Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Reply to Dubuc's Reply - Part 2 of 2 Message-ID: <693@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 13-Mar-85 23:47:27 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.693 Posted: Wed Mar 13 23:47:27 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 14-Mar-85 23:40:36 EST References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP>, <4898@cbscc.UUCP> <4899@cbscc.UUCP>, <655@pyuxd.UUCP> <4966@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: Huxley College Lines: 210 > 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? [DUBUC] They are CONTRADICTORY and CONTRARY to the actual nature of the natural flow, but they are not (often) in direct "conflict". We get those wishes from the same process that gave us our inquisitiveness, our perceptive and reasoning abilities, etc. > 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 crux. Right in that last sentence a glaring assumption is showing. "If the natural flow controls..." The way you phrase that question implies a directed intent on the part of the natural flow. Which, as I've said, is an unwarranted assumption. (It may be true, but evidence doesn't show it to be so.) Why does the natural flow "willingly" create species that serve as food for other species? Such a question merits an answer only when there is a basic assumption about the nature of the natural flow having a will of its own and the ability to exercise it. (which is a subset of many a proposed definition of god) }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. [ROSEN] > Exactly. So how do you know your perceptions can be proven, and are not just > a unintended result of directionless, uncontrolled cause? [DUBUC] As I mentioned elsewhere, there could very well be a god who runs around the universe pushing buttons to make sure everything works (including your calculator, your car, netnews [that explains a lot :-], etc.) If a being exists with the capabilities you ascribe to god, I doubt sincerely that the universe would involve a series of control panels that god must be constantly pressing buttons on to make it all work. I don't think such a god would be that stupid and inefficient. (On the other hand....) Such a god would create a universe (if it "felt" like it) that was well-organized and planned enough to "run itself". On the third hand, what reason do we have to assume that a god existed that "planned" it all? Isn't it just as likely (perhaps more so) that this universe runs this way because this is the one that runs this way? Infusing a god notion beyond all this only makes for direct contradictions. So why do it? }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? As far as "creative use of the intellect", if you mean in a creative artistic sense, nothing is needed to "validate" thinking processes, other than the appreciation of the creative (or not) results. If you mean in analyzing the physical world, what validates the processes is whether or not the results of the analysis conform to the real world. }> 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 if > the God described in the Bible actually existed? No, I'd probably have something to say along the lines of Maroney's "EVEN IF I...". But *you're* the one doing the supposing, not me! What you describe is just an evolutionary step in the process of humans designing the model of god that they believe to exist. As follows: 1) Wouldn't it be nice if there were something watching over us? PRAISE THE SUN! 2) If this thing I've thought up is so powerful as to protect me, it could also destroy me--better appease it. Oh, son/daughter, could you come here... 3) If this thing I've thought up is so all-powerful, it surely can't be evil-minded, it must have good in mind, because good {i.e., those things *I* like} should triumph; but it still has the right to demand things of me: I'm good, and I demand things... 4) The universe is a much more confusing place than I {"man"} thought it was nK years ago. I've learned some things about what's "good" and "bad" for people. I'll make a list: eating those poisonous things, killing other people and destabilizing our society and families, um, being different from other people and causing trouble, speaking out against me and other people in power, ... THERE! I'll write all these down in a book, and since I obviously learned them from this god whom I now know is "good", I'll credit him with this inspiration. 5) Maybe some of those things my ancestor wrote down nK years ago were just his biases and personal opinions, and not necessarily the word of god. Today I'll use more rational reasoning to find out what god really wants. ... Hmmm, yes, god wants us to burn all people who are different because they're bad for the community, etc. [ACTUALLY, Step 5 relives the biases of Step 4 but in a new era, and there may be multiple reiterations of Step 5.] Through fine tuning and perhaps the advent of reason we get to... 6) Maybe some of those things my ancestors said were just their biases and not the word of god. This time I'll really think harder about what a true god might want, excising my biases, and maybe even questioning why I bother to presume that there is such an animal as god. }> 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. [DUBUC said this, ROSEN played the part of "ED"] > ED, get out you dictionary again. Since when does "accept" mean the same as > "assume"? And you GRRRR when I say that you assume? When you use the word "accept" regarding something that isn't proven (i.e., not worth "accepting" as is from a rational perspective), then you are assuming! }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. Since the methods used by each system (and individual) involve the subjective in an equivalent way and since they do contradict each other, one can conclude that the methods themselves are faulty, and thus that the images of god produced by such methods are necessarily laden with the preconceptions that went into them. }> 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. > Don't you make an assumption when you say the "why" questions are irrelevant? No, what I'm saying is that by asking why one is implying tacitly that one believes that the cause involves some directed purpose or reason via a willful act. And that is 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? Well, there you go again. The verb "allow" implies a force or will pre-exists in the natural flow you describe. You're imposing your presupposed conclusion (regarding the question you're supposed to be asking) into the question itself. }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. So much for the "christian" response to Don Black. It seems cowardly to me to run away from facing the issues erupting from the existence of people like Don Black literally representing the christian community. But if you choose to ignore him and claim that he's not there, so be it. My own article that fell between the two parts of my reply to your reply asked this question outright. I haven't finished browsing the newsgroup, but I've yet to see ANY response. > 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"). And rightfully so. For to ascribe it to an assumption, especially when the assumption is just something you'd LIKE to believe, is erroneous. > 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. Again, my contention is that your analysis consists of 1) observing a situation, 2) seeing how the god you presuppose in the image you presuppose fits in to the situation or how the whole model must be modified, not to accommodate the observed situation, but to accommodate the notion of god. Not only haven't you refuted that contention, it would seem that you've supported it yourself throughout these articles. -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr