Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.jewish,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Logic based on different sets of assumptions (start again...)
Message-ID: <184@spar.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Apr-85 06:58:13 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.184
Posted: Tue Apr 16 06:58:13 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 02:32:47 EST
References: <886@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 62
Xref: watmath net.religion:6673 net.religion.jewish:1826 net.religion.christian:647

Rich -	This article is in response to a few questions you recently
	posed in these newsgroups.

>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...

    These people are no different from you or me.

    As mentioned in another article, you apparently believe in your
    own thoughts. They are plainly nonobjective. 

    At another level, you clearly believe in the physical world
    and in causality. These are also items of belief.

    Determinism, which cause you have espoused in many previous articles,
    is not only a philosophically  unjustified leap of faith on your part,
    it is also probably unscientific.

    Yet you BELIEVE.

>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?

    This is an extremely good point, Rich. There are many people out
    there who frequently label the beliefs of others as `WRONG' while
    and label their own beliefs as `CORRECT'.

    Religious faith does not have to be judgemental. We should ALL
    take note of your observation.

>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. 

   For example, determinism. There is a glut of believers in determinism
   on this net. At least most Christians and Jews recognize that their
   belief is part of a religion; the fanatical believers of determinism
   incorrectly claim to have objective scientific support for their dogma. 

   This makes them very difficult to reason with.

>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".)

    Since you hold so many supernatural beliefs yourself, the
    answer to this question should be apparent upon introspection.

		Khronos estai ouketi

-michael