Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Let's play a game
Message-ID: <2139@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Mar-84 18:39:18 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.2139
Posted: Fri Mar 30 18:39:18 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Mar-84 09:22:49 EST
References: <525@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 55


Rich Rosen suggests:
>For the month of April (in honor of April Fool's Day), let's switch
>positions.  Myself and other anti-religionists will defend (to the death,
>or pretty close) the religionist position, and David and Jeff et al. would
>take the pro-religion counterposition.  Wouldn't that be fun!!!

No.  It would be boring.  You are pitting a negative position (anti-religion)
against a positive doctrinal belief system.   It is always much easier
to be the skeptic and attack any position than one who tries to develop
and/or support a consistent philosophy of life.  Skeptics don't have to defend
anything.  They find intellectual satisfaction in pointing out the problems
in the belief systems of other.  They don't even have to understand something
very well to criticize it.  Also, it is too easy to play logical tricks and
to nit-pick when you are committed to tearing something down.  This only
leads to frustration in the defenders (sometimes I think that is the real
goal of a skeptic--frustrating his opponent, rather than wanting to learn.)
Please understand that I am using the word skepticism in its philosophical
sense. i.e. people who glory in their doubts.  I am not belittling the
honest, questioning form of doubting.

I really doubt that Rich understands the religious position well enough
to defend it.  Part of understanding it is living it.  One thing I think
that many "anti-religionists" never learn is that no philosophy of life
(especially religious ones) hangs completely on cognitive understanding.
Rationality is a powerful tool, but it is not infinitely powerful or
able to give us a complete understanding of any philosophical position.
Much of this understanding is obtained by non-rational means.  (Also
note non-rational != irrational).  The skeptic cannot deal with the
non-rational forms of understanding, so they often mock it with their
argument instead.  

In the game Rich suggests, his opponents will definitely feel that
he is unable to defend their personal position well.  I think it's
more than a game.  Seems to me that it is a ploy to give his opponents his
inherently advantageous position of skepticism while he takes their
position, where he will have an inherent disadvantage because of his
lack of understanding.  Then his own personal position will come out
the victor, apparently at the hands of those who personally oppose it.
Do you expect to make fool's out of the defenders of religious belief,
Rich?  That can be the only real result.

I would suggest a much more accurate reversal of roles:
Let the anti-religionists (or whatever we want to call them) put forth
a positive philosophical belief system (A challenge in itself--if they
can agree on one) and let the religious ones play skeptic and try to tear
it apart.  Let Dave and Jeff examine the rules you live by, Rich.
Put forth your own doctrinal statement and see how well you are able
to defend it and its implications for society.  Let them examine
your "bible".  They have been letting you do it with their's
long enough.

Now *that* might be fun.  I might even play if I had more time for games.

Paul Dubuc