aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (09/19/84)
From Rich Rosen (pyuxn!rlr): > When you assume (as you seem to) that physical reality is > not an illusion, you make a "very significant leap of faith", don't you? > (At least, that's what so many religionists tell me that *I'm* doing when *I* > believe in physical reality.) Perhaps there is some faith involved in accepting the axiom that the physical world is real. However, that is not the "leap of faith" I and others claim that you make. Your real leap of faith is that which causes you to believe that there is no reality BUT the physical. (I'll address this more later in this article.) > [Believing that physical reality is real is] the only leap of faith > [rationalists] make, whereas religionists/paranormalists/etc. seem to take > additional leaps on top of that, which in fact, are based in part on the > initial leap regarding the nature of physical reality and their sensory > perception of it. Both camps make leaps of faith. Both rationalists and religionists believe the physical existence of Bibles. Rationalists, however, seem to have as an article of faith the idea that there is no validity to the subjective, unique, individual experiences which stand in a mutually reinforcing relationship to the words in those Bibles. > But given that you seem to agree that leaps of faith are indefensible, isn't > it best to make as few of them as possible? We don't at all "agree that leaps of faith are indefensible". On the contrary, they are encouraged. We merely point out that you, who claim to dislike faith so much, exercise it yourself. > One might respond by saying: "But you make an additional leap of faith > yourself when you assume that there's nothing else." I agree that that > assumption is an additional leap of faith. But it's an assumption I don't > make. In fact, my definitions of physical reality are broad enough to > encompass all possibilities; e.g., if god exists, it is a part of physical > reality (although possibly manifesting itself in elements of that reality > not yet understood by us). What's the difference between assuming that there's nothing but physical reality and claiming that physical reality is broad enough to encompass everything? What's the difference between definitions and assumptions in this case? > But given the current circumstances and evidence, > there's no reason for making the additional leap of faith that implies the > existence of a deity, other than wishful thinking (i.e., assume there is a > god because you believe it's the only way to impose order on perceptions of > the universe, even though the real workings of the universe may be beyond > comprehension and nothing like what you wish them to be). There's plenty of evidence and plenty of reason; you have merely limited yourself to an approach that shuts out the possibility of such evidence, since it isn't all objective. Some of it -- the most important piece of it -- is indeed objective; eyewitnesses whom I see no reason to distrust recorded that Jesus died and was entombed, but His tomb was later found empty, and He appeared alive numerous times, once to 500 people. Much of the rest of the evidence (the beneficial changes wrought by the work of the Holy Spirit in people's lives) is partially subjective, partially objective; though you may disagree with their explanation, the changes in people's external behavior can be objectively seen. You assume there is no God because you believe that's the only way to impose order on perceptions of the universe. I disagree. I do not believe God has any opposition to science and to the growth of man's knowledge; knowledge is a good thing; as you pointed out, this means of communication would be impossible if it were not for scientific and engineering advances; so, God keeps the physical, tangible universe running according to set patterns, since otherwise science could never get off the ground. The real workings of the universe, particularly the real workings of God's mind, are indeed beyond our comprehension, however; and they may not be what either you or I wish them to be, for lo, I am also a rebellious sinner. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK (it couldn't stand it there any longer).
jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (09/22/84)
Subject: Re: Sargent on reality vs. illusion There's plenty of evidence and plenty of reason; you have merely limited yourself to an approach that shuts out the possibility of such evidence, since it isn't all objective. If it can't be observed objectivly then it isn't evidence... it's testimony. All you have are very old testiments of what people say happened; not tangible evidence that we can see and touch and analyze. There's plenty of evidence that supports other explanations of the universe; you have merely limited yourself to an approach that shuts out the possibility of such evidence, since it doesn't support your beliefs. You cannot eliminate objectivity from evidence. That's why so many "proofs" for the existance of God fail miserably. Why is there such interest in finding the Ark of Noah, or proving that the Shroud of Turan was Jesus' burial cloth? Because people are desperatly trying to find hard evidence for even the existance of some Biblical events. Your method requires that all of the physical evidence supports your subjective proofs. By appealing to a higher plane of reason you simply discard physical evidence, claiming it to be invalid somehow in the face of more subjective reasoning. This is a mistake, I think. Physical reality is here to teach us, not to deceive us. It is a cruel god indeed, that creates a universe, only to discard all it has to say because he claims that the clues are invalid. Some of it -- the most important piece of it -- is indeed objective; eyewitnesses whom I see no reason to distrust recorded that Jesus died and was entombed, but His tomb was later found empty, and He appeared alive numerous times, once to 500 people. Much of the rest of the evidence (the beneficial changes wrought by the work of the Holy Spirit in people's lives) is partially subjective, partially objective; though you may disagree with their explanation, the changes in people's external behavior can be objectively seen. The changes in the lives of people who lived 2000 some years ago cannot be seen objectivly, since they are long dead... and the cause of the change is not something we can observe first hand. Besides, many people have experienced changes in their lives without some intervention by God. You assume there is no God because you believe that's the only way to impose order on perceptions of the universe. I disagree. I do not believe God has any opposition to science and to the growth of man's knowledge; knowledge is a good thing; I thought Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden because of their search for the knowledge of good and evil. If this is the root of man's sinfulness and fallen state, then surely the search for knowledge is not a good thing... but let's just let that one slide. ...so, God keeps the physical, tangible universe running according to set patterns, since otherwise science could never get off the ground. The real workings of the universe, particularly the real workings of God's mind, are indeed beyond our comprehension, however; and they may not be what either you or I wish them to be, for lo, I am also a rebellious sinner. If God meant us to seek knowledge then he must also recognize the fact that his creations will want to know more about him, and question his nature. The learning process does not mean just accepting what you see at face value, but QUESTIONING its nature. This is how the aquisition of knowledge works. It is neither rebellious nor sinful to question, or hypothesis about, the nature of God and the universe.
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/25/84)
>> [Believing that physical reality is real is] the only leap of faith >> [rationalists] make, whereas religionists/paranormalists/etc. seem to take >> additional leaps on top of that, which in fact, are based in part on the >> initial leap regarding the nature of physical reality and their sensory >> perception of it. [ROSEN] > Both camps make leaps of faith. Both rationalists and religionists believe > the physical existence of Bibles. Rationalists, however, seem to have as an > article of faith the idea that there is no validity to the subjective, unique, > individual experiences which stand in a mutually reinforcing relationship to > the words in those Bibles. [SARGENT] Yup. Absolutely. You've actually hit the nail right on the head. (OUCH!! I didn't mean *my* head! :-) Given the unreliability, the faulty patterning, the imposition of preconceptions as used by what you call subjective experiences, I see *every* reason to totally discount ALL such "evidence" that cannot be reproduced objectively (i.e., for all to see, witness, and verify scientifically) as wishful thinking, illusion, etc. It's not a leap of faith to deny the veracity of the subjective. Remember what the original title described: reality vs. illusion, illusion formed by preconception and wishful thinking. Subjective experience is not without worth; it is the basis for artistic expression (though the best artists probably try to either evoke images common in all of us or create a reality so unique that it allows each perceiver to experience their own interpretation); but art is the creation of a new imaginary reality by a human brain, and science is the objective study of a real reality that we all experience. >>But given that you seem to agree that leaps of faith are indefensible, isn't >>it best to make as few of them as possible? > We don't "agree that leaps of faith are indefensible". On the contrary, > they are encouraged. We merely point out that you, who claim to dislike faith > so much, exercise it yourself. ...and you'll notice I gave reason for doing so. Do you? If leaps of faith are to be encouraged, than it's no wonder people elect demagogues. ("Trust me for another...") > What's the difference between assuming that there's nothing but physical > reality and claiming that physical reality is broad enough to encompass > everything? What's the difference between definitions and assumptions > in this case? A very big and important difference. I claim that the definition of the physical universe encompasses all that there is. Your definition of the physical universe has a different, more limited, and arbitrary definition. You draw a demarcation line between the "physical" and the "non-physical". What is that line? The line of the powers of human perception!!! Hundreds of years ago, you might have been of the school that proposed that mold grew on food by some process of spontaneous generation/creation, because there was nothing that HUMAN SENSES COULD PERCEIVE THAT SHOWED ANY OTHER EXPLANATION. Once the powers of perception were extended by microscopes and other technological advances, we have been able to see how such things really happen---a viable "physical" explanation. Why was the process magical and non-physical before the advent of the microscope, but an accepted part of "physical reality" after it? There is NO difference between the so-called "physical" and the so-called "non-physical" reality. The demarcation between the two is hopelessly arbitrary. If a deity exists, IT is a part of physical reality. >>But given the current circumstances and evidence, >>there's no reason for making the additional leap of faith that implies the >>existence of a deity, other than wishful thinking (i.e., assume there is a >>god because you believe it's the only way to impose order on perceptions of >>the universe, even though the real workings of the universe may be beyond >>comprehension and nothing like what you wish them to be). > There's plenty of evidence and plenty of reason; you have merely limited > yourself to an approach that shuts out the possibility of such evidence, since > it isn't all objective. "Yup" and "Absolutely" once again. See above. > Some of it -- the most important piece of it -- is > indeed objective; eyewitnesses whom I see no reason to distrust recorded that > Jesus died and was entombed, but His tomb was later found empty, and He > appeared alive numerous times, once to 500 people. Much of the rest of the > evidence (the beneficial changes wrought by the work of the Holy Spirit in > people's lives) is partially subjective, partially objective; though you may > disagree with their explanation, the changes in people's external behavior > can be objectively seen. I've offered more rational explanations about the changes in people's behaviors than you have; more rational because they don't assume quite as much as yours do (unnecessarily, I might add). Like a person feeling better about him/herself being self-reinforcing, even if the root of their "feeling better about themselves" is based on an illusion. As John Nelson mentioned in an earlier article, what you describe as evidence is simply the testimony of people who wanted to believe what they believed, and of those who wanted to advance and promote the belief. How do YOU know that the accounts you read were true? What is your basis for having "no reason to distrust" the authors? Because they were "good men"? Where did you get that opinion of them if not from the accounts themselves? From your subjectively perceived feelings toward the accounts, and your preconceptions about them? > You assume there is no God because you believe that's the only way to impose > order on perceptions of the universe. I disagree. I do not believe God has > any opposition to science and to the growth of man's knowledge; knowledge is > a good thing; as you pointed out, this means of communication would be > impossible if it were not for scientific and engineering advances; so, God > keeps the physical, tangible universe running according to set patterns, > since otherwise science could never get off the ground. The real workings > of the universe, particularly the real workings of God's mind, are indeed > beyond our comprehension, however; and they may not be what either you or I > wish them to be, for lo, I am also a rebellious sinner. On the contrary, I simply don't assume that there IS a god the way you apparently have. I also don't assume that the workings of the universe are necessarily beyond our comprehension, though they may be for other reasons than the presumptive ones you describe; e.g., because it may be impossible for someone inside a closed system to describe an "external" view of that closed system. I know that you assume that there's a god who can; so? That just makes our closed system an element in a larger closed system that god is in. Who created *that* closed system? The point is: your solution to the question is not a solution at all. As I said at the beginning of the paragraph, I don't a priori assume that there is a god and work from there, as you *must* to reach the conclusions you posit. That's what unbiased objectivity is supposed to be all about: not assuming, not invoking preconceptions of the way one expects/wishes the world to be, not basing one's judgments on self-defined subjective patterns that may not match what's really out there, attempting (as much as possible) to be unbiased. -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr