Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site kpnoa.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!noao!kpnoa!parks From: parks@kpnoa.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: more on atheism Message-ID: <359@kpnoa.UUCP> Date: Fri, 6-Jul-84 18:50:59 EDT Article-I.D.: kpnoa.359 Posted: Fri Jul 6 18:50:59 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 8-Jul-84 08:38:12 EDT Organization: Natl. Optical Astronomy Observatories Tucson AZ USA Lines: 248 I've been gone for a week (the Grand Canyon) and the replies have built up. I'll try to address most of them, then go on to some new stuff. First off, there have (surprisingly) been no flames to my statements on atheism, only intelligent comments (both on the net and through mail). It may be that people reply in the same tones that you address them with. Some random corrections: yes, I really did know that the Roscrucians are not a recent group, but have a *long* history. I lumped them in with the new groups because they make claims of current-day miracles. > True, man can and does invent gods for comfort. > But the gods that man invents are often characterized as mysterious > forces over nature or elevated dieties that don't mingle with humans. > The Judeochristian God is one with characteristics that man > probably couldn't have invented himself, and even if he could, > it would be against his human nature to do so. God is a god who > is singular (not separate gods of the ocean, clouds, fire, etc), > is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, yet He knows each of > us personally -- indeed, the inside of our hearts. This was revealed > to the Jews in old testament times. It hardly seems like a human > fabrication to me. [Carl Blesch] Well, perhaps. Our race has made some pretty astounding fabrications in its time. Look at the Hindu concept of the endless cycle of reincarnation, or Kepler's geometric model of the solar system, or the Chinese belief that a dragon eats the sun during an eclipse, or the Egyptian belief that the body must be preserved as part of the afterlife. All of these are amazing fabrications, yet people invented them and then believed in them. I can believe that the Judeo-Christian God is also an invention of man. > ... Also, the earliest Bible that modern > Bible historians have investigated is perhaps only a century or two > removed from the New Testament events it describes. Secular history > is often further removed. Yet we generally accept secular > history as relatively accurate and truthful. By the same reasoning, > we should all the more so accept the Bible's accuracy and truth. > BUT -- if you do, the Bible challenges you to do something -- > acknowledge Christ as your savior and Lord, and change your life > to conform to his will and live for him. That's a high-cost challenge. > If you don't want to accept it, the only way the choice not to > follow Him becomes acceptable is if you question the authenticity > of the Bible. [Carl Blesch] True. If I accept the Bible as authentic then I should certainly accept Christ and become a Christian. In fact, I do accept the Bible as an historical document. It seems to me, though, that there is no historical document which is accepted as Truth by historians (just talking history, not religion). Historians can believe that a document was written by a known person, in a known time, and reflects that person's opinions and beliefs, but what really happened is much more difficult to know (perhaps impossible). If Claudius left descriptions about the politics of Rome, those are accepted as his impression of things, but the truth was almost certainly a little different. Everyone injects personal bias into his writings, even me :-) . For this reason, I accept the Bible as historically correct, but don't believe in all the events or the interpretations of the events. This is illustrated by the many different descriptions of the Last Supper. It was described by human beings who forgot and embellished. I believe there was a last supper, but what *exactly* happened is difficult to say. > I can't understand how you link reincarnation with psychic phenomena, > or what UFO's and bigfoot have to do with this at all. Reincarnation > is as much a part of "conventional religion" as single-life views of > the afterlife; just different religions. [John Owens] UFO's and bigfoot got brought in because they are considered to be psychic phenomena by many (probably for want of a better classification). UFO's, bigfoot, and reincarnation are all events which are believed to be existing *now* and work is being done to test them today. Reincarnation, if it exists, should be testable. In fact, it is being investigated by several parapsychologists. For this reason, I said that it was a current psychic belief. That does not mean that it is not also a religious belief. As you point out, it is a key foundation for many religions. > Religion cannot be objectively proven: it is a *subjective* experience > and relationship with the universe. (A Christian would say that you > could not have True Faith if it were proven to you, or something like that.) > [John Owens] In fact, several people agreed that religion could not be objectively proven. The idea seems to be "if you will first believe in it, then it will work". The thing that I find disturbing is that this is exactly the claim of most psychics! I pointed out in my previous letter that I do not believe in *any* psychic phenomena. The practitioner always seem to require a "willing suspension of disbelief" (an old science-fiction term). If something psychic doesn't occur, it is because you are skeptical or don't believe hard enough. I think you are just being fooled (unintentionally or deliberately). To see this same method being echoed in religion is something which cases me to immediately question, "Why does it only work for those who believe?" > The central problem is that he tries to approach religion and > non-material phenomena from a materialist point of view. [John Owens] This is a very serious point. To rephrase it (put words into your mouths) I would put the question, "Why must religion be proved? and Why is a materialist proof the only one which you will accept?" Let me number my points, because I like doing it: 1. All of us need proof for religion, whether subjective or objective. Face it, if you religious types out there had no subjective proof, no feeling of the holy ghost and the spirit of Christ, no personal experience of prayers being answered or your life being improved by religion, or *any* subjective proof at all, then would you still believe? Unless you are one of the "blind followers" the answer must be no. A large part of the reason you believe is your subjective proof. All questioning beings need proof and confirmation of some type to believe in anything. Also, all believers in *anything* are always pointing to this or that evidence. Some historical document, or a particular event. WE ALL NEED PROOF. 2. In my last article I looked at people who had subjective experiences in the area of psychic phenomena. Many of those subjective proofs and beliefs can be objectively proved wrong. For example, a crowd may observe some psychic bend a spoon using mental force while a hidden camera shows him to be using trickery. I find subjective experiences to be unreliable, unrepeatable, and often not able to hold up to detailed objective scrutiny. For this reason, the only thing that I can personally call "proof" is objective, unbiased, repeatable, and not subject to who observers the phenomena. 3. I have described the ideal objective evidence. The only method that I know of to approach this ideal is to use some type of instrument, such a Geiger counter, volt meter, or camera. If there was some reliable, unbiased, and repeatable instrument which probed the super- natural world I would use it, but I know of no such instrument. I have not said anything about these instruments, whether they are philisophic constructs, Einsteinian "thought experiments", or actually material constructions. In my experience, the only reliable instruments are material devices. 4. From the above three points, we all need proof of religion, the only proof I can accept is some form of objective proof, and the only truly objective observations are those performed by material instrumentation. This is why I require some form of material proof before I can accept any religion as the truth. > This one constantly comes up from nonTheists and Atheists. > You tell me what degree and kind of proof would be acceptable. > [Bob Brown] It would seem that you are asking me to put my money where my mouth is. All right, but first some ground rules. If an all-powerful God wanted to make objective, material proof for the his existence, he would have no trouble doing so. Sure, we atheists could make all sorts of arguments (aliens with miracle-science, super-psychics, mass telepathic hypnosis, Satan toying with you, etc.) but no-one could deny that a SUPERIOR BEING was responsible for the events. I will ignore the difficulty of telling the difference between God and some ultra-powerful fake. Also, we must assume that God wishes to prove He exists to us. I personally believe that whenever (if) He acts, He does so in agreement with natural processes, so that it will always be impossible to actually prove that a miracle occurred (there will always be other possible natural explanations). If God does not want to prove He exists to non-believers there sure isn't any way to force Him to. Finally, the proof should not be something that could not be duplicated by psychic, scientific, or supernatural powers. Sure, I don't believe in psi, but if some guy comes into the lab and starts consistently reading my mind it will be much easier to believe in telepathy than to believe that God is sending him messages. The conditions for the proof are these: 1. It should be REPEATABLE. One miracle would not be enough. I am unlikely to believe a "top scientist". A lot of skeptics and atheists will want to be present at the second and following demonstrations. 2. It should be MIRACULOUS. That is, something that could not otherwise be explained by normal science. The voice of God talking to you on the radio is hardly a miracle. 3. It should be PREDICTED. Having a comet appear in the sky and then saying "that was the work of God" is not nearly so convincing as telling what God will do far before the event. 4. It should be available for CLOSE SCRUTINY. Anyone who wishes should be able to point their instruments and microscopes at it. I will not accept any of these psychic-type phenomena that only happen when you don't look too closely. 5. It should be EXACT. This goes with the prediction in 3. Saying "God will do something tomorrow" is insufficient. Saying "God will cause the sun to turn blue tomorrow at 10:42 GMT" would be quite sufficient. With that in mind, let's get on to some specific things that could be done: A. Turning Sticks to Snakes. There is Biblical precedence for this, in an attempt to prove the existence of God, even! The prophet (or whatever) should be available for repeated laboratory performance, and must be examined before and after the event. B. Parting the Red Sea, or other large body of water. If this is predicted, exact details must be furnished. At least two partings should be done, to convince all the people that missed the first one. C. Resurrecting a dead person. This will have to be done several times to allow *very* exacting examinations of the subjects before and after resurrection. D. Stopping the earth, or stopping the sun in the sky. This would be a very good one, if predicted precisely ahead of time. There is absolutely no natural explanation for this, and it is open to observation by everyone on the planet. E. Changing the gravitational constant G. This one would be precisely predicted ahead of time. It could be checked by every scientist on earth, and the change need only be a fraction of a percent (not really enough for the average person to notice). In a similar vein, other natural laws could be changed slightly, but enough to measure: the speed of light, Planck's constant, or others. The key to this is to predict the exact change far ahead of time. All of this may seem whimsical to you, but I assure you that I am serious. There is ample Biblical precedent for God performing miracles on demand, even to prove His own existence (case A, above). None of these events should be beyond the power of God, should he *wish* to prove He exists. But, you say, 'It is incredibly presumptuous to ask God to prove himself. He does not need to do such things.' No? Then why are miracle healings such a large part of many evangelical rallies? Why do so many preachers stress the ability of God to perform miracles and miraculous changes in one's life. Aren't they also promising miracles? The single most important foundation of Christianity is the miracle of resurrection. > If you try to "prove" religion, > or base it on miracles, you miss the point entirely. True mystics > and Seekers after Truth (modern ones especially) recognize that the > different religions are just different paths to the same truth - your > own inner nature and that of the universe. [John Owens] Perhaps I have missed the point entirely. My universe has shown itself to be consistent and examinable. The only reason I can see for an afterlife is that I want one. The truth I have found from the world's religions is a common thread: security, denial of death, and rules to guide your life by. In my search for truth, I found that religion takes the form that is the most comforting to us. I see it as a security blanket, which I cannot believe in any longer. Jay Parks (decvax!hao!ihnp4!seismo)!noao!parks :uucp