Where is the love?
Peter Ashby
Heartless doesn't seem strong enough.
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
Richard Corfield
><http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2518778,00.html>
> Heartless doesn't seem strong enough.
Since when has refusing life saving treatment been classed as suicide?
Without the treatment he'd have died naturally, unable to breath for
himself.
- Richard
--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com>
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone
Stuart
Peter Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> wrote:
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2518778,00.html>
> Heartless doesn't seem strong enough.
I have to agree with you.
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
Michael J Davis
<pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
><http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2518778,00.html>
>
>Heartless doesn't seem strong enough.
My reaction, too, BUT...
I think the issue is far more complex than the report indicates:-
For instance:-
"The Church had always taken a stand against Mr Welby’s demands to be
allowed to die. However, no one expected the Rome diocese, of which the
Pope is bishop, to deny him a Catholic funeral rite. The decision was
seen as pointlessly cruel by many Catholics, although others defended it
as a question of principle."
If you looked at the photo accompanying the article (not shown on the
web version) - you will see that it appeared to have all the shenanigans
of a political rally. Now I am not familiar with Italian funerals, so
cannot say if an 'ordinary' funeral would seem similar. So I suspect
that there would be many pro-euthanasia people who would crow about a
climb-down by the Church.
After all a church funeral is not really for the benefit of the dead,
but an opportunity of prayer for the living. I suspect the authorities
decided that there wouldn't be much opportunity there either.
No doubt someone will arrange for the requiem mass to be offered (as is
usual).
However, I'm interested in who made the decision. (Probably not the
Pope.)
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
celia
This is for me a very live issue as I have for
several months been corresponding with a young
person with a terminal disease.
Her possibilities for the future are limited.
1 Stay in America where her family and friends now
live and add to their burdens as they nurse her
because no other help is available.
2 Return to the UK where she could be nursed to
the end but would be seperated from everyone who
loves her.
3 End her own life while she still can.
4 A miracle in the amputees legs class.
Where would you focus your prayers ?
What would you write to her that could make
things better for her rather than worse ?
Celia
celia
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:26:15 GMT, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter
> Ashby) wrote:
>
> ><http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2518778,00.html>
> >
> >Heartless doesn't seem strong enough.
> >
> >Peter
>
> most popular? Could it not be the case that the most loving thing to
> do is to stick to what one believes? Just a thought,
>
> Steve Cleary
Is a pro-choice stand the most popular ?
In my experience pro-life is more common.
Have any surveys been done ?
Celia
Gordon Hudson
news:1hr1reb.xlhrkpa2o3uiN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk...
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2518778,00.html>
>
> Heartless doesn't seem strong enough.
>
Why not get a protestant minister to bury him?
I can't imagine any or many refusing.
Michael J Davis
<c_a_...@hotmail.com> writes
>Michael J Davis wrote:
>> In message <1hr1reb.xlhrkpa2o3uiN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>, Peter Ashby
>> <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
>> ><http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2518778,00.html>
>> >
>> >Heartless doesn't seem strong enough.
>>
>> My reaction, too, BUT...
>>
>> I think the issue is far more complex than the report indicates:-
>
>This is for me a very live issue as I have for
>several months been corresponding with a young
>person with a terminal disease.
>Her possibilities for the future are limited.
Indeed, I have some friends like that.
>1 Stay in America where her family and friends now
>live and add to their burdens as they nurse her
>because no other help is available.
>2 Return to the UK where she could be nursed to
>the end but would be seperated from everyone who
>loves her.
>3 End her own life while she still can.
>4 A miracle in the amputees legs class.
>Where would you focus your prayers ?
>What would you write to her that could make
>things better for her rather than worse ?
I would first ask you, if she be Christian or otherwise religious. That
would alter the tone, but not the content of my response.
My prayers (as always) would be seeking God's will, and praying that it
be done.
Without being flippant in the slightest, I would add that we all suffer
from a fatal disease, the difference being that some of us may live
linger than others. I have had my own approach changed since a 75mph
crash on the motorway last January from which I walked away. It causes
me to welcome each day as another gift from God.
So what would I say? That she is precious in the eyes of God and that
each day is His gift to her. That helplessness is also a gift, in
allowing others to serve [1] as we have served in our life. That taking
one's own life may deprive others of the right to care.[2]
Sure, I'd pray for a miracle. But sometimes those whom I have prayed for
die peacefully without suffering. It seems that's a valid prayer too,
and God's will can be discerned in that. You will understand that I
wouldn't necessarily tell the person if I discerned that.
Prayers for you too, in discerning how to write.
Blessings
Mike
[1] Read "The Stature of Waiting" by Vanstone
[2] That's assuming the positive side of the hospice movement in
controlling pain without denying dignity. I don't know if that's what
you are distinguishing between in 1 & 2. I know one needs to be with
one's real friends at this time.
Gareth McCaughan
> If you looked at the photo accompanying the article (not shown on the
> web version) - you will see that it appeared to have all the
> shenanigans of a political rally. Now I am not familiar with Italian
> funerals, so cannot say if an 'ordinary' funeral would seem
> similar. So I suspect that there would be many pro-euthanasia people
> who would crow about a climb-down by the Church.
>
> After all a church funeral is not really for the benefit of the dead,
> but an opportunity of prayer for the living. I suspect the authorities
> decided that there wouldn't be much opportunity there either.
Are you generally in favour of not doing the right thing
for fear of giving others something to crow about?
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Gareth McCaughan
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:26:15 GMT, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter
> Ashby) wrote:
>
>> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2518778,00.html>
>>
>> Heartless doesn't seem strong enough.
>>
>> Peter
>
> Why do we presume that the loving thing to do is that which would be
> most popular? Could it not be the case that the most loving thing to
> do is to stick to what one believes? Just a thought,
Eh?
Who suggested that "loving" means "most popular"?
Kendall K. Down
"celia" <c_a_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Where would you focus your prayers ?
That she would submit to God's will and have the strength and patience to do
so.
> What would you write to her that could make
> things better for her rather than worse ?
That while she is under an obligation to refrain from suicide, she is under
no obligation to accept unnecessary treatment. What's that old one about:
Thou shalt not kill, but needest not strive
officiously to keep alive.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Peter Ashby
>
> So what would I say? That she is precious in the eyes of God and that
> each day is His gift to her. That helplessness is also a gift, in
> allowing others to serve [1] as we have served in our life. That taking
> one's own life may deprive others of the right to care.[2]
So a day spent in unbearable pain is a gift from your god? If you cannot
see that this attitude is unutterably cruel then there is no hope for
you. If an animal were suffering so and you did nothing for it you would
rightly be prosecuted for cruelty. Why is the human animal, able to
articulate its desires to be accorded less consideration than a dumb
beast?
Michael J Davis
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes
Good question. Begs two others...
What is the 'right thing' in this case?
A requiem mass does not require the body to be present. If they had held
the 'normal' church funeral, it was likely to be disturbed by various
protesting vested interests. (AISI, of course.)
So the right thing may be to keep the centre of attention away from the
church, and offer the family (if they wish it) private consolation.
Is it wrong to deny people the opportunity to make their point at your
expense?
"Now is the way clear, now is the meaning plain,
temptation shall not come in this way again.
The last temptation is the final treason
To do the right thing for the wrong reason."
Michael J Davis
<host...@gmail.com> writes
I can imagine the Italians standing around aghast at such a suggestion!
;-)
celia
Her faith is real but rather 'folksy' She has a genuine
openess about Christian things and a love for God
and those around her that is refreshing to see.
>
> My prayers (as always) would be seeking God's will, and praying that it
> be done.
Could her taking her own life conceivably
come within that ?
> Without being flippant in the slightest, I would add that we all suffer
> from a fatal disease, the difference being that some of us may live
> linger than others. I have had my own approach changed since a 75mph
> crash on the motorway last January from which I walked away. It causes
> me to welcome each day as another gift from God.
Yes, I know that feeling but it would be very hard
to face a future descent into a vegatative state.
Seeing physical and mental powers gradually
destroyed and possibly deprived of the comfort of
friends and family..
> So what would I say? That she is precious in the eyes of God and that
> each day is His gift to her. That helplessness is also a gift, in
> allowing others to serve [1] as we have served in our life. That taking
> one's own life may deprive others of the right to care.[2]
She is adopted and has always had low self esteem
Her attitude will be that they would be better off
without her and this is a family under a lot of strain.
> Sure, I'd pray for a miracle. But sometimes those whom I have prayed for
> die peacefully without suffering. It seems that's a valid prayer too,
> and God's will can be discerned in that. You will understand that I
> wouldn't necessarily tell the person if I discerned that.
Yes, that would be a valid answer to prayer.
> Prayers for you too, in discerning how to write.
Many thanks
>
>
> [1] Read "The Stature of Waiting" by Vanstone
>
> [2] That's assuming the positive side of the hospice movement in
> controlling pain without denying dignity. I don't know if that's what
> you are distinguishing between in 1 & 2. I know one needs to be with
> one's real friends at this time.
I think it's more the insufficiency of medical insurance
that's the problem.
Celia
> <><
celia
> Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > So what would I say? That she is precious in the eyes of God and that
> > each day is His gift to her. That helplessness is also a gift, in
> > allowing others to serve [1] as we have served in our life. That taking
> > one's own life may deprive others of the right to care.[2]
>
> So a day spent in unbearable pain is a gift from your god? If you cannot
> see that this attitude is unutterably cruel then there is no hope for
> you. If an animal were suffering so and you did nothing for it you would
> rightly be prosecuted for cruelty. Why is the human animal, able to
> articulate its desires to be accorded less consideration than a dumb
> beast?
>
Assuming a pro-choice stand rather than one
that is pro-life or death where do you draw the line.
How do you rate unbearable suffering.
I could give you examples of people i know who
are considering suicide because of terminal illness
and physical pain, mental illness that they have found
no answer to and spiritual desolation. Would you judge
physical suffering to be more 'real' than mental
or spiritual and a more valid reason to seek death ?
The girl I wrote about is actually making physical progress
at present but the prognosis is grim.
The way I'm viewing things at the moment is that life is
a gift from God and as with any gift we have the right to
reject it but to do so shows a a lack of understanding
of the motives of the giver. I can't see euthanasia or
suicide as a one way ticket to Hell.
Celia
celia
> In message <1167309760....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
> "celia" <c_a_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Where would you focus your prayers ?
>
> That she would submit to God's will and have the strength and patience to do
> so.
Do you see one of the options as 'God's will'
rather than the others ?
>
> > What would you write to her that could make
> > things better for her rather than worse ?
>
> That while she is under an obligation to refrain from suicide, she is under
> no obligation to accept unnecessary treatment. What's that old one about:
>
> Thou shalt not kill, but needest not strive
> officiously to keep alive.
That comes very close to the 'method' she
has in mind !
I take it then that 'Thou shalt not kill' includes suicide ?
that seems reasonable but the Bible doesn't
spell it out.
Celia
Gareth McCaughan
> That while she is under an obligation to refrain from suicide, she is under
> no obligation to accept unnecessary treatment. What's that old one about:
>
> Thou shalt not kill, but needest not strive
> officiously to keep alive.
It's been pointed out often enough that it's hard to believe
you're unaware of it -- perhaps you're just trolling again --
but: those words come from a satirical poem called "The Latest
Decalogue", and the poet presumably regarded the sentiments
expressed in it as contemptible. It begins: "Thou shalt have
one God only; who / Would be at the expense of two?"
Michael J Davis
<webm...@diggingsonline.com> writes
>In message <1167309760....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
> "celia" <c_a_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Where would you focus your prayers ?
>
>That she would submit to God's will and have the strength and patience to do
>so.
>
>> What would you write to her that could make
>> things better for her rather than worse ?
>
>That while she is under an obligation to refrain from suicide, she is under
>no obligation to accept unnecessary treatment. What's that old one about:
>Thou shalt not kill, but needest not strive
>officiously to keep alive.
A parody, Ken, a parody! Do you not know that?
Michael J Davis
Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
>Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> So what would I say? That she is precious in the eyes of God and that
>> each day is His gift to her. That helplessness is also a gift, in
>> allowing others to serve [1] as we have served in our life. That taking
>> one's own life may deprive others of the right to care.[2]
>
>So a day spent in unbearable pain is a gift from your god?
a) Who said anything about unbearable pain?
b) I referred later to the Hospice movement that provides pain control
with dignity of life.
>If you cannot
>see that this attitude is unutterably cruel then there is no hope for
>you. If an animal were suffering so and you did nothing for it you would
>rightly be prosecuted for cruelty. Why is the human animal, able to
>articulate its desires to be accorded less consideration than a dumb
>beast?
What a rant! Aren't you the person who suggests that posts should be
read? I may not be expecting you to agree, but I do expect you to be
logical.
Mike
Michael J Davis
>Michael J Davis wrote:
>> In message <1167309760....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, celia
>> <c_a_...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >live and add to their burdens as they nurse her
>> >because no other help is available.
>>
>> >2 Return to the UK where she could be nursed to
>> >the end but would be seperated from everyone who
>> >loves her.
>>
>> >3 End her own life while she still can.
>>
>> >4 A miracle in the amputees legs class.
>>
>> >Where would you focus your prayers ?
>> >What would you write to her that could make
>> >things better for her rather than worse ?
>>
>> I would first ask you, if she be Christian or otherwise religious. That
>> would alter the tone, but not the content of my response.
>
>Her faith is real but rather 'folksy' She has a genuine
>openess about Christian things and a love for God
>and those around her that is refreshing to see.
I think that amounts to a positive attitude, as well as an understanding
that she is loved.
>> My prayers (as always) would be seeking God's will, and praying that it
>> be done.
>
>Could her taking her own life conceivably
>come within that ?
I have every sympathy with those who do that, and really cannot comment
as I've (obviously) never been to that point. The problem, of course, is
that it's final, and the next day could have been a better one.
(Any objection I have to legalised euthanasia is that once it's legal,
it's "expected".)
>
>> Without being flippant in the slightest, I would add that we all suffer
>> from a fatal disease, the difference being that some of us may live
>> linger than others. I have had my own approach changed since a 75mph
>> crash on the motorway last January from which I walked away. It causes
>> me to welcome each day as another gift from God.
>
>Yes, I know that feeling but it would be very hard
>to face a future descent into a vegatative state.
>Seeing physical and mental powers gradually
>destroyed and possibly deprived of the comfort of
>friends and family..
Indeed.
>> So what would I say? That she is precious in the eyes of God and that
>> each day is His gift to her. That helplessness is also a gift, in
>> allowing others to serve [1] as we have served in our life. That taking
>> one's own life may deprive others of the right to care.[2]
>
>She is adopted and has always had low self esteem
>Her attitude will be that they would be better off
>without her and this is a family under a lot of strain.
Oh dear. It seems that this is the area in which she really needs to
know the Good News before any decisions can be made. But you are the
angel carrying the message, may God bless you in your endeavours. I
really have nothing to add.
>> Sure, I'd pray for a miracle. But sometimes those whom I have prayed for
>> die peacefully without suffering. It seems that's a valid prayer too,
>> and God's will can be discerned in that. You will understand that I
>> wouldn't necessarily tell the person if I discerned that.
>
>Yes, that would be a valid answer to prayer.
>
>> Prayers for you too, in discerning how to write.
>
>Many thanks
>>
>> [1] Read "The Stature of Waiting" by Vanstone
>>
>> [2] That's assuming the positive side of the hospice movement in
>> controlling pain without denying dignity. I don't know if that's what
>> you are distinguishing between in 1 & 2. I know one needs to be with
>> one's real friends at this time.
>
>I think it's more the insufficiency of medical insurance
>that's the problem.
Even sadder - it becomes an added and terrible burden upon the patient.
Blessings
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
"We know that in *all* things God works for good in those
who love him and have been called according to his purpose."
Rom 8:28 (NIV)
<><
Frederick Williams
>
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:26:15 GMT, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter
> Ashby) wrote:
>
> >
> >Heartless doesn't seem strong enough.
> >
> >Peter
>
> most popular? Could it not be the case that the most loving thing to
> do is to stick to what one believes? Just a thought,
Why should it be either? I don't think either
the most loving thing is the most popular
or
the most loving thing is to stick to what one believes
is plausible.
--
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid,"
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.
Kendall K. Down
"celia" <c_a_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Do you see one of the options as 'God's will'
> rather than the others ?
Speaking generally (rather than specifically for her situation, about which
I am profoundly ignorant) God gives life and it is up to God to take it.
> I take it then that 'Thou shalt not kill' includes suicide ?
> that seems reasonable but the Bible doesn't
> spell it out.
It doesn't, but all the cases of suicide in the Bible are mentioned with
disapproval.
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> It's been pointed out often enough that it's hard to believe
> you're unaware of it -- perhaps you're just trolling again --
No, it had slipped my mind.
> but: those words come from a satirical poem called "The Latest
> Decalogue", and the poet presumably regarded the sentiments
> expressed in it as contemptible. It begins: "Thou shalt have
> one God only; who / Would be at the expense of two?"
In which the first phrase is truth, the second a satirical comment. In other
words, the poem contains both truth and error. In the case of the words I
quoted, I think they are truth in these days of life-support machines.
Kendall K. Down
Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Thou shalt not kill, but needest not strive
> >officiously to keep alive.
> A parody, Ken, a parody! Do you not know that?
It's still good advice, in my opinion.
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> So a day spent in unbearable pain is a gift from your god?
It may be.
> If you cannot
> see that this attitude is unutterably cruel then there is no hope for
> you.
That is your opinion; I'm not even sure that all sufferers would agree with
you.
> If an animal were suffering so and you did nothing for it you would
> rightly be prosecuted for cruelty. Why is the human animal, able to
> articulate its desires to be accorded less consideration than a dumb
> beast?
Because the dumb animal has no soul.
Privileges also carry responsibilities.
Peter Ashby
> Peter Ashby wrote:
> > Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > So what would I say? That she is precious in the eyes of God and that
> > > each day is His gift to her. That helplessness is also a gift, in
> > > allowing others to serve [1] as we have served in our life. That taking
> > > one's own life may deprive others of the right to care.[2]
> >
> > So a day spent in unbearable pain is a gift from your god? If you cannot
> > see that this attitude is unutterably cruel then there is no hope for
> > you. If an animal were suffering so and you did nothing for it you would
> > rightly be prosecuted for cruelty. Why is the human animal, able to
> > articulate its desires to be accorded less consideration than a dumb
> > beast?
> >
> This is a difficult one.
> Assuming a pro-choice stand rather than one
> that is pro-life or death where do you draw the line.
> How do you rate unbearable suffering.
> I could give you examples of people i know who
> are considering suicide because of terminal illness
> and physical pain, mental illness that they have found
> no answer to and spiritual desolation. Would you judge
> physical suffering to be more 'real' than mental
> or spiritual and a more valid reason to seek death ?
I would put it thus: mental and 'spiritual' pain (whatever the
difference might be) are not usually as irreversible as physical
degeneration and actual physical pain. Depression is the prime exemplar,
it is to a large extent treatable yet also a major cause of suicide. It
is therefore not hypocritical to take that knowledge and seek to prevent
suicide in those who are not of sound mind.
Think about that last phrase and how it is related to those who seek
release from physical pain through euthanasia. Doing so will show you
why I make the distinction.
> The girl I wrote about is actually making physical progress
> at present but the prognosis is grim.
> The way I'm viewing things at the moment is that life is
> a gift from God and as with any gift we have the right to
> reject it but to do so shows a a lack of understanding
> of the motives of the giver. I can't see euthanasia or
> suicide as a one way ticket to Hell.
Considering science shows us that there is no god shaped hole in either
evolution or reproduction and development (I am an expert in the latter)
your assertion that life is a gift is in the face of the lack of any
evidence. To use this to oppose a choice in the real, provable and
painful world seems to me to be perverse.
My wife and I are in accord that we wish for the other to take our lives
if we are unable to do so and are suffering terribly. We are also each
prepared to throw ourselves on the common sense and humanity of a jury
as a consequence.
Peter Ashby
Hmm, assuming his friends and relatives are at least culturally catholic
(fairly safe in Italy) then what solace would you expect them to get
from a protestant ceremony? Your reply seems to me to display a distinct
lack of empathy.
Alan Zanker
>In message <1hr3rd5.1swozvu1j9vw0hN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>, Peter
>Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
>>Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> So what would I say? That she is precious in the eyes of God and that
>>> each day is His gift to her. That helplessness is also a gift, in
>>> allowing others to serve [1] as we have served in our life. That taking
>>> one's own life may deprive others of the right to care.[2]
>>
>>So a day spent in unbearable pain is a gift from your god?
>
>a) Who said anything about unbearable pain?
>
>b) I referred later to the Hospice movement that provides pain control
>with dignity of life.
Of course - I have good reason to be grateful for the loving and
supportive treatment given to relations and friends by hospices in Leeds
and Manchester.
However (a) there are insufficient places in hospices for all who need
them, (b) even hospices cannot provide effective relief from pain and
distress in every case (c) in ordinary hospitals the corresponding
'success' rate is, so I am told, sometimes abysmally low.
>
>>If you cannot
>>see that this attitude is unutterably cruel then there is no hope for
>>you.
Though I rarely agree with Peter I have to say that your argument sounds
as though we should be prepared to subject our loved ones and ourselves
to un-necessary suffering simply to provide others with the 'benefits'
of doing good. (If I didn't know you better I might have thought you had
meant 'feeling self-satisfied', 'feeling virtuous' or even worse,
getting brownie points for Judgement Day).
>>If an animal were suffering so and you did nothing for it you would
>>rightly be prosecuted for cruelty. Why is the human animal, able to
>>articulate its desires to be accorded less consideration than a dumb
>>beast?
>
>What a rant! Aren't you the person who suggests that posts should be
>read? I may not be expecting you to agree, but I do expect you to be
>logical.
Assuming Peter is writing out of genuine anger and not just trying to
take an easy swipe at Christians I don't see it as simply a rant. In
fact I agree - we should have at least the same willingness to act with
compassion towards the genuinely expressed wishes of humans capable of
making rational choices about their own death as we have towards our
cats and dogs where we are the only ones capable of choosing.
Alan
Quasin
> In uk.religion.christian on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:51:35 +0000, Michael J
> Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> }What a rant! Aren't you the person who suggests that posts should be
> }read? I may not be expecting you to agree, but I do expect you to be
> }logical.
>
> It is not logical to believe in Unicorns, fairies or god.
>
> None of them exist.
>
> {R}
True; but God exists. :)
celia
the rights and wrongs of suicide it was a combination
of something said by pg and a letter from someone
intending to jump from the Golden Gate Bridge that
I received yesterday that gave me some sort of answer.
(God moves in mysterious ways)
pg pointed to Romans 1 and that led to Romans 8
Jumping from the bridge is almost always fatal;
it sounds a lovely way to go but is actually horrific
as most internal organs become detached and death
is by a combination of drowning and massive trauma.
With the four second drop from the bridge death could
take several horrendous seconds.
As I was quoting Ecclesiastes 3:2 to the writer
and suggesting that it might not be his 'time to die'
it joined up in my mind with Romans 8 and I saw the parallel
in the text and that suicide is to a natural death as
abortion is to a natural birth. As it says a few verses
later in Eccllesiastes, "He has made everything
beautiful in its time" A natural death and a natural birth
may both be painful but they have a productive beauty
in God's perfect plan that suicide and abortion haven't.
Not that we haven't the freedom to choose suicide
or abortion, not that there aren't times when the choices
are so hard that these choices are reasonable and
understandable, certainly not 'unforgivable sins'
but rather that the violence of the act robs them
of the beauty of a death at its proper time.
On the other hand........
Celia
celia
a professional and little suffering is inflicted.
For a human to take their own life is more difficult
than is generally realised and there is often considerable
suffering. Most methods require more effort than the
person contemplating suicide or euthanasia is capable of.
The result is frequently an increase in suffering rather
than death. Even methods that might be considered
foolproof such as shooting into the brain have a surprisingly
high failure rate.
Celia
Michael J Davis
<nos...@spam.nium.org> writes off topic, but then we have to make
allowances, don't we?
>In uk.religion.christian on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:51:35 +0000, Michael J
>Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>}What a rant! Aren't you the person who suggests that posts should be
>}read? I may not be expecting you to agree, but I do expect you to be
>}logical.
>
>
>None of them exist.
And your proof is?
Peter R
news:3ffap25perismm1m4...@4ax.com...
> In uk.religion.christian on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:51:35 +0000, Michael J
> Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> }What a rant! Aren't you the person who suggests that posts should be
> }read? I may not be expecting you to agree, but I do expect you to be
> }logical.
>
>
> None of them exist.
True... but God does :-)
Peter R
Peter R
> What is the 'right thing' in this case?
> A requiem mass does not require the body to be present. If they had held
> the 'normal' church funeral, it was likely to be disturbed by various
> protesting vested interests. (AISI, of course.)
>
> So the right thing may be to keep the centre of attention away from the
> church,
LOL...they failed on that one then didn't they?!
Peter R
Phil Saunders
>> each day is His gift to her. That helplessness is also a gift, in
>> allowing others to serve [1] as we have served in our life. That taking
>> one's own life may deprive others of the right to care.[2]
>
> So a day spent in unbearable pain is a gift from your god?
Unbearable? mmmm
> If you cannot
> see that this attitude is unutterably cruel then there is no hope for
> you.
Because seeing it your way is a prerequisite for hope?
> If an animal were suffering so and you did nothing for it you would
> rightly be prosecuted for cruelty.
No, you wouldnt be prosecuted for allowing an animal you dont own to suffer.
Indeed in a large number of cases inflicting pain and suffering on animals
is considered perfectly acceptable. Do you need me to provide the examples?
> Why is the human animal, able to
> articulate its desires to be accorded less consideration than a dumb
> beast?
Well if someone were suggesting that the person concerned be killed for
others to eat or be used for experimentation then your point would have at
least some merit.
Of course, as usual, your argument has no merit whatsoever and is just you
dealing with your spleen issue.
Phil
Peter R
>>I can't imagine any or many refusing.
Mike
> I can imagine the Italians standing around aghast at such a suggestion!
Indeed, it reminds me a bit of old Timothy O'Leary who on his death bed
deconverted from the RCC on the premise that if someone had to die it might
as well be a bloody Proddy :-)
Peter R
Phil Saunders
> Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> }What a rant! Aren't you the person who suggests that posts should be
> }read? I may not be expecting you to agree, but I do expect you to be
> }logical.
>
>
> None of them exist.
>
It is not logical to believe in many things. Whether they "exist" is an
interesting question. Would you care to prove that anything does?
I shall, of course, expect you to do so from first principles.
Having done so for a material object could you please re do the exercise for
a concept? How about justice?
regards
Phil
Philip Gardner
> In uk.religion.christian on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:51:35 +0000, Michael
> Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> }What a rant! Aren't you the person who suggests that posts should
> be
> }read? I may not be expecting you to agree, but I do expect you to
> be
> }logical.
>
>
> None of them exist.
Oh well, that settles that, then! On your say-so, I shall at once
become an atheist. How could I have been so illogical as hitherto to
fail to see something so obvious?
Phil
Frederick Williams
> It is not logical to believe in Unicorns, fairies or god.
>
> None of them exist.
What has logic got to do with it? Surely the existence or otherwise of
unicorns, fairies and gods is an empirical matter? (Somebody will quote
Quine at me now.)
Simon Robinson
> Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> }What a rant! Aren't you the person who suggests that posts should be
> }read? I may not be expecting you to agree, but I do expect you to be
> }logical.
>
>
> None of them exist.
ISTM that it is only possible to make those assertions if you don't
understand logic very well. Logic allows you to draw conclusions from
axioms. It does not give you any means with which to decide what those
axioms should be in the first place (nor, incidentally, does it allow
determination of what you'd like to achieve from believing or not
believing something, something else you'd need to throw in before you
can apply logic to see if your beliefs give the desired result).
You have no way of knowing for sure what evidence or life experiences
other people may be bringing to bear for their existence of God. In the
absence of such knowledge, it is not possible for you to be sure whether
other peoples' experiences would or wouldn't most plausibly lead to the
conclusion a God exists. Clearly, your own experiences coupled with your
own mental processes have led you to the conclusion that there is no
God, but that's a much weaker statement than the assertions you just made.
Nick Milton
<Frederick...@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>{R} wrote:
>
>> It is not logical to believe in Unicorns, fairies or god.
>>
>> None of them exist.
>
>What has logic got to do with it? Surely the existence or otherwise of
>unicorns, fairies and gods is an empirical matter?
That would be an ecumenical matter
Michael J Davis
celia <c_a_...@hotmail.com> writes
Thanks
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
Michael J Davis
<al...@zanker.org> writes
>Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <1hr3rd5.1swozvu1j9vw0hN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>, Peter
>>Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
>
>>>Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So what would I say? That she is precious in the eyes of God and that
>>>> each day is His gift to her. That helplessness is also a gift, in
>>>> allowing others to serve [1] as we have served in our life. That taking
>>>> one's own life may deprive others of the right to care.[2]
>>>
>>>So a day spent in unbearable pain is a gift from your god?
>>
>>a) Who said anything about unbearable pain?
>>
>>b) I referred later to the Hospice movement that provides pain control
>>with dignity of life.
>
>Of course - I have good reason to be grateful for the loving and
>supportive treatment given to relations and friends by hospices in Leeds
>and Manchester.
>
>However (a) there are insufficient places in hospices for all who need
>them, (b) even hospices cannot provide effective relief from pain and
>distress in every case (c) in ordinary hospitals the corresponding
>'success' rate is, so I am told, sometimes abysmally low.
Yes, I don't deny that. So your argument is that we should practise
euthanasia? I think we'd better fight for more hospices and research on
pain control.
>>>If you cannot
>>>see that this attitude is unutterably cruel then there is no hope for
>>>you.
>
>Though I rarely agree with Peter I have to say that your argument sounds
>as though we should be prepared to subject our loved ones and ourselves
>to un-necessary suffering simply to provide others with the 'benefits'
>of doing good. (If I didn't know you better I might have thought you had
>meant 'feeling self-satisfied', 'feeling virtuous' or even worse,
>getting brownie points for Judgement Day).
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt. ;-)
I joined in this thread ONLY to explain why the Church *might* (I don't
know the facts) have good reason to refuse a church funeral for Mr
Welby. I responded to Peter only because he replied having snipped
relevant points.
>>>If an animal were suffering so and you did nothing for it you would
>>>rightly be prosecuted for cruelty. Why is the human animal, able to
>>>articulate its desires to be accorded less consideration than a dumb
>>>beast?
>>
>>What a rant! Aren't you the person who suggests that posts should be
>>read? I may not be expecting you to agree, but I do expect you to be
>>logical.
>
>Assuming Peter is writing out of genuine anger and not just trying to
>take an easy swipe at Christians I don't see it as simply a rant. In
>fact I agree - we should have at least the same willingness to act with
>compassion towards the genuinely expressed wishes of humans capable of
>making rational choices about their own death as we have towards our
>cats and dogs where we are the only ones capable of choosing.
I have no quarrel with that. It just happened not to be a reply to the
argument I was making. (He if you recall - is the one who condemns
Christians here for not being rational.)
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
Michael J Davis
<plast...@maxnet.co.nz> writes
As I said elsewhere, I have no inside information, I was just trying to
see it from the different points of view.
Unless you know how disruptive the service would have been, had they
allowed a church service, I'm not sure that you can say that they
failed. (They were condemned already in the eyes of many!)
Personally, I'd have risked it, but I'm not the Bishop of Rome. ;-)
pg
news:4vl0leF...@mid.individual.net...
| {R} wrote:
| > Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| >
| > }What a rant! Aren't you the person who suggests that posts should
be
| > }read? I may not be expecting you to agree, but I do expect you to
be
| > }logical.
| >
| > It is not logical to believe in Unicorns, fairies or god.
| >
| > None of them exist.
|
| ISTM that it is only possible to make those assertions if you don't
| understand logic very well. Logic allows you to draw conclusions from
| axioms. It does not give you any means with which to decide what those
| axioms should be in the first place (nor, incidentally, does it allow
| determination of what you'd like to achieve from believing or not
| believing something, something else you'd need to throw in before you
| can apply logic to see if your beliefs give the desired result).
Indeed, the reasoning may be impeccable from a stated premise. Shame
about the validity of the premise! Or worse still, the 'irreproachable'
axioms on which some would claim their beliefs are based.
Ironic really, the chorus of complaints that arise when a strong atheist
makes a categorical statement about the non-existence of god(s) - with
Christians grumbling "evidence please"!! Particularly give the deafening
silence when theists affirm, equally categorically, the existence of
invisible supernatural beings. (Did I hear someone whisper "Evidence,
please?".... No, probably not).
- - - - - - - -
pga
"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of awesome mystical power. We know
this because they manage to be invisible and pink at the same time. Like
all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon
both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically
know that they are invisible because we can't see them."
pg
news:en3s3r$ad$1...@aioe.org...
That would be a wise move. As De Goncourt wrote: “If there is a
(omnibenevolent) God, atheism must strike Him as less of an insult than
religion.”
Peter R
>>> So the right thing may be to keep the centre of attention away from the
>>> church,
Me
>>LOL...they failed on that one then didn't they?!
Mike
> As I said elsewhere, I have no inside information, I was just trying to
> see it from the different points of view.
With respect Mike I think you were trying to see it from *their* POV which,
given your position, is understandable, but I really do think your attempts
are somewhat laughable in this situation sorry.
> Unless you know how disruptive the service would have been, had they
> allowed a church service, I'm not sure that you can say that they failed.
> (They were condemned already in the eyes of many!)
And are now condemned to a far greater extent in the eyes of mant more!
> Personally, I'd have risked it, but I'm not the Bishop of Rome. ;-)
Their loss your gain :-)
Peter R
Alec Brady
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Are you generally in favour of not doing the right thing
>for fear of giving others something to crow about?
Why is giving someone a church funeral "the right thing"?
Gordon Hudson
news:4596...@news.maxnet.co.nz...
Do you mean Timothy Leary?
He's not dead anyway, just outside looking in.
Gordon Hudson
> Gordon Hudson <host...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Ashby" <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> wrote in message
>> news:1hr1reb.xlhrkpa2o3uiN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk...
>> > <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2518778,00.html>
>> >
>> > Heartless doesn't seem strong enough.
>> >
>>
>> Why not get a protestant minister to bury him?
>> I can't imagine any or many refusing.
>
> Hmm, assuming his friends and relatives are at least culturally catholic
> (fairly safe in Italy) then what solace would you expect them to get
> from a protestant ceremony?
The same they would expect us to get froma catholic one, presumably.
Michael J Davis
<n...@alpesprovence.net> writes
>| > Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>| >
>| > }What a rant! Aren't you the person who suggests that posts should
>be
>| > }read? I may not be expecting you to agree, but I do expect you to
>be
>| > }logical.
>| >
>| > It is not logical to believe in Unicorns, fairies or god.
>| >
>| > None of them exist.
>Ironic really, the chorus of complaints that arise when a strong atheist
>makes a categorical statement about the non-existence of god(s) - with
>Christians grumbling "evidence please"!! Particularly give the deafening
>silence when theists affirm, equally categorically, the existence of
>invisible supernatural beings. (Did I hear someone whisper "Evidence,
>please?".... No, probably not).
I have plenty of evidence that God exists and loves me. However, such
evidence is innately subjective, and I am fully aware that it
won't/doesn't convince you.
However, I cannot see how an atheist viewpoint is anything but arrogant,
in thinking that a mind honed by evolution[1] for the purpose of
individual survival, should be able to comprehend the 'meaning of the
universe'.
If there be a God[2], the only *logical* approach is, surely, to examine
how such a being would communicate with its creation.
Mike
[1] I am not anti-evolution, I think it's one of God's greatest
revelations (third probably, after revealing Himself, and maths).
[2] And a loving one - if Christians be right - would surely be worth
getting to know.
--
Michael J Davis
<><
If you cannot hear the Lord's reply
when you're praying really hard
maybe you are hogging the bandwidth.
<><
Peter Ashby
> In message <4596ae99$0$25943$ba4a...@news.orange.fr>, pg
> <n...@alpesprovence.net> writes
> >| > Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >| >
> >| > }What a rant! Aren't you the person who suggests that posts should
> >be
> >| > }read? I may not be expecting you to agree, but I do expect you to
> >be
> >| > }logical.
> >| >
> >| > It is not logical to believe in Unicorns, fairies or god.
> >| >
> >| > None of them exist.
>
> >Ironic really, the chorus of complaints that arise when a strong atheist
> >makes a categorical statement about the non-existence of god(s) - with
> >Christians grumbling "evidence please"!! Particularly give the deafening
> >silence when theists affirm, equally categorically, the existence of
> >invisible supernatural beings. (Did I hear someone whisper "Evidence,
> >please?".... No, probably not).
>
> I have plenty of evidence that God exists and loves me. However, such
> evidence is innately subjective, and I am fully aware that it
> won't/doesn't convince you.
So given that on what basis can you use it to tell another human being
how they may or may not behave or have done to or for them?
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
Peter R
> Do you mean Timothy Leary?
> He's not dead anyway, just outside looking in.
LOL...very good. Actually you must be one of the only people I have ever
encountered who knows that song. "Caught Live Plus 5" was a particularly
obscure album and my understanding is that it was the only MB album to have
it on. Anyway congrats on sending me down nostalgia lane....
Peter R
Alec Brady
<4596e942$0$756$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>,
"Gordon Hudson" <host...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Peter Ashby" <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> wrote in message
>news:1hr4d2c.o0iiwg1e12504N%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk...
>> Gordon Hudson <host...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why not get a protestant minister to bury him?
>>> I can't imagine any or many refusing.
>>
>> Hmm, assuming his friends and relatives are at least culturally catholic
>> (fairly safe in Italy) then what solace would you expect them to get
>> from a protestant ceremony?
>
>The same they would expect us to get from a catholic one, presumably.
Why would you expect that?
Gareth McCaughan
>>> Why do we presume that the loving thing to do is that which would be
>>> most popular? Could it not be the case that the most loving thing to
>>> do is to stick to what one believes? Just a thought,
>>
>> Eh?
>>
>> Who suggested that "loving" means "most popular"?
>
> It is generally assumed by many people that the loving thing to do
> would be that which meets with popular approval.
Who are those "many people"? Are you suggesting that
most, or many, of those who think it's unloving to forbid
someone with an incurable disease so horrible that he
longs to die, to do so, are saying that on the grounds
that letting him die would be "most popular"? That seems
an absolutely preposterous idea to me; if it is what
you're suggesting, I'd love to know what evidence you
have for it.
> AFAIUI, in this case,
> the man concerned had publicly demanded to be allowed to die, a doctor
> sedated him and turned off the air pump keeping him alive. Is this
> suicide, euthanasia (voluntary or otherwise) or indeed murder/
> manslaughter? AFAIUI, the teaching of the Roman Catholic church is
> that all of these options are wrong and consequently they had always
> taken a stand against Mr Welby’s demands to be allowed to die.
Correct.
> Given this stance, it is logical that they would deny him a Catholic
> funeral rite. I am no great fan of the Roman Catholic church, despite
> many friends in it, but give it full marks for consistency.
Yes, it was certainly consistent. An action can be
consistent but also very wrong, if the stance with
which it's consistent is incorrect.
> For many people, the "loving thing" to do would be to give assent to
> the course of action taken by conducting the funeral. Is it not more
> "loving" to stick to the truth of what one believes?
Or, alternatively, to the falsehood of what one believes;
one of the key points at issue here is whether the belief
in question is true or false.
Who is loved more or better by sticking to this particular
alleged truth?
> Incidentally, if
> the doctor did turn off the pump and effectively end the man's life,
> then he could under Italian law be punished by up to 15 years in
> prison.
Yes. Do you consider that a good thing?
> The Pope's remarks that “We must accept life from its beginning to its
> natural sunset.”“What are we to think of those who choose death in the
> belief that they are celebrating life?” sum it up really.
Sum what up?
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Gareth McCaughan
[Alan Zanker:]
>> However (a) there are insufficient places in hospices for all who need
>> them, (b) even hospices cannot provide effective relief from pain and
>> distress in every case (c) in ordinary hospitals the corresponding
>> 'success' rate is, so I am told, sometimes abysmally low.
[Mike:]
> Yes, I don't deny that. So your argument is that we should practise
> euthanasia? I think we'd better fight for more hospices and research
> on pain control.
I hope you aren't assuming that it isn't possible to do both.
Gareth McCaughan
> However, I cannot see how an atheist viewpoint is anything but
> arrogant, in thinking that a mind honed by evolution[1] for the
> purpose of individual survival, should be able to comprehend the
> 'meaning of the universe'.
[1] NMF.
What about a viewpoint that says: "of course my mind is finite
and fallible, but I have to make do with what I have, and
looking as carefully as I know how at all the evidence I can
reasonably get hold of it seems enormously more likely to me
that there is no God than that there is one"? I think far more
people who call themselves atheists hold that sort of position
than one that makes grandiose claims about comprehending the
meaning of the universe.
In any case, I fail to see why it's less arrogant for a theist
to think that his mind is "able to comprehend the meaning of
the universe" than for an atheist to do so, or why the theist
has to think that any less than the atheist. (I can understand
that you might think it less *unreasonable* for the theist,
because he can believe that his mind acquired the ability to
comprehend the meaning of the universe by God's agency. But
that's not the same thing as less *arrogant*. It's a moral
calumny you've issued against me[2] and those who share my
opinions, not an intellectual one.)
[2] Of course I don't imagine that you had me specifically
in mind. I'm just making the point that denigrating a
group generally means denigrating those in the group
too.
Anticipatory note: You might want to reply along these lines:
"The atheist claims to have worked it out; the theist claims
rather to have had it revealed to him. That's less arrogant."
I'm not at all convinced that it is. The theist is still
claiming an (ongoing) comprehension of the nature of the
universe that's just as specific, just as arguably too much
for the human mind, as what the atheist claims. And being
favoured by God with a revelation not given to all seems
pretty arrogant to me. (If the theist says "oh, but it *is*
given to all, but not everyone understands/accepts it" then
he's back to claiming superiority over the atheist.)
Gareth McCaughan
It might not be; but Mike's argument seemed to be aimed
at establishing that even if it is "the right thing" in
the absence of the publicity attached to the case, it
might well still have been a bad thing to do because it
would have given people something to crow about. If it
turns out not to be "the right thing" then Mike's argument
is, I think, irrelevant, and my question likewise.
(I should of course clarify: when I say "the right thing"
I mean "the right thing in the absence of the particular
danger-of-others-crowing under discussion. Obviously if
something's the right thing, simpliciter, then one should
do it; that's what "right" means. At least as I currently
use the word.)
Kendall K. Down
Frederick Williams <Frederick...@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> What has logic got to do with it? Surely the existence or otherwise of
> unicorns, fairies and gods is an empirical matter?
Of course it is - like snakes in Ireland.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> My wife and I are in accord that we wish for the other to take our lives
> if we are unable to do so and are suffering terribly. We are also each
> prepared to throw ourselves on the common sense and humanity of a jury
> as a consequence.
I would insist that you should face a jury if you did - and if I were on
that jury, I would vote for aquittal (assuming that there was indeed real
suffering and a genuine desire for it to end in that way on the part of your
wife).
Kendall K. Down
"celia" <c_a_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As I was quoting Ecclesiastes 3:2 to the writer
> and suggesting that it might not be his 'time to die'
> it joined up in my mind with Romans 8 and I saw the parallel
> in the text and that suicide is to a natural death as
> abortion is to a natural birth. As it says a few verses
> later in Eccllesiastes, "He has made everything
> beautiful in its time" A natural death and a natural birth
> may both be painful but they have a productive beauty
> in God's perfect plan that suicide and abortion haven't.
I think God gave you that link, Celia. Thanks for posting it.
Peter Ashby
>
> However, I cannot see how an atheist viewpoint is anything but arrogant,
> in thinking that a mind honed by evolution[1] for the purpose of
> individual survival, should be able to comprehend the 'meaning of the
> universe'.
1. What makes you so sure the universe has or must have meaning?
2. It is said that few people have minds + education to be able to
properly understand Relativity. Does that therefore mean in your
worldview that it only exists for or has meaning for those people?
Peter Ashby
>
> The Pope's remarks that "We must accept life from its beginning to its
> natural sunset.‰"What are we to think of those who choose death in the
> belief that they are celebrating life?‰ sum it up really.
In what way is keeping someone alive through the essential use of a
ventilator anything close to 'a natural sunset'? I would have rather
thought that such a suggestion would seem both ludicrous and perverse by
the poor man concerned. It was the fact that his 'natural sunset' had
been denied him and he was thus forced to endure the unendurable that
was the issue.
pg
news:m57kDjAq...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid...
I know very - VERY - few atheists that think mind - in its currently
evolved condition - can comprehend a 'meaning of the universe'. No, I
take that back. I know of NO atheists that would hold that view. This is
a key element of the scepticism of many atheists.
| If there be a God[2], the only *logical* approach is, surely, to
examine
| how such a being would communicate with its creation.
Which assumes a hypothetical god that complies with the likes of the
Christian perception. If there was a remote, disinterested, amoral
'supernatural', how different do you think the world would be today?
- - - - -
pga
"I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my
legs." (Frederick Douglass - an escaped slave)
Michael J Davis
Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
>Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I have plenty of evidence that God exists and loves me. However, such
>> evidence is innately subjective, and I am fully aware that it
>> won't/doesn't convince you.
>
>So given that on what basis can you use it to tell another human being
>how they may or may not behave or have done to or for them?
I can only tell people what the God I believe in is like (love) and what
He has done for them. That He created them as individuals and wants them
to be perfected by His grace.
I can invite them to open themselves to experience His love and what
that might mean for their behaviour.
Beyond that the decision is theirs and theirs alone.
On what basis can an *atheist* tell another how they may or may not
behave or have done to or for them?
Mike
Michael J Davis
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes
Of course not! But sometimes the 'good'[1] can drive out the best.
Mike
[1] 'apparently good' in many cases
Michael J Davis
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes
And I would wish to add was that all I was pointing out was that there
may be another pov. I have no idea what the 'right thing' is/was.
Mike
Frederick Williams
>
> Ken Down wrote:
>
> > That while she is under an obligation to refrain from suicide, she is under
> > no obligation to accept unnecessary treatment. What's that old one about:
> >
> > Thou shalt not kill, but needest not strive
> > officiously to keep alive.
Just in case there are any pedants here (Shirley not?) it should be:
Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive
Officiously to keep alive.
>
> ... the poet presumably regarded the sentiments
> expressed in it as contemptible.
According to just what "officiously" means, istm that "Thou ... need'st
not strive officiously to keep alive." could express a reasonable
sentiment. (But I'm not claiming that Clough thought so.) The medical
profession quite often keep people alive using machines when it would
seem more humane to let them die. Just because wonderful things have
been achieved in the field of medicine in recent years that does not
mean that it is _always_ appropriate to use them. That the growth of
applied knowledge often outstrips the growth of ethical understanding is
well known and in our society some of the most heart-rending examples of
that are in the field of medicine.
--
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid,"
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.
Peter Ashby
> In message <1hr6lp2.l3njsw1bxr11gN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>, Peter
> Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
> >Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have plenty of evidence that God exists and loves me. However, such
> >> evidence is innately subjective, and I am fully aware that it
> >> won't/doesn't convince you.
> >
> >So given that on what basis can you use it to tell another human being
> >how they may or may not behave or have done to or for them?
>
> I can only tell people what the God I believe in is like (love) and what
> He has done for them. That He created them as individuals and wants them
> to be perfected by His grace.
Except that we evolved and were not created which whips the rug out from
under that little assertion.
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> (If the theist says "oh, but it *is*
> given to all, but not everyone understands/accepts it" then
> he's back to claiming superiority over the atheist.)
Is that supposed to be a problem?
Kendall K. Down
"pg" <n...@alpesprovence.net> wrote:
> Ironic really, the chorus of complaints that arise when a strong atheist
> makes a categorical statement about the non-existence of god(s) - with
> Christians grumbling "evidence please"!! Particularly give the deafening
> silence when theists affirm, equally categorically, the existence of
> invisible supernatural beings. (Did I hear someone whisper "Evidence,
> please?".... No, probably not).
It just shows that we can detect with a fair degree of infallibility when
you are being serious in your statements.
pg
news:8710c49d4...@diggingsonline.com...
| In message <4596ae99$0$25943$ba4a...@news.orange.fr>
| "pg" <n...@alpesprovence.net> wrote:
|
| > Ironic really, the chorus of complaints that arise when a strong
atheist
| > makes a categorical statement about the non-existence of god(s) -
with
| > Christians grumbling "evidence please"!! Particularly give the
deafening
| > silence when theists affirm, equally categorically, the existence of
| > invisible supernatural beings. (Did I hear someone whisper
"Evidence,
| > please?".... No, probably not).
|
| It just shows that we can detect with a fair degree of infallibility
when
| you are being serious in your statements.
That would be a similar degree of infallibility to the one you
demonstrate with respect to creationism? :-)
Michael J Davis
>Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <1hr6lp2.l3njsw1bxr11gN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>, Peter
>> Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
>> >Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I have plenty of evidence that God exists and loves me. However, such
>> >> evidence is innately subjective, and I am fully aware that it
>> >> won't/doesn't convince you.
>> >
>> >So given that on what basis can you use it to tell another human being
>> >how they may or may not behave or have done to or for them?
>>
>> I can only tell people what the God I believe in is like (love) and what
>> He has done for them. That He created them as individuals and wants them
>> to be perfected by His grace.
>
>Except that we evolved and were not created which whips the rug out from
>under that little assertion.
You obviously don't pay any attention to what I write.
In the 3rd antecedent of this post I wrote...
[1] I am not anti-evolution, I think it's one of God's greatest
revelations (third probably, after revealing Himself, and maths).
So I'm getting a little tired of your simplistic understanding of what
(reasonably educated and scientific) Christians believe.
Michael J Davis
Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
>Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> However, I cannot see how an atheist viewpoint is anything but arrogant,
>> in thinking that a mind honed by evolution[1] for the purpose of
>> individual survival, should be able to comprehend the 'meaning of the
>> universe'.
>
>1. What makes you so sure the universe has or must have meaning?
That I have experienced God's love and seen His purpose in my life. That
is not a claim, btw, that I *understand* God - because I am a creature,
but an indication that what clues I have about His revelation give
indications of the greatness and intelligence of what is behind it.
>2. It is said that few people have minds + education to be able to
>properly understand Relativity. Does that therefore mean in your
>worldview that it only exists for or has meaning for those people?
eh? That response can be interpreted in several ways, of which the two
that first come to my mind are...
1. You have misunderstood my point, which is that your understanding of
the purpose of intelligence is different from mine, or
2. That you think that the intelligence we have is relative to truth.
My point is that you hold that intelligence *only* develops in response
to evolutionary pressures and *can not be shown* to validly draw
conclusions to the existence or non-existence of God.
I hold that intelligence - as formed by evolutionary pressures - may
serve the creator's purpose sufficiently in His wish to reveal Himself
to us. The fact that someone does not believe in relativity does not
vitiate the relativistic principle, anymore than your lack of belief in
God vitiates His existence.
Gareth McCaughan
> In message <874prcn...@g.mccaughan.org.uk>
> Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> (If the theist says "oh, but it *is*
>> given to all, but not everyone understands/accepts it" then
>> he's back to claiming superiority over the atheist.)
>
> Is that supposed to be a problem?
Mike, to whom my comment was addressed, evidently thinks it is
a problem, since he made disapproving reference to the alleged
arrogance of atheists and I don't think he thinks arrogance is
good when theists do it and bad when atheists do it.
But, by all means, feel free to claim your own moral and
intellectual superiority over atheists if it makes you feel
better.
Peter Ashby
> In message <1hr7aju.1j0k3ug14ubowkN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>, Peter
> Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
> >Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> However, I cannot see how an atheist viewpoint is anything but arrogant,
> >> in thinking that a mind honed by evolution[1] for the purpose of
> >> individual survival, should be able to comprehend the 'meaning of the
> >> universe'.
> >
> >1. What makes you so sure the universe has or must have meaning?
>
> That I have experienced God's love and seen His purpose in my life. That
> is not a claim, btw, that I *understand* God - because I am a creature,
> but an indication that what clues I have about His revelation give
> indications of the greatness and intelligence of what is behind it.
On what basis can you be absolutely sure that your experience was not a
delusion or an illusion?
> >2. It is said that few people have minds + education to be able to
> >properly understand Relativity. Does that therefore mean in your
> >worldview that it only exists for or has meaning for those people?
>
> eh? That response can be interpreted in several ways, of which the two
> that first come to my mind are...
>
> 1. You have misunderstood my point, which is that your understanding of
> the purpose of intelligence is different from mine, or
>
> 2. That you think that the intelligence we have is relative to truth.
>
> My point is that you hold that intelligence *only* develops in response
> to evolutionary pressures and *can not be shown* to validly draw
> conclusions to the existence or non-existence of God.
>
> I hold that intelligence - as formed by evolutionary pressures - may
> serve the creator's purpose sufficiently in His wish to reveal Himself
> to us. The fact that someone does not believe in relativity does not
> vitiate the relativistic principle, anymore than your lack of belief in
> God vitiates His existence.
Which nicely encapsulates the problem you have with knowledge. The
veracity or otherwise of Relativity is not a matter for belief but one
of understanding and therefore acceptance. If you do not accept then it
is beholden on you to demonstrate in what ways it is wrong.
Peter Ashby
> In message <1hr7w98.2r2h56klpksgN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>, Peter Ashby
> <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
> >Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In message <1hr6lp2.l3njsw1bxr11gN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>, Peter
> >> Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
> >> >Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I have plenty of evidence that God exists and loves me. However, such
> >> >> evidence is innately subjective, and I am fully aware that it
> >> >> won't/doesn't convince you.
> >> >
> >> >So given that on what basis can you use it to tell another human being
> >> >how they may or may not behave or have done to or for them?
> >>
> >> I can only tell people what the God I believe in is like (love) and what
> >> He has done for them. That He created them as individuals and wants them
> >> to be perfected by His grace.
> >
> >Except that we evolved and were not created which whips the rug out from
> >under that little assertion.
>
> You obviously don't pay any attention to what I write.
>
> In the 3rd antecedent of this post I wrote...
>
> [1] I am not anti-evolution, I think it's one of God's greatest
> revelations (third probably, after revealing Himself, and maths).
>
> So I'm getting a little tired of your simplistic understanding of what
> (reasonably educated and scientific) Christians believe.
I had exactly that in mind. I was pointing up the contradiction between
that statement and your subsequent invocation of the belief that we were
created in order to make a point. You may believe there is no
contradiction but unless and until you can point me to a god shaped hole
in evolution you cannot prove that statement, which makes it nothing
more than an assertion. Thus your argument rests on an assumption.
celia
For me the heart of what Mike said was,
" I can only tell people what the God I believe in is like (love)
and what
He has done for them. That He created them as individuals and
wants them
to be perfected by His grace.
I can invite them to open themselves to experience His love and
what
that might mean for their behaviour."
No moral or intellectual superiority but a refuge
from the storms of life, a safe haven for now and
the future.
Later today an online friend intends to walk in the
woods and kill himself. His health is poor but the real
reason is a broken heart, seperation from those he loves.
I have done everything that an atheist could do to
try and persuade him to give himself longer. I have
taken all the practical routes that an atheist in my position
could have taken.
None of these things altered his stand.
As a Christian I am not out of options, putting the
spiritual perspective and praying for him are also
possible. The result might be the same, man has
free will, but even if he takes his own life I am still
better off than an atheist would be because I can myself
go to God for comfort.
Few atheists would be impressed by the many instances
I could cite of God's intervention for good in lives,
Few atheists would see this as anything other than
self delusion but the bottom line is that it works.
(This is a claim of being inferior to atheists
because I need God )
Celia
Michael J Davis
>Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <1hr7w98.2r2h56klpksgN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>, Peter Ashby
>> <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
>> >
>> >under that little assertion.
>>
>> You obviously don't pay any attention to what I write.
>>
>> In the 3rd antecedent of this post I wrote...
>>
>> [1] I am not anti-evolution, I think it's one of God's greatest
>> revelations (third probably, after revealing Himself, and maths).
>>
>> So I'm getting a little tired of your simplistic understanding of what
>> (reasonably educated and scientific) Christians believe.
>
>I had exactly that in mind. I was pointing up the contradiction between
>that statement and your subsequent invocation of the belief that we were
>created in order to make a point. You may believe there is no
>contradiction but unless and until you can point me to a god shaped hole
>in evolution you cannot prove that statement, which makes it nothing
>more than an assertion. Thus your argument rests on an assumption.
But God-shaped holes are indicative of God of the gaps. In general terms
the only gap is human behaviour[1] that can conform to God's will or
frustrate it in the short term.
I believe in an immanent God (or as St Paul put it '...in whom we live
and move and have our being' see Acts 17:27-29) whose very creation
reflects His will. (Although mankind has the ability to frustrate it.)
Consequently, I have no problem with a God who can anticipate the
outcome of the laws of nature that He instituted because He is outside
temporal limitations.[2]
[1] there are others that we might call 'miracles' but they are not
strictly relevant to a discussion of principles.
[2] I am reminded of Asimov's Foundation Trilogy as I write that! ;-)
Wishing you a Happy New Year.
Michael J Davis
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes
>Ken Down wrote:
>
>> In message <874prcn...@g.mccaughan.org.uk>
>> Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> (If the theist says "oh, but it *is*
>>> given to all, but not everyone understands/accepts it" then
>>> he's back to claiming superiority over the atheist.)
>>
>> Is that supposed to be a problem?
>
>Mike, to whom my comment was addressed, evidently thinks it is
>a problem, since he made disapproving reference to the alleged
>arrogance of atheists and I don't think he thinks arrogance is
>good when theists do it and bad when atheists do it.
No, it was the 'argument used by atheists' that is arrogant - because it
is extrapolated beyond the limits of the concept.
It is arrogant for a mathematician to predict the outcome of an
individual's disease based on some (unproved) function that predicts the
outcome of a cloud of superheated gas, but not arrogant when a medical
practitioner does so on the basis of their experience of treating that
disease.
>But, by all means, feel free to claim your own moral and
>intellectual superiority over atheists if it makes you feel
>better.
I'm glad you are giving Ken such licence. Is it yours to give?
Happy New Year
Peter Ashby
Oh that is so glib, isn't it just so easy to write 'outside temporal
limitations'? but I'm afraid it is far, far too glib. Unless and until
you have any sort of evidence or proof of if anything can be so you are
simply speaking from your fundament.
I must ask you on what basis you accept evolution?
Frederick Williams
> However, I cannot see how an atheist viewpoint is anything but arrogant,
> in thinking that a mind honed by evolution[1] for the purpose of
> individual survival, should be able to comprehend the 'meaning of the
> universe'.
(1) The universe may not have a meaning in the sense that you mean.
(2) Even if it does, or if by 'meaning of the universe' is meant
something like 'how the universe works', atheists, qua atheists, are not
bound to believe that the human mind can comprehend it. It is a truism
of science that the more we find out the more we realize how little we
know.
(3) Do evolutionists think that the mind is honed by evolution for the
purpose of individual survival? The words 'for the purpose of' read too
teleologically for my liking.
(4) Do believers in Christianity comprehend the meaning of the
universe? There are plenty of questions that one can put to Christians
only to be told that the answer is a mystery unknowable to man.
Frederick Williams
>
> ...
>
> If there be a God[2], the only *logical* approach is, surely, to examine
> how such a being would communicate with its creation.
>
> getting to know.
If He exists He doesn't seem very loving to me--one just has to look at
the state of the world and the role of the openly religious people in it
(I don't need to name names).
I don't think you should say the _only_ logical approach. No approach
that works or may work should be ruled out.
A loving God may be worth getting to know but are we all obliged to love
Him in return? If the girl next door fancies me, I'm not obliged to
fancy her in return.
Alec Brady
<45991D59...@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid>,
Frederick Williams <Frederick...@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid>
wrote:
>(3) Do evolutionists think that the mind is honed by evolution for the
>purpose of individual survival? The words 'for the purpose of' read too
>teleologically for my liking.
Dennett seems to think that teleological language is ok when talking
about evolution - he reifies the process as "Mother Nature" to whom he
grants intentional attributes. This fits in well with his position in
"The Intentional Stance". We could argue that recursive processes
simulate (or, perhaps *are*) teleology.
Michael J Davis
Yes, isn't it? ;-) Yet my experience of God is like that.
>Unless and until
>you have any sort of evidence or proof of if anything can be so you are
>simply speaking from your fundament.
No; that is not true. I said earlier in this thread that my evidence for
God is personal to me but pretty objective - had I recorded each event
when it happened. But I know full well that it won't convince you, so
I'm not going to use it to attempt to.
You see, your problem is that you come here and argue as though God were
a philosophical concept. Christians (in general) believe God to have a
personal relationship with us. The type of 'proof' required for one is
different from the other.
>I must ask you on what basis you accept evolution?
What a funny question. Let me suggest that it isn't on the basis of a
personal relationship with Charles Darwin.
Seriously, my answer is that what I know and experience of the world
around me is best met by several explanations, such as gravity (and a
few forces of), evolution, and God's love for me.
Now. were you to ask on what basis do I accept QD, then it would be more
difficult. I am unable to get my mind around QD - I have a limited grasp
of the equations, but I cannot relate them to the reality of what I see.
However, I recognise that some things in common use rely on the
behaviour of materials in a QD way, and so I accept that QD is *in some
sense* real. It is though, in one of those senses that I don't think
the human mind is capable of comprehending, so we hide behind a series
of mathematical constructs i.e. we behave as though QD is real, which -
because they enable us to predict - we accept as 'modelling' QD
'reality'.
At a philosophical level, I can take the same approach towards God. I
find direct proof of His existence as lacking as the proof of QD. But
when I behave as though He exists, I find that the world makes sense and
is more comprehensible than without Him. When I add in my direct
experiences of Him over the past 30 years of my life, I have few doubts,
although recognise that I could have got it wrong. However, the
happiness and stability of my life since meeting Him in a hotel room
makes it worthwhile.
Michael J Davis
Williams <Frederick...@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid> writes
>Michael J Davis wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> If there be a God[2], the only *logical* approach is, surely, to examine
>> how such a being would communicate with its creation.
>>
>> [2] And a loving one - if Christians be right - would surely be worth
>> getting to know.
>
>If He exists He doesn't seem very loving to me--one just has to look at
>the state of the world and the role of the openly religious people in it
>(I don't need to name names).
To which I say thank God I'm not religious. But that comes over as
arrogant. There is no question that many evils are perpetuated through
human power, and religion is a useful banner for amassing the troops.
But there are in all the major religions many people who have
relinquished power and embraced poverty and service to express their
love for their fellow men. Christians claim that they have a leader -
God Himself - who showed us the way. Other religions claim holy men who
did likewise. Manifold good is done quietly in these religions, and I
have no doubt that it is the Spirit of God working in these people.
>
>I don't think you should say the _only_ logical approach. No approach
>that works or may work should be ruled out.
I understand, but *if there be a God* it would be remarkably foolish to
overlook such a possibility. (God communicating with us individually.)
So the issue isn't about arguing against the possibility, but to
consider that option. I agree there are other options that may also be
worth considering.
(Read 'Surprised by joy" by CS Lewis, about his reluctance to consider
these options.)
>A loving God may be worth getting to know but are we all obliged to love
>Him in return? If the girl next door fancies me, I'm not obliged to
>fancy her in return.
LOL!
If it explains the reason for your being, It might at least be worth
finding out.
Michael J Davis
Williams <Frederick...@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid> writes
>Michael J Davis wrote:
>
>> However, I cannot see how an atheist viewpoint is anything but arrogant,
>> in thinking that a mind honed by evolution[1] for the purpose of
>> individual survival, should be able to comprehend the 'meaning of the
>> universe'.
>
>(1) The universe may not have a meaning in the sense that you mean.
Sure. But we know one thing about the universe. Sorry, two.
1. It exists and
2. I exist.
That alone gives it a meaning in some sense. (Meaning being a construct
- at the very least - of the human mind.)
>(2) Even if it does, or if by 'meaning of the universe' is meant
>something like 'how the universe works', atheists, qua atheists, are not
>bound to believe that the human mind can comprehend it. It is a truism
>of science that the more we find out the more we realize how little we
>know.
No, meaning is not 'how' but 'why'? Our minds are fantastically
restricted compared with the universe, of which they are part.
>
>(3) Do evolutionists think that the mind is honed by evolution for the
>purpose of individual survival? The words 'for the purpose of' read too
>teleologically for my liking.
Ah, that's the word I was looking for - I put it like that deliberately.
But you know exactly what I mean. The mind has certainly not (for an
atheist) been honed to know the glory of God. The more random and
un-teleologically you put it there more you understand my point.
>(4) Do believers in Christianity comprehend the meaning of the
>universe? There are plenty of questions that one can put to Christians
>only to be told that the answer is a mystery unknowable to man.
Absolutely. But we know Someone who does know. If man were to know
everything about God, He wouldn't be much of a God would He?
Michael J Davis
OK, so your search for 'truth' (scientific or otherwise) is limited?
Restricted? You are happy with the extent that you can grasp the reality
that *is*?
In which case why are you so convinced that Christians are wrong?
>
>| If there be a God[2], the only *logical* approach is, surely, to
>examine
>| how such a being would communicate with its creation.
>
>Which assumes a hypothetical god that complies with the likes of the
>Christian perception. If there was a remote, disinterested, amoral
>'supernatural', how different do you think the world would be today?
I don't know. I only know the loving God I experience. Is that your
excuse for not even considering how a loving God might wish to
communicate with you?
>"I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my
>legs." (Frederick Douglass - an escaped slave)
Excellent! That is often the experience of many Christians.
(see Romans 8:28.)
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
"We know that in *all* things God works for good in those
who love him and have been called according to his purpose."
Rom 8:28 (NIV)
<><
Michael J Davis
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes
>Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> However, I cannot see how an atheist viewpoint is anything but
>> arrogant, in thinking that a mind honed by evolution[1] for the
>> purpose of individual survival, should be able to comprehend the
>> 'meaning of the universe'.
>
>
>What about a viewpoint that says: "of course my mind is finite
>and fallible, but I have to make do with what I have, and
>looking as carefully as I know how at all the evidence I can
>reasonably get hold of it seems enormously more likely to me
>that there is no God than that there is one"? I think far more
>people who call themselves atheists hold that sort of position
>than one that makes grandiose claims about comprehending the
>meaning of the universe.
Gareth - as a Christian or atheist - you have shown yourself willing to
consider and weigh up the evidence that you have. That is one of your
personal strengths, and one I am glad to be able to interact with.
>In any case, I fail to see why it's less arrogant for a theist
>to think that his mind is "able to comprehend the meaning of
>the universe" than for an atheist to do so, or why the theist
>has to think that any less than the atheist. (I can understand
>that you might think it less *unreasonable* for the theist,
>because he can believe that his mind acquired the ability to
>comprehend the meaning of the universe by God's agency. But
>that's not the same thing as less *arrogant*.
In the circumstances, I had thought that the nature of the
unreasonableness was a form of arrogance, because the very definition of
*excluding* God means that statements about the *inclusion* of God must
be invalid. Therefore I read such statements of the same form of
arrogance as those mediaeval churchmen who condemned Galelio without
examining his evidence.
>It's a moral
>calumny you've issued against me[2] and those who share my
>opinions, not an intellectual one.)
I'm not using the word 'arrogant' calumnously - but merely that it's the
best word I have for a particular viewpoint.
>
> [2] Of course I don't imagine that you had me specifically
> in mind. I'm just making the point that denigrating a
> group generally means denigrating those in the group
> too.
Frankly, as I mention above, I'm happy to exclude you, but the tone of
the recent atheists to this news group have been of the nature of "I've
thought it through, science shows there is no such thing as God, you
must be wrong!" At the same level, my response is "I've experienced God
first hand, I know you are wrong!"
However, I'm suggesting that the atheist is using an instrument that
*they know* is incapable of measuring God, and proceeds to argue the
case. That's a Nelson's eye argument.
>Anticipatory note: You might want to reply along these lines:
>"The atheist claims to have worked it out; the theist claims
>rather to have had it revealed to him. That's less arrogant."
>I'm not at all convinced that it is. The theist is still
>claiming an (ongoing) comprehension of the nature of the
>universe that's just as specific, just as arguably too much
>for the human mind, as what the atheist claims. And being
>favoured by God with a revelation not given to all seems
>pretty arrogant to me. (If the theist says "oh, but it *is*
>given to all, but not everyone understands/accepts it" then
>he's back to claiming superiority over the atheist.)
LOL! Nicely put. But I'm still not convinced you have the flavour of
what I am suggesting - I'm not arguing between the *atheist mind* and
the *theist mind* - I'm arguing between the *atheist's perception of
what the mind is capable of* and the *theist's perception of what the
mind is capable of*, and the use thereafter made by each party.
Happy NY
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
Michael J Davis
>Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <1hr7aju.1j0k3ug14ubowkN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>, Peter
>> Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
>> >Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> However, I cannot see how an atheist viewpoint is anything but arrogant,
>> >> in thinking that a mind honed by evolution[1] for the purpose of
>> >> individual survival, should be able to comprehend the 'meaning of the
>> >> universe'.
>> >
>> >1. What makes you so sure the universe has or must have meaning?
>>
>> That I have experienced God's love and seen His purpose in my life. That
>> is not a claim, btw, that I *understand* God - because I am a creature,
>> but an indication that what clues I have about His revelation give
>> indications of the greatness and intelligence of what is behind it.
>
>On what basis can you be absolutely sure that your experience was not a
>delusion or an illusion?
On the basis of the other events that I have experienced over the past
30 years. However, that is one of the BIG QUESTIONS of life, isn't it?
Why am I here, what is it all about, does it matter?
No, I cannot be absolutely sure - of course, there's a little thought
that says to me in low moments "it's all an illusion", but I am learning
to distinguish my Father's voice from those that would deflect me. Am
when that comes with a power to heal, a power to make people whole and a
power to make peace among those who fight with one another, then I
*know* that it's real. But understand God?... explain God?... never! ...
I hope to have eternity to work on that! ;-)
>
>> >2. It is said that few people have minds + education to be able to
>> >properly understand Relativity. Does that therefore mean in your
>> >worldview that it only exists for or has meaning for those people?
>>
>> eh? That response can be interpreted in several ways, of which the two
>> that first come to my mind are...
>>
>> 1. You have misunderstood my point, which is that your understanding of
>> the purpose of intelligence is different from mine, or
>>
>> 2. That you think that the intelligence we have is relative to truth.
>>
>> My point is that you hold that intelligence *only* develops in response
>> to evolutionary pressures and *can not be shown* to validly draw
>> conclusions to the existence or non-existence of God.
>>
>> I hold that intelligence - as formed by evolutionary pressures - may
>> serve the creator's purpose sufficiently in His wish to reveal Himself
>> to us. The fact that someone does not believe in relativity does not
>> vitiate the relativistic principle, anymore than your lack of belief in
>> God vitiates His existence.
>
>Which nicely encapsulates the problem you have with knowledge. The
>veracity or otherwise of Relativity is not a matter for belief but one
>of understanding and therefore acceptance. If you do not accept then it
>is beholden on you to demonstrate in what ways it is wrong.
I'm not happy with Relativity with a capital 'R' (to me that's about SR
& GR), but relativity of truth is different. Is there an absolute truth?
Or are we all in our own little universes with limited channels of
communication between them?
If there be absolute truth, then the next question is 'what difference
does it make if I remain ignorant?'
My usual answer to that is to liken it to gravity. How will I live my
life differently if gravity were to exist?
But here I am likening it to love. We understand that human beings need
to be loved and learn to love. Not sexual (though that comes into it),
not merely filial - though that's where we learn about love, but total
all-embracing unconditional love. That's what God has for me, and it
frees me to love others regardless of what they think about me. In this
context that means 'serve others'. To me the universality of love is
that the world would be a better place if we could all only concern
ourselves to meet the needs of others.
That is for me the absolute truth that comes from God (Father Son &
Spirit) - it's not a philosophy to talk about over dinner, it's a need
to get out there and give of ourselves. And ultimately, that's the only
proof I can give you of God's existence, that I am willing (now and then
- I ain't perfect!) to do that in one way of another.
I don't need to know - but I need to love and be loved.
Happy New Year.
Gareth McCaughan
[me:]
>>>> (If the theist says "oh, but it *is*
>>>> given to all, but not everyone understands/accepts it" then
>>>> he's back to claiming superiority over the atheist.)
[Ken:]
>>> Is that supposed to be a problem?
[me:]
>> Mike, to whom my comment was addressed, evidently thinks it is
>> a problem, since he made disapproving reference to the alleged
>> arrogance of atheists and I don't think he thinks arrogance is
>> good when theists do it and bad when atheists do it.
[Mike:]
> No, it was the 'argument used by atheists' that is arrogant - because
> it is extrapolated beyond the limits of the concept.
What you said is that the atheist *viewpoint* is arrogant.
I really don't see what it can mean to say that a viewpoint
is arrogant, other than that people who hold it are arrogant.
> It is arrogant for a mathematician to predict the outcome of an
> individual's disease based on some (unproved) function that predicts
> the outcome of a cloud of superheated gas, but not arrogant when a
> medical practitioner does so on the basis of their experience of
> treating that disease.
Sure.
>> But, by all means, feel free to claim your own moral and
>> intellectual superiority over atheists if it makes you feel
>> better.
>
> I'm glad you are giving Ken such licence. Is it yours to give?
All I'm saying is that as far as I'm concerned he's welcome
to do it. There may of course be other reasons for him not to.
Gareth McCaughan
> For me the heart of what Mike said was,
>
> " I can only tell people what the God I believe in is like (love)
> and what
> He has done for them. That He created them as individuals and
> wants them
> to be perfected by His grace.
>
> I can invite them to open themselves to experience His love and
> what
> that might mean for their behaviour."
>
> No moral or intellectual superiority but a refuge
> from the storms of life, a safe haven for now and
> the future.
I wasn't accusing Mike of claiming intellectual superiority.
(I don't think he would, though I think he does quite often
say things that amount -- perhaps not deliberately -- to
claims of superior morals or character compared to atheists.)
I was saying only that one possible thing that some theists
might say would have the same alleged problem that Mike seems
to see atheists as having.
> Later today an online friend intends to walk in the
> woods and kill himself. His health is poor but the real
> reason is a broken heart, seperation from those he loves.
> I have done everything that an atheist could do to
> try and persuade him to give himself longer. I have
> taken all the practical routes that an atheist in my position
> could have taken.
> None of these things altered his stand.
That must be heartbreaking for you. (Even worse for him,
presumably.)
> As a Christian I am not out of options, putting the
> spiritual perspective and praying for him are also
> possible. The result might be the same, man has
> free will, but even if he takes his own life I am still
> better off than an atheist would be because I can myself
> go to God for comfort.
"Putting the spiritual perspective" is also an option
for an atheist if your friend is religious, and isn't
much of an option for a Christian if your friend isn't.
If Christianity gives you comfort then that's a good
thing, but for my part I prefer to avoid false comfort.
(If I had a horrible and terminal disease then I would
prefer to know, for instance.) Of course, if Christianity
is *right* then whatever comfort it offers is firmly
based in reality and that's an entirely good thing; but
so far as I can tell it isn't.
> Few atheists would be impressed by the many instances
> I could cite of God's intervention for good in lives,
> Few atheists would see this as anything other than
> self delusion but the bottom line is that it works.
> (This is a claim of being inferior to atheists
> because I need God )
If Christianity is right then we all do, even those
of us who don't agree that we do.
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> But, by all means, feel free to claim your own moral and
> intellectual superiority over atheists if it makes you feel
> better.
Being right is generally considered superior to being wrong.
Peter Ashby
> >In any case, I fail to see why it's less arrogant for a theist
> >to think that his mind is "able to comprehend the meaning of
> >the universe" than for an atheist to do so, or why the theist
> >has to think that any less than the atheist. (I can understand
> >that you might think it less *unreasonable* for the theist,
> >because he can believe that his mind acquired the ability to
> >comprehend the meaning of the universe by God's agency. But
> >that's not the same thing as less *arrogant*.
>
> In the circumstances, I had thought that the nature of the
> unreasonableness was a form of arrogance, because the very definition of
> *excluding* God means that statements about the *inclusion* of God must
> be invalid.
That smells like a strawman to me, I have never made such a statement,
can not make such a broad sweeping statement, and have explicitly left
myself open to evidence in favour of a deity existing (while noting that
my standards of evidence are high and existence is a long way from
worship).
>Therefore I read such statements of the same form of
> arrogance as those mediaeval churchmen who condemned Galelio without
> examining his evidence.
Anyone making such would be so arrogant, but it does not describe me, it
does not IME describe pg, {R}, Gareth or most other atheists I have
encountered.
Peter Ashby
> >
> >I know very - VERY - few atheists that think mind - in its currently
> >evolved condition - can comprehend a 'meaning of the universe'. No, I
> >take that back. I know of NO atheists that would hold that view. This is
> >a key element of the scepticism of many atheists.
>
> OK, so your search for 'truth' (scientific or otherwise) is limited?
> Restricted? You are happy with the extent that you can grasp the reality
> that *is*?
>
> In which case why are you so convinced that Christians are wrong?
Because religious claims do not pass the evidential standards by which
we have successfully comprehended those aspects of the universe we have.
Considering the success and manifest utility of that method I see no
reason to lower those standards. If religion cannot meet the mark, that
is it's loss, not science's.
Peter Ashby
> On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 14:36:03 GMT, in
> <45991D59...@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid>,
> Frederick Williams <Frederick...@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
> >(3) Do evolutionists think that the mind is honed by evolution for the
> >purpose of individual survival? The words 'for the purpose of' read too
> >teleologically for my liking.
>
> Dennett seems to think that teleological language is ok when talking
> about evolution - he reifies the process as "Mother Nature" to whom he
> grants intentional attributes. This fits in well with his position in
> "The Intentional Stance".
While making strenuous efforts to point out that this is to avoid the
tortuous language necessary to do it properly and he doesn't mean it
literally.