rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/29/84)
[Sorry for the confusion here. The last article should have been titled "Jeff's comments - power of belief"] [ODD NUMBERS OF '>'s = SARGENT; EVEN NUMBERS OF '>'s = ROSEN] >>> It might be mentioned that a major effect of Christ in lives is indeed to >>> free people to do what's right -- but to make them the opposite of >>> zombies. It is when people are still "slaves to sin" that they are, to >>> some extent, zombies -- i.e. committing actions not by choice, but by >>> compulsion. [JEFF] >> I agree completely with Jeff that being what he calls a "slave to sin" (what >> I would call a slave to physical biochemical compulsions) is roughly >> equivalent to being a zombie. [RICH] > Rich...aren't you calling yourself a zombie? You have expressed your belief > that there isn't anything but the physical. By your own argument, you are > a slave to physical biochemical compulsions. Even your control over some of > these compulsions is yet another such compulsion, according to you; and so is > your disbelief in God. If everything you say arises purely from > biochemistry, only your own biochemistry makes you think it's valid. [JEFF] Jeff seems to imply that having nothing but the physical (and remember, even the things we don't understand are part of the physical world) would be a dreadful state, as we really would be "zombies" (remember, that's Jeff's word, not mine). Fact is, until I see reason to believe otherwise, I venture to guess that that's all we are---what Jeff calls "zombies", but what I would describe as physical biochemical entities. Where we differ from (so-called) lower animals is in our (apparently rarely used) ability to use reason independent of survival-oriented biological processes. My "disbelief" in god is not a component of biology, but an outgrowth of logic. Or are my hormones in active rebellion against the rational part of my brain (you know, that microscopic part near the ...), forcing me to go against the "truth" of god's existence? :-) I'm not "disbelieving" the existence of something that's there, I'm simply ignoring the belief that there is something there until there is evidence to the contrary. >> I think we've already been through the arguments about >> "freedom to do what's right", and the fallacy behind that line of thought. > I'm not talking about political freedom here! I'm talking about personal > freedom -- being freed from that which inhibits us from doing that which > is best for us and/or those around us. Sorry, Jeff. We *are* talking about the same thing. You apparently feel that 1) there is some sort of external knowledge (and/or controlling agent) that can provide you with the "best" way to live, and 2) that not having/using that knowledge is "detrimental" to one's life. Experience and rational analysis are a far better way than simply picking it up from a book and believing it without thinking about it, even if such knowledge/agents existed. (Obviously, you know my position on their existence...) -- "Submitted for your approval..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr