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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re (part 7): Blast from the past
Message-ID: <707@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Feb-85 10:45:55 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.707
Posted: Mon Feb  4 10:45:55 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 08:14:26 EST
References: <418@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 118

Part 7 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).

The nature of prayer; morality and the imposition thereof.

Pesmard asks:
> >>What is the difference between praying to god for help and helping
> >>yourself?

I reply:
> >The same as the difference between discussing a problem with a friend
> >and trying to work out a solution with no help.  The human friend may
> >give you good advice, and point out a solution you might not have
> >thought of on your own, but you might still implement the solution
> >yourself.

Pesmard replies:
> My own feeling is that it is great to ask other people (living entities)
> for advice and help.  When one "asks god" or "prays to god", since I
> obviously have doubts about the existence of a god, I feel that this is
> merely introspection.  Again, it works for some people if they believe
> it is god, when in reality it is their own introspection.  Maybe this
> is what is meant by the statement I quote below...

Since you don't believe in God, I certainly wouldn't expect you to
pray to him.  But how do you *know* that "in reality it is their own
introspection?"  Again the assumption that there is no God.  Clearly,
if there is no god, then some other explanation for the efficacy of
prayer must be found.  But that's rather begging the question, isn't
it?  (Yes it is.)

> >>If the Lord helps those who help themselves, isn't prayer just
> >>a methodology for getting yourself in the frame of mind to help yourself?
> >
> >The statement that the Lord helps those who help themselves is not
> >biblical, as far as I know.  It is often used as a copout as to why
> >someone should not be obligated to help another.

> Agreed.  I think the statement is indeed biblical, though, and is a perfect
> example of quoting the bible to suit one's needs.

> [I WAS PROVEN WRONG HERE:  I THINK LAURA MENTIONED THAT IT COMES FROM AESOP.]

Therefore it turns out to be a perfect example of someone who has rejected
the bible based on his ignorance of it.

> >If a person believes that there is really a god out there listening
> >to prayers, and that that god is able and willing to guide us in
> >some way, then prayer is more than a method of altering one's frame
> >of mind.  Prayer does in fact alter one's frame of mind, but it
> >does more.  What you seem to call prayer I would call 'meditation'
> >or 'contemplation'.  How God answers prayer is another subject
> >about which volumes have been written.

> Your paragraph assumes the existence of the god in question, which is
> of course where we differ.  My opinions on the non-existence of god
> have already been put forth and explained.

So you admit that your explanation of prayer was question begging,
with respect to whether God is real or not.

> >>What is wrong with the idea that, as long as I don't interfere in
> >>the rights of other human beings, I should be free to live to my
> >>best potential as I see fit?

> >In one sense, there is nothing wrong with it.  Supposing that God does
> >exist, wouldn't you expect that living up to your best potential
> >would include understanding yourself in relationship to God?

> If god existed, why would I be obliged to understand myself in relation
> to it? Do you (or I) establish understanding about our relationships to
> every single thing in the universe?  You constantly assume that god
> must hold some special position of authority (specifically over you and
> all other people).  Why?  This is YOUR assumption (desire?) about the
> nature of god (not necessarily his :-).  Think about it.

To say that the Creator has authority over his Creation doesn't seem
terribly farfetched.  Perhaps your desire not to submit to proper
authority is one of the reasons why you feel that there must not be
a God.  (This last statement is as fair as the one Pesmard makes below,
concerning why he thinks I "feel there must be a God."

> >In another sense, there is one thing wrong with the idea:  it seems
> >quite clear from current and past discussions that no two people
> >can always agree on what rights each should have.

> Only the god you choose to believe in is perfect.  Human beings are
> not.

Where did you get this concept of perfection?

> (Is this another reason that you feel that there must be a god?)
> Experiments like democracy are the ways that people try to establish
> their own guidelines and rights without external imposition.  To believe
> the bible as the ultimate arbiter of people's rights is to impose your
> arbitrary standards on everyone.  Why?

> [THIS IN TURN BRINGS US RIGHT BACK TO THE CURRENT DEBATE, IN WHICH I CONTEND
>  THAT THE NOTION OF IMPOSITIONAL MORALITY, ALONG WITH THE TERROR THAT GOES
>  WITH IT, IS AN INHERENT PIECE OF CERTAIN RELIGIOUS BELIEF, AND THAT MANY ARE
>  NOT AT ALL ASHAMED OF THIS NOTION AND ARE PROUD TO CARRY IT FORTH.]

Several people on the net, not all of them Christians, have put forth
the argument that morality is in and of itself impositional.  If two
people disagree about what rights exist (or should exist), then one of
them (at least) will feel that the other has imposed his morality on.

If it were true that the terror Pesmard speaks of were inherent in
religious belief, then we should expect an absence of that terror
in the absence of religious belief.  Since we see the same kind of
terror in systems which explicitly reject religious belief, we
should conclude that the terror is independent of the belief or
lack thereof.  Therefore, Pesmard should stop blaming religion for
the terror; if he does that, religious people will not have to keep
pointing out that antireligious systems can exhibit the same kind
of terror.  (Note that the word "can" indicates that some antireligious
systems exhibit terror, not that all do.)