[net.religion] rlr's questions

garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (11/01/83)

I am going to try to answer (briefly, volumes have been written on them)
the questions posed by pyuxn!rlr.  (Such a name).

But first, I will respond to some of the rhetoric preceding the questions.

>It would seem that a fundamental principle of religionism (the belief in the
>desire or need for a religion, esp. for all people) is a low opinion of human-
>ity.

There is historical justification for a low opinion of humanity, is there
not?  Rhetorical gibberish to the contrary notwithstanding, Adolf Hitler,
Josef Stalin, etc. etc. were quite human.  Humanity is so low, it has
even produced religionists :-).

>Without god, ... our very existence could only be based on pure chance.

Actually, that is one of the more common arguments put forth in favor
of God's existence.  If our existence is based on pure chance, thought
and reasoning included, then in what sense is 'rationality' different
from 'irrationality'?  Is 'rational' simply a synonym for 'lucky'?

>This is one reason why the notion of "humanism" is so frightening to religion-
>ists; it promotes the idea of humans being in charge of their own destiny, as
>far as their bodies and minds can take them, and not subject to the whims of
>an incorporeal entity.  (The other reason that religionists fear humanism is
>that such a belief, if widely held, would shake their power base out from under
>them.)

This sort of nonsense makes me think that you are not serious in
your questions (but I attempted to answer them anyway).  Let me use
the same form of argument:

"One reason why the notion of "religionism" is so frightening to humanists
is that it promotes the idea of human beings being held responsible for
their own actions, and accountable to a higher authority, rather than free
to indulge their every whim, no matter what the consequences to others.
(The other reason that humanists fear religion is that such a belief, if
widely held, would shake their power base out from under them)."

No doubt you object to the preceding paragraph; in the same way, and for
the same reasons, I object to yours.  (Please, no flames about "mythical
humanists again"; the purpose of the above paragraph is to show that
the same techniques can be used to support any position, and that
therefore such techniques don't prove anything.)

Now, on to the questions:

>Why must there be a god?

If you mean, what are the reasons for believing that God exists,
I mentioned one common argument.  There are others, and a discussion
of any of them is beyond the scope of this reply.  The reasons for
believing in God can, I think (and this is extemporaneous), be
classified by the following (Please note that these are generic,
rather than personal; i.e., these are the reasons why people in
general believe in God, not necessarily the reasons why I believe
in God.  Also note that I am attempting to list reasons why people
really believe in God, not why people might claim to believe in
God):

1.  Authority.  I believe that God exists because people whose
    judgment I respect have taught me so.  It seems unfashionable
    to believe anything these days because of authority, yet there
    is no escaping authority.  Any claim to evidence rests upon
    an appeal to authority, in that some qualified authority must
    find and interpret the evidence.  The real question is, what
    constitutes a qualified authority?

2.  Testimony.  I believe that God exists because of the effect
    that that belief has had on my life, or on the life of some
    one else.  In other words, some one whose life has desireable
    characteristics attributes those characteristics to the existence
    of and belief in God.

3.  Search for meaning.  I believe that God exists because, otherwise,
    human existence in general, and my life in particular, would be
    meaningless.  If there is no God, then there is no real purpose
    for my existence, and I want very much to believe that there is
    a purpose for my existence.

4.  Sufficient cause.  I believe that God exists because I do not
    believe that the material universe is self-sufficient.  The
    existence of thought is not sufficiently explained by purely
    random actions.

5.  Conscience.  I believe that God exists because I have a sense
    of morality; that some actions are 'good' and some actions are
    'bad'.  I believe that this sense of morality has a basis in
    reality, and that if there were no God, there would be no sense
    of morality, or morality at all.

There are no doubt classifications which I have missed, and these
overlap to some extent.  But it will do for the moment.

>What is the difference between praying to god for help and helping
>yourself?

The same as the difference between discussing a problem with a friend
and trying to work out a solution with no help.  The human friend may
give you good advice, and point out a solution you might not have
thought of on your own, but you might still implement the solution
yourself.

>If the Lord helps those who help themselves, isn't prayer just
>a methodology for getting yourself in the frame of mind to help yourself?

The statement that the Lord helps those who help themselves is not
biblical, as far as I know.  It is often used as a copout as to why
someone should not be obligated to help another.  I.e., if the poor
were as industrious as they should be, they would cease to be poor.
Therefore I, the reasoning (and I use the term loosely) continues,
don't have to help the poor, because being poor is God's punishment
of the lazy.  (No doubt I will now be accused of believing that.
Reread the paragraph, starting with, "It is often used...")

If a person believes that there is really a god out there listening
to prayers, and that that god is able and willing to guide us in
some way, then prayer is more than a method of altering one's frame
of mind.  Prayer does in fact alter one's frame of mind, but it
does more.  What you seem to call prayer I would call 'meditation'
or 'contemplation'.  How God answers prayer is another subject
about which volumes have been written.

>What is wrong with the idea that, as long as I don't interfere in the rights
>of other human beings, I should be free to live to my best potential as I
>see fit?

In one sense, there is nothing wrong with it.  Supposing that God does
exist, wouldn't you expect that living up to your best potential
would include understanding yourself in relationship to God?  Of
course, if you have already decided that there is no god, then
you would naturally come to the conclusion that your best potential
would be hindered by a belief in same.

In another sense, there is one thing wrong with the idea:  it seems
quite clear from current and past discussions that no two people
can always agree on what rights each should have.  What is wrong with
the idea that I should be free to live to my best potential as I
see fit?  I explicitly left out the part about rights, but since
each person's opinion of what rights exist differs, I have made no
real change to the sense of the statement.  As soon as you, or I,
attempt to interpret your statement, one or both of us will say that
the other has left out an important right.

Replies should probably be divided into subtopics.