Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Converts from Evidence - (nf)
Message-ID: <575@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Apr-84 13:00:27 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.575
Posted: Tue Apr 17 13:00:27 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Apr-84 07:25:26 EST
References: <334@iuvax.UUCP> <674@pucc-h> <1049@ihuxl.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 24

>> I have to confess that you're probably right:  I also doubt that 
>> objective evidence is enough to fully convince anyone to accept 
>> Christ or to follow any other religious belief.  Some Christians 
>> even have said this explicitly.  [SARGENT]

> Yes, but a sufficient amount of evidence can be a reason to
> "try it out", to tentatively accept God (/god/gods).  Then
> God (/god/gods) may decide to demonstrate to your satisfaction
> that you *have* made the right choice.  (Or may not, and I don't
> know why not either.  :-(   )  [SEIFERT]

Sorry, but part of being rational involves not "trying out" things
because they seem to be the thing to do at the moment.  Such tentative
"acceptance" involves entering a tautological and self-referential
belief system which it is extremely difficult to escape from.  Rationality
demands that one know the nature of such a system before even tentatively
accepting it.  The self-referential assumptions surrounding logic and
rationalism are far fewer (are far more understandable) than those of
such belief systems.  Once inside such a non-rational belief system, it is
very easy to explain anything in any way that is desired.
-- 
"An argument is an intellectual process.  It isn't the automatic gainsaying of
	what the other person says."
"... Can be."					Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr