aeq@pucc-h (the practical mystic) (02/21/85)
From pyuxd!rlr ("Professor Wagstaff"):
First, one small detail: There is in fact a Professor Wagstaff in the C.S.
department at Purdue.
>> if individuals freely choose to use the Bible, intimacy with God, and the
>> counsel of others in the faith (including those older and wiser who are
>> leaders, but not theocrats), to help them mold their own lives, there will
>> be certain similarities among all of them, but they will be most free to be
>> fully the glorious and beautiful individuals they were created to be.
> If individuals freely choose to use their own reasoning and figure out what's
> best for them as individual human beings, then and only then will they be
> "most free".
Surely your own reasoning would tell you that one thing that can help you
find what is best for you is to utilize the wisdom of others who have dealt
with the same sort of things you have to handle. You seem to want to
re-invent the wheel, ignoring or distrusting the advice of anyone outside
yourself. If you wish to do this, that's your choice; but you could 1) spare
yourself a lot of trouble, 2) get valuable input to help you make the
decisions of your life, if you consulted other people -- either talking with
those living now, or reading the writings of those who lived previously.
I also dispute the idea that reason alone is sufficient to find a life that
will satisfy the whole person; you aren't entirely made up of rationality.
Or, put it another way, reasoning is only as good as its premises. Your
reasoning is founded on the premise that there is no God -- something which
itself *cannot* be proved by reason. Do not confuse rationality with
empiricism.
Finally, I would invite all readers to contrast the joyous but realistic
optimism of my "uplifting digression" with the rather dry and dead ideas
of skepticism expressed by Rich and others. Which would you prefer?
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
When I could honestly say I hated God was when He could show me His love.rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/22/85)
>>If individuals freely choose to use their own reasoning and figure out what's >>best for them as individual human beings, then and only then will they be >>"most free". [WAGSTAFF] > Surely your own reasoning would tell you that one thing that can help you > find what is best for you is to utilize the wisdom of others who have dealt > with the same sort of things you have to handle. You seem to want to > re-invent the wheel, ignoring or distrusting the advice of anyone outside > yourself. If you wish to do this, that's your choice; but you could 1) spare > yourself a lot of trouble, 2) get valuable input to help you make the > decisions of your life, if you consulted other people -- either talking with > those living now, or reading the writings of those who lived previously. > [SRAGNET] ... and 3) if I uncovered presumptions and/or flaws in what I'd read, I could choose to ignore such thinking, rather than accepting because I *assume* that the writers knew what they were talking about. Not everybody who writes things down DOES, you know! > I also dispute the idea that reason alone is sufficient to find a life that > will satisfy the whole person; you aren't entirely made up of rationality. > Or, put it another way, reasoning is only as good as its premises. Your > reasoning is founded on the premise that there is no God -- something which > itself *cannot* be proved by reason. Do not confuse rationality with > empiricism. First off, your premise about my premises is false. As I've stated endless times (not, though, to the satisfaction of those who repeatedly reiterate that I assume that there is no god), NOT assuming that "there is a god" (which is what YOU do) is NOT the same as assuming that "there is NO god". The fact that both options (the non-presumptive first one and the presumptive second one) reach the same conclusion leads you to equivalence them, but the fact remains that the first option (NOT assuming) is the most viable choice in ANY analysis. No matter. Secondly, you're right about not basing all one's choices in life on rational analysis; sometimes whims bring rewarding experience. (Thus, it's rational at times to act on whims.) What I was commenting on was making a decision to or not to do something based on arbitrary outside influences (peer pressure, media influence, bibles, etc.) when it runs contrary to one's thinking. > Finally, I would invite all readers to contrast the joyous but realistic > optimism of my "uplifting digression" with the rather dry and dead ideas > of skepticism expressed by Rich and others. Which would you prefer? Just slipping the word "realistic" in there doesn't make it so, Jeff. What you call my "dry and dead ideas" are borne out by evidence, and have real value in a real world. Which brings us back to where we were before: Jeff concludes by asking "Which would you prefer?" As if my (or anyone's) preference as to how they might like to view the world has any bearing on reality. Comments? (Jeff?) -- "Which three books would *you* have taken?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/23/85)
In article <1862@pucc-h> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes (to Rich R): > Surely your own reasoning would tell you that one thing that can help you > find what is best for you is to utilize the wisdom of others who have dealt > with the same sort of things you have to handle. You seem to want to > re-invent the wheel, ignoring or distrusting the advice of anyone outside > yourself. If you wish to do this, that's your choice; but you could 1) spare > yourself a lot of trouble, 2) get valuable input to help you make the > decisions of your life, if you consulted other people -- either talking with > those living now, or reading the writings of those who lived previously. How absurd to suppose that Rich (and I and other agnostic/atheists) don't! Rather than use the traditional square wheel you seem to prefer, we look for round wheels, in the writings of others and our own thoughts. And we customize them as necessary. > I also dispute the idea that reason alone is sufficient to find a life that > will satisfy the whole person; you aren't entirely made up of rationality. > Or, put it another way, reasoning is only as good as its premises. Your > reasoning is founded on the premise that there is no God -- something which > itself *cannot* be proved by reason. Do not confuse rationality with > empiricism. Neither Rich nor I would suggest that idea. We don't use reason to walk, for example. However we feel that there are places where reason is applicable but some of you don't apply it. Excess assumptions like gods can hinder the application of reason to problems. > Finally, I would invite all readers to contrast the joyous but realistic > optimism of my "uplifting digression" with the rather dry and dead ideas > of skepticism expressed by Rich and others. Which would you prefer? "Finally, I'd invite all you sailors to contrast this wonderful rum with those sour lemons. Which would you prefer to prevent scurvy?" :-) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh