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: Re: Logic based on ... (start again again...) (1 of 2)
Message-ID: <897@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 13:05:48 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.897
Posted: Fri Apr 12 13:05:48 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Apr-85 04:31:26 EST
References: <886@pyuxd.UUCP> <5457@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY:  We have no slogan
Lines: 271
Xref: watmath net.religion:6629 net.religion.jewish:1817 net.religion.christian:618

> 	Since there is no hard evidence to support the existence of a
> 	deity or, for that matter, of any so-called "supernatural"
> 	entity,
> 
> Aha. Here is Rich Rosen belief #1. This belief is definitely not shared
> by most of the people who claim to have religious experiences. They
> claim that there is a lot of hard evidence that they are having an
> experience.

Then let's see some of it, Laura.  Saying, as you have, "Look, the metabolic
reading of her body have changed, that PROVES a supernatural/religious
experience took place!!"  Your evidence is always either subjective ("I felt
that this happened, and I'm not willing to examine it in an objective light")
or presumptive (see above quote).

>  This may not correspond to what you mean by a
> ``supernatural entity'', though. We can now play ``what does
> supernatural mean'', but I warn you, there is much greater disagreement
> here than over ``what does religion mean''.

And we've been through that too.  If supernatural, as the name implies,
means "beyond the natural", what indeed does that mean?  What things that
exist are not NATURAL?  Thus supernatural must mean "things that don't exist".
In its usage, it tends to mean "those things that are beyond our current
limits of observation".  Which would have made microorganisms supernatural
hundreds of years ago.  This is rehash.

> 	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.
> 
> Wrong from the point of view of the people who have a religious
> experience.  They think that there *is* evidence. Their problem is
> ``why don't you recognise it'' and ``why doesn't it happen to you as
> well''?

Wrong from any reasonable analytical point of view.  The point of view of
the people you mention above is PRESUMPTIVE in the extreme:  have an
experience, attribute it to causes YOU wish to attribute it to, ...

> 	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.
> 
> Again, wrong for the same reasons. I already *have* evidence, the
> problem is that *you* won't accept it. You are waiting for evidence
> that you will accept. The question becomes -- how likely is it that I
> will *ever* present evidence that you will accept? Currently, I think
> that the answer is ``extremely unlikely''. At this point, I generally
> pack it in.

What is it about my criteria that would make it impossible for me to
accept your evidence?  Is there something wrong with the criteria?  What
does it erroneously exclude?  OR is there something wrong with the
evidence?  

> 	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.
> 
> Again, this argument is only good if there in fact *is* no evidence. If
> there *is* evidence then in dealing with you I have a problem. Either
> the problem is one of communication, or the problem is that you are in
> some way incapable of understanding even perfect communication.

YOUR perfect communication?  Let's hear your evidence, Laura, and let's
subject it to some real scrutiny, rather than simply listening to Arndtian
utterances that there IS evidence.

> 	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.
> 
> No. you cannot badger me into saying that my evidence is ``not
> realistic'' because it does not suit you.

You keep talking about your evidence, but you don't offer any of it.  Don
Black's kind plays the same sort of game, asserting the existence of
evidence without providing it.  If you're not playing such a game, then
I would think you'd want to produce some of that 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.
> 
> The other assumption is that the people who do not accept the evidence
> have some sort of problem which prevents them from accepting what they
> normally would accept.

What might that "problem" be, Laura?  It's becoming clear that this is not a
reasoned reply but simply a series of repeated "you're wrong because you
don't like my evidence" whinings.  I've repeatedly described why such
evidence is not reasonable.  It's now up to you to explain why scientific
criteria for evidence are wrong by omitting your evidence.  Evidence isn't
an equal employment opportunity situation where you can claim "he's
discriminating against my evidence because it doesn't hold to his
standards, thus he's wrong".  There's a reason why there are standards.

> 	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?
> 
> What is so odd about that? People have different world views regardless
> of what experience is being evaluated. Why do some people like rock
> music and some people like classical and some people like both?
> 
> 	Which one is right?
> 
> Yes, you want to ask that question. A good many mystics *don't* and
> find it quite irrelevant. They either say ``they are all right'' or
> ``they are all wrong'' depending.

THIS is what you wish to submit as evidence of the reality of the existence
of supernatural phenomena???

> 	If he/she is being deceived, how can you be sure it is not YOU
> 	who has been deceived?
> 
> You can't be absolutely sure. But you apply the same procedure that you
> apply to find inconsistencies in any other beliefs that you have. By
> the way, your phrasing ``YOU who has been deceived'' implies that the
> deception is something that something else does to you. This fits into
> the ``my religion is correct, yours is inspired by Satan'' model which
> very few Christians use all across the board these days. Many
> Christians use it to refer to a few religions, but at least they don't
> seem to use it towards major religions any more. This is not the
> generic mystic position which is more along the lines of ``deception is
> something that you do to yourself''.

True.  External experiences, education, conditioning, etc. may effect (not
just *A*ffect) such deception.

> 	(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.)
> 
> If you mean this as an attempt to discredit mystics experiences as
> happening at all, I would counter that by this logic you should not
> believe that you ever recognise anyone since you could be mistaken.
> If this is to insinuate that people who have religious experiences do
> not question that they could be mistaken in interpreting them, then the
> insinuation is wildly off the mark -- this is the second most common
> topic of discussion whenever 2 or more mystics get together anywhere I
> have been.  (The first is ``comparing notes''...)

So?  It's not just an insinuation.  You are talking about OTHERS' actions
in mystical experiences, but you yourself in this very article are showing
exactly the opposite:  a complete lack of questioning the presumptions on
which you are choosing to base the experiences.

> 	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.
> 
> But here you reveal the axiom that you are using -- that the reason
> Rich Rosen does not accept the evidence for the supernatural is that
> such evidence does not exist. You conclusion, ``wishful thinking''
> follows from that. But what about your axiom?  How can you be sure that
> this is not ``wishful thinking'' on your part?

But I showed above (and you seem to have shown by the very absence of
presentation of hard evidence in your onw articles) that my "axiom" is
correct.  Only it's not an axiom---it's based on the state of the evidence.

> 	"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.
> 
> ``The natural flow of things'' is, from my perspective, a lot less
> simple than ``because God wanted it that way''. What makes you say that
> it is simpler?

Because a "natural flow of things" simply means things happening because
of the way things happen.  Observation and codification of these "behaviors"
through rigorous standards is called a "scientific method".  But, getting
back to the point, adding in the deity variable means making an assumption
about this natural flow---that it is directed and "caused" by a force of
will that permeates the universe.  My own belief is that if there's anything
akin to a deity out there, it is as a consciousness of the universe analogous
to a human being's consciousness.

> 	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".
> 
> Are such conflicts *really* inevitable? If our understanding *really*
> grew, is it not possible that we could learn to avoid such conflicts
> and not act in a manner that puts one into conflict with other
> organisms?

Maybe.  If I recall, one tenet of Buddhism is that it is desire that causes
suffering (or, of you will, problems).  The fewer desires you have, the
fewer interests you have, the fewer interests you might have in conflict
with other people and things, the fewer problems there are.  I don't see
problems (or suffering) as things that MUST be avoided in some idealistic
world -- I tend to think they are a part of existence, and I am unwilling
to give up my personal interests and desires solely for the purpose of
avoiding "suffering".

> 	As opposed to assuming, for whatever reason, the existence of
> 	an ultimate "good" force that "designed" the universe to be a
> 	certain way.
> 
> This assumption is characteristic of theistic religions, but not
> non-theistic religions.

(Characteristic of religions, but not necessarily other belief systems.)
Agreed.  Such belief systems don't necessarily make that specific assumption
about the nature of the creation/design of the universe.

> 	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.
> 
> This statement is utterly inconsistent with religiojus belief that
> ``good'' and ``evil'' as such do not exist, or that teh universe was
> not created, or that the universe *is* God.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  Do you?  My statement says that
non-religious oriented belief systems such as yours have beliefs regarding
supernatural phenomena that stem from the same SORT of presumptions. Not
the same ones.  Why are you trying so desperately to shove words down my
throat?

> 	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
> 
> ``more likely'' -- here we find the embedded axiom that the existing
> evidence is not good enough again...

You betchum, Red Rider.  And I've said why.  And you still haven't offered
any evidence to boot.

> 	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.
> 
> What an incredibly small number of mystics you must have talked to,
> Rich.  I do not know a *single* one who claims that these experiences
> have nothing to do with psychology and biochemistry. This leaves the
> big question open, though. Psychology and biochemistry are facets of
> the relationship that a man has with the rest of whatever-there-is --
> God, the rest of the world, the supernatural, whatever.

Here we go again.  Psychology and biochemistry are just names of sciences
describing study of realms of the physical world, with which your mystics
would claim that their experiences CAN NOT be totally explained by.  It's
like the other discussion we've been having---you claim "there are certain
questions that cannot be answered" a priori.  I was not alone in noting how
presumptuous that is.  The same applies to what I say above.  [CONTINUED]
-- 
"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day
 to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human
 being can fight and never stop fighting."  - e. e. cummings
	Rich Rosen	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr