rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/18/84)
[THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES, LABELLED "Comments (n)..." ARE BASED ON BROADER RESPONSES TO A LARGE NUMBER OF ARTICLES, INCLUDING A NUMBER FROM JEFF SARGENT. I HAVE TRIED TO BREAK THEM UP INTO PIECES AND TO KEEP THE PIECES SHORT. IF THERE IS SOME REDUNDANCY WITH OTHER ARTICLES, INCLUDING MY OWN, I APOLOGIZE, BUT THESE ARTICLES ARE THE RESULT OF EXTENDED PREPARATION.] Again the "famous cases" (Jeff Sargent's words) of those who achieved things by believing in god, those who, starting from a rationalist perspective, learned the truth about god. My own name was even thrown in by Scott Bowyer as an example, paraphrasing: "I was once like Rich Rosen but now I believe in god; you don't think someone like Rich Rosen would turn to god without some hard evidence?" (This is actually the example that prompted my previous article on "Christians changing their tune".) I sort of resent having my name bandied about in this manner, but I'll accept you "using my name in vain" :-) if you can point directly to this "hard evidence". If you're unable to produce it, I'll then assume that you were *not* "like Rich Rosen", as you claimed (not that "being like" me would be anything to be *proud* of...), and that "hard evidence" was not prerequisite to the "change" you experienced. But getting back to the particular claims that reference a particular name as the source of redemption through belief. What those who make claims like "Christ changed my life" continually fail to see is that Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, *and* atheists have had their lives changed, too. To say that "Christ" is the root cause of the effect denies the changes in other people, including atheists. One Christian went so far as to proclaim "I don't know about the results of faith in other religions (or none), but why look for other ways when we have one that works here?" Very bold assumptions here. (Why look for new theories to explain the universe when we know that the earth is the center of the universe?) It is apparent that this person has found the answer, and that others who have found "truth" have obviously been misguided, despite the fact that they get the same result following their own way :-). (It is very easy in a circular self-referential belief system to then make a statement like "God loves everyone, and is helping everyone, but it *is* Christ who is doing it..." The notion of "good dreams" is precisely the same sort of rationalization.) It appears that, if we were to look for the common factor, the only one that sticks out is that all the people that changed had a brain that might have engendered the change. -- Pardon me for ... oh, never mind!! Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/18/84)
Some people seem to think that by taking an "anti-religion" position, I am denying the possibility that god exists. I still leave the possibility of the existence of a deity open, but Occam's Razor (I hear he recently had to change the blades... :-) applies in the absence of supporting evidence. My comments allude to the nature (and magnitude!) of the "leaps of faith" that Christians, Jews, Moslems, and other religionists take leading to an assumption that their interpretation of "evidence" means that god exists (and, of course, in the form that they depict). I believe that all such leaps stem from pure poppycock, since clearly no evidence is offered. (By "no evidence", I mean "none" -- To those who have said that there is "plenty of circumstantial evidence" and that there is "evidence but not convincing evidence": non-convincing circumstantial evidence just doesn't hack it; is non-convincing circumstantial evidence the only thread from which your beliefs hang?) As always, I await the evidence (you know, the kind that "demands a verdict"...) Scott Bowyer, the one who said that he used to be just like me (poor guy) until he saw the light, made a comment about the "Richard Simmons" analogy which I'd like to mention. He asks if Simmons CLAIMS to be god, and does he have the power to back it up. AHA!!!! So this is the "Jesus difference"!! All Simmons (or Ubizmo or ...) has to do is to CLAIM to be god, perform a little magic that is beyond your ability to explain (or, alternatively, to spread stories that he has done both of these things), and POOF!!! He MUST be god!! Of course, you might say that *you* wouldn't be taken in by such trickery. What makes you so sure that you haven't been taken in already??????? If you are unable to confirm that changes as a result of believing are anything more than biochemical (a result of the innate power of your own brain), if your way is shown to be no better than someone else's way, if you have no real evidence of the veracity of your sources with regard to fantastic claims, then what is the basis for your system of belief? -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/18/84)
Steven Crane (coyote---another use of Jeff Sargent's login) makes the point that it's a matter of god's will versus ours, that an individual could never hope to win such a battle of wills, that those who choose to wrap themselves up in themselves and their "wants and urges" are surely damned. Someone else later pointed out, in response to a response about "surrendering to god", that god *is* like an enemy to whom you must surrender. Wow! What a nasty god! I'll avoid the rehashed arguments by Tim Maroney, myself, and now some others, that worshipping such a hideous, willful god is an abomination. (Those opposed would then say: "That's the way it is! Worship or be damned!", and someone else would say: ...) Buddhism (in a much gentler way) suggest that desire (wants? urges?) is the root of all suffering. Aside from the Zen-like notion that by not desiring or seeking one will find the real goal/truth (which I'm beginning to believe more and more is really applicable), there is another hidden notion that is so close to Judaeo-Christian thought that we're positively missing it. They're both saying the same thing: physical urges and wants can often be contrary to our "best interests". Thus, as long as we have physical bodies with chemicals running rampant combined with a pseudo-rational virtual machine called the mind (whether it is a consequent chemical construct in the brain or an external agent is irrelevant, though the latter is not necessary), as long as we have this dichotomy, there will be conflict, and this will continue to be so until we have shirked our physical bodies and become pure intellect (whatever that means----wouldn't even an AI-based "thinking machine" have physical needs? Electricity? Mightn't its "reflexes" (operating system) and instincts result in other "wants"?) Eastern philosophy (and I'm the furthest thing from an expert) seems to take a rationalist sort of view of these things, but not totally. Just because something is the "best" path for me to take, does that oblige me to take it? A balanced philosophy would recognize physical needs and wants as real and genuine, and would counterbalance these with rationality (Could I hurt others or myself by doing this thing?) Purists might feel obliged to seek the best path only, but why should others? On the other side of the coin, Judaeo-Christian thought takes a parental view of these things: THESE THINGS ARE BAD FOR YOU AND YOU MUST NOT DO THEM!!!!!! I've always said that no one should adhere to a philosophy unless they understand the reasons behind the belief system. Otherwise, you wind up like one of those future societies in post-nuclear-holocaust science-fiction stories. "No, the holy sign says "NO LEFT TURN", thus none of us may turn left at any time. Praise the Holy Highway Department!" Authoritarian belief systems (even those that say "it's your choice, but ignore the rules and you're dogdirt for eternity") deny that right of understanding what you believe in, speaking for people "on their behalf, in their best interest". If you don't have the hard facts, what right does such a belief system have to declare its tenets the only correct way for all other people? And what rights do its advocates have to punish transgressors? We are all individuals with unique needs, desires, and perspectives. A society should be based on the concept that it should safeguard the rights and needs of all individuals, meaning that it provides for individual freedom while delineating individual responsibility not to interfere in the rights of others (as well as an agreed-upon definition for individual responsibility to the community that the individual chooses to belong to). Back to the previous picture. This whole notion sort of implies that, even if god exists and is omnipotent, it has created a world of rules that perhaps even it cannot diverge from (or perhaps it was created as a part of the system of rules in the universe... if at all). I don't just mean "physical laws" when I say rules (as Einstein once asked, "Did God have a choice in how he created the universe?"), because our "universe" may be but one of many random possibilities with differing physical laws in a "many worlds" scenario. I mean specifically the physical and biochemical laws that govern our existence; rules that, if we choose to ignore them, will result in possible harm to us. Like not eating poisonous substances. But saying in a book "Thou shalt not eat this" or "Thou shalt not engage in the following sexual practices..." is as bad as saying "Thou shalt not eat saccharin" without giving a reason. If people are coerced into doing things rather than making a decision based on knowledge, then they are failing to use the most powerful gift they have (that "god" gave them?????)----their reasoning capability. One last comment on my Zen statement. In case someone was ready to jump up and say "Aha! Rosen discards one non-rational belief for another!", let me say this. There is a rational basis for believing that "not seeking" is more conducive to finding/achieving goals than "seeking". "Seeking" and "searching" modes often prevent one from looking objectively at what is out there, since you are searching for a particular thing and may not see other things that may be better suited to what you need than what you were "looking for". Also, being in "seek" mode not only changes your perception, but may result in changes in you that affect the way others perceive you, which may affect the "search" process. This is especially applicable to scientific inquiry, problem solving, creativity (my best songs are the ones I wasn't *trying* to write), and certain topics that have cropped upin net.singles recently. I know little or nothing about Zen, 'Tao, Buddhism, etc. so don't listen to anything I say. I've said far too much uselessness already... -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/18/84)
Steven Crane (coyote---another use of Jeff Sargent's login) makes the point that it's a matter of god's will versus ours, that an individual could never hope to win such a battle of wills, that those who choose to wrap themselves up in themselves and their "wants and urges" are surely damned. Someone else later pointed out, in response to a response about "surrendering to god", that god *is* like an enemy to whom you must surrender. Wow! What a nasty god! I'll avoid the rehashed arguments by Tim Maroney, myself, and now some others, that worshipping such a hideous, willful god is an abomination. (Those opposed would then say: "That's the way it is! Worship or be damned!", and someone else would say: ...) Buddhism (in a much gentler way) suggest that desire (wants? urges?) is the root of all suffering. Aside from the Zen-like notion that by not desiring or seeking one will find the real goal/truth (which I'm beginning to believe more and more is really applicable), there is another hidden notion that is so close to Judaeo-Christian thought that we're positively missing it. They're both saying the same thing: physical urges and wants can often be contrary to our "best interests". Thus, as long as we have physical bodies with chemicals running rampant combined with a pseudo-rational virtual machine called the mind (whether it is a consequent chemical construct in the brain or an external agent is irrelevant, though the latter is not necessary), as long as we have this dichotomy, there will be conflict, and this will continue to be so until we have shirked our physical bodies and become pure intellect (whatever that means----wouldn't even an AI-based "thinking machine" have physical needs? Electricity? Mightn't its "reflexes" (operating system) and instincts result in other "wants"?) Eastern philosophy (and I'm the furthest thing from an expert) seems to take a rationalist sort of view of these things, but not totally. Just because something is the "best" path for me to take, does that oblige me to take it? A balanced philosophy would recognize physical needs and wants as real and genuine, and would counterbalance these with rationality (Could I hurt others or myself by doing this thing?) Purists might feel obliged to seek the best path only, but why should others? On the other side of the coin, Judaeo-Christian thought takes a parental view of these things: THESE THINGS ARE BAD FOR YOU AND YOU MUST NOT DO THEM!!!!!! I've always said that no one should adhere to a philosophy unless they understand the reasons behind the belief system. Otherwise, you wind up like one of those future societies in post-nuclear-holocaust science-fiction stories. "No, the holy sign says "NO LEFT TURN", thus none of us may turn left at any time. Praise the Holy Highway Department!" Authoritarian belief systems (even those that say "it's your choice, but ignore the rules and you're dogdirt for eternity") deny that right of understanding what you believe in, speaking for people "on their behalf, in their best interest". If you don't have the hard facts, what right does such a belief system have to declare its tenets the only correct way for all other people? And what rights do its advocates have to punish transgressors? We are all individuals with unique needs, desires, and perspectives. A society should be based on the concept that it should safeguard the rights and needs of all individuals, meaning that it provides for individual freedom while delineating individual responsibility not to interfere in the rights of others (as well as an agreed-upon definition for individual responsibility to the community that the individual chooses to belong to). [CONTINUED] -- Pardon me for ... oh, never mind!! Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/18/84)
[CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS ARTICLE; RE: RULES TO LIVE BY] Back to the previous picture. This whole notion sort of implies that, even if god exists and is omnipotent, it has created a world of rules that perhaps even it cannot diverge from (or perhaps it was created as a part of the system of rules in the universe... if at all). I don't just mean "physical laws" when I say rules (as Einstein once asked, "Did God have a choice in how he created the universe?"), because our "universe" may be but one of many random possibilities with differing physical laws in a "many worlds" scenario. I mean specifically the physical and biochemical laws that govern our existence; rules that, if we choose to ignore them, will result in possible harm to us. Like not eating poisonous substances. But saying in a book "Thou shalt not eat this" or "Thou shalt not engage in the following sexual practices..." is as bad as saying "Thou shalt not eat saccharin" without giving a reason. If people are coerced into doing things rather than making a decision based on knowledge, then they are failing to use the most powerful gift they have (that "god" gave them?????)----their reasoning capability. One last comment on my Zen statement. In case someone was ready to jump up and say "Aha! Rosen discards one non-rational belief for another!", let me say this. There is a rational basis for believing that "not seeking" is more conducive to finding/achieving goals than "seeking". "Seeking" and "searching" modes often prevent one from looking objectively at what is out there, since you are searching for a particular thing and may not see other things that may be better suited to what you need than what you were "looking for". Also, being in "seek" mode not only changes your perception, but may result in changes in you that affect the way others perceive you, which may affect the "search" process. This is especially applicable to scientific inquiry, problem solving, creativity (my best songs are the ones I wasn't *trying* to write), and certain topics that have cropped upin net.singles recently. I know little or nothing about Zen, 'Tao, Buddhism, etc. so don't listen to anything I say. I've said far too much uselessness already... -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr