parks@kpnoa.UUCP (07/07/84)
I've been gone for a week (the Grand Canyon) and the replies have
built up. I'll try to address most of them, then go on to some new stuff.
First off, there have (surprisingly) been no flames to my statements
on atheism, only intelligent comments (both on the net and through mail).
It may be that people reply in the same tones that you address them
with. Some random corrections: yes, I really did know that the
Roscrucians are not a recent group, but have a *long* history. I lumped
them in with the new groups because they make claims of current-day
miracles.
> True, man can and does invent gods for comfort.
> But the gods that man invents are often characterized as mysterious
> forces over nature or elevated dieties that don't mingle with humans.
> The Judeochristian God is one with characteristics that man
> probably couldn't have invented himself, and even if he could,
> it would be against his human nature to do so. God is a god who
> is singular (not separate gods of the ocean, clouds, fire, etc),
> is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, yet He knows each of
> us personally -- indeed, the inside of our hearts. This was revealed
> to the Jews in old testament times. It hardly seems like a human
> fabrication to me. [Carl Blesch]
Well, perhaps. Our race has made some pretty astounding fabrications in
its time. Look at the Hindu concept of the endless cycle of reincarnation,
or Kepler's geometric model of the solar system, or the Chinese belief
that a dragon eats the sun during an eclipse, or the Egyptian belief that
the body must be preserved as part of the afterlife. All of these are
amazing fabrications, yet people invented them and then believed in them.
I can believe that the Judeo-Christian God is also an invention of man.
> ... Also, the earliest Bible that modern
> Bible historians have investigated is perhaps only a century or two
> removed from the New Testament events it describes. Secular history
> is often further removed. Yet we generally accept secular
> history as relatively accurate and truthful. By the same reasoning,
> we should all the more so accept the Bible's accuracy and truth.
> BUT -- if you do, the Bible challenges you to do something --
> acknowledge Christ as your savior and Lord, and change your life
> to conform to his will and live for him. That's a high-cost challenge.
> If you don't want to accept it, the only way the choice not to
> follow Him becomes acceptable is if you question the authenticity
> of the Bible. [Carl Blesch]
True. If I accept the Bible as authentic then I should certainly accept
Christ and become a Christian. In fact, I do accept the Bible as an
historical document. It seems to me, though, that there is no historical
document which is accepted as Truth by historians (just talking history,
not religion). Historians can believe that a document was written by a
known person, in a known time, and reflects that person's opinions and
beliefs, but what really happened is much more difficult to know (perhaps
impossible). If Claudius left descriptions about the politics of Rome,
those are accepted as his impression of things, but the truth was almost
certainly a little different. Everyone injects personal bias into his
writings, even me :-) . For this reason, I accept the Bible as
historically correct, but don't believe in all the events or the
interpretations of the events. This is illustrated by the many different
descriptions of the Last Supper. It was described by human beings who
forgot and embellished. I believe there was a last supper, but what
*exactly* happened is difficult to say.
> I can't understand how you link reincarnation with psychic phenomena,
> or what UFO's and bigfoot have to do with this at all. Reincarnation
> is as much a part of "conventional religion" as single-life views of
> the afterlife; just different religions. [John Owens]
UFO's and bigfoot got brought in because they are considered to be psychic
phenomena by many (probably for want of a better classification). UFO's,
bigfoot, and reincarnation are all events which are believed to be
existing *now* and work is being done to test them today. Reincarnation,
if it exists, should be testable. In fact, it is being investigated by
several parapsychologists. For this reason, I said that it was a current
psychic belief. That does not mean that it is not also a religious
belief. As you point out, it is a key foundation for many religions.
> Religion cannot be objectively proven: it is a *subjective* experience
> and relationship with the universe. (A Christian would say that you
> could not have True Faith if it were proven to you, or something like that.)
> [John Owens]
In fact, several people agreed that religion could not be objectively
proven. The idea seems to be "if you will first believe in it, then it
will work". The thing that I find disturbing is that this is exactly the
claim of most psychics! I pointed out in my previous letter that I do
not believe in *any* psychic phenomena. The practitioner always seem
to require a "willing suspension of disbelief" (an old science-fiction
term). If something psychic doesn't occur, it is because you are
skeptical or don't believe hard enough. I think you are just being
fooled (unintentionally or deliberately). To see this same method being
echoed in religion is something which cases me to immediately question,
"Why does it only work for those who believe?"
> The central problem is that he tries to approach religion and
> non-material phenomena from a materialist point of view. [John Owens]
This is a very serious point. To rephrase it (put words into your
mouths) I would put the question, "Why must religion be proved? and Why
is a materialist proof the only one which you will accept?" Let me
number my points, because I like doing it:
1. All of us need proof for religion, whether subjective or objective.
Face it, if you religious types out there had no subjective proof, no
feeling of the holy ghost and the spirit of Christ, no personal
experience of prayers being answered or your life being improved by
religion, or *any* subjective proof at all, then would you still believe?
Unless you are one of the "blind followers" the answer must be no. A
large part of the reason you believe is your subjective proof. All
questioning beings need proof and confirmation of some type to believe
in anything. Also, all believers in *anything* are always pointing
to this or that evidence. Some historical document, or a particular
event. WE ALL NEED PROOF.
2. In my last article I looked at people who had subjective experiences
in the area of psychic phenomena. Many of those subjective proofs
and beliefs can be objectively proved wrong. For example, a crowd
may observe some psychic bend a spoon using mental force while a
hidden camera shows him to be using trickery. I find subjective
experiences to be unreliable, unrepeatable, and often not able to
hold up to detailed objective scrutiny. For this reason, the only
thing that I can personally call "proof" is objective, unbiased,
repeatable, and not subject to who observers the phenomena.
3. I have described the ideal objective evidence. The only method that I
know of to approach this ideal is to use some type of instrument,
such a Geiger counter, volt meter, or camera. If there was some
reliable, unbiased, and repeatable instrument which probed the super-
natural world I would use it, but I know of no such instrument.
I have not said anything about these instruments, whether they are
philisophic constructs, Einsteinian "thought experiments", or
actually material constructions. In my experience, the only reliable
instruments are material devices.
4. From the above three points, we all need proof of religion, the only
proof I can accept is some form of objective proof, and the only
truly objective observations are those performed by material
instrumentation. This is why I require some form of material proof
before I can accept any religion as the truth.
> This one constantly comes up from nonTheists and Atheists.
> You tell me what degree and kind of proof would be acceptable.
> [Bob Brown]
It would seem that you are asking me to put my money where my mouth is.
All right, but first some ground rules. If an all-powerful God wanted to
make objective, material proof for the his existence, he would have no
trouble doing so. Sure, we atheists could make all sorts of arguments
(aliens with miracle-science, super-psychics, mass telepathic hypnosis,
Satan toying with you, etc.) but no-one could deny that a SUPERIOR BEING
was responsible for the events. I will ignore the difficulty of
telling the difference between God and some ultra-powerful fake.
Also, we must assume that God wishes to prove He exists to us. I
personally believe that whenever (if) He acts, He does so in agreement
with natural processes, so that it will always be impossible to actually
prove that a miracle occurred (there will always be other possible natural
explanations). If God does not want to prove He exists to non-believers
there sure isn't any way to force Him to.
Finally, the proof should not be something that could not be
duplicated by psychic, scientific, or supernatural powers. Sure, I don't
believe in psi, but if some guy comes into the lab and starts consistently
reading my mind it will be much easier to believe in telepathy than to
believe that God is sending him messages.
The conditions for the proof are these:
1. It should be REPEATABLE. One miracle would not be enough. I am
unlikely to believe a "top scientist". A lot of skeptics and atheists
will want to be present at the second and following demonstrations.
2. It should be MIRACULOUS. That is, something that could not otherwise
be explained by normal science. The voice of God talking to you on
the radio is hardly a miracle.
3. It should be PREDICTED. Having a comet appear in the sky and then
saying "that was the work of God" is not nearly so convincing as
telling what God will do far before the event.
4. It should be available for CLOSE SCRUTINY. Anyone who wishes should
be able to point their instruments and microscopes at it. I will not
accept any of these psychic-type phenomena that only happen when you
don't look too closely.
5. It should be EXACT. This goes with the prediction in 3. Saying "God
will do something tomorrow" is insufficient. Saying "God will cause
the sun to turn blue tomorrow at 10:42 GMT" would be quite
sufficient.
With that in mind, let's get on to some specific things that could be
done:
A. Turning Sticks to Snakes. There is Biblical precedence for this, in
an attempt to prove the existence of God, even! The prophet (or
whatever) should be available for repeated laboratory performance,
and must be examined before and after the event.
B. Parting the Red Sea, or other large body of water. If this is
predicted, exact details must be furnished. At least two partings
should be done, to convince all the people that missed the first one.
C. Resurrecting a dead person. This will have to be done several times
to allow *very* exacting examinations of the subjects before and
after resurrection.
D. Stopping the earth, or stopping the sun in the sky. This would be a
very good one, if predicted precisely ahead of time. There is
absolutely no natural explanation for this, and it is open to
observation by everyone on the planet.
E. Changing the gravitational constant G. This one would be precisely
predicted ahead of time. It could be checked by every scientist on
earth, and the change need only be a fraction of a percent (not
really enough for the average person to notice). In a similar vein,
other natural laws could be changed slightly, but enough to measure:
the speed of light, Planck's constant, or others. The key to this is
to predict the exact change far ahead of time.
All of this may seem whimsical to you, but I assure you that I am
serious. There is ample Biblical precedent for God performing miracles
on demand, even to prove His own existence (case A, above). None of
these events should be beyond the power of God, should he *wish* to prove
He exists.
But, you say, 'It is incredibly presumptuous to ask God to prove
himself. He does not need to do such things.' No? Then why are miracle
healings such a large part of many evangelical rallies? Why do so many
preachers stress the ability of God to perform miracles and miraculous
changes in one's life. Aren't they also promising miracles? The single
most important foundation of Christianity is the miracle of
resurrection.
> If you try to "prove" religion,
> or base it on miracles, you miss the point entirely. True mystics
> and Seekers after Truth (modern ones especially) recognize that the
> different religions are just different paths to the same truth - your
> own inner nature and that of the universe. [John Owens]
Perhaps I have missed the point entirely. My universe has shown
itself to be consistent and examinable. The only reason I can see for
an afterlife is that I want one. The truth I have found from the world's
religions is a common thread: security, denial of death, and rules to guide
your life by. In my search for truth, I found that religion takes the form
that is the most comforting to us. I see it as a security blanket, which
I cannot believe in any longer.
Jay Parks
(decvax!hao!ihnp4!seismo)!noao!parks :uucpjso@edison.UUCP (07/19/84)
> [kpnoa!parks] > The idea seems to be "if you will first believe in it, then it > will work". The thing that I find disturbing is that this is exactly the > claim of most psychics! I pointed out in my previous letter that I do > not believe in *any* psychic phenomena. The practitioner always seem > to require a "willing suspension of disbelief" (an old science-fiction > term). If something psychic doesn't occur, it is because you are > skeptical or don't believe hard enough. I think you are just being > fooled (unintentionally or deliberately). To see this same method being > echoed in religion is something which cases me to immediately question, > "Why does it only work for those who believe?" The thing to remember is that both psychic phenomena and religious experience are subjective, and therefore belief and disbelief make a definite difference. Since this type of thing doesn't fit very well with scientific provability, it is easy to ridicule, but it makes sense psychologically. There is plenty of evidence with weight-lifting and other physical activity that if you don't believe that you can do something, you have less chance of doing it. Why shouldn't this apply even more for something that is totally subjective? > From the above three points, we all need proof of religion, the only > proof I can accept is some form of objective proof, and the only > truly objective observations are those performed by material > instrumentation. This is why I require some form of material proof > before I can accept any religion as the truth. It seems somewhat inside-out to me to base your spiritual (inner) life on objective (sensory) evidence, especially since you can only experience the outer world subjectively, through your perceptions of sensory input. There is no way to "prove" that the physical world exists. (As pointed out by Descartes, the Buddha, and many others.) See _The Tao of Physics_ for an interesting explanation from the point of view of modern physics (quantum mechanics) of the relationship of objectivity and subjectivity. The newest theories (as interpreted by the author) seem to indicate that there is *no* objective physical world... > Perhaps I have missed the point entirely. My universe has shown > itself to be consistent and examinable. The only reason I can see for > an afterlife is that I want one. The truth I have found from the world's > religions is a common thread: security, denial of death, and rules to guide > your life by. In my search for truth, I found that religion takes the form > that is the most comforting to us. I see it as a security blanket, which > I cannot believe in any longer. My inner universe has shown itself to be consistent and examinable also, and an afterlife, reincarnation, and other ideas you reject for lack of proof fit perfectly based on my experiences. As you learn to be in touch with your "inner self", (skeptics could say "as you brainwash yourself...") you find this "resonance" with truth. As far as comfort goes, this may apply to organized (pre-digested) religion, but my own search for truth has been far from comforting, except in some of the results. To many people religion is a security blanket, and fulfills that part of human nature that wants to be told what to do, but this is not the nature of religion, and certainly not a necessary part of religious experience. (From some of your objections to religion, and your need for proof, it seems to me that occultism might be what you are looking for. (Though not much that is called occult really is: there seems almost to be an "occult dogma" forming recently, which is a logical contradiction...)) John Owens ...!{ {duke mcnc}!ncsu!uvacs houxm brl-bmd scgvaxd }!edison!jso
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/20/84)
I know not what Buddha says, but as for Descartes, cogito ergo sum!
Yes, Descartes believed the real world could be proved to exist, and
his famous propostion is but his first step: he proved he existed.
Please be kinder to Rene next time. He would not rest well if he
thought his method could be generally perceived to state the opposite
of what he meant.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidcher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing) (07/20/84)
John Owens interpretes newest theoies on physics as suggesting that no
physical world exists. I would be interested to know what the logic
leading to that was. All of the existing subjective idealist theories have one
peculiarity that most of their creators tried to escape: they lead
to solipsism. To rephrase that: the theory that deduces that there
is no physical world, also suggests that nothing but the author of this
theory is real. Any new developments in that style of thought?
Also: religious experiences are subjective, but the majority of believers
would consider them as coming from a very objective god. Fewer people
would try to defend something like 'one truth, many ways'...
Mike Musingrlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/22/84)
> The thing to remember is that both psychic phenomena and religious experience > are subjective, and therefore belief and disbelief make a definite difference. > Since this type of thing doesn't fit very well with scientific provability, > it is easy to ridicule, but it makes sense psychologically. There is plenty > of evidence with weight-lifting and other physical activity that if you don't > believe that you can do something, you have less chance of doing it. Why > shouldn't this apply even more for something that is totally subjective? And what this passage from John Owens indicates is that, as many have been trying to say, the power of belief is very strong, and DOES have a positive effect on the believer. (Look at the "success" of the "believe-in-yourself" school of books/therapies.) On the contrary to his implication, it makes a LOT of sense from a scientific standpoint: believing in what you're doing does apparently affect one's behavior and outlook, and thus it must have had a positive effect on one's biochemistry as well (in order to cause those changes in behavior). The question arises as to whether what you choose to believe in is valid, independent of whether it has an effect on you (if you believe strongly enough in a positive way, it more than likely will). As others have pointed out, the brain remembers what it can, and fills in the rest (witness evidence regarding the questionable validity of hypnotic recall). Our brains seem to have incredible patterning capabilities that "fill in the blanks", but the way that those blanks get filled in is going to be based on what sets of presumptive belief patterns are present in the person's brain. If one believes strongly that there is a deity affecting your life, recollection and understanding of events are going to be filtered through that presumption. -- WHAT IS YOUR NAME? Rich Rosen WHAT IS YOUR NET ADDRESS? pyuxn!rlr WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA? I don't know that ... ARGHHHHHHHH!
jso@edison.UUCP (07/22/84)
> I know not what Buddha says, but as for Descartes, cogito ergo sum! > Yes, Descartes believed the real world could be proved to exist, and > his famous propostion is but his first step: he proved he existed. > Please be kinder to Rene next time. He would not rest well if he > thought his method could be generally perceived to state the opposite > of what he meant. > David Rubin > {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david He *believed* that the real world could be proved to exist, but he certainly didn't prove it logically. It's been a while since I read his "proof", but I seem to remember something like this: He proves he exists, as a thinking entity, because the one thing he can't deny is that he thinks. He also experiences the external world through his senses; this can either be real, he decides, or the action of a "deceiving demon" (maya, illusion). Fine so far. How does he then "prove" that the outside world is real as opposed to some "deception"? Because God is Good. He proves this quite logically, he simply has some very questionable axioms... This is similar to his thoughts on mind-body dualism. He reached the conclusion that the mind (soul?) and body were of separate substances, and therefore could not interact. But of course they did, and faced with a nice, rational conclusion, and "facts" that disagreed with it, he of course retained his conclusion, giving as explanation that the mind and body couldn't interact, except in the pineal gland. [Huh?] Kind of suggests that there's something wrong with mind-body dualism. [Interesting how these netnews discussions cross-fertilize. To net.ai'ers: Note that this says nothing against the existence of the mind, but indicates that maybe there is no real duality, (the universe is one...), or maybe no real body (hmm...)] John Owens ...!{ {duke mcnc}!ncsu!uvacs houxm brl-bmd scgvaxd }!edison!jso
wws@siemens.UUCP (William W Smith) (07/25/84)
>> The thing to remember is that both psychic phenomena and religious >> experience are subjective, and therefore belief and disbelief make a >> definite difference. [John Owen] >The question arises as to whether what you choose to believe in is valid, >independent of whether it has an effect on you. [Rich Rosen] Right! The skeptic can not accept the improbable, while the believer who acts as a toy soldier not questioning his assumptions will have incorrect beliefs. What is true, is true whether you believe it or not. As a former agnostic (read "a euphemism for atheist") I knew that Scientific American could explain all problems, answer all questions.... Then driving to work there was a story on the radio of a psychic who found a boy lost in the New York area. It didn't fit in with my preconcieved ideas of the universe so I started looking elsewhere for answers (while keeping my SA subscription). I still get Scientific American, but it is no longer an idol which will divulge the world's secrets for me. The power of friend's (not all of them Christian) witness converted me to be a follower of Christ. (I avoid the word Christian because it has been misused greatly by groups I consider fanatical like Falwell's Flock.) Bill Smith ihnp4!astrovax!princeton!siemens!wws
rap@oliven.UUCP (07/31/84)
. >> The thing to remember is that both psychic phenomena and religious experience >> are subjective, and therefore belief and disbelief make a definite difference. >> Since this type of thing doesn't fit very well with scientific provability, >> it is easy to ridicule, but it makes sense psychologically. There is plenty >> of evidence with weight-lifting and other physical activity that if you don't >> believe that you can do something, you have less chance of doing it. Why >> shouldn't this apply even more for something that is totally subjective? > >And what this passage from John Owens indicates is that, as many have been >trying to say, the power of belief is very strong, and DOES have a positive >effect on the believer. And for you Christian people, a quote from Matthew 17:20 ... I tell you the truth, If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible to you. See also, Matthew 21:21 and 21:22. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap