Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!nlt From: nlt@duke.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Followups and Conclusions Message-ID: <3761@duke.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Nov-83 21:15:58 EST Article-I.D.: duke.3761 Posted: Wed Nov 16 21:15:58 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 18-Nov-83 00:38:47 EST Lines: 66 I'd like to join the fun and reply to a couple of comments made by Rich Rosen. ***************************************************************************** (rlr) I believe in science. That doesn't mean I believe everything that every scientist tells me. Scientists happen to be human, and in this human world of egos and opinions and indoctrinated patterns of thought we find scientists that stray from the tenets of the scientific method. ...But (usually) logic and reason win out in the end BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE IS BORNE OUT OVER TIME. The bible and other religious works depict a view of the world from the point of view of the author (I know, I know...) at the time of the writing. The only final arbiter of what is the correct view of the world is the world itself. Science forms ideas and concepts from the available existing physical evidence from the physical world! "Do unto others" is a good idea BECAUSE IT WORKS IN THE REAL WORLD!!!! Not because it says it in a book... ****************************************************************************** If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since religion, like science, involves human understanding and thus human error, religion, like science, should constantly be checked against the "real world" (thus you would have me say, perhaps, "I believe in God; that doesn't mean I believe everything that every priest or theologian tells me"). In that I would agree with you. And let me take it a step further: I agree with you precisely because one measure of the worth of a religion is its accuracy. Religion, properly, does not exist to make us feel good, or to give life an illusion of purposefulness, or to give inner tranquillity. Religious beliefs are 1) perceptions of the structure and meaning (if any) of the world and of the supernatural realm (if any) "behind" it; and 2) beliefs that if the world is as we perceive it to be, it then makes certain demands on our allegiance and conduct. Granted, many (most?) religious beliefs cannot be inferred from physical evidence in the way that most scientific theories can; nevertheless, since religions claim to describe reality, reality should indeed be used as a criterion against which to judge religious belief. ****************************************************************************** (rlr) This assumes the existence of god, plus it assumes the existence of a god of the form you describe and desire. Even if these assumptions are true, why should that affect me? Or you, if you choose to think about it? [I realize that there are belief systems that do not place god on a pedestal or throne, but given the evidence, why place it anywhere? Even these belief systems tend to see god as an explanation for things or as a giver of meaning to existence. Why?] ***************************************************************************** "Even if these assumptions are true...": I think that if you allow the assumption of the existence of a God who is the creator and sustainer of the universe, it follows, since the very being of all created things (including humans) is derived from God (that's implied in the term "creator"), that God affects all persons and all of creation fundamentally and unavoidably. And that, I think, is why "belief systems tend to see god as an explanation for things or as a giver of meaning to existence". Again, it's not that God makes us feel important but that the existence of a God with certain attributes has some significant implications. Comments, anyone? N. Tinkham duke!nlt (Duke University)