rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/05/84)
After the debate between the Satan-like Tim Maroney and the Christ-like David Norris, all I have to say to David is: 1. What Tim says (and where I strongly concur) is that if the god in the bible exists as described, he would not deem him worthy of worship. The only reason this reasoning seems circular to you is based on your blind acceptance of the bible as fact: the notion that there could be a god who does not fit the biblical template is alien (perhaps obscene) to you. 2. Your argument seems based on the concept that if the biblical god exists (creator of the universe and all that goes with it) then he has the RIGHT to 1) impose standards on his creations, 2) expect those creations to live up to the standards or, in failing to do so, to thusly "choose" the path that leads to eternal hell (your exact phrase was "volunteer[ing] for hell"). Quite frankly, this is a matter only of faith; if you choose to accept such a notion about god, you are just as likely to be susceptible to accepting the same notion about human "authorities", and are thus doomed to live out your days as a puppet to whomever chooses to manipulate you, be it your "god" or your fearless leader. 3. By your arguments god has the right to slaughter entire peoples if it would interfere with making his prophecies a reality. (This is a direct consequence of your comment on god's destruction of the Midianites.) He has the right to harm those who would not adhere to his laws. Granted, there are many societaly benevolent laws in the bible (as well as some obscurely bizarre ones but who am I to question---I'm a thinking human being, that's what I am!). But, as I said in an earlier article, if people only adhere to such benevolent laws because they fear god's wrath or because they cower in fear of church and bible, then humans are failing to use their brains for any useful purpose. If none of us is truly "blameless", then god would be within his rights (according to you) to destroy us all. Is he somehow merciful for not doing so? 4. The premise of the bible (beyond being a "factual accounting of history"), according to David Norris, is to show the evil side of humanity, and to convince us to shed our evil and revel in good (the absolute good as defined by god in the bible). Granted, we are intelligent beings that still have the chemicals of animals in our bodies controlling (to a degree) our actions, and to fulfill our full potential we should use our intelligence to overcome our "animal urges" (possibly rechanneling them is a better concept). But whether or not there is a god, if the only way we accomplish this is by doing it because god says so, then we are truly failing in this task. A truly benevolent (in the long term) creator would probably agree. (Please don't pounce on my use of "probably", because there are plenty of vacuous examples of your use of the word.) 5. You say: Until I learn how to "make a fish from scratch", I will assume God knows what He is doing. Of course that's a pretty bold set of assumptions. It assumes first that god exists. It also assumes that because god made fish, he knows what he's doing. Who's to say? It also assumes that because god is the creator of fish, he is a loving benefactor with our best interest at heart. That's probably the biggest assumption of all, and assuming there's a god at all is a pretty big one by itself. 6. Tim concentrates on a "humanistic viewpoint and ignore[s] eternal consequences" according to your article. And rightfully so. The only proof of "eternal" anything is your faith, which is no proof at all. By the way, you totally ignore Tim's point about god's creation of things detrimental to life (like diseases and bacteria, etc.) Well, I shouldn't say "ignore". You do put forth the argument that without evil there'd be no good, that there must be pain in order for there to be pleasure, etc. This is a rather tired argument regarding god's existence and why he didn't create a perfect world. To me, it seems like this is more evidence against the notion of an act of deleiberate benevolent creation, rather than for it. This in and of itself does not preclude the existence of something along the lines of a "god". 7. I tend to agree with David that Tim is somewhat misinterpreting the sense in which the "No other gods before me" commandment was offered. But I agree that a truly benevolent deity would not "demand" worship. (I know, I know, he gives you a choice; I'm sure David would see an equal degree of choice in a Soviet or Salvadoran election.) 8. I think David is misinterpreting Tim on the point of evidence. Tim says "if the bible is true, then the god it presents is hideous and not worthy of worship, but i don't believe the bible to be true, so i don't believe that such a god exists". This is not circular, but rather quite logical. 9. As far as faith goes, the difference between faith in what we have learned in school (???) and faith in god is that the former is borne out by evidence, and the latter is not. As far as god dying to keep us out of hell, well, that's very interesting. He makes a hell to send non-believers to, then he sends his son (I guess he couldn't make it himself) to perform miracles and save his intended victims. Hmmmm. Rather than sending a divine emissary in the form of a "son", what would impress me would be for god him/itself to spend one week on earth as an actual human being, not a divinely conceived entity. Of course, god doesn't exist to impress me... And of course, the proof of god's sending a son to earth at all is tenuous unless faith is your strong (weak?) suit. 10. You explain the Tower of Babel story explicitly. What precisely is wrong with people assuring that they would "be powerful without God's help"??? Then there's this business about the sin of pride (your words). I tend to agree that often humanity gets too big for its own britches (take a look at Tim's Thelemist doctrine, or Tom Craver's objectivist writings), but who the hell is god to tell us "hey, that's not right, I don't want you to do that, so *YOU* go speak Aramaic..."?? 11. If questioning your god is considered "worshipping an evil god", then there are words to describe your philosophy---fascist, autocratic,... If you say you cannot judge god, then it is you who have set up a strawman. 12. Your attitude toward Adam and the original sin show your true colors. I am no better than Adam, you say, I am weak, and I show the sin of pride by thinking I could have done better. Why do you degrade yourself into thinking you couldn't done better. This self-deprecating notion is repugnant to me. Pride is hardly a sin if it doesn't reach the proportions of Wagnerian romanticist egotism. Summing up (I hope): David says that we should look at the good things that god has done (according to the bible) and ignore (because with our limited view we couldn't understand it) the rest. Hitler is responsible for the creation of the Volkswagen. Should I see beyond the murder of millions that I couldn't possibly understand and look towards his view of a new world in his image??? If the analogy is too harsh, it is because you simply cannot see your god in that light. David complains about Tim's sarcasm. Frankly, I can't see how one wouldn't become sarcastic in arguing with religionism. And finally, David proudly exclaims that Tim "will be forced to see the truth" someday. I think the word "forced" sums up David's ideas of what god is all about. Tim and I are in violent disagreement about a number of things, but he makes many valid points when analyzing Judaeo-Christian religious thought. My own view is that the bible is an interpretation and explanation of the world developed by early civilized humans, and that the god therein does not exist, at least not in that form. The vision of a god in the bible reflects not the nature of an existing god, but the desire of people to make themselves feel important by saying "Our lives have purpose, because there is a god up there in all the vastness of the universe, and he is watching over us and has designated us as rulers of this plant, as long as..." Of course, this does not preclude the existence of an entity who is not really the universal god, but rather the power hungry monster that Tim depicts. I sometimes wonder if this is true... Is Christ the Antichrist??? Is God Satan? Is it all just propaganda? Do you wonder about such things as well, or do you also buy whatever you're told to buy on television... -- Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (01/08/84)
Rich Rosen says ...
9. As far as faith goes, the difference between faith in what we have
learned in school (???) and faith in god is that the former is borne out
by evidence, and the latter is not.
I feel that I can counter safely by stating that a lot of what is (and
was) believed to be true there was no evidence for.
Consider the Bohr model of the atom (which by the way, turned out to be
incorrect). At the time of its development (late 1800s - early 1900s I
think -- correct me if I am wrong) it was taken to be the true model of
the atom. (The model, for those who don't know, is that electrons orbit
the nucleus of the atom similarly to the way planets orbit a sum). This
was replaced in the mid-1900s by the quantum theory of electrons
possessing certain excitation energies allowing them to occupy different
energy states. (Again, correct me if I have erred in my description,
it's been a while since physics for me). The point is that if the
evidence formerly believed about the Bohr model being true was *proven*
(more on that later) false, what can be said about the evidence itself?
One day someone will come along and prove quantum mechanics false (there
are already holes in it -- note the particle vs. wave theory for light)
and then we will have to restructure what we believe about the world to
the next theory.
If someone is willing to believe that mathematics and science is
true by evidence, and yet faith is false by lack of evidence, then I
seriously question their defense of such an argument, especially when
the evidence is shown to be incorrect. Ancient man had evidence that
the sun rose and shined every day, until the first eclipse came, then
the evidence was false.
About *proof*: After considerable readings about Godel, Cantor and
Turing I concluded that there was no such thing as absolute proof, only
proof that exists relative to known information. From this follows my
earlier arguments -- they thought the Bohr model was correct because the
mathematics they possessed bore it out to be so, but as soon as they
found a new mathematics to express themselves, the model was shown
false.
In summary, I conclude that Rich Rosen's point is not well taken,
because nothing in mathematics/science is absolutely conclusive,
therefore subject to criticism and refutation. Just because you can't
*prove* the miracles of God to be miracles doesn't mean they are not,
any more than proving that quantum mechanics accurately describes the
atom.
--
--greg
...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds (uucp)
Gds@XX (arpa)rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/10/84)
Greg Skinner has a problem with one particular point in my previous article, the point regarding faith in things borne out by evidence and faith in one's god. "Faith in science" (or whatever I said) was a poor choice of words, but I did not mean to imply "faith that what science says today is fact". "Faith" in science implies that science as a quest for knowledge LEADS us toward truth and fact. Acceptance of any doctrine as the be-all-and-end-all, scientific OR religious, is blind faith. I would think that religious doctrines are far more guilty of this notion, and in fact seek to reinforce it (that is, the notion of blind acceptance). -- Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (01/11/84)
I would think that religious doctrines are far more guilty of
this notion, and in fact seek to reinforce it (that is, the
notion of blind acceptance).
What do you call "blind acceptance"? Are you referring to scripture
such as:
"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and
he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he
that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me is not worthy of me."
(Matt 10:37-38)
These things Jesus told his apostles when he commanded them to go into
Israel and preach the gospel. His warning was not "accept me
unconditionally", but, "do not listen to the world, but follow me".
--
--greg
...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds (uucp)
Gds@XX (arpa)