[net.religion] 'Retransmission of Mail: Reply to Jeff Mayhew'

dennisf@teklabs.UUCP (06/09/83)

	Due to a mailing failure, this article is being retransmitted:

My Dear Mayhew:

	I evidently missed the point of your arguments somewhere along
the line
	or else I answered to them in too broad a way.  I assumed that
all of us
	would be reading the intervening net discussion which addressed
your
	previous response to me.  Let's identify the target so we will
be talking
	about the same thing.  Some of what may have confused the
discussion is that
	I gave what I thought to be an answer to your last comments,
but perhaps
	did not spell it out fully enough.  In recap, you asked for
reasons why
	Xns believe as they do in the existence of God.  I (and others)
gave some
	reasons.  You then responded to those grounds for belief,
calling
	into question various aspects of them.  My response then was to
	attempt to indicate that your critique of them contained some
implicit
	assumptions which I believe to be invalid, requiring a *more
basic*
	examination of the issue.  (Is this really a moving target?)

	To be specific, if God can be known only on the basis of how he
says we
	can come to know him, this rules out our own different methods.
That
	implies that if you want to be convinced of God's existence,
goodness, etc.
	on your own terms you will never find him.
	This does not mean that he cannot be found, but that you simply
reject
	the method by which he says he *can* be known.  Thus, reasons
given for
	God's existence, as you requested, are not undeniable arguments
which any
	atheist would be logically compelled to accept.  But when God
invites us,
	as he seems to do in the gospel, to assume the view of the
world he
	suggests, as a free act to see if it is so, if you refuse to
explore this
	alternative, I think your quest is at an end (at least for
now).
	There is an empirical component to belief which is a necessary
part of
	any belief-system.

	Jeff, you will not find any reason to seriously entertain the
Xn
	world-view unless it appears attractive to you in view of the
	alternatives.  If materialism or naturalism adequately explains
reality
	for you, you will find you have no need to change.  (This is
true in
	general for any world-view held by anyone.) Consequently, your
	analysis of responses to the Plunge request will be made on the
basis
	of your present world-view.  It seems to me that a more
fruitful
	question you might ask is why Xns (or others) find your -ism to
be
	an inadequate view. That way, if you find any weaknesses in
your
	present beliefs you will be more prepared to consider others on
their
	own terms.  Perhaps you *are* in this position; I don't know.
	I realize, as you must too, that our basic values are wrapped
up in our
	world-view, and this can lead to some rather unfruitful
emotionalism
	on the net.  I understand the preaching of the gospel and
invitation to
	the Xn life as (biblically) given in the spirit of sharing with
others
	an important discovery we have made in wider issues.  It is the
sharing
	of good news.  What makes it *good* news is that it provides us
with
	a view of reality which our previous world-views lacked.  I
suggest the
	discussion be continued in this direction. O.k.?

	The basic failure of naturalism, as I understand it, is its
inability
	to provide a sufficient base for meaning.  No philosopher,
whether
	Eastern or Western, ancient or modern, has given a solution for
this
	problem.  Today, modern philosophy is terribly split between
the
	existentialists, who try to establish a basis for meaning apart
from
	the rational, scientific, etc. and the analytic philosophers,
whose
	discourse has defined the problem to the point where there is
no
	content left; so they largely spend their time arguing over the
meanings
	of words and language.

	Atheistic existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre
understood the
	problem well when he said that no finite point has any meaning
unless
	it has an infinite reference point.
	We require a priori beliefs by which our raw impressions
	can take on meaning. These beliefs act as "ordering principles"
whereby
	otherwise meaningless configurations are recognized by us to
have
	special significance.  But there is no explanation as to how
such
	principles could have come about on the basis of a consistent
	materialist view since there is no source, as God is to the Xn,
for
	them.

	Dennis Feucht
	Tek Labs