dennisf@teklabs.UUCP (06/08/83)
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