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!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dubuc's Reply - Part 2 of 2
Message-ID: <4966@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 12:22:44 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4966
Posted: Tue Mar 12 12:22:44 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Mar-85 02:26:05 EST
References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP>, <4898@cbscc.UUCP> <4899@cbscc.UUCP>, <655@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 153

}> Are our wishes part of that natural flow or separate
}> from it?  If they are part of it why do they conflict?  How did such
}> conflict arise and why do we even percieve it as conflict?  [Dubuc]
}
}Of course our "wishes" are a part of that natural flow.  On what basis would
}one exclude those wishes from something defined as anything and everything that
}is going on?  As part of the curious and inquisitive nature that *is* human,
}people came up with explanations for things based on limited knowledge.  Why
}did such explanations revolve around certain wishes?  Because wishes for
}security and order and being looked after permeate levels of human existence. 
}Why do they "conflict"?  They just do, because what we want isn't always what
}we get, no?  Are you assuming an intended reason that they conflict? [Rosen]

You're missing my point.  How does "natural flow" produce and sustain
inquisitiveness?  Where do we get wishes for security and order why are
they sustained in conflict with the "natural flow" that produced them?
Your answer is "they just do".  Why do we find ourselves wanting what
is contrary to "natural flow" and even perceiving such wants as conflict?
If the natural flow controls and produces our perceptions and wishes
how could it do so in conflict with itself?

}>  The ability and even the perceptions themselves
}> are somehow "caused" in the natural flow of things.  But to be caused is
}> not to be proven.  Determining that something *is* is a different matter
}> from determining wheter something is true or false.  Cause does not imply
}> proof.  I can cause a certain number to appear on the display of my
}> calculator by pushing buttons, but the fact that I caused the number
}> doesn't make it meaningful and the determination as to wheter the number
}> is true or false depends on some factors that are external to my causing
}> the number to appear.
}
}One phenomenon causing another phenomenon to occur does not imply that the
}first phenomenon "intended" the second to occur.  A chain of "natural events"
}does not imply direction from a controlling entity with intent.  Unless, of
}course, you assume such a controlling entity in advance.

Exactly.  So how do you know your perceptions can be proven, and are not just
a unintended result of directionless, uncontrolled cause?

}> Yet our own consciousness pretends to come to true/false perceptions about
}> the very natural processes that supposedly brought it into being and sustain
}> it?  How?  That question is beyond the grasp of your worldview, I think.
}
}Not at all.  The one assumption that one is forced to make (though many
}Eastern philosophies refuse to make even that) is the viability of sensory
}input.  Now, although human minds impose patterns on what they perceive
}(e.g., ink blots) that may have no bearing on any actual "function" or
}"intent" of what is observed, we have the ability to whittle down much (or
}sometimes all) of the imposed patterning and return to strict analysis of
}the actual content of the observation.

Coming to supposedly valid conclusions about our perceptions is more
than just a function of sensory input.  The creative use of the intellect
is certainly more than raw sensation.  If it isn't what validates our
thinking processes?

}> Still, you haven't removed this factor for your own beliefs.  You say the
}> same thing as Jeff in effect:  "Why do I have to beleive in a god to help
}> explain certain things when I have this other possibility instead?" Your
}> position doesn't make you inherently immune from "wanting to believe" any
}> more than Jeff's does for him.  What makes yours the de facto standard?
}
}In my case, the "other possibility" I choose is chosen precisely because it
}makes fewer assumptions based on how you (or I) might WANT to perceive the
}world.  Don't you think I'd agree that it would be "real nice" if there was a
}god watching over us?  Just as it might be nice for all food to taste like
}chocolate and for all ...  (never mind, you get the idea)

No I don't get the idea.  Suppose the God that actually exists (apart from
your speculations) doesn't do all these nice things.  He does many nice things,
but also requires some thing of you.  Would you think it was nice of the
God described in the Bible actually existed?  Your "wanting (not) to believe"
is just as much a factor as my "wanting to believe" if it is a factor at all.
You seem to be saying that you wouldn't mind God existing, but the god you
have in mind is one that you like.

}|The conflict comes into play where "existence of god" assumptions (compounded
}|by assumptions about what IS "god's word" and who is qualified to be god's
}|authority representative on earth) are contradicted by rational inquisitive
}|analysis and investigation of the world itself, or by individual human needs
}|(arbitrarily?) denied/forbidden/not met by "god's word".  Those who make such
}|assumptions may deny the claims of the investigators (in "protest") solely
}|because the claims would force them to change their whole view of the
}|universe based on the evidence.  If those people are in positions of earthly
}|authority, we may witness repression of such ideas, and of people who hold
}|them.  We HAVE witnessed such repression in the past, and we may be witnessing
}|it again today.
}
}> Here you step a little over the threshold of whether or not God exists to
}> the conflicts that arise when we accept ["ASSUME" -ED.] that he does.  This
}> is stepping out of metaphysics into philosophy of religion or comparative
}> theology.  

ED, get out you dictionary again.  Since when does "accept" mean the same as
"assume"?  And you GRRRR when I say that you assume?  If you want to be taken
at your words do the same with others, OK?

}First of all, I don't see why that causes some sort of problem.  The very fact
}that conflicts (i.e., contradictions) do arise is indicative of a flaw in,
}if not the actual axiom (god exists), the model which describes the god that
}is contended to exist.  What's more, I have the right to complain that such
}a contradiction-laden system seeks to tell non-believers what is morally (
}and legally) wrong and right.

Certainly, but it doesn't have much bering on the question being discussed
here ("does God exist?").  If religious systems seem to contradict, it doesn't
necessary mean that God must not exist.

}> I think your answer to "why?" reduces to "It just is", or "Never mind 'why',
}> I'll explain 'how'".  "Why?" isn't really a valid question in your world
}> view for some of these things, is it?  "Why" asks for a reason; an apparent
}> purpose, not a mechanism.
}
}Asking why and expecting more than just "it just is" is to imply that there
}must be a controlling purpose.  That's exactly what I'm not assuming and what
}you are.  Asking "why" means asking "for what *purpose*/*reason*, with what
}*intention*/*motive*.  Assuming that the answer to one's question MUST imply
}something that HAS deliberate intention, purpose, motive, etc. is to make
}an erroneous assumption:  things need not necessarily be that way, and to
}assume that they are or must be that way is erroneous, and judgments based on
}that assumption are flawed.

But don't you make an assumption when you say the "why" questions are
irrelevant?  An assumption that something isn't is still an assumption.
Why does the "natural flow" allow people to ask "why" if the question is
contrary to our being?  Why do so many people like to assign purpose
to their lives if anything we assign is ultimately a delusion?  How could
"natural flow" produce such a delusion?

}It would seem that you are in some sort of agreement with Don Black here....
} [Long argument against what Don Black believes deleted.-pmd].

Send your response to Don, Rich.  I don't know if I agree with him or
not.  There is a lot in this news group I don't read for want of time.

}> Also, as I have tried to point out the existence of God is not necessarily
}> and assuption on which everything else is based.
}
}But you were unable to support that assertion.  In fact, I managed to
}point out a few instances where your conclusion is generated (occasionally in
}advance) directly based from such an assumption.

I see no problem with holding the existence of God as a proposition to
explain an answer question that I have (to which you answer "It just is")
and phenomena that I have observed (which you would consign to "some
yet unknown cause").  If some of things I ascribe to God turn out to have
a proven natural explanation (not that God may not be behind nature) I 
can accept them as such.  "God did it" doesn't represent my final answer
to everything.  It is a proposition that is consistent with many things
as I perceive them, however.
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd