Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site nmtvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!unm-la!unmvax!nmtvax!wildstar From: wildstar@nmtvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: How come God doesn't affect Dave? Message-ID: <821@nmtvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 05:27:19 EDT Article-I.D.: nmtvax.821 Posted: Fri Oct 18 05:27:19 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 22-Oct-85 05:43:35 EDT References: <2214@sdcc6.UUCP> <583@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> <12039@rochester.UUCP> <> Reply-To: wildstar@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew Fine) Organization: New Mexico Tech, Socorro Lines: 98 Summary: Dear Paul, Dave, and others concerned: Probably none of you are asking for my two cents about things. I only have some opinions: The main difference between the positions of Paul and Dave are as follows: The two positions arise from acceptance from different sets of tautologies. First set: Paul probably believes in the rules of logic ( which is the cornerstone of rational thought, scientific method, rules of evidence, rules of law, and anything else that can be predicted, measured, and extrapolated by precedent ). Belief in these laws dictates the choice of cosmos that he sees, in where humanity is basically altruistic and that if there is evil in the world, it must arise from an alien influence. ( Alternate hypothesis - there may be some humans who wished to perpetuate thier power by creating history and religion. An anthropomorphic deity would naturally follow anthropomorphic thought, and the only source of such though would have to be humans, these being the only species available to my limited knowledge. ) It is probably also Paul's experience that there are tendencies of humans to behave along certain lines, with free will being accepted as a given to allow of modifications of behavior. Second set: Dave has an entirely different set of beliefs, none of which require any support from the rules I spoke of, since these are ( according to David's position) of humanity's contruction. Neither Dave nor the deity that Dave percieves requires any need for nor use of abstract reasoning, linear thought, or Aristotelian logic, since by this position the Bible is defined to be a tautology. Dave must believe that humanity is basically evil, and that there is nothing that humanity may do about it. The deity that Dave believes in requires that humans must be perfect while living otherwise they must suffer in anguishing pain ( i.e. stuck in the middle of a supernova and left to fry ) for zillions of years. Humanity is defined to be utterly incapable even of avoiding this fate, that the answer lies in "amazing grace" that is granted by the deity by virtue of unwavering belief. Conclusions: I cannot possibly pretend to justify one set of tautologies over the other. Boths sets may be equally valid or equally invalid, but it is not my place to endorse one or the other. I can only claim that they are both religions. A religion is defined as a set of beliefs in action that are based on statements that may not be questioned. Paul's set may not be questioned since he uses sets of axioms that are basic, self consistent, and consistent will all other logical observations that use the axioms as thier base. Dave's set may not be questioned since according to him the axioms are in the Bible and are not located anywhere else. Therefore I suggest that the arguement between the two of you is a useless one, since those who agree with Paul will do as they please, and Dave cannot gain any less converts with the statements he endorses. As for myself, I consider myself a strict agnostic. I am open to the possibility of supernatural events, but I have even less capability than most other humans to perceive them. In other words, I am as Dave would say "spiritually blind", so I have to use "moral calculus" so I can "fly on instruments". I know the good is and what bad is, and I choose to do good to the best of my ability. I do not waste words on vacuous allegiences to flags, princes, principalies, scriptures, or catechisms. I just see the difference and act accordingly. If some God chooses to punish me because I am inherently not capable of belief, so be it. I will do as much good as I can on the way down, in the way that I see fit, since I do not have a communications link with God, direct or otherwise. As for the swearing in court argument that has been going on, I submit to you that use of a higher power, or even use of ones own authority, is not appropriate for declared actions of infinite scope and time, ie. oaths. That is why I hardly ever promise anyone anything, no matter how much pressure is placed, since I cannot guarantee the results. There have been at most two oaths I have made, and they are both limitations on my behavior. The effect of an oath, by my set of tautologies, is to place a major compulsion on my personality and thinking capabilities and other production rules, so as to reduce my own abilities to the point where I am not capable of performing the actions I swore against. Therefore, any oath I swear cannot be broken since I have lost the power to break it the moment it takes effect, which is immediate. Therefore, I never swear an oath that I know I could not fulfill at all points in time for all circumstances. The oaths currently in effect upon myself have never been broken, and I have a very good memory about this sort of thing. Sorry to take up so much of your valuable time by mere opinions and unsubstantiated experience. Andrew Fine