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.