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 ... (reply to Ellis)
Message-ID: <913@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Apr-85 17:48:51 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.913
Posted: Thu Apr 18 17:48:51 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Apr-85 01:27:55 EST
References: <886@pyuxd.UUCP> <184@spar.UUCP>
Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY:  We have no slogan
Lines: 64
Xref: watmath net.religion:6689 net.religion.jewish:1831 net.religion.christian:657

>>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.  [ELLIS]

So?

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

As are all thoughts and perceptions.  The difference between perceptions
generated by stringent rules of analysis and perceptions generated by
believing in what you wish to believe because you want to is as wide as
the Grand Canyon.

>     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.

Probably?  Fine, because I don't believe in determinism any more than I
believe in free will, because both require (different sets of) determiners,
which is itself a leap of faith.  As you said.

>     Yet you BELIEVE.

See above.  What is it I believe in?

>>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.

I have yet to see anyone who actually believes in a true determinism.  (one
exception was someone who postulated that we are all determined by the mind
of god...)  For reasons mentioned above.  For the same reasons that people
like me reject presumptive wishful thinking notions about free will.

>>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.

Which ones were you referring to?  I always thought what I was proposing
went strictly for the non-presumptive as much as possible---avoiding notions
like personal determiners (free will) and universal determiners (gods or
deities or overall determining agents of sorts), avoiding such presumptions
entirely.  SUPERnatural???
-- 
"It's a lot like life..."			 Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr