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!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!cord!bentley!hoxna!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxm!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Why should YOU believe ... Message-ID: <505@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 19:39:44 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.505 Posted: Sat Feb 9 19:39:44 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 03:52:25 EST References: <205@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA> Organization: The Gang - Other Other Operations Division Lines: 67 > I would like to know why a lot of people believe in a deity or in the super- > natural. Is it because ... > [A] your parents or relatives or pastors or friends have always > believed? > [B] you have experienced a miracle or some other supernatural > event? > [C] you have studied {whatever..you fill in this space} extensively > and have concluded from your studies that this is so? > [D] you have thought about it for a while and have concluded that > there are such things? > [E] you just believe in them without any reason? > [F] {you fill in this space if you do not see your situation above} As I've been trying to show, it's a much deeper question than that. There are any number of reasons that are offered that, upon careful analysis, have no basis in logical reasoning. Given that so many of the reasons are based on presumptions (like saying "There must be a god in order for there to be universal justice/control/absolute good and evil" without thought to why the listed things MUST exist in the absence of evidence for them), and on subjective perspectives (which we've seen in multiple individuals to be conflicting and contradictory---and therefore suspect), one must ask: With the viability of the methods of analysis and decision here so questionable, do you simply believe in the existence of god a priori without any need for real reasoned evidence? If so, why? One hopes the "why" question would be answered without referring back to the faulty examples offered above. So often this is not the case, and the debate simply recycles itself again. > I have yet to encounter > anyone who can give me anything other than some rosy poetic essay telling > me about Jesus Christ dying for me. If it were anyone else other than Jesus, > I bet the average person will say,"Gee, what a silly thing to do!" That's an important point. People DO in fact say such things about other people's "obviously wrong" beliefs. But when confronted with the same point themselves coming from others, they say "No, that's not just ANYBODY you're talking about, that's Jesus/whomever." Working first FROM the assumption that their belief in the existence of a god and in their particular image of its form, and THEN beginning analysis. Example: "Why is life so full of problems? Because god designed it that way knowing it would be better for humans to suffer and struggle than to have an easy life." The assumption of god comes FIRST, then the analysis. > I have sent for and received a book > well advertised on TV called POWER FOR LIVING. It seems to me that they are > making a lot of assumptions before they even begin to write it. My point exactly. Like Lewis, they work from the assumption of god first, and then proceed to "explain" the universe from that standpoint. Reasons have been offered for why people believe in god ranging from "testimony of authority" to "need for absolute morality" to whatever, but they all at their base level have in common the fact that they were derived from an assumption of god first and analysis based on that assumption second. Given that, given both the un- reliability of the subjective-type evidence offered as "testimony" and "proof", and the after the fact analyses based on the assumptions in advance, why do people believe in god? One can fault those who simply do not ask such questions (about the nature of the "evidence" in favor of the existence of god) ONLY for failing to ask such questions. But what of those who have claimed (as many on the net have done) that they HAVE asked such questions and HAVE engaged in serious analysis of the issues involved? Have they discovered answers to these questions and solutions to the problems raised? If so, one must ask "Were THOSE solutions and answers ALSO generated through analysis that assumed in advance the existence of god?" -- "Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr