levy@ihlpf.UUCP (06/13/83)
#R:princeton:-18700:ihlpf:22600013: 0:6662
ihlpf!dap1 Jun 13 0:55:00 1983
Well, I am going on the assumption that your term "balanced" wasn't used in
sarcasm ( I don't think it was).
First of all, I AM an agnostic. I would definitely say that I don't believe
in the Christian view of God, but that doesn't mean there isn't SOME type of
God.
Secondly, I think that the statement on the animals on the Ark is definitely
NOT out of ignorance since:
A: Most animals need much more than their own body space to survive.
B: All animals need something to eat (which in the case of carnivores turns
out to be other animals).
C: Most larger animals need both a clean environment and a place to get rid
of waste.
D: The majority of the 1.5e6 Cu. Ft. was not floor space.
E: I honestly think that it would be difficult to impossible for the entire
crew of a modern ocean liner to keep all the animals in the San Diego Zoo
on board for forty days and forty nights, much less Noah and his family
to keep ALL the animals in the world on a homemade boat for the same
period of time.
Another point to be brought up here is, what about the little babies? This
illustrates why I am willing to say that I do not believe in the Christian
view of God, but remain an agnostic. The Christian view of God holds that
he is infinitely merciful. To me, this is a direct contradiction to the
account in Genesis (as well as elsewhere where God made such carnages).
While I can perhaps be led into believing in miracles (after all, there are
many things which people don't understand) I cannot believe in such direct
contradictions. Other such contradictions are that God is omniscient and
yet people are to hold for all their misdoings, that God is all merciful
but allows Hell to exist and that such a God would punish all mankind for
Adam and Eve's sin of eating an apple which they weren't supposed to.
As for witches and goblins, there have been people who actually believed in
such things just as you believe in God. In fact, as I'm sure you are aware
of, some of the most fervent of witch believers (and burners) were early
Christians. In fact, with all the evidence and confessions gathered by those
early Christians, I think there is more to be said in the evidence for witches
than God. The point is, you can't just say that "We should believe in God
since there is a God and we shouldn't believe in witches since there aren't
such things". I could state the exact opposite and when it came down to hard
facts, I think I would have the edge.
As far as the rainbow being a promise: if there already were such things, it
seems like a pretty weak promise. Maybe I missed your point, but as I read
it, you meant there were such things around before the covenant, but they just
took on a different meaning after the covenant. If that were the case, I
could say that the earthquake is my promise to repay a banking loan, but I
don't think most bankers would accept it as collateral. Again, if I missed
the point, please correct me.
In the end, I believe that there is just about as much evidence for any
religion as any others, and most of the ones that I have dealt with seemed
very contradictory and so I can't subscribe to them. This in itself is one
of the contradictions I mentioned earlier. How could an all understanding,
all loving, all merciful God fault me for using the reasoning which HE put
into my head? It just doesn't make any sense to me and any reasonable God
should understand that. I know this sounds vaguely like circular reasoning
but it really isn't. If there is a God who wants us to be saved then there
shouldn't be all the contradictions in my way to confuse me. If there isn't
then it's a moot question.
As far as explaining gravity to a youngster, sure there are things that we
eventually have to accept. This doesn't mean that they are "obviously
unanswerable". In fact, Einstein's theories account for gravity. These
theories are in turn based on some things which we have to accept. The
difference is, we don't have to accept them on faith. We accept them by
direct empirical evidence. I know of no reproducible evidence that Jesus
turned water into wine or fed multitudes on a few loaves of bread and fish.
I do know some Christians who claim that God coming into their life was a
"miracle" but I also know of some Hari Krishnas who say the same thing with
respect to their religion, and as far as I can see, neither of them really
qualifies as much of a miracle. Gravity (and Einstein's theories) are not
accepted as divine mysteries which the mind of man will never concieve, but
as theories which have a large body of reproducible evidence to back them
up.
Why should children be portrayed as asking the questions? There are several
reasons. First of all, it's more realistic. Very few adults ask such
questions. The children portrayed will probably eventually stop asking the
questions, not because they have the answers but because they have come to
learn that such questions are looked on with skepticism in the real world.
Such people are often labelled in less than complimentary terms.
Secondly, it points out that such questions are asked by people besides
wild eyed fanatics plotting the overthrow of the world in the name of
Karl Marx. Such questions, when asked by adults are often looked on as
subversive attempts to overthrow God's kingdom. In actuality, they are
quite reasonable questions that deserve reasonable explanations.
One of the main points of Yoakum's example is just WHY aren't people asking
these questions? It's not because they're not smart enough to comprehend,
even the children are puzzled. A child's natural inclination is to ask
such questions. They have to be TAUGHT NOT to ask them. I see evidence of
this all the time. The last time I went home, there was a man who told me he
saw a "miracle" happen. A local farmer had a tractor fall on him and had been
paralyzed for several months. The "miracle" was that the man was now walking.
Another man attributed this to the "power of prayer". These men had been
taught to ask the question "Why would a man who was paralyzed be able to walk
after prodigious prayers had been offered up for him?" but not the more obvious
questions:
"Why was he paralyzed in the first place?"
"What about all the guys who were prayed for and died?"
"What about all the guys who weren't prayed for and lived?"
"Why should we thank God for healing the farmer but not condemn
him for the accident in the first place?"
These are the types of questions that a child would ask. At least until he's
learned better.
Anyway, thanks for the response.
Darrell Plank
BTL-IHhutch@dadla-b.UUCP (06/14/83)
In partial response to Darrell Plank: I will quibble with you on a few points, but I won't try to reply to your entire article point by point. You quote the Christian view of an "infinitely merciful" God. I am not sure that is really true, although it is close. The difference is like the one between innocence and purity, not the same thing but almost. The concept of mercy does not imply or require that one must tolerate evil. What it does imply is that as long as there is good in someone, it is of value. It would be unmerciful to destroy that good. The times where God is reported as having destroyed men and their works all include the statement that they had become so evil and corrupt that it would be unjust to allow them to continue. As for Christians burning witches. Witch-burning was a popular sport in Europe long before Christianity managed to permeate society there. The practice of witchcraft was strongly associated with the Druidic religion, and the invading Germanic tribes did not particularly like Druids either. However, there is even evidence that witches were sometimes burned by the Druidic societies. So don't jump to conclusions based entirely on the evidence of modern folklore. Christians did not originate the practice. Back to your notions of the "contradictions" in the view of God. Please reconcile for me immediately and in simple terms that any child can understand, the contradictions between particle and wave physics. You will discover that the difficulty here is due both to lack of complete knowledge, and to the fact that the medium of expression (language) is too imprecise and ambiguous to properly represent all ideas completely and without apparent contradiction. In conclusion, I urge you to keep asking questions, but also that you not shut out any answers you might hear just because they offend your sensibilities. Steve Hutchison Tektronix Logic Analyzers