Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re (part 3): Blast from the past
Message-ID: <703@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Feb-85 17:53:57 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.703
Posted: Fri Feb  1 17:53:57 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Feb-85 04:49:34 EST
References: <418@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 44

Part 3 of my response to the long article recently posted by Pesmard
Flurrmn (formerly known as Rich Rosen) to net.religion and
net.religion.christian (418@pyuxd.UUCP).

> >>Without god, ... our very existence could only be based on pure chance.
> >Actually, that is one of the more common arguments put forth in favor
> >of God's existence.  If our existence is based on pure chance, thought
> >and reasoning included, then in what sense is 'rationality' different
> >from 'irrationality'?  Is 'rational' simply a synonym for 'lucky'?

> Because the lack of a god would mean that our existence came to pass by
> pure chance, there must be a god.  Could someone please run that by me
> again?

I'll try:  If our existence came about as the result of pure chance,
then what we are wont to call rational is really just luck.  You seem
to think that rationality is somehow superior to (what you call)
irrationality.  But if rationality, along with everything else, is
simply a matter of chance, then the only reason you have for recommending
it is that it works, for you.  If other people have something they say
works better (for them), then there is no reason they should adopt your
world view over their own.  In order to claim that rationality really
is useful in analyzing the world, you have to first claim that it is
in some sense independent of the world.

> [I WAS SMUG HERE, BUT THE POINT IS THE SAME, AND THE QUESTION IS STILL
>  UNACKNOWLEDGED.

Speaking of unacknowledged questions, when did you explain the
difference between rationality and irrationality and luck, and
why one should be preferred over the other?

>  BECAUSE LACK OF A GOD WOULD MEAN THAT OUR EXISTENCE IS
>  BASED SOLELY ON CHANCE, THERE MUST BE A GOD, BECAUSE OTHERWISE MY LIFE
>  WOULD NOT HAVE DIRECTED INTENDED PURPOSE.  THIS IS THE VERY TYPE OF
>  WISHFUL THINKING I HAVE SPOKEN TO REPEATEDLY.]

Sure, gradually revise the argument until it no longer resembles
what I originally said, then blow it away.  I think that's called
"building a straw man."  I said that if the basis of all existence
is chance, then reason itself cannot be trusted any more than the
flipping of a coin to generate useful information.  I probably
didn't say it well; if I could say it well, I would be writing
books, not usenet articles.