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