Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re (part 5): Blast from the past Message-ID: <705@bunker.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Feb-85 10:43:31 EST Article-I.D.: bunker.705 Posted: Mon Feb 4 10:43:31 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Feb-85 03:21:02 EST References: <418@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct Lines: 105 Part 5 of my response to the long article recently posted by Pesmard Flurrmn (formerly known as Rich Rosen) to net.religion and net.religion.christian (418@pyuxd.UUCP). Various reasons why people believe in God. Note: Even though I use the first person below, I do not claim that all of the reasons listed below are airtight (I made this statement in the original article, but Pesmard conveniently didn't quote that part; in a 335 line article, one would think that nothing would be left out). I believe the literary technique is called "assuming a personna," or something like that. More important note: I am not going to provide serious replies to Pesmard's responses, for the following reasons: (1) This is net.flame, not net.religion. (2) I did that before; Pesmard claims, I guess, that I have not answered his questions; what he means is that he didn't like my answers. But I did try. (3) This has already taken up too much time, and I want to go home. > >>Why must there be a god? I tried to answer this question as if it were phrased, "Why do people believe in God?" As it stands, the question is unanswerable (not that Pesmard asks questions because he wants answers). I don't know WHY God is; he simply is. > >1. Authority. I believe that God exists because people whose > > judgment I respect have taught me so. It seems unfashionable > > to believe anything these days because of authority, yet there > > is no escaping authority. Any claim to evidence rests upon > > an appeal to authority, in that some qualified authority must > > find and interpret the evidence. The real question is, what > > constitutes a qualified authority? > Believing in something simply because an "authority" tells you to? A few > questions to ask: What qualifies a person as an authority? (He/she knows > a lot about the bible, therefore he/she should know if god exists or not.) > What are the potential reasons that someone in a position of authority might > want you to believe this? Repeating my own question back to me is intended as an answer, I guess. > >2. Testimony. I believe that God exists because of the effect > > that that belief has had on my life, or on the life of some > > one else. In other words, some one whose life has desireable > > characteristics attributes those characteristics to the existence > > of and belief in God. > It is true that many people with a strong belief in god have led happier and > better lives as a result. It is that *belief*, the feeling that there is > something good watching over, that reinforces such positive thinking. Proof by vigorous assertion again (note asterisks). How do you *know* that there is nothing in it but the strength of belief (which I admit is considerable) ? > A belief in one's self can do the job just as well (and on a more > mature level) than belief in externals. The same effect can be found > in sun worshippers, (where a belief that the sun is "watching over" > you promotes a positive life)... I wonder how many sun worshippers Pesmard knows... > ...but us modern folk KNOW that the sun isn't god, right? There's nothing especially intelligent or wise about modern folk vis-a-vis ancient folk. What chronological snobbery. > This effect can also be attained by worshipping > teddy bears and the tooth fairy. I wonder how many teddy bear worshippers and tooth fairies Pesmard knows... > The need to have such externals to > believe is, to me, a sign of immaturity, akin to the belief that there > must be a god because... > [ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A REPEATED QUESTION THAT GETS GLOSSED OVER REPEATEDLY. > I DON'T ASK IT DIRECTLY HERE, PARTIALLY BECAUSE IT HADN'T GELLED COMPLETELY > IN MY OWN MIND AS TO HOW TO PHRASE IT AT THE TIME. Swell, so I am being criticized for not answering a question that hadn't been asked yet... > BUT THE QUESTION THAT WAS INSINUATED THEN AND HAS BEEN ASKED SINCE > HAS GONE UNANSWERED: SINCE MANY HAVE CLAIMED THAT "OTHERS" (e.g., > Catholics) HAVE BEEN LED ASTRAY AND MISLED, THROUGH READING THE SAME > SOURCE MATERIAL, HOW CAN YOU BE SURE THAT IT IS *THEY* WHO WERE LED > ASTRAY AND NOT *YOU*? WHAT IS YOUR BASIS FOR THAT DECISION? YOUR > OWN SUBJECTIVE FEELING? DON'T THEY IN THEIR OWN SUBJECTIVE > FEELING BELIEVE THAT IT IS *YOU* WHO ARE MISLED? HOW CAN YOU DETERMINE > THE ANSWER WHEN YOU KNOW THE SOURCE OF THE DETERMINATION IS YOUR OWN > SUBJECTIVITY, WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE VERY UNRELIABLE AND > SELF-DETERMINING (i.e., believing in patterns it chooses to make use > of)? DO YOU DOUBT THE EXISTENCE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SUBJECTIVE, > OR ARE YOU JUST IGNORING THEM WITH REGARD TO RELIGIOUS BELIEF?] Fine, the bottom line is that no one can be 100% sure of anything; not even Pesmard Flurrmn. Yet you have never expressed any doubt about your assumption that there is no God. (And, yes, I have expressed occassional doubts that there is, and for all the classical reasons, but life goes on even though nothing is absolutely certain.