arndt@lymph.DEC (05/08/85)
I find Colin Rafferty's postings very interesting and fun to work with.
Let's keep going and damn the torpedos, eh?
Subject: Re: Ken, making excuses for himself.
Posted: Fri May 3 20:19:13 1985
Colin Rafferty in reply to my talking about the Creationist believing
in God says:
But why must you rely on it??? What I was trying to get at, was that it
seems that none of you can find a meaning in life for yourselves. You
cannot get along with the idea that everything you do on Earth is not only
transitory, but meaningless to Eternity, because we simply don't belong to
it.
****** Look Colin. Sartre has made your point as well
when he said, "A finite point is without meaning except in reference
to an infinite reference point." UNLESS, as you seem to understand, there
is SOMETHING to give our lives and existence meaning then let's "eat drink
and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
It is not just ME that 'cannot get along
with that idea' but the whole, including today, of man's culture
screams out for SOMETHING to be transendent in his existence. From,
'What's It All About, AL?', 'Is That All There Is?' to cave paintings,
burial customs, and on and on. YOU are in the minority and some would
say merely whistling in the graveyard. Tell me that you can live with
that over your child's coffin and I might begin to believe you.
YOU claim knowledge you can't possibly have when
you say 'we don't belong to it' [the world]. Twattle. You don't KNOW
that there IS NO meaning to life outside your skin! You BELIEVE that,
on 'faith' no less, because you somehow have worked yourself into a box
with no one and nothing in there with you except 'reason' and 'science'.
Wonderful! I hope the three of you are very happy.
You ask for reasons? What is the reason we MUST
find a reason WITHIN ourselves???? It seems logically that we can't find
a reason there! (Sartre) Is 'dignity' (see below) the best you can really
come up with? Very sad. As someone said, you're building on sinking sand.
You seem to think 'scientists' are not men of 'faith' but deal somehow with
'facts'. FLASH. WE ALL WALK BY FAITH. And science says so! The basic
assumptions that our science is built upon are just that - assumptions.
Only grad students don't realize that and claim to be working in some kind
of world where things are 'certain'. They persist (you see them here on the
net) in claiming that because, based upon untestable assumptions, certain
things follow therefore we have 'hard' knowledge and those who choose
assumptions that start with a Personal Absolute Being as an assumption upon
which to build are somehow operating on 'faith' - yucky religious faith at
that! There are any number of non-Christian scientists, many of whom I and
others have quoted here on the net, who make just this statement. Still we
get 'Duncan Donuts' with his ringing statement of 19th C. scientific
epistemology which little children faithfully copy for school projects with
their silly parents approval.
[you say in reply to my statement about death]
I have never implied that I am unafraid. It's just that I don't need some
superstition to alleviate my fears. The one thing that I need, when I go
through life, is dignity. That includes seeing death, facing it, and
accepting it when it comes, not cringing behind the safe curtain of "faith"
and hoping for eternal salvation. And if there is a God and Heaven, then I
see Him as reasonable, and He will understand about dignity, and won't be
indigant when he sees that I don't cringe in constant fear of death.
****** You have a silly definition of 'superstition'. It
seems to mean anything 'science' can't measure. I take it to mean that which
has no evidence (in the FULL definition of 'evidence') to back it up, - data OR
logic. You DO see the distinction between data and logic, don't you. You
wouldn't be a 'scientist' if you didn't. Data is what we believe exists, by
FAITH, and exercise logic upon. At bottem we're ALL prayin' to SOME God!
DIGNITY! You shall have none! I beleive what you
seem to be saying about dignity is mere posturing. Like a frog pretending
to be a Prince. Where is the dignity in death? You see it? Growing old
and failing in body and mind. Better a quick out on your feet, eh? Even
if for no reason. Just raise your head and scream at the empty heavens
and shake your fist and pull the trigger. Best example of this I ever saw
was Slim Pickin's ride down on the atomic bomb. THAT'S the way to go!
Whip a cosmic bird at the empty cosmos and check yourself out! BUT
DIGNITY! Surely you are fooling yourself. Dignity, it seems to me, stems
not from an illusion of worth and meaning, but from the real thing. God
understanding? What God? What if he provided a message that recounts the
WHYS of our condition and the HOW TO get out of it (death) and you ignore
it? Expect him to be very tolerant still?
[you say in regard to my comment that it's not 'natural' or 'right' to
suffer and die, etc.]
To say that it's not is to cop out. You can't take everything you don't
like and say, "Well, there's a purpose to that." To say they exist and the
best that we can do is postpone them, is to be rational. To say that it's
any other way is unreasonable and the sign of a weak spirit.
****** It's a cop out -unless it's true- which I say
it is, and you deny I believe, because you fail to recognize evidence to the
contrary or understand the process by which we DO find and examine evidence.
Say, WHERE, did 'spirit' come from? Loose lips sink ships! What DO you
mean when you use the word spirit? Thoughts, electrons, chemicals, something
non-physical - surely not. 'To say they exist (which we are doing here -others
don't) and the best we can do is postpone them' is claiming too much! How
do YOU know all we can do is go with the flow? I grant you that, locked in
your little mental materialistic box, there's not much you can do. But you
don't HAVE to give up reason to step out of the box. That's the stupidity
of our times. And your position.
Bosh! Who's whining? You sound like a little
kid who won't get off the dime and DO something about his problems. I'll
post some REASONS, should I say more reasons (from others and myself), why
one can be a 'reasonable' man and still see further than the end of one's
slide rule. IT'S UNREASONABLE NOT TO SEE THE LIMITS OF REASON OR TO CONSIDER
REASON TO BE MORE THAN A METHOD WITH WHICH TO 'OBSERVE' THE WORLD. Are you
a grad student? That would explain much of your understanding. A little
humor there, Colin. Remember I still love you.
[you say]
I agree. Where's the science (reason) in Creationism or any of that other
hopeful whining that's you've been giving us, Ken?
******* I can hardly hear you. From inside your
mental materialistic box. You remember the reason Evolution MUST be true,
don't you? Because if you go back and back one individual at a time you
get to the next grouping (animals to fish, fish to plants, etc) and so
there MUST BE SOME WAY for it to have happened on the basis of the 'why',
'metaphysical' research program (remember that one per Popper), or in
your terms 'wishful thinking' (it ain't 'facts' madame) called EVOLUTION.
Gee, you mean we don't start 'science' with 'science'???? No Wally, we
don't! We start with a point of view and see what 'fits'. Fits
observation and logic. IT'S NOT LOGICAL TO TAKE A POSITION THAT CAN'T
BE TESTED - you know, one like Evolution where EVERYTHING fits because it's
so open-ended you just make more room for the new data. WHAT WOULD SHOW
THAT EVOLUTION WAS FALSE? Perhaps an interesting question?
[in reply to my Christian affirmation of meaning you say]
That sounds fine and dandy, but why do you need an outside source for your
meaning in life? All that I'm hearing now is wishful thinking.
***** We 'need' an outside source because there
there appears to be no 'inside' source of meaning and it sure looks like
there SHOULD be meaning to it all SOMEWHERE! Is it wishful thinking to
seek another particle a theory tells us should be there? Is it wishful
thinking to seek something we have 'reason' to believe should exist?
[you go on to say]
It seems now that you're saying the Evolutionists have no evidence to back
up their arguments, and the Christians do. The only historical record I've
ever heard of was the New Testament, which is pretty biased, if you ask me.
Written by people who benefited a lot from the belief in it.
***** I'm have no intention of saying any such thing.
Only statements about weights of evidence. Which really 'fits' the world.
And by now you realize that when I say 'world' I don't mean just that which
hangs on the end of my slide rule. But 'assumptions' that fit reason and
logic and the way I think and the way I think I observe the world. What I
would call the 'backbone' of science.
[you go on to say about Christians saving the human race]
But that part has nothing to do with saving the Earth, just saving humanity.
If the personification of forces of evil can be destroyed by a nuclear war,
what is the harm in destroying the Earth along with it. This is the idea of
Armageddon, again.
******** You don't know what you are talking about, guy.
There is to be a 'new heavens and a new earth' where all the old things are
no more - no more tears, death, etc. Where did you get the idea that there
will be no physical world in the Christian world-to-come? It's this current
evil, broken world that will pass away. And by the way, if you read the
Bible you find out that it is nothing for Christians to look forward to from
the point of view of those who are going to live through it. Great suffering.
I think many Christians who DO look forward to the 'end times' don't have
this in mind the way it should be.
[you reply to my cheap shot]
> My word Colin. You've got to be seven years old, in which case get off
> your father's terminal before I tell him, or you are still in Public High
> School and I don't hold you opinions too much against you, poor guy.
>
Of course, now you must revert to the good-old "try to discredit the other
guy, so no one listens to the sense he makes" tactic. Just try to remember
that this is a debate floor, not a kindergarten name-calling session.
***** Come on Colin, take a little 'kindergarten
name-calling'. It might loosen you up. It's allowed on the 'debate floor'.
[and your final grand slam]
If Ken would sit down and think about his ideas for a minute, maybe he would
realize that he is only trying to find a reason not to worry about what's
going to happen to him, when the end comes.
But isn't that what all Creationists are doing, anyway?
******* As if it's naughty to think about these things.
Really Colin. Big bad Creationist. Claims there is a reason to have
hope. When we just KNOW (learned it in school) there is no reason to
have hope. We're all each just a funny little electron matirx with delusions
of grandeur. Because Democritus says so??
[ I love your sign off]
Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University }
"According to convention there is a sweet and a bitter, a hot and a cold,
and according to convention, there is an order. In truth, there are atoms
and a void."
-Democritus(400 B.C.)
************ Well, it's been fun but I have to go
to a dinner (I'm paying). Later.
Regards,
Ken Arndt