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 (Dr. Emmanuel Wu)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.jewish,net.religion.christian
Subject: Logic based on different sets of assumptions (start again...)
Message-ID: <886@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Apr-85 17:02:32 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.886
Posted: Tue Apr  9 17:02:32 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Apr-85 05:11:33 EST
Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY:  We have no slogan
Lines: 159
Xref: watmath net.religion:6596 net.religion.jewish:1809 net.religion.christian:594

Now that the superfluous brouhaha over definitions has hopefully passed,
perhaps we can return to discussing the main points of this article.
I'll include some additional wording to placate certain people who don't
like certain accepted definitions of words, so that they too may answer
the points in this article.  Since many adherents to non-religious belief
systems have claimed (1) that their belief systems are religions and (2)
that I shouldn't have included them in my analysis (NOTE:  I didn't, but...),
let me say that if they are religions, then they weren't included in the
analysis, but if they aren't then obviously they weren't included, so why are
you complaining?  Since such people seem to want to be included in the
analysis, I will gladly do so.  I have made some significant rewrites to
accomplish this (to a point).

[ORIGINALLY...]
| From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
| Newsgroups: net.religion
| Subject: Logic based on different sets of assumptions
| Message-ID: <509@pyuxd.UUCP>    [ ... and again as <589@pyuxd.UUCP> ]
| Date: Mon, 11-Feb-85 12:29:14 EST
| Article-I.D.: pyuxd.509  [pyuxd.589]
| Posted: Mon Feb 11 12:29:14 1985
| Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 12:29:14 EST
| Organization: Huxley College

Since there is no hard evidence to support the existence of a deity or, for
that matter, of any so-called "supernatural" entity, one would normally work
(in a typical analysis of a non-religious oriented phenomena) from the
assumption that the thing for which there is no evidence does not exist. 
Without evidence showing verifiable evidence of a thing's existence, or its
observed effect on the "physical" world, via Occam people would generally
assume that it does not exist until evidence of a viable nature presents
itself.  The *possibility* that it may exist is left open, but such a
possibility evinces itself if and only if evidence is presented to support it.

However, obviously some people do believe in the existence of deities and other
forms of the so-called supernatural despite the lack of realistic evidence. 
One can only assume that 1) these people have a different set of criteria for
acceptability of evidence, and/or 2) they have some vested interest in
believing that particular outcome of analysis that they believe to be true. 
Quite possibly both.  I think we have shown endless times that the nature of
the subjective evidence offered in favor of religious belief is tainted: 
How come your subjectivity shows a different world view than someone else's? 
Which one is right?  WHY is his/hers wrong and YOURS right? If he/she is being
deceived, how can you be sure it is not YOU who has been deceived?  (Not to
mention the way the brain is known to impose patterns onto events/phenomena/
observations that upon closer examination are shown to be quite wrong---like
"recognizing" someone at the airport and realizing that it wasn't them after
all.)

With that in mind, the only other reason that such people might readily accept
the notion of the existence of a god (or any other "supernatural" entity or
form) is precisely because they already believe it to be so:  they hold the
existence of such a thing as an assumption, an axiom, and work ALL analysis of
the world from there.  "Why is life full of problems? Because god designed the
world that way knowing that it would be best for us not to have a perfect life
but rather to struggle and learn."  Contrast this with the simpler, less
presumptive notion that life is full of problems because all those problems
are simply a part of the natural flow of things, based on what we observe and
codify as physical laws.  We experience them as problems because they conflict
with our wishes for a world ordered around our lives, and because such
conflicts are inevitable in a world with trillions of organisms and objects
caught up in the "natural flow".  As opposed to assuming, for whatever reason,
the existence of an ultimate "good" force that "designed" the universe to be a
certain way.  These assumptions are not confined to religions (or, if you
prefer, theistic religions).  The belief in so-called "supernatural" phenomena
of all sorts stems from the same sort of presumptions.  For example, when
statements are made about the similarities between experiences of "mystics"
of different belief systems, this is cited as "evidence" that there is a
supernatural force behind them, rather than the more likely rational
possibilities centering on simple human psychology and biochemistry---the
"physical" realm that some people would claim that these experiences are (a
priori) not a part of.  (Again, the question always left unanswered:  what is
meant by "non-physical" or "supernatural", if not "beyond that which humans
can perceive"?)

I contend that all such analysis of the world by religious believers, and the
answers offered in such analysis, stem directly from an a priori assumption of
the existence of god, or of some supernatural force of their own design. 
Lewis' works are prime examples.  Jeff Sargent, for example, has used the
phraseology "Why would you want to believe that human beings are 'nothing but'
lab specimens?"  (... when you have this other possibility to believe
instead.)  Laura Creighton has spoken in net.philosophy of how without the
existence of "free will", she would find her existence meaningless, and how
thus she chooses to believe in free will.  "Wanting to believe", the
desirability of holding certain beliefs as opposed to others owing to their
intrinsic "aesthetic" value rather than their veracity, becomes a factor in
forming belief systems for certain people.

Thus my question is: why DO you presume the existence of god/the supernatural
as a given (obviously I and many others simply do not), if not because you
have some vested interest in believing that it is so, what I have endlessly
and perhaps monotonously labelled as WISHFUL THINKING?  (From here on in,
please assume that phrases akin to "existence of god" refer to "existence of
any presumed supernatural phenomena".)

Given that we are dealing with two forms of logic, one of which starts off
making the assumption that god exists and the other of which does not, a person
using one form of logic cannot possibly convince the person using the other
form of logic to accept his position.  This is not always true, because the
two forms of logic and their two sets of assumptions are NOT disjoint sets. 
In fact, for most reasonable people, they are practically equivalent, with the
addition of the a priori assumption of god being the only major difference
between the two sets.  Conclusions drawn from the two sets of assumptions,
however, can and will (and do) wind up being radically different.  The
"impossibility of convincing" that I mentioned above only comes into play when
the "extra" assumption has a role in the formation of some conclusion. 
Religions have (individually and collectively) formed whole volumes of such
conclusions and codified them.  In many cases, "existence of god" and other
assumptions don't even enter into certain of these conclusions, and they form
viable conclusions about the world at large and life itself. (Some have devoted
entire lifetimes to thinking and writing about such analysis and conclusions.)
In other cases, assumptions about the nature of god and "god's word" take
precedence over both scientific investigation and individual human needs.

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.  Some belief systems that include notions of supernatural
phenomena and even deities do not fit this mold.  I am specifically talking
about those that do.

The points are: 1) Given that evidence contradicts, if not the basic assumption
that there IS a god, further assumptions that certain texts labelled as god's
word are what they are purported to be (absolute truth), what is the basis for
retaining those assumptions? and 2) Given that repression as described above
does indeed take place in the advent of that which contradicts the status quo,
can we afford to let ANY group, religious or otherwise, wield enormous power
over people's lives when the basis for their governing involves, not rational
thinking, but "does it conform to pre-conceived assumed ways of thinking?"

Despite what some people feel obliged to point out, I do NOT assume that there
is NO god, I simply do not assume that there is one.  The two are not
equivalent.  My point is not to show that "god doesn't exist" (I've speculated
on the net several times about what such a deity might be liked if it does
exist), but rather to show that there may be something very wrong with certain
notions of "god"-ness, when those notions were formulated based on presumptions
about the nature of the universe that may seem "appealing", not based on
evidence about reality, and when the premises surrounding those notions appear
to be contradictory and malformed.  These contradictions and flaws may be
present in a number of religions and belief systems, but my purpose is NOT to
simply poke around and find flaws with personal belief systems, since all such
systems are a matter of personal taste, and human beings need not justify
personal taste.  UNLESS that personal taste extends into interference in the
lives of other people, the imposition of one unprovable set of moralistic
notions unto all people.  At that point, when a movement seeks such control,
the very basis and foundations of the belief system must be questioned.
--
"When you believe in things that you don't understand, you'll suffer.
 Superstition ain't the way."		Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
-- 
Meet the new wave, same as the old wave...
      				Rich Rosen     ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr