brianp@shark.UUCP (07/05/84)
] From: ] Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist ] > each other. IF THERE WAS NO GOD, THEN MAN WOULD INVENT HIM. ] Beneath all the external differences, (almost) all ancient religions ] were remarkably similar, with very close correspondences in pantheons, ] myths, and rituals. See the works of Jung for an explanation. ] Not that this refutes your argument at all, but it should indicate that ] gods and religion are not simply "inventions", but a reflection of ] some inner truth. ... Almost no religions deny reincarnation except ] modern Christianity. This "inner truth" can be super-duper-natural dieties which actually exist, and are commonly perceived, or it can be a perception of an "inner need" (`I dont want to die!'=>reincarnation), or any other characteristic common to (most) humanity. Or whatever. It is speculation, so far. All we are sure about is that there is something common. ++++++++ ] > There is no current-day objective proof for religion. There are ] > communications, prayers, miracles, and healings, but these are all ] > subjective and do not constitute proof to disbelievers. ] 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.) (first, what is "relationship with the universe"? can it be strictly subjective, if the universe is an objective thing?) ] > otherwise. I think these people are flat-out *wrong* and are ] > deluding themselves through the fanatical strength of their beliefs. ] Fine, but should this reflect on the truth of religion? If these things ] are in the Bible, then this reflects only on its truth. Certainly ] people can be deceived and deceive themselves, but to say that everything ] not in the common, materialist experience is such a delusion is foolish. ] ] ... 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 If a religion is a path to "the truth of the universe", then isn't it (or that aspect) 'provable'? (assuming the universe is physical, common, provable) Of course, one's "own inner nature" needs no proving, except to oneself. But if a religion deals with "OUR inner natures", then there is something common in what people are like, and thus (thus?) something 'real' and 'provable' about them. (I am thinking psychology, etc) So religions are either useful figments of imaginations, or provable stuff. Or both. I am proposing that anything non-demonstratable can not be anything but a product of minds. (*** I am using the point of view that there is the 'objective' physical universe, and a bunch of 'minds' (see net.philosophy discussion on minds) of which faith and religion are 'figments'. (not to put them down - just emphasizing the information vs substance view) Does anybody think that there exists that which falls in neither category? If so, please try to explain to one who would hold such a view. ***) Also, have psychologists, etc. done any studies on the needs for and the powers of beliefs in general? (lumping placebos and religion into the same category) And why would people want a belief which has real, material universe aspects which are unprovable? Isn't this against the nature of man (prove it exists :-) to explain and 'prove' the real world? ******** ] From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) ] Subject: Uncertainty ] [ This is an open letter to Rich Rosen.... ] ...remember YOU CAN'T PROVE I EXIST, so why are you... cogito, ergo sum. And, I talk about you, therefore you exist. That says nothing about whether you are any more than a figment of my mind. Does ANYthing exist? (other than MY mind. Yours is but a figment... :-) ) We trust our senses to describe a 'real world' which we 'exist in'. ] (2) You're one of the people who's overly sure of his world view, ] and needs to loosen up! ] But you can't prove anything by logic alone. You have to start with axioms ] and inference rules, and how do you justify them? You can't ] use logic! Historically, they have been justified by APPEALS ] TO INTUITION. So let's use our senses (what we sense, rather. it even seems to be common) as axioms. What is intuition? Subconcious thoughts? Either they are ABOUT something (other thoughts, or eventually, sensations) or they are totally new things made up from thin air. If they are random, why use as axioms? If they are "put" there (into your 'mind'), then how did they get put there? Show me something that put them there, so I can tell that there indeed is a puter and a putting, rather than a random creation, or some interpretations of the world you have experienced. ******** ] From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) ] Subject: A Penney's Worth ] ] ...I have an insatible desire for knowlege of ] my own religion (yea, I don't know it all) as well as what others ] think about it. I wish I had more time to devote to its persuit. This implies that there is knowledge in a religion that one might not yet have, that there is 'something' to the religion that is external to the person. If anything not subjective (one person = one subject) is then objective (please explain if you think there can be a third category), that religion is 'provable'. Or is the person who is learning about a religion borrowing some subjectivity from someone else? Letting them do the living for him? Is religion a pursuit that one devotes time to, in a night class at the local community college, say, or is it a way of life, the way one interprets his sensations, the way one gives them meaning? If it is the latter, it should be done all the time, and it should be totally personal. (what if someone discovered the formula for 'subjectivity', and decided to market it? Would the 'masses', i.e. the tv watchers, the church-goers, and whatever buy it all up? :-) ) Brian Peterson wherever!tektronix!shark!brianp [The above opinions may be only a figment of a figment of my imagination]
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (07/05/84)
> ] From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) > ] Subject: Uncertainty > ] [ This is an open letter to Rich Rosen.... > ] ...remember YOU CAN'T PROVE I EXIST, so why are you... > > cogito, ergo sum. And, I talk about you, therefore you exist. That > says nothing about whether you are any more than a figment of my mind. > Does ANYthing exist? (other than MY mind. Yours is but a figment... :-) ) > We trust our senses to describe a 'real world' which we 'exist in'. We trust our senses to describe a 'real world' which we 'exist in'. That was my whole point, that nothing can be proved by reason alone. We start with some assumptions. Very reasonable people start using words like "intuition," "faith," and "trust." I'm not knocking this. It's unavoidable. If we are to come to any conclusions at all, we must start with assumptions. Just don't tell me that you know anything by reason alone. > ] (2) You're one of the people who's overly sure of his world view, > ] and needs to loosen up! > ] But you can't prove anything by logic alone. You have to start with axioms > ] and inference rules, and how do you justify them? You can't > ] use logic! Historically, they have been justified by APPEALS > ] TO INTUITION. > > So let's use our senses (what we sense, rather. it even seems to be common) > as axioms. What is intuition? Subconcious thoughts? Either they are > ABOUT something (other thoughts, or eventually, sensations) or they are > totally new things made up from thin air. If they are random, why use > as axioms? If they are "put" there (into your 'mind'), then how did > they get put there? Show me something that put them there, so I can > tell that there indeed is a puter and a putting, rather than a random > creation, or some interpretations of the world you have experienced. I'm perfectly happy to use our senses as axioms, as long as you admit this is an arbitrary decision which can't be justified rationally. I posted my article because I thought Rich was sweeping this little fact under the rug, in order to play more-rational-than-thou. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories