Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!grkermi!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcms!bill
From: bill@hpfcms.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <45200011@hpfcms.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 15-Jun-85 19:44:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpfcms.45200011
Posted: Sat Jun 15 19:44:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Jun-85 03:24:13 EDT
References: <-165500@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Fort Collins, CO
Lines: 74
Nf-ID: #R:decwrl:-165500:hpfcms:45200011:37777777600:3725
Nf-From: hpfcms!bill    Jun  5 15:44:00 1985

>The statement that the Bible is the word of God is a hypothesis, and, it
>seems to me, a pretty poor one.

OK, for the sake of common terms, it's a hypothesis.  Why is it poor?
Because it hasn't been subjected to carbon dating?  Because it hasn't
been through the wringer in net.whatever for approval?  Because it hasn't
been deemed as one of the "good" hypotheses we have to choose from?  It's
not a good one for you because it occupies the realm of faith, which goes
beyond man's reasoning and logic.  Try as you might, with whatever
powerful arguments and points, you cannot disprove it.

>While God as you no doubt define him cannot
>make mistakes, you certainly can.  You can be mistaken in everything you
>believe about him (scientists are already well aware of their capability of
>being mistaken, so it is pointless to throw this one back).

Yes, I most certainly can make mistakes.  But, as you have pointed out,
so can everybody else.  If this is a mistake, then it's perhaps the most
consistent mistake around.  By faith, I have accepted that the Bible is
the Word of God.  Everything I subsequently have come to believe is based
on it.  It's no different from anybody else who takes a stand on something.
Why does it bother you that I have taken my stand?  What's the problem?

>To claim that
>you know an absolute truth when you see one is, like most so-called faith,
>the height of arrogance.  If you were to couch everything you say within
>"I suspect ... because ...", you might get a sense of what science
>and philosophy are about.

Arrogant?  Hardly.  The net (and the rest of the world, for that matter)
is full of folks arguing points.  Why do they argue?  Because they think
they are right - they have faith in what they believe.  Why don't I have
the right to decide what I believe and not be labeled as "arrogant"?  I
have NEVER made the claim that I know it all.  There is much in life
that I do not understand, and much that I never will.

Don't give me this stuff about Science and Philosophy always dwelling in
the "I suspect . . . because..." arena - it just ain't true.  Sure, in
the research area, the words are stated in this manner, but textbooks
are full of "facts" which, quite simply, aren't.  Natural "laws",
philosophical theories, mathematical equations, etc. are presented as
facts when NONE of them can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.  They
are simply models or approximations that seem to work for the time being.

Keep in mind that I don't consider Science an "evil".  I look to science
to explain some of the many things I find inexplicable.  The only time
science and I part company is when science purports to have "discovered"
or "proven" something that directly contradicts the Bible (my "stand").
And that doesn't happen very often.

>In the meantime, for the sake of everyone else,
>please keep out of net.philosophy any beliefs which you are not prepared
>to subject to analysis.
>
>-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)

I'm fully prepared to subject anything I say to analysis, or I wouldn't
have said them on the net.  I present my beliefs as perfectly valid
alternatives (or perhaps as supporting viewpoints) to things said on the
net, nothing more.

And what is your definition of "analysis"?  If you can't pick it apart
to the point where you can fully understand it, then you cast it
off of the net?  I suspect so.  Religious thought is thought that needs
to be considered, not ignored.

And what makes you the keeper of net.philosophy?  Why should my postings
disappear for "the sake of everyone else"?  At the least, what I say
should make for amusing reading, if nothing else.

Look, philosophy is thought, viewpoint, and reasoning.  My position
qualifies.

Bill Gates