted by patterning and presumption within the brain. Given that possibility, we need to make sure that we are dealing with consistent real input and not the distortion, thus we seek repro- ducible independent corroboration to study the universe. This, in essence, is the entirety of the scientific method (or rather, the entirety of its goals). On the other hand, other approaches make assumptions above and beyond (while still including) the one I describe, including expectations about the nature of the universe and the need for there to be a god. "Why have those assumptions?" is first and foremost among my questions. It has gone unanswered. > Quoting arbitrarily from some of your other recent article: >> "What he thinks he believes is simply based on incorrect >> assumptions and faulty reasoning, whereas what *I* believe >> is really true." > > Sounds awfully familiar. Does this apply to everyone but > yourself? Arbitrarily indeed. The actual context of the statement was in reference to Nichols' statement that Mohammed didn't rise from the dead, but Jesus did (obviously, as long as you assume the veracity of the "evidence"). I described a Muslim who might say just the opposite, with each of the two people (Ken and the Muslim) making the above quoted statement about the other one. The point being made was this: why do some people feel that it is always the other person who is in error THOUGH BOTH SIDES ARE MAKING *EQUALLY* *ARBITRARY* ASSUMPTIONS AND CALLING THEM "EVIDENCE"? As far as Gary's question goes, believe it or not, I make assumptions and engage in faulty reasoning just like everyone else (see first few paragraphs). But when I am faced with "reality" and evidence that goes against what I might believe at some point in time, I generally incorporate the evidence and the "reality" into my mindset. I believe I have delineated evidence that points out fallacies in religious belief. Either I haven't (in which case the flaws in my argument should be pointed out) or else I have (in which case a re-evaluation of one's religious beliefs is in order). [Frankly, I find Gary's deliberate misquoting of my statement above to be one of the lowest forms of argumentative technique. More later...] >> I'm getting sick of having my ideas labelled with newly >> invented or re-used "-isms". > Me, too. I seem to remember being called "religionist" and > "fascist" and several other less-than-appealing things by > someone claiming to be Rich Rosen ("mindless" is another > epithet this illusion seems to remember being called; it's > not an "-ism," but it certainly isn't a compliment). As I said, I am as guilty of it as others. It is sometimes easier to use a quick and dirty adjective rather than a lengthy explanation. I have tried to refrain from this (although I do slip occasionally). Unfortunately, Gary has a selective memory on my "epithets". If I referred to his argumentative techniques of omission and misquoting as "fascistic", Gary (according to past correspondence) would feel I have called him a fascist. (This is exactly what happened in the past.) Again, I am not. Nonetheless, the techniques are fascistic in nature and usage. As far as "mindless" goes, well, hopefully calmer minds prevail on both sides nowadays; I can remember any number of epithets used against me by the "religionist camp" (there I go again!), including "Satan's secret agent" and "antichrist". By the way, does Gary now feel "religionist" to be a "less-than-appealing" epithet? :-) >> Even asking for a test of God's existence and power presupposes >> His existence. [indirect quote -- I'm not sure the article with >> Rich's own words got here. I'm pretty confident it is not a >> misquote. -- GMS] > I don't understand. Does this apply to other existence-tests, also? > When physicists first decided to test for (your favorite subatomic > particle), did they presuppose it existed, or did they think that > it might, and wanted to find out if it did? Does this mean that > when you ask for hard evidence for belief in God, that you are also > presupposing his existence? It wasn't a direct quote, it was lifted from Wingate's article which I've already responded to. Again, the crux of my questions: when scientists speculate that something MIGHT exist based on some model of sorts, the genesis of that model had its basis in evidence. The root of the basis for YOUR model is the additional set of presumptions I described above. Why? In conclusion let me make this perhaps controversial statement. It appears that there are some people on the side of religious belief who are more concerned with making sure that their point of view is propagated than with the veracity of their statements and with the answers to questions put to them. I refer to Gary Samuelson, who has misquoted and misrepresented me before this article, and to others (including Larry Bickford and Ken Nichols) who either have avoided answering questions, have deliberately misrepresented certain issues, or have selectively answered only those questions they've seen fit to answer, claiming that they will answer ALL questions for image's sake but then failing to do so. I say this, not to malign any of these people, but rather in hopes that we might get some answers to questions and that we might see an end to obfuscation. For those who find these statements unsubstantiated, I plan to collate unanswered questions and perhaps misrepresentations as well in a future article. -- Occam's Razor: I liked it so much, I bought the company! Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr