rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (03/23/84)
How did this discussion get twisted into a debate on evidence for the non-existence of god, as David Norris claims? Any debate on such a subject is futile; how do you prove that there are no five-legged horses? [What's that you say, "there aren't any found in nature"??? But there could be, couldn't there?? Ones we've never seen. Just because no human has ever seen one doesn't mean that they don't exist, right?] Logically, the burden of proof must rest with those who claim that there ARE five-legged horses (*and* deities), and I have seen no evidence (that stands any reasonable test) of either. Where's the beef, David? (Oh, no, Ubizmo has just condemned me to eternal damnation for uttering the unholy words... :-) David may claim that it is he who has asked for evidence, but let's be realistic about who should be requested to supply evidence. He says we can't assume that someone is a crook simply because there is no evidence that he/she is not a crook. Just as our legal system assumes that one is not a crook until it is proven that they are, we can assume that there is no deity unless there is direct proof. A neutral or skeptical position would be "I don't see any evidence of A, but show me some and you'll convince me", and not "I don't see any evidence of A, so either show me evidence of A or evidence of not A to convince me either way." To lend credence to a position based only on the possibility of evidence for that position is tantamount to being biased toward that position. It is clear that one must decide a priori that god exists and then work an argument around it to make a point. When Tim decried testimony from people who claim they've talked to god as unverifiable and potentially inaccurate, David claims that Tim is thus ruling out "historical evidence" and "eyewitness testimony". Apparently, David chooses to scrutinize other people's arguments and evidence, while being much more lax with his own. The point is (again) let's see some hard reasons why you believe that there is a god. I feel confident that every single one of them can be cut down logically. The bottom line then becomes that no one can prove that there is or isn't a god. The question then becomes "Why then choose to believe or not believe?" David says: > It appears that mankind, throughout civilization, has always believed in a > god or gods. This, of course, is no proof that God exists, but keep it in > mind. Tim's basic idea, as I see it, is that science has sufficiently > advanced mankind to the point where we no longer require God as an > explanation for Nature. Either [of the scientific or religious views] is > simply an explanation of the laws of Nature. Neither can explain to us the > Originator of those laws. The belief that these laws were not the product of > some Intelligence, I submit, is a greater leap of faith than the Theist's > belief that they were. And I submit otherwise. The incredible gall of assuming that someone or something "originated" the system and the laws of the universe is (apparently) not apparent to some. This is akin to saying that determinism implies a "determiner", or that the lack of it implies "free will". There *are* views of consciousness that state that our illusion of "mind" is a result of internal self-referentiality. This god we debate about could just be that consciousness for the closed system we call the universe. Now, this is just a speculation, but it is a rational speculation based on accumulated knowledge and logical thought. But before we take such speculations and make them into givens, let's look at whether or not such speculations are even necessary to describe the universe. If, as David says, god is no longer necessary to explain nature (was it ever?), then logically if one is to believe in the existence of a god one would have to find other reasons. Like... [INSERT REASON HERE] It is interesting (and refreshing) to see that David believes in the theory of evolution as an explanation for the development of life on earth, and moreover that he sees the theory as being in harmony with the Genesis story. I have to strongly agree here. [WHAT? WHO SAID THAT? -ED.] (But that doesn't mean/prove that Genesis was divinely authored.) Does anyone recall that during the Scopes trial, one clergyman came out and said something like "the theory of evolution is the most beautiful interpretation of the Genesis story he had ever heard"?? (Could someone please provide a reference...) Finally David says: > ...from a Christian viewpoint, there is nothing to suggest > that man is the favored species in the universe. The Bible does not contain > any information on such matters... Doesn't the notion of "man [sic] created in sin" and all of that imply that god created the world for humans to "toil in", to behave a certain way (as a test?), and reap their rewards in an afterlife? I'm not debating those notions now, but doesn't the fact that ideas like that are abundant in Christianity imply that "man" is the "focus" of god's creation? It sounds like that to me... Never ASSUME, because when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME... -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (03/27/84)
I'll try to answer a few of Rich Rosen's points from the article this is following up: >> = David Norris > = Rich Rosen > How did this discussion get twisted into a debate on evidence for the > non-existence of god, as David Norris claims? Any debate on such a > subject is futile; how do you prove that there are no five-legged > horses? [What's that you say, "there aren't any found in nature"??? > But there could be, couldn't there?? Ones we've never seen. > Just because no human has ever seen one doesn't mean that they don't > exist, right?] Logically, the burden of proof must rest with those who > claim that there ARE five-legged horses (*and* deities), and I have seen no > evidence (that stands any reasonable test) of either. By analogy with your bracketed argument, just because no human presently living (to my knowledge) has seen God Himself doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. God doesn't work entierly through the mind; however, He also does not exclude the mind as a way of reaching people. It is worthy of note that one friend of mine, who used to go about attacking Christians (verbally, not physically) left and right, finally decided to be fair and read up on what he was attacking, with the idea of coming to a cease-fire; when he read the Bible, he found that Christianity made sense, so he chose to become a Christian -- and the sudden change in his attitude startled numbers of people, especially the Christians he had formerly attacked. (Scott Bowyer, are you reading this [if you have an account]?) > David may claim that it is he who has asked for evidence, but let's be > realistic about who should be requested to supply evidence. He says we > can't assume that someone is a crook simply because there is no evidence > that he/she is not a crook. Just as our legal system assumes that one > is not a crook until it is proven that they are, we can assume that there > is no deity unless there is direct proof. A neutral or skeptical position > would be "I don't see any evidence of A, but show me some and you'll > convince me", and not "I don't see any evidence of A, so either > show me evidence of A or evidence of not A to convince me either way." > To lend credence to a position based only on the possibility of evidence > for that position is tantamount to being biased toward that position. I think it would be more reasonable for you to supply evidence than to continue flaming. Of course, you run into the problem that there isn't conclusive evidence of God's nonexistence. To turn another of your arguments around: I'd say we can't assume that ALL the Christians over the millennia have been either deluded or lying unless there's direct proof of that. As discussed in other articles, the direct proof of God's existence doesn't come only to the rational mind. (Remember that the resurrected Jesus did not appear to the skeptics such as the Pharisees and Pontius Pilate--he appeared to the believers.) Pardon my puzzlement, but let me rephrase your two quoted sentences: "I don't believe in A at all; show me evidence of A and you'll convince me." "I am open to either A or not-A; show me evidence on either side and you'll convince me." You hold to the first of these. I would say that refusing to allow the possibility of a position is tantamount to, nay, identical to, being biased against that position; i.e. you are hardly neutral--but you are very skeptical (how on earth do you consider "neutral" and "skeptical" synonyms?). > It is clear that one must decide a priori that god exists and then work > an argument around it to make a point. When Tim decried testimony from > people who claim they've talked to god as unverifiable and potentially > inaccurate, David claims that Tim is thus ruling out "historical evidence" > and "eyewitness testimony". I grant that most people arguing in favor of God have already decided He exists (though we MAY have an exception in this group, Judy at UT-Austin). I do not have Dave's reply to Tim in front of me; but I would say that the New Testament writers were recording something of tremendous importance to all of them--the key point being that they saw Jesus alive after seeing Him dead. As to eyewitness testimony: There are people who have been healed of various diseases through what would seem to be divine power; there was a segment on "That's Incredible!" a few months back about one such case; and to what would you attribute the healings that occur through Oral Roberts? I'd say you are indeed ruling out historical evidence and eyewitness testimony. > The point is (again) let's see some hard reasons why you believe that there > is a god. I feel confident that every single one of them can be cut down > logically. The bottom line then becomes that no one can prove that there > is or isn't a god. The question then becomes "Why then choose to believe or > not believe?" How about that. We agree. I don't think that one can produce a purely rational proof of God's existence--only points which strongly favor the proposition. I note again the relish with which you say that arguments in God's favor can be "cut down"; you really are on the attack, aren't you? You might as well admit that your objections to God are not founded on purely rational grounds; if they were, I don't think you'd feel constrained to attack so vehemently. Anyway, I chose to believe originally because the whole plan and history of God showed itself to me as consistent--i.e. the sacrifice of Jesus fulfilling the sacrifices in the Old Testament. I continue to believe because I see changes in me due to my relationship with God, and because I see love from Christians that I don't get from others. In fact, one friend of mine has said that several years ago, when I was in much worse psychological and spiritual condition than now, she loved me, even though she didn't like me much! Now she likes me. Her persistent love & concern for someone who was indeed highly unlikable could not have come from her own resources alone, especially considering that others had (and still have) similar love and concern; it had to come from some even more loving and concerned Person. > The incredible gall of assuming that someone or something "originated" the > system and the laws of the universe is (apparently) not apparent to some. Why is it gall? Why is it gall to believe (not assume) that the beauty of the stars, or of a spring flower, are God's poetry? Isn't it greater gall to fight for the opposite point of view? >> ...from a Christian viewpoint, there is nothing to suggest >> that man is the favored species in the universe. The Bible does not >> contain any information on such matters... > Doesn't the notion of "man [sic] created in sin" and all of that imply that > god created the world for humans to "toil in", to behave a certain way > (as a test?), and reap their rewards in an afterlife? I'm not debating > those notions now, but doesn't the fact that ideas like that are abundant > in Christianity imply that "man" is the "focus" of god's creation? It > sounds like that to me... Eh? Man was not created in sin. Admittedly King David wrote (in a Psalm, I think) "in sin did my mother conceive me"; but I don't think that was God's original plan. The point of the Garden of Eden story was that if you break full fellowship with God and go your own way, you're only hurting yourself. I don't think God originally intended things to be as tough as they are. I think the point David Norris was making can be distilled from the word "universe". Man would appear to be the focus of God's creation as regards the earth; but we don't know anything about creatures that may exist on other planets; there may be such creatures who have never broken fellowship with God; there may be creatures who did, and required redemption just as we did. The Bible says nothing either way; I think it's probably better for us to allow the possibility of other sentients in the universe, rather than stuff ourselves with pride about being the center of the universe, or the focus of God's creation. Well, this is already too long.... -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Have you hugged your junk mail today?
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (03/29/84)
Jeff Sargent has been extremely prolific lately, so I just thought I'd
say a few things in response. Fortunately, he repeats a number of his
points in his various replies to other articles (including my own), so
hopefully my response to about 500 lines worth of writing will not require
quite that much disk space.
No less than three times, Jeff referred other respondents back to his
specific reply to me (on "leaps of faith"). Thus, I will draw heavily
from that reply.
Jeff uses two quotes about faith that merit repeating:
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what
we do not see. --the Bible
One definition of faith is holding on to what one's mind has come
to believe, in spite of moods that may tend to alter that
belief. --(apparently) paraphrased from C. S. Lewis
Those with logical minds among us probably take for granted that such
definitions are inconsistent with a rational mind. Does one hold on
to beliefs simply because we hope for them to be true? In spite of contrary
evidence? The fact that Jeff does not see these tenets as contrary to
rationality makes logical discussion fundamentally impossible. Having faith
in what has been demonstrably shown to be true (or to be a reasonable model
of reality) is one thing. Having faith in what one would like to believe is
truth is another. (but what about the evidence...)
Jeff says (several times) that the only evidence to prove god's existence must
come from within. He repeatedly says "Try it yourself," "Try it - you'll
like it," and "Taste and see...". Thus the only evidence he has for the
existence of god (and apparently, according to this, that I myself would have
if I believed) is based on subjective, personal experience. Yet Jeff derides
"the elevation of the rational mind to the status of god". Jeff's rational
(but subjective) mind tells him that there is a god, so thus he believes based
on his own sensory input and interpretation of that input. But when logical
rational thinkers do the same (on a more rigorous and scientific level---
attempting to delineate the subjective and the objective), Jeff scoffs at
them. Thus the point is, if you scoff at the logical, scientific conclusions
that have been arrived at by a consensus of rational minds, how can you then
claim that through just the experience of your own "rational" mind, you have
experienced god and "know" your beliefs to be true?
I would like to ask what the difference is between Jeff's subjective
"try it you'll like it" belief system and that of a German in the 1930's who
believed that Hitler influenced and benefitted his/her life the way god
does in Jeff's life. Saying "Hitler is a man, God is not" is not a
viable answer. Some believed that Hitler was more than just a man, but
a supreme leader of sorts. You must first substantiate your belief that
god first exists, then that it is more than human in some way. The point is
not to equate belief in god with belief in Hitler but to compare the internal
belief systems of those who base their beliefs on such subjective data as
propaganda (The bible could be clearly considered as religious propaganda if
it were determined to be false, but remember that to claim it is true solely
based on subjective opinion is no different than the claim of a Nazi that
Hitler's word was truth.)
The scientific method functions as a means of eliminating the subjective
mind and seeking a more universal (objective) perspective. Saying that
one "found god" through introspection and subjective reasoning doesn't hold
any water. Jeff said himself that he went through psychotherapy, and that it
didn't help, but that he finally found "Christ's love" and that THIS is what
helped him. Sorry, but how do you know this? The fact that other methods
of psychotherapy were effectively blocked from working (most of them don't
really work at all except in theory---there are very complex reasons why
certain people cannot accept or benefit from certain forms of therapy), while
believing that an external offered you love and guidance DID help is not
proof that the external exists---only that that belief helped you. A complete
psychotherapy using this method (yes, apparently this form of belief is
very therapeutic and beneficial for some) would eventually wean you from that
need to believe that there is an external watching over you, placing you back
in reality mode where you realize "Hey, *I* did this!! I helped myself
straighten out, and it wasn't because of help from a deity but because of
what I was able to do for myself! Rationally, now, I don't have to believe
that there is a god holding me up. A god *may* exist, but if I choose to thank
it now, I'll thank it for creating a universe that enabled me to be born, to
exist, and to survive because of my own talents. Then again, there's no
proof that there's a god at all! Until I see some, why believe it..."
Persistent insistence that it's all the work of god because you feel it to
be true would be laughed at by serious rational people. [WHY WOULD SERIOUS
RATIONAL PEOPLE LAUGH??? -ED.]
Another item: Jeff is quick to point out that I am somehow angry, based on
my use of certain phrases ("cutting down" a belief) that carry "a definite
overtone of anger". Well, as I've already mentioned to David, part of the
reason for this "tone" stems from you---it is part of an attempt to prod a
direct answer out of you (and others), which many people seem to feel that
pro-religionists are seldom capable of providing. Your harping and focusing on
the nature of my anger (and your very "Christian" attempt to "help" me through
my anger-causing "hurt", which, as an Ubizmatist, I forgive you for :-) is
a prime example of this sort of avoidance.
But another element you seem to have a problem with is the way I "attack so
vehemently". Yes, I am vehement. I believe that belief systems such as yours
(as opposed to value systems--we probably share a number of *basic* values) are
harmful and detrimental to humankind, and I will work hard (vehemently) to see
them eradicated. [READ THE NEXT SENTENCE BEFORE QUOTING THE LAST ONE OUT OF
CONTEXT!!! -ED.] Eradicated not through imposition, but as a natural outgrowth
of engendering logical thought in more and more people. The problem that many
so-called Christians see with "humanism" is that they fear that the humanist
"doctrine" (whatever that is) will be "imposed" on people. At least that's what
they say publicly. What they may really fear is that if logical thought becomes
a natural part of the mindset of every individual, archaic religious beliefs
will disappear as a matter of course.
Values are another story entirely. But as a result of such a change as I've
described, values would evolve to serve the needs of all individuals in a
society, rather than individuals learning to serve previously held societal
values--codified in an ancient book--that do not best serve each individual's
needs within a society. Not to say that some older values would not be
retained, but rather that individuals would construct the values for a society
instead of the other way around. Your belief system seems to hold that all
that one could ever need to know about life is held within a book, and that,
directly or indirectly, *everything* we need to know is found there. That
may be all right for you personally as a guide to *your* life (and the lives
of others who choose likewise)---I choose either the Book of Ubizmo, the
I Ching, Brian Eno's Oblique Strategies, or Chocolate: The Consuming Passion---
but to choose *any* such book as a basis for values for all of society without
taking into account the needs of each individual in society in terms of global
values would be a heinous crime.
I've come to realize (I think) that Jeff and David (Sargent & Norris) may not
be your classic fundamentalist Christians as we think of them. They simply
believe in certain tenets, and are not among those who would impose those
tenets on others. (I'm no longer sure about Larry Bickford, especially after
his tirade on the Moral Majority.) But I think they fail to see the danger of
those who would impose, or of those who would propose to impose [OR THOSE THAT
BLOW THEIR NOSE AT THOSE WHO WEAR CLOTHES!!! -ED.], suggesting to their
followers that imposing such tenets is the way to "restore values to society",
which really means to restore things to a time when life was predictable,
orderly, and benefitting those in power (those who propose to impose).
--
Those responsible for sacking those people who have just been sacked,
have been sacked. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlrlaura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/01/84)
Rich, If God exists and God is logical then Jeff's position is not illogical. You place your faith in God, and, given that you are doing this properly you could not have faith in anything illogical so you caould never be inconsistent. This would be akin to Boole's and De Morgan's additions to the syllogisms of Aristotle. However, if God does not exist then Jeff has had it. What he is putting his faith in is not real, and therefore cannot be logical, and therefore he must be putting his faith in his own desires and whims. Intellectual suicide... This is also the crux of my argument against Christianity. The God portrayed in th Bible does not appear to be logical. Now, it may be that the God is logical and that the Bible is full of inaccuracies. It could even be that the Bible is logical and I fail to see it. (however, I don't take that last one very seriously, because if I doubt my ability to see inconsistencies in the Bible then I am tantamount to doubting my own sanity.) It may be that God is logical and Christianity is way off and it is only the Natives of Gamma Epsilon 5 who really know the Truth about God. it may be that placing you faith in God is an impossible act, and that anybody who claims to do so is actually a serious victim of self-deception. I don't know. In the meanwhile I am going to stick to the rules of predicate logic and not worry about any new rules which I might get if I placed my faith in God. I would rather work with an incomplete set then a set which might destroy my very capacity to be rational. -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura "Capitalism is a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, then you're not doing it right." -- toad terrific
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (04/05/84)
Here is an attempt at a reply to Rich Rosen. I will freely admit that I
really had to pray for patience to avoid making this a flame; Rich's attacks
do make me angry sometimes.
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what
we do not see. --the Bible (Hebrews 11:1)
One definition of faith is holding on to what one's mind has come
to believe, in spite of moods that may tend to alter that
belief. --approximate quote from C. S. Lewis
BTW, a good one-word paraphrase of Lewis's definition is "consistency", or
"faithfulness".
> Those with logical minds among us probably take for granted that such
> definitions are inconsistent with a rational mind. Does one hold on
> to beliefs simply because we hope for them to be true? In spite of
> contrary evidence? The fact that Jeff does not see these tenets as
> contrary to rationality makes logical discussion fundamentally impossible.
Judging from your own writings, those with "logical minds" would never take
anything for granted! But, as I've said before, if one reads the rest of
Hebrews 11, the faith being talked about is, or involves, staking your life
that God is trustworthy, that He will be with you and that He will keep His
promises. How do you decide that a human is trustworthy? I doubt that it
is entirely by rational, logical means. Sure, you do go partly on his past,
objective record; but isn't a lot of it just a sense, an intuitive (for lack
of a better word) sense, that the person is good? That is not strictly
rational, and yet I suspect that you do it. And the curious thing is that
usually if you decide (based on this "sense") to trust someone, things work
out well. Hebrews 11 is an entire chapter recapitulating numerous Old
Testament cases where people trusted God in this way--believing His promises
and just believing Him--and things worked out well!
I won't say the overworked catch-phrase, but I see no "contrary evidence"
that would prove that a loving God doesn't exist.
And I don't see faith as contrary to rationality, but rather as superseding
it, purifying it, realigning it. Again, there are famous cases in the Old
Testament where people, because they believed in God, did things that were
seemingly irrational, but things worked out well because God helped them.
Some of the most striking and famous examples are in the book of Daniel.
Thus, based on the evidence of the Bible and on my own experience, I am
sticking to the demonstrated truth that God really works. You are missing
out on so much by refusing to believe. (I'm sure I miss out on a lot of
blessings myself due to the incompleteness of my faith.)
> Jeff says (several times) that the only evidence to prove god's existence
> must come from within. He repeatedly says "Try it yourself," "Try it -
> you'll like it," and "Taste and see...". Thus the only evidence he has for
> the existence of god (and apparently, according to this, that I myself
> would have if I believed) is based on subjective, personal experience. Yet
> Jeff derides "the elevation of the rational mind to the status of god".
> Jeff's rational (but subjective) mind tells him that there is a god, so
> thus he believes based on his own sensory input and interpretation of that
> input. But when logical rational thinkers do the same (on a more rigorous
> and scientific level---attempting to delineate the subjective and the
> objective), Jeff scoffs at them. Thus the point is, if you scoff at the
> logical, scientific conclusions that have been arrived at by a consensus of
> rational minds, how can you then claim that through just the experience of
> your own "rational" mind, you have experienced god and "know" your beliefs
> to be true?
Did I write unclearly? I didn't mean to say that the ONLY evidence of God's
existence would come from within; just that convincing evidence would.
"This is how we know that He [Christ] lives in us: We know it by the Spirit
He gave us." (I John 3:24) Knowing God is not like knowing something out of
a book; it is like knowing a person. (I believe that the same word is used
in the O.T. to denote "knowing" God and a man "knowing" his wife, i.e. having
sexual intercourse--i.e. the knowledge of God is intimacy with Him, not
knowing a bunch of things about Him.)
I'm not doing the deriding; you are, if anyone. I DECRY making one's mind
one's god. I don't scoff at logical, rational, scientific thinkers if they
stick to their field--the observable, testable, tangible world. Science has
done much good in that area (we couldn't communicate like this without a lot
of scientific discoveries). But the assertion, "There is a God", and the
assertion, "There is no God", are neither of them assertions that science can
properly make, since neither of them can be proven by scientific laboratory
techniques. It is worthy of note, however, that one of the finest logical,
rational, scientific minds of the century, Albert Einstein, believed in God at
least partly because of his discoveries in physics ("Surely God would not miss
a chance to make the equations so beautiful"). I don't know what subjective
experience of God Einstein had, but at least some of his belief was inspired
by objective reality, the same objective reality that is available to us all.
Rich asks how belief in God differs from belief in Hitler. Actually,
they are not entirely dissimilar. Many people are hungry for real religion of
some sort (with one or more actual god figures, sacrifices of some sort,
etc.); the German churches were not providing this; and Nazism did in fact
become a religion. The difference between belief in Christ and in Hitler can
be found in (gag!) an old gospel song called "He Lives", which contains the
lines: "You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart." (BTW,
"heart" in Biblical usage does not mean emotions; rather it means the real
center of the person, the will.) This ties in with the verse from I John
quoted above.
One sentence in Rich's Hitler paragraph deserves special note:
> You must first substantiate your belief that
> god first exists, then that it is more than human in some way.
Rather than ask me to substantiate God's existence and divinity, why not ask
Him yourself, if you're really interested in knowing the truth? But don't
demand that He prove Himself; just ask Him, humbly, to make Himself known to
you. If you do this honestly (rather than defiantly), He will welcome you
and enable you to know Him and His love. "Blessed are those who have not seen
and yet have believed."
> The scientific method functions as a means of eliminating the subjective
> mind and seeking a more universal (objective) perspective.
As discussed earlier, this has its place--in science; but human beings are
not just physical things amenable only to being dealt with like objects.
> Saying that one "found god" through introspection and subjective reasoning
> doesn't hold any water.
I never quite said that. I have done considerable introspection, yes; but
much of it has been taking an honest, objective look at my emotions and my
behavior.
> The fact that other methods of psychotherapy were effectively blocked from
> working ..., while believing that an external offered you love and guidance
> DID help is not proof that the external exists---only that that belief
> helped you.
But many times when I haven't understood just how I was mucked up in some way,
I have quit beating on the problem with my mind, and just prayed that God
would make it clear to me; and He has. God can observe me a lot better than
I can (I'm too close to me sometimes), and His observations are quite good.
System's going down for the night; I'll finish later.
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
Software maintenance: It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (04/05/84)
Resuming my reply to Rich Rosen: > A complete psychotherapy using this method [prayer] (yes, apparently this > form of belief is very therapeutic and beneficial for some) would eventually > wean you from that need to believe that there is an external watching > over you, placing you back in reality mode where you realize "Hey, *I* did > this!! I helped myself straighten out, and it wasn't because of help from > a deity but because of what I was able to do for myself! Rationally, now, > I don't have to believe that there is a god holding me up. A god *may* > exist, but if I choose to thank it now, I'll thank it for creating a > universe that enabled me to be born, to exist, and to survive because of > my own talents. Then again, there's no proof that there's a god at all! > Until I see some, why believe it..." Persistent insistence that it's all > the work of god because you feel it to be true would be laughed at by > serious rational people. [WHY WOULD SERIOUS RATIONAL PEOPLE LAUGH??? -ED.] The assertion that psychotherapy via communication with God (prayer) would eventually wean me from belief in God is unproven, unprovable, and unlikely; not to mention that it would be the height of pride and ingratitude. Yet, it is true that I have had to do something. As God has shown me that I have been hanging onto various false beliefs because they gave me an illusory security, or hanging onto pockets of strong negative emotion to use as a weapon, I have had to make the choice whether or not to give them up and let God change me into His image. I did help myself straighten out, in a sense; but I did by far the smaller part; if it were not for my knowledge that my Therapist loves me, loved me enough to die for me, this wouldn't work. I don't "have" to believe there's a God. I just know Him. And He did enable me to survive by my own talents. I continue to maintain that my personal growth is due largely to the work of God because, as indicated in a previous submission, there is a deeper kind of knowledge than the rational. And considering how seriously and angrily you take this topic, why would you laugh, indeed? Ah yes...anger. The only reason I commented on (not "harped" on; please don't accuse me unjustly) your "hurt" was that in my own experience, one is angry because one feels hurt or threatened. I used to be an exceedingly angry person, angry with the world, with myself, and often with God, so I know what I'm talking about. I'm still angry with all of those at times, just less frequently and (usually) less virulently (but don't listen to me if I'm driving in messy city traffic!). > But another element you seem to have a problem with is the way I "attack so > vehemently". Yes, I am vehement. I believe that belief systems such as > yours (as opposed to value systems--we probably share a number of *basic* > values) are harmful and detrimental to humankind, and I will work hard > (vehemently) to see them eradicated. [READ THE NEXT SENTENCE BEFORE QUOTING > THE LAST ONE OUT OF CONTEXT!!! -ED.] Eradicated not through imposition, > but as a natural outgrowth of engendering logical thought in more and more > people. The problem that many so-called Christians see with "humanism" is > that they fear that the humanist "doctrine" (whatever that is) will be > "imposed" on people. At least that's what they say publicly. What they may > really fear is that if logical thought becomes a natural part of the > mindset of every individual, archaic religious beliefs will disappear as a > matter of course. I thank Yosi Hoshen for pointing out (though not in these words) that if believing in Christ has made me a better person, why do you consider it harmful? As I have come to know God more closely, my thinking (about myself, my relationships, etc.) has become MORE logical/rational, not less. Perhaps some quasi-Christians are in fact afraid that as people (including Christians) become more honest, critical, rational, a lot of what is now promoted as Christianity (and the promoters thereof) will be exposed as false and unreliable, as well as archaic (legalistic fundamentalism was, in some way, around long before Jesus appeared; and the Apostle Paul wrote to the church in Galatia to combat legalism). But one cannot expose Christ as false and unreliable, if one looks at His actions over the long term. (There have been times where, in the short term, I felt He was really shafting me, being the Cosmic Sadist; but I see from a distance of time that He was in fact helping free me of some very strong negative feelings.) > ....as a result of such a change as I've described, values would evolve to > serve the needs of all individuals in a society, rather than individuals > learning to serve previously held societal values--codified in an ancient > book--that do not best serve each individual's needs within a society. The values that that book most strongly encourages serve the needs of both the individual and society. Note that "needs" is the word. A world of people who truly followed the teachings of Jesus--because they wanted to, not because they were coerced to--would be a much happier, more relaxed, better fed world than we see now. One particular thing I might point out: Though much of the Bible seems to place women in an inferior position, and Paul's epistles place women in a subservient role in the church, yet even Paul let God's cat out of the bag when he wrote, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE NOR FEMALE [emphasis mine], for you are all one in Christ Jesus." [Galatians 3:28] God grants all equal status before Him; that verse suggests that maybe the old habit of subjugating women isn't right. > Your belief system seems to hold that all > that one could ever need to know about life is held within a book, and that, > directly or indirectly, *everything* we need to know is found there.... > but to choose *any* such book as a basis for values for all of society > without taking into account the needs of each individual in society in > terms of global values would be a heinous crime. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16) The Bible is a good basic guidebook; but I could argue that it doesn't contain everything that every person needs; Jesus said, "When he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13); so God's teaching about life continues on an individual basis. And again: the teachings of Jesus would meet the needs of individual and society, whether in the U.S. or in the Third World. (If Jesus's teachings were truly followed, there probably wouldn't be a Third World as we know it now--i.e. mired in poverty.) > I've come to realize (I think) that Jeff and David (Sargent & Norris) may > not be your classic fundamentalist Christians as we think of them. They > simply believe in certain tenets, and are not among those who would impose > those tenets on others.... But I think they fail to see the danger of > those who would impose, or of those who would propose to impose, suggesting > to their followers that imposing such tenets is the way to "restore values > to society", which really means to restore things to a time when life was > predictable, orderly, and benefitting those in power (those who propose to > impose). I'm certainly not your typical fundamentalist Christian. But again, the tenets in which I believe are not the center of my belief (though they are important); my belief is in Christ, not in any writings. I, for one, do not favor the imposition of Christian tenets upon anyone, since that often will not result in people actually coming to know God (pity Reagan, Falwell, and Helms don't realize this). I have actually found that my life with Christ is actually a bit unpredictable; I never know where I'll be called to grow next. It's interesting; it's exciting! It's living, not just existing. It has benefited me a lot; and it has begun to enable me to benefit others, without imposing anything on anyone. I LIKE Christ as well as loving Him; He's the best friend I could have, the most interesting, and the most loving. -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Software maintenance: It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.