[net.religion] What to do with evidence

david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (12/16/83)

	In response to Rich Rosen's article, I will ignore the humorous
portion (:-) and get on with answering his questions.

> Now to dispense with david's mode of argument, and on to answering the
> questions he puts forth.  I will not argue about the "proveability" of
> religious doctrines.  They probably are unproveable, but so what?  I don't
> think that most of what all of us believe in (not just religion-wise) is
> *totally* proveable.  Usually, though, we have reasons for believing the
> things we believe in based on evidence.

	So far, I agree.  (As a side note, what is Ubizmo?)  What is required
is proof vs. absolute proof; that is; evidence which proves beyond a reasonable
doubt.

>                                           No matter.  Through a leap of 
> logic on david's part, he seems to think that because (in his hypothetical
> argument) he has proven that Jesus is the Son of God, and that the Bible
> is God's word and a reliable document, he (and apparently I) should now
> accept God/Jesus/Ubizmo as the guiding force/controller/master/dictator in 
> his (and my and your) life.  I fail to see the reason for this.  Apparently,
> david feels that such a leap should be automatic and obvious.

	My point was to present a statement to test everyone's predispositions;
specifically toward Christianity.  Most (personal) responses I have recieved
indicated that they would be quite willing to accept it if sufficient
evidence could be presented to convince them.  In the course of this
particular discussion, I haven't presented a thread of evidence to authenticate
the Bible. The logical leap is not automatic (at least it wasn't for me), but
it is obvious if you have already done it.  It is obvious to me that a
quicksort is faster than a bubble-sort, but that is because I have studied the
routines.  It would not be obvious to a novice computer programming student.
My intent was to start discussions on that which I see as obvious; that is,
evidence for Christianity.  I hope that no one would accept this on blind faith.

>                                                                 This is where
> the so-called humanist camp and the so-called religionist (autocratic
> religionist) camp differ.  From my viewpoint, I have no reason to believe in
> a god or any non-physicalist entity ("mind","soul","essence","life-force")
> since I see no evidence for things beyond the physical.  There are unexplained
> things, but I don't automatically jump and say "therefore there must be
> something outside of our physical universe" because this is so.

	Actually, I think that there are few unexplained things one could use
to prove/disprove any particular religion.  I would hope, however, that one
would not automatically jump to the opposite conclusion "therefore there must
not be something outside of our physical universe."  Give Christianity the
benefit of the doubt; examine the evidence.

>                                                                    If david
> should succeed in proving the existence of a god and/or that it/he/she wrote
> the Bible and had a son and gave out cigars, why should I be affected?  Why
> should it change my life?  Yes, solid proof would alter my perceptions of the
> physical world, but why should I change the way I behave?  Now if you proved
> that gravity did not exist, or perhaps that life was just an illusion and
> relality was a virtual chocolate truffle, that might change how I live, but
> just proving that there's a god?  Sure, if you PROVED it I'd believe it, but
> so what?  Sorry that I didn't fit neatly into one of your categories.

	??? I suppose I am proceeding on the assumption that acceptance of an
idea that has such grave consequences must result in some sort of action. If one
proved to a man that a bottle contained acid which would burn his hand, and he
put his hand in it anyway, the man would be pretty stupid.  Or perhaps he did
not *really* believe the bottle contained acid after all (which means you
haven't proved anything to him in the first place).  Or, as I was demonstrating
in the first article, the man had a predisposition NOT to believe any of your
proofs anyway.
	Christianity, whether one accepts it or not, tells us that in the end
we will all end up eternally blessed or forever damned in hell.  Now, these
are serious consequences.  If any man thought that his life would not be
affected IF SUCH A PROPOSITION COULD BE PROVEN, he would have to be a
fool.  Non-Christians would agree with me, I think.

	-- David Norris
	-- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david

 

andree@uokvax.UUCP (12/20/83)

#R:ssc-vax:-68400:uokvax:8300023:000:1365
uokvax!andree    Dec 18 17:51:00 1983

/***** uokvax:net.religion / ssc-vax!david /  6:24 pm  Dec 16, 1983 */
	Christianity, whether one accepts it or not, tells us that in the end
we will all end up eternally blessed or forever damned in hell.  Now, these
are serious consequences.  If any man thought that his life would not be
affected IF SUCH A PROPOSITION COULD BE PROVEN, he would have to be a
fool.  Non-Christians would agree with me, I think.

	-- David Norris
	-- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david

 
/* ---------- */

No, I don't agree that such a proof would change the way I behave. I try to
do as well by the people around me as I can. Since this is in line with the
christian doctrine, your proof wouldn't radically change my life. Of course,
I would then believe (you proved it to me, remember) that Jesus was the
savior of mankind, etc, so I avoid damnation that way, also.

On the other hand, if someone proved that I would be damned to burn forever
if I didn't kill at least one innocent person a day, I might change my
behavior. Probably not, as such action is repugnant enough that I might be
willing to put up with eternal pain to avoid killing people. Does this make
me a fool?

How would you (anybody reading this) change your behavior under those
conditions? Would you start killing people to avoid eternal damnation?
Are you a fool? Or do you live by some form of the Golden Rule?

	<mike