The Problem of Evil
Simon Cozens
Pistol (alt.books.cs-lewis):
> Really? Do you have a solution for the problem of evil? This
> stickler, showing that the existence of evil is incompatible with an
> omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient creator has remained unsolved for
> hundreds of years.
OK, here ya go. Suppose I get you a completely intellectual solution to
the problem of evil, in a box. Gift wrapped. Doesn't matter whether or not
you can understand it, doesn't matter whether or not it's true as you
can't prove it *beyond all reasonable doubt*. Just like gravity and all
the other scientific 'proofs' that we seem to have no problems running our
lives by, it's a theory. So we've found you an answer. What then does this
solve? Evil still remains, and I'm pretty sure you still wouldn't be
convinced there's a God.
Simon
--
Simon - that we should not needlessly multiply entities seems to be an
excellent principle
Pistol
On 1 Feb 1998 21:33:55 GMT, pemb...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Simon Cozens)
wrote:
>Pistol (alt.books.cs-lewis):
>> Really? Do you have a solution for the problem of evil? This
>> stickler, showing that the existence of evil is incompatible with an
>> omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient creator has remained unsolved for
>> hundreds of years.
>
>OK, here ya go. Suppose I get you a completely intellectual solution to
>the problem of evil, in a box. Gift wrapped. Doesn't matter whether or not
>you can understand it, doesn't matter whether or not it's true as you
>can't prove it *beyond all reasonable doubt*.
Wait. You want me to accept that your box contains a solution even
though I can't undestand it, NOR can I prove it or verify it in any
way? Sorry, I can't categorize something like that as "true".
>Just like gravity and all
>the other scientific 'proofs' that we seem to have no problems running our
>lives by, it's a theory.
Well, no, it is nothing like that. Gravity, evolution and other
scientific theories are so called because they have been
experimentally verified over and over again. This is decidedly NOT
the case with your hypothetical. So far, you seem to want me to grant
that it is true simply because you say so, which is what you always
end up with when you discard science, and quite a different matter.
>So we've found you an answer. What then does this
>solve? Evil still remains, and I'm pretty sure you still wouldn't be
>convinced there's a God.
True, IF a solution was found (implying I understand it, or someone I
trust greatly does), that all by itself would not convince me that
there was a God. But it WOULD convince me that such was POSSIBLE,
which is why I brought it up in the first place.
When one posits a hypothetical like God, first you must establish that
such is possible. Then, and ONLY then, does it make sense to start
collecting evidence to actually believe in such a thing. It makes no
sense to even consider evidence for the existence of a round square,
or God, or flesh-and-blood gremlins living on the sun, until such can
be shown to be possible.
A solution to the problem of evil would be such a first step. But, as
evidenced by your response, you don't have one - no one does. And
until someone does, there is little reason to venture further on the
subject of God as so defined.
Danny Pitt Stoller
Okay, as long as we're on the topic of "the problem of evil," why don't
we discuss some of the actual proposed solutions? Pistol, have you
looked at the Free Will Defense? It goes something like this: "God
could have created a bunch of robots who would always do the right thing,
but if He did that then there would be nothing particularly remarkable or
admirable about it. By creating beings capable of choosing between right
and wrong according to their will, God brought into existence a new good
-- freely chosen good -- that could not have existed if free will hadn't
been created. But, for free will to exist, there had to exist the
possibility of evil. God therefore allowed evil to exist, because He
recognized that the freely chosen good is valuable enough to justify the
possibility of evil." Is there a problem?
--
"Gentlemen of the jury, I am grateful and I am your friend,
but I will obey the god rather than you...."
- Socrates
Danny Pitt Stoller
(215) 417-5581
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dap
Danny Pitt Stoller
Martin Whitman (mart...@yahoo.com.nospam) wrote:
[a lot of interesting and amusing stuff]
: The scientific method is not what you think it is. It is not the stone-cold
: skeptic sitting stubbornly waiting for someone to hand deliver evidence to him.
: It is the scientist going out on his own to investigate if the theory is true or
: not.
: We don't have to establish that the Big Bang is possible before we can examine
: the evidence that seems to point to a Big Bang. We don't have to establish that
: God "is possible" before we can examine the evidence for the existence of God.
: Demanding proof of possibility in advance begs the question. How would you prove
: the possibility of a physical phenomenon in advance of its discovery? Scientists
: more often than not ask "if" before they ask "why". Most discoveries arrive with
: the attempt to prove something else -- to give that something else a foundation
: to rest on.
: Can I prove to you that there is a God? Probably not. Does that prove that the
: question cannot be answered? Not in the least.
Martin, everything you said is absolutely true -- but it's also sort of a
cop-out. If you're going to engage in a discussion with someone, you
have to be interested in expressing yourself in terms that the other
person can process and understand. Of course, if Pistol is never
convinced, that doesn't mean he's right. But it does mean that nobody
has succeeded in giving a persuasive argument. So I agree that there's
no reason for us to blindly accept all of Pistol's premises and loaded
criteria; but, if we're going to continue the discussion, we DO have to
work to establish some common ground, question whatever premises or
criteria we believe to be loaded, and try to find baseline premises that
everyone can agree on.
Shannon Roy
Martin Whitman wrote in message <6be19l$c...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>Consider another possibility. Consider that we are speaking of something
beyond
>your comprehension. The fact that you cannot comprehend it would have no
bearing
>on the existence or state of the thing itself.
The fact that one cannot comprehend it would also make it COMPLETELY outside
one's experience- and make one incapable of having a RELATIONSHIP with it
(in any reasonable definition of the word relationship).
<snip>
>Can you prove to me that there is a Canada? Can you do it using a
thermometer?
>Can you establish that the existence of Canada is possible? Can you do so
on the
>Internet?
Ah yes, the old "but you can't _prove_ anything" shibboleth, which is true,
of course. But, of course, by raising that non-idea, you approach via the
tradesman's entrance the concept of shared assumptions. Using only the
barest few shared assumptions (that we REALLY exist, and so do other
people), the answers to your questions are 1) Yes, 2) Yes but only
indirectly, 3) Yes, and 4)Yes. Ummmmm, what's your point?
>Before we can start talking about evidence of God, we are not required to
wait
>for you to catch up.
Ummm, depends which god _you_ worship, doesn't it? I seem to recall that
most popular ones require quite extensive waiting for the unbelievers to
"catch up". But then this is a straw man.
>To say we must wait for you to understand that such a thing
>"is possible" is like saying we must wait for you to partially agree with
us
>before we can move on.
Ummm, no it isn't.
>Obviously, if we believe something exists, we believe it is possible. It is
>nonsensical to say we believe something, but don't believe it's possible.
And if
>we say we have evidence of its existence, we have already graduated from
the "is
>it possible" phase -- with or without your permission.
>
>The scientific method is not what you think it is. It is not the stone-cold
>skeptic sitting stubbornly waiting for someone to hand deliver evidence to
him.
>It is the scientist going out on his own to investigate if the theory is
true or
>not.
I wouldn't want to speak for Pistol, but I don't think ANYONE has that
concept of science- execpt the imaginary person you are arguing (poorly)
against here.
>We don't have to establish that the Big Bang is possible before we can
examine
>the evidence that seems to point to a Big Bang. We don't have to establish
that
>God "is possible" before we can examine the evidence for the existence of
God.
Ummmmm, that's actually EXACTLY the method that the current investigation of
the "big bang" theory is following. The maths is way ahead of the
experimental verification. So you're just plain wrong. (As distinct from
vanilla flavoured wrong :-))
>Demanding proof of possibility in advance begs the question. How would you
prove
>the possibility of a physical phenomenon in advance of its discovery?
Scientists
>more often than not ask "if" before they ask "why". Most discoveries arrive
with
>the attempt to prove something else -- to give that something else a
foundation
>to rest on.
Just one simple example is the time dilation effect predicted by Einstein.
Science, contrary to your view, is replete with examples of people proving
the possibility of a physical phenomenon in advance of its discovery.
>Can I prove to you that there is a God? Probably not. Does that prove that
the
>question cannot be answered? Not in the least.
Yes but was that what was posited? Of course not! You've defined your
opponent's position as one that he clearly does not hold, and then attacked
your own definition. Half marks for effort, but not really very clever. What
do they teach them in these schools??
David R L Porter
The message <6benc2$tgp$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>
from "Shannon Roy" <skroy_kil...@ozemail.com.au> contains
these words:
> Just one simple example is the time dilation effect predicted by Einstein.
> Science, contrary to your view, is replete with examples of people proving
> the possibility of a physical phenomenon in advance of its discovery.
What exactly does 'proving a possibility' mean? If it's a
possibility, surely it can't be proved, because it would then become
a known but unverifiable (so far) fact? When people thought there had
to be an Australia to balance everything else, could that possibility
be proved? It sounds to me like proving a theory, at which point the
theory becomes a fact. Yopu can demonstrate the soundness of a theory
(eg that it is not an incompetent piece of reasoning), but is that
the same as proving it?
If what is being said is that you prove the possibibilty of something
by demonstrating the non-provability of its non-existence (that it is
incapable of falsification), isn't that Martin's point, not Shannon Roy's?
--
Best wishes,
David.
david....@zetnet.co.uk
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Astronomically speaking, man is virtually meaningless."
"Yes, but astronomically speaking, man is the astronomer..."
[Anon, quoted by John Stott].
Dan Drake
On Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:14:17, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
+ On 1 Feb 1998 21:33:55 GMT, pemb...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Simon Cozens)
+ wrote:
+
+ >Pistol (alt.books.cs-lewis):
+ >> Really? Do you have a solution for the problem of evil? This
+ >> stickler, showing that the existence of evil is incompatible with an
+ >> omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient creator has remained unsolved for
+ >> hundreds of years.
+ >
+ >OK, here ya go. Suppose I get you a completely intellectual solution to
+ >the problem of evil, in a box. Gift wrapped. Doesn't matter whether or not
+ >you can understand it, doesn't matter whether or not it's true as you
+ >can't prove it *beyond all reasonable doubt*.
+
+ Wait. You want me to accept that your box contains a solution even
+ though I can't undestand it, NOR can I prove it or verify it in any
+ way? Sorry, I can't categorize something like that as "true".
+...
Is this a bit of hyperbole, or is it a well-considered and very odd idea
of what can be categorized as "true"?
Ok, here ya go. Suppose I get you a completely intellectual solution to
the problem of Fermat's last theorem. Here it is, a mere couple of
hundred pages of dense math. Assuming you're not a mathematician of high
order, and in the proper specialty to boot, you can't understand it.
(And if you _are_ a hot-shot mathematician, need I bother to come up
with an example in a different field?)
As to verifying it, we may find that an increasing number of real
mathematicians will vouch for it. But--
Vouch for it, ouch for it! That would be the argument from authority,
which we agree is a bit less than rigorous. And by the way, if you read
and understand every line of the proof, how about all the prior results
that it cites -- have you checked them all? Or accepted the argument
from authority with respect to them?
Kindly don't accuse me of making an argument from ignorance, a sort of
"Since nothing can be really proved, you can't criticize anything as
invalid." Just questioning the apparent principle "If I can't
understand it, it isn't -- can't be -- truth."
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/index.html
Many things are not seen in their true nature and as they really are,
unless they are seen as beautiful. Behavior is not intelligible, does
not account for itself to the mind, and show the reason for its
existing, unless it is beautiful.
--Matthew Arnold
R. Agatsuma
> Well, no, it is nothing like that. Gravity, evolution and other
> scientific theories are so called because they have been
> experimentally verified over and over again. This is decidedly NOT
> the case with your hypothetical. So far, you seem to want me to grant
> that it is true simply because you say so, which is what you always
> end up with when you discard science, and quite a different matter.
Hi!
You know, you don't need to disreguard science to believe in God -
not at all. First of all, lets go over the scientific method. In order
to really prove something, it must be reproduced, otherwise it cannot be
proven. It must be a repeatable event in other words. Therefore the
scientific method cannot prove or disprove evolution, God, or
Napoleon. We really have no hard _proof_ of Napoleon's existance. But we
do have docuements telling about him. There are more ancient documents of
the Bible than even of Homers great epic "The Illiad". The problem is not
that there is a lack of evidence, it is that people do not want to believe
it. If it is something you are questioning about, don't take my word for
it - read up on it. There are many good books on this subject around, and
make sure it is subjective - not biased towards any viewpoint.
Also, as a student in ORganic Chemisty, I know that science is not
as cut and dry as people would like it to be - you should just see some of
the ways molecules break up and see the NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance)
and GC/MS spectras for even simple molecules. And it gets even more
complicated, and more exceptions arise. Science is a process where people
are constantly learning, and it is not the rock-solid foundation people
may think it is - my professor even said that, and I definately don't go
to a Christian university (The University of Washington). And again, like
I said before - the mere fact of th universe being as it is is a testimony
to God. There is not way everything could have "banged" in the first
place - even with an oscillation theory, which is disproved anyway because
of the way the galaxies are moving - because the gravity would have been
much too great. The way some scientists explain it is that there were
different laws of physics governing the universe at that time which
overcame the gravity and let all the matter fly out. But where do you
think those different laws of physics came from? Why would we
propose something which breaks all the mathematical and physical laws we
know of? Because we don't want to admit perhaps that we have made
mistakes and there is something bigger than us.
I challenge you if you are truly searching to look into these
things - don't take my word for it. Read lots of books and things about
these subjects. I am one of those people who likes to see a lot of things
for "proof" also, and Christianity has lots of proof supporting it. But
are you ready to look?
Renee
Corrector
Martin Whitman wrote in message
>Actually you are wrong. The Big Bang theory grew out of attempts to explain
>observed phenomena. The math came later.
What an interesting view! I'll mention that in the next astronomy department
staff meeting. Should get a big laugh. I recommend "Fundamentals of Physics"
by Halliday, Resnick and Walker- at least- that's what I recommend to my
first years. You may find it a little advanced.
>>>Demanding proof of possibility in advance begs the question. How would
you
>>>prove the possibility of a physical phenomenon in advance of its
discovery?
>>Scientists more often than not ask "if" before they ask "why". Most
discoveries
>>>arrive with the attempt to prove something else -- to give that something
else a
>>>foundation to rest on.
>>
>>Just one simple example is the time dilation effect predicted by Einstein.
>>Science, contrary to your view, is replete with examples of people proving
>>the possibility of a physical phenomenon in advance of its discovery.
>
>Sounds strange. Are you saying they just dream up a physical phenomenon and
then
>look for it?
Like black holes? Like Hawking Radiation? Like Subatomic particles? Yes, I
am saying exactly that. One of the hallmarks of any strong theory is its
ability to PREDICT.
>Theories about the
>universe don't come out of isolated theorization.
Again, patently false.
>True science has a context.
In fact, _true_ science has NO CONTEXT AT ALL. A Grand Unified Theory (what
physics pushes towards) would combine the maths of physical forces in such a
way that it would be predictive in ANY context thus having none. If you have
to place theories in strict context, then they are by definition limited
theories with limited applications. But then all this is a pure word game.
>My point in bringing this up was to explain that isolated proof is
impossible.
>Even abstract mathematical equations must be based, somewhere along the
line, on
>observed phenomena.
Like imaginary numbers? What is the square root of -1 exactly, in observed
phenomena? For that matter what is -1? Ever had -1 apples? Isolated proof is
the POINT of mathematics. THAT'S WHY IT EXISTS. I don't mean "math" but
matematics. I recommed Susanna S. Epp's excellent primer "Discrete
Mathematics with Applications" Notice the title?
>Proof of the possibility of the existence of God that is not based on any
>reported phenomena is, quite obviously, impossible. Insisting on such a
proof
>in advance is utter nonsense. After all, no one is alleging that an
abstract,
>out-of-context God exists, or even could exist.
Actually, I don't know if you realise it, but that's pretty close to the
line that the Catholic church is pushing these days- an out-of-context
"Hawking" before-the-universe type of god.
>Try reading the posts in this thread before you allege that I'm off-topic
>somehow.
No such allegation was made, of course, but you missed this point last time
as well. Try arguing against the points that your _opponents_ make. Arguing
against your own just makes you look silly.
>The issue I was addressing was what constitutes proof of God. (Or proof
>of anything for that matter.) A rigged argument against proof, or contrived
>criteria for what is and is not allowed as proof, can make proof
impossible.
>Thus: "Can I prove to you that there is a God? Probably not."
>
>>not really very clever
>
>As if my goal was to appear clever to the simpering pseudo intellectuals of
this
>world.
Tell me what you REALLY think. Never mind, even if it wasn't your goal, I'm
sure that they are very impressed by your arguments. Of course, they'll be
the only ones.
Danny Pitt Stoller
Martin Whitman (mart...@yahoo.com.nospam) wrote:
: He is demanding that we prove our point in his laboratory. The problem there is
: that he has tooled his laboratory to disprove our point. That makes the call for
: "common ground" a moot point. There is no common ground in Pistol's laboratory.
: It was designed for the sole purpose of eliminating common ground.
: I also do not feel it is my job to look for "baseline premises that everyone can
: agree on." Pistol is demanding that our premises cater to his premises. I cannot
: bring myself to grovel before his premises in this way. In fact, I feel it would
: be wrong to give a credence to his premises that they clearly do not have.
It just seems to me that any premise or principle, if it is false, can be
shown false by some rational argument -- or at least shown to be
problematic. So, rather than throwing our arms up in the air and
storming out of his "laboratory" in disgust, it seems more practical to
pick up each of the rigged measuring devices in the laboratory, every one
of the miscalibrated instruments, and dismantle them one by one by
rational argument.
In fact, I think there is a sense in which EVERY argument is loaded, and
every place to stand is a rigged laboratory. It is by dismantling each
other's rigged arguments, and occasionally having the humility to lay
down our own arms, that we can break down the laboratories and make the
ground common.
Daryl Gene
On Mon, May 4,1998, Martin Whitman wrote in response to R. Agatsuma
> I am one of those people who likes to see a lot of things
>>for "proof" also, and Christianity has lots of proof supporting it. But
>>are you ready to look?
>>
>>Renee
>
>Very good post.
>
>And you touched on the issue of people who try to find the truth while their
>minds are still closed.
>
>C.S. Lewis talked about the pseudo-scientists who pretend that their
>non-belief
>is based on scientific reasoning: "It is usually the journalists and popular
>novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from
>textbooks who go in for them. {i.e. "scientific" theories about God}"
>
I agree. Science isn't really the arena to confront the existance or
non-existance of God in in the first place, one dosen't challenge the
Metaphysical (I mean this in the Aristotlean sense) from an Epistomological
platform. But if, for the sake of our lost brethern we attempt it , we should
remember that it is a work in progress sort of thing; current theories being so
tenuiously grounded in hypothesis that any new influx of data causes the whole
template to be remodeled. If poor Pistol thinks this provides him a surer base
for approaching life he is truly a pitiable creature.
Daryl
"Except the Lord build the house,
they labor in vain that build it" Ps 127:1
Shannon Roy
Martin Whitman wrote in message <6bfvkj$4...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 06:39:52 +1100, "Corrector" <corr...@correct.net.au>
wrote:
>
>I recommend that you use a different tactic than pretending to be an
astronomer.
>Your way of reasoning and especially your way of debating, demonstrates
that you
>are simply a liar.
Call Butler College in Australia on 61 2 9839 0232. Ask for the faculty
head. Ask him if I taught there from 1991- 1992.
>I guess we could say your field is imaginary physics.
>
>You are not only a liar, but a bad one.
What is theoretical physics BUT imaginary physics? And of course I never
said I was an astronomer- I only did two years of it at tertiary level.
>No one looks sillier than you do right now. I take it you have been able to
pull
>this nonsense successfully in the past, and expected to do it again.
>I am not one of those people, and so will not waste my time with "the
masked
>corrector." Try getting a clue, or perhaps a life.
>You're not even good at this.
No one ever looks sillier than me! How dare you suggest anyone would!
You've never used an internet cafe? Good for you! I do apologise for not
typing my return address in- but I have never sought to "mask" anything.
Ah yes, that old insult beloved of pre-teens "Get a Life!"
Whatever you say, Marty-Farty, whatever you say. (Finally, I think I'm
actually arguing at your level!)
Shannon.
Pistol
On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 03:50:11 GMT, mart...@yahoo.com.nospam (Martin
Whitman) wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:14:17 GMT, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>
>>Wait. You want me to accept that your box contains a solution even
>>though I can't undestand it, NOR can I prove it or verify it in any
>>way? Sorry, I can't categorize something like that as "true".
>
>{snip, snip snip}
>
>>Well, no, it is nothing like that. Gravity, evolution and other
>>scientific theories are so called because they have been
>>experimentally verified over and over again. This is decidedly NOT
>>the case with your hypothetical. So far, you seem to want me to grant
>>that it is true simply because you say so, which is what you always
>>end up with when you discard science, and quite a different matter.
>
>{snip snip snip}
>
>>When one posits a hypothetical like God, first you must establish that
>>such is possible. Then, and ONLY then, does it make sense to start
>>collecting evidence to actually believe in such a thing. It makes no
>>sense to even consider evidence for the existence of a round square,
>>or God, or flesh-and-blood gremlins living on the sun, until such can
>>be shown to be possible.
>
>Consider another possibility. Consider that we are speaking of something beyond
>your comprehension. The fact that you cannot comprehend it would have no bearing
>on the existence or state of the thing itself.
True. But it WOULD make it totally unjustifiable or me to claim to
have any knowledge of the existence of such a thing. If a concept ios
uncomprehensible to me, that's about all I can say about it.
>You have been completely misstating your own question. Your question is not, as
>you imagine "Can you prove it?" Your question is "Can you prove it to me?" And
>it is even further limited to "Can you prove it to me using my ready-made,
>fully-loaded criteria."
You have it rather reversed, for it is *I* that KNOW what MY question
is, and YOU who are IMAGINING what I might mean.
When I say "{can you prove it?", what I mean is "Can you provide
factual evidence, complete with falsifiable prediction, which
logically implies that the existence of such a being is highly
probable. This criteria is "loaded" only in the sense that your (or
my) personal desires and biases cannot pretdetermine the outcome. It
is called "science".
>Can you prove to me that there is a Canada?
Yes.
>Can you do it using a thermometer?
No. Silly question.
>Can you establish that the existence of Canada is possible?
>Can you do so on the Internet?
Sure. The U.S. exists, does it not? After all, I'm sitting on it,
and chances are that so are you. Well, the U.S is merely a land mass
with the name U.S. Canada is such a land mass north of it. Why would
that be impossible, and why would you think proving such a thing would
be difficult.
I find it interesting how often Christians fall into the if-you-can't-
prove-god-you-can't-prove-anything fallacy. You prove things
everyday. I'll bet a dime to a dollar you yourself have asked someone
to "prove" something over the course of your life, if not this week.
But along comes someone who asks the question of God, and you brand
them as unreasonable. Interesting.
>Before we can start talking about evidence of God, we are not required to wait
>for you to catch up.
Well, its a free country, and you may talk about whateverr you desire.
Talk about round squares, perpetual motion machines, and alien
abductions. But don't expect me or anyone else to believe in such
things, or that some coincidental fact you've found is "evidence" of
them, until you can fist show that such things are possible. Until
you do, the rational conclusion is that whatever you've found or
discovered, no matter what it is, is attributable to some other cause.
It is simple sound epistemology - when looking for causes for effects,
look first among known causes, then hypothetical but possible causes.
If you come home and find your lamp broken, first you suspect the dog.
When you are convinced the dog couldn't have done it (he was at the
neighbor's), then you suspect your 5-year-old son. Now, if your son
claims he didn't do it, but that round squared gremlins did, what is
your reaction going to be? Gonna consider his claim and look for
evidence? Or are you going to whip his behind for lampbreaking and
lying? I suspect the latter.
The case with God is no different. I don't care WHAT fact you
uncover, until you can show how a God as posited could POSSIBLY exist,
it would be irrational to attribute anything we discover to it.
>To say we must wait for you to understand that such a thing
>"is possible" is like saying we must wait for you to partially agree with us
>before we can move on.
I'm not talking about the contents of my head or yours, but rather to
objective proof. Either of us could be stubborn fools and just refuse
to acknowledge anything the other has to say, but that does not weaken
either case. I'm simply asking for you to do your homework before you
take the final. Did you establish tha God is possible first, or did
you just leap (in faith?) over that all-important step and just start
attributing everything to God that met your fancy?
>Obviously, if we believe something exists, we believe it is possible.
Yes, but the question is ca you PROVE or DEMONSTRATE any of that. I
can BELIEVE anything. What I can prove or demonstrate is a much
smaller set.
>It is
>nonsensical to say we believe something, but don't believe it's possible. And if
>we say we have evidence of its existence, we have already graduated from the "is
>it possible" phase -- with or without your permission.
On the contrary - if you have not proved that something is possible,
it is nonsensical to talk of having proof that it exists. And until
you have proof that it exists, it is nonsensical to talk of having
proof that it did this or that. So far you have done little to
disuade my original hypothesis, which is that you didn't bother with
the first two steps, and jumped inappropriately ahead to attributing
certain events or facts to God. Again, it is a free country and you
may do as you wish. But don't be disappointed if a lot of
epistemologically educated people don't take you serously.
>The scientific method is not what you think it is. It is not the stone-cold
>skeptic sitting stubbornly waiting for someone to hand deliver evidence to him.
That is YOUR versin, not mine. Let's not resort to misrepresentation.
>It is the scientist going out on his own to investigate if the theory is true or
>not.
You bet. It is also the scientist gettig peer review of his work, and
allowing others to try to validate or invalidate his work. In
philosophical issues, like the one we have here, that involves
presenting one's arguments for others to view and criticize.
So I ask you again, what is your argument?
>We don't have to establish that the Big Bang is possible before we can examine
>the evidence that seems to point to a Big Bang.
Yes you do, because without that proof, there can be NOTHING to
"point" to. Again reexamine my 5-year-old/gremlin example. We have
to restrict what our evidence can "point" to to what we know is
possible, else we spend much of our time chasing gremlins.
>We don't have to establish that
>God "is possible" before we can examine the evidence for the existence of God.
Again, yes you do. Otherwise, no matter what you present, it is more
rational to attribute it to something else. For example, many people
claim the existence of universal morals are evidence of God. However,
there are also some very interesting theories that attribute them to
the commonalities of human beings, their desires and physical makeup.
How do we choose between the two? Well, we KNOW that humans exist,
have desires, and have a basic design. But God is merely
hypothetical. We don't even know if there is such a thing. So the
rational resoponse is to reject God (in this instance) and side with
the other alternative. This should happen continuously with EVERY
issue until God is proven.
>Demanding proof of possibility in advance begs the question. How would you prove
>the possibility of a physical phenomenon in advance of its discovery?
By showing that it does not violate physical law for starters? Surely
you already know the answer to these questions. It makes me wonder
why you are asking them.
>Scientists
>more often than not ask "if" before they ask "why".
Yes, but they restrict their "ifs" to the possible.
>Most discoveries arrive with
>the attempt to prove something else -- to give that something else a foundation
>to rest on.
Sure. Is theis relevant.
>Can I prove to you that there is a God? Probably not. Does that prove that the
>question cannot be answered? Not in the least.
True, but that was not my argument (a recurring theme). My point is
that it is irrational to believe something that cannot be proved in
this way. Sure the proposition might be true anyway. There might be
green people on a planet of Alpha Centauri square dancing this very
moment. Can we prove it? No. Could it be true anyway? Sure. Is it
rational to believe such athing, and make life decisions based on it
as a premise. Of course not! Ditto for God.
Pistol
On 7 Feb 1998 08:28:17 GMT, dary...@aol.com (Daryl Gene) wrote:
>>C.S. Lewis talked about the pseudo-scientists who pretend that their
>>non-belief
>>is based on scientific reasoning: "It is usually the journalists and popular
>>novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from
>>textbooks who go in for them. {i.e. "scientific" theories about God}"
>>
> I agree. Science isn't really the arena to confront the existance or
>non-existance of God in in the first place, one dosen't challenge the
>Metaphysical (I mean this in the Aristotlean sense) from an Epistomological
>platform.
(sigh). Every group, be they chiropractors, faith healers, or
psychics, claims that science is not the arena to prove or disprove
their hypothesis. Coincidentally, they bluster so only AFTER it
becomes clear tha science is not going to give them the answer they
want. For centuries church leaders insisted that science would
support God in every way (Aquinas and Newton as well). Theyt only
began this pathetic cop-out when they lost the battle in the
scientific arena.
Conversely, they are all way too eager to claim scientific validity
when it looks like something they promote has scientific backing.
Look at all the "scientific" creastionists, and design theorists.
THEY claim to have scientific backing.
Inconsistency of convenience anyone?
>But if, for the sake of our lost brethern we attempt it , we should
>remember that it is a work in progress sort of thing; current theories being so
>tenuiously grounded in hypothesis that any new influx of data causes the whole
>template to be remodeled.
That is a fantasy version of the history of knowledge, promoted by
those who wish to find comfort in denying current knowledge that
doesn't fit in with their desires. The most cursory view of the
knowledge of man reveals the simple fact that knowledge moved very
slowly, almost acquired by random chance, until the enlightenment and
the discovery and embrace of the scientific method. Since then our
knowledge has increased incredibly rapidly. Whole templates are
rarely remodelled in the manner you describe anymore. Theories are
much more often subtley refined, not overturned. The earth will be
nearly spherical forever.
>If poor Pistol thinks this provides him a surer base
>for approaching life he is truly a pitiable creature.
Your case must truly be weak to resort to an ad homenim such as this.
I, sir, have the evidence and logic on my side. You have only your
desires, and mystical arguments outdated by about 100 years. Can
there be any doubts which is the surer base for approaching life?
Pistol
On Sat, 07 Feb 1998 10:39:38 GMT, mart...@yahoo.com.nospam (Martin
Whitman) wrote:
>Sometimes non-believers bring up the point that Christians have been wrong about
>science, as if this is proof that Christianity is flawed.
>
>Of course, that idea is illogical. Scientists themselves have often been wrong
>about science. Christians were right about the universe having a point of
>beginning, long before scientists caught up with us and "discovered" that the
>universe was once a singularity that "exploded" into myriad existence.
You are engaging in revisionist history. The Christian creation story
says nothing about a singularity or point exploding into the universe.
It has God creating the earth, moon, and life from ubiquitous
ever-existing water. To claim that Christians all along claimed what
modern cosmology now claims is gross ignorance at best, and blatant
misrepresentatio at worst.
>For thousands of years the Hindus have believed that the universe oscillates --
>first expanding outwards from nothingness, and then contracting back into
>nothingness.
They also think cows are their ancestors.
The strength of science is not that it is always right, but that with
its insistence on replicability and predictive, falsifiable tesing, it
corrects itself. Contrast this with religious beliefs, which stay
unchanged in the face of mountains of evidence (eg young earth
creationism). Religion, which is based ultimately on faith, has no
such corrective measure. The history of knowledge is of science first
fighting the religious authorities, then eventually gathering enough
evidence that popular opinion swings their way. Thus we see the
Catholic church forgiving Galileos hunders of years after his death.
>More often than not, what we find on the internet are pseudo-scientists, who
>confuse science with their own foggy understanding of elementary logic.
Count yourself among them.
ma...@sonic.net
> >Pistol (alt.books.cs-lewis):
> >> Really? Do you have a solution for the problem of evil? This
Interesting thing about the 'problem of evil' is ... everyone seems to
agree on what evil is, and that it's a problem....
Almost as if there were some standard we all know, to measure such things
by.... (N'est pas?)
Mary
(Or, just to tell you what I really think ... consider justifying the ways
of George Lucas to Princess Leia -- or to Carrie Fisher....)
ma...@sonic.net
Maybe I could claim this is on-topic as an attempt to follow the Lewisian
method of at least trying to set out all the alternatives.... :-)
Among some of us bastardly New Agers, one answer, er, well, one first
tentative reply, to Problem of Evil might be something like this:
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Well, first, it's not so urgent for us to know how an 'omnipotent,
omnipresent, omniscient creator' relates to our trouble ... because Princess
Leia does not have to have a personal relation to George Lucas. It is Carrie
Fisher who has the choice of letting Lucas take her to the Brown Derby for
lunch, or slapping His face.
But most of us, most of the time, are in the position of Leia or Luke, not
Carrie Fisher or Mark Hamil. I was surprised to learn that STar WArs didn't
start with a definite script, but some scenes were just sort of made up as
they went. Sort of like a RPG. So the characters not only had to go through a
lot of bad things, they had to make decisions at the same time. Can't just
stand back and think "Ho-hum, it's sword-fight time, so this must be Page 3,
just ten more minutes till lunch break."
Notice: My comparison may break out of STar Wars at any moment. (Or I may
wish it had....)
Anyway ... it is not Lucas that Luke (odd coincidence there ;-) has to
relate to; Luke's mentor is Knobe, who is definitely one of the good guys.
So, when Luke is hanging upside down with his hand cut off, he doesn't
really have to think about 'Why did the Producer do this to me?' in order to
get some Higher-Power contact/help *within the script.* (As a matter of fact,
he made a psychic contact with Leia, who came back and rescued him.
Level-Power help?) In other crises he still doesn't have to deal with Lucas,
he can call (cf 'pray/commune') to the ascended :-) Knobe.
After leaving his body, Knobe became "more powerful" -- but still didn't
get promoted beyond his ability, up to omni-whatever. IE -- he's still on the
Good Guys' side.
Anyway, all this is just to the point of, one NA/yogic doctrine is, we
don't really have to know how things work for the Producer/s, or at what
executive level a Producer ceases to worry about box-office and budget and
becomes Omnipotent, etc. We don't have to meet them at lunch. We can if we
want to, but we don't have to.
We have the option of staying in character, and getting all the Higher
Power help we need -- from characters like Knobe, who have more powers but
are still Good Guys themselves.
Now, a good movie could also be done on a Demeter/Inanni/Orpheus theme: a
very young Persephone kidnapped, her mother (or a rescuer from Amazon Mutual)
sneaking into Hades to lead her back. For box-office/RPG-balance, the mother
can't just pick her up and teleport home. The challenge, the story-line, is
how they do get out -- how Inanni, in disguise and stripped of a lot of
powers, manages to communicate with Persephone and get her to cooperate
enough to be led/carried through a lot of obstacles, etc.
Part of that communication might go like this:
Rescuer: "Psst, here's an opening, come along."
Persephone: "Who are you, I can't see you?"
Watchful Dragon: "If you're hearing an invisible voice, it must be Lucas
Himself."
Persephone: "Lucas, why should I trust you? Why did you let this happen?"
Dragon: "It was the Fault of your Own Free Will."
Persephone: "Huh? What did I do wrong?"
Rescuer: "Shhh, it wasn't your fault, we'll explain later. Just come along,
please."
Dragon*: "Aha, that must be A Neevil talking."
Persephone to Rescuerer: "Why did Lucas let this happen?"
Rescuer: "I don't know either. I'm not a Prodoucer, I'm just a heroine. All I
know is a path out. And I've got some blankets and hot chocolate."
Persephone: "What's the point? If I don't do whatever Lucas wants, won't he
just do worse to me?"
Rescuerer2: "Not usually. Mostly, once people muddle through 3 obstacles,
they live happily ever after."
Golias: "Unless it's one of those 7 years durance vile things."
Jill: "Less talk back there. Come along."
Persephone: < tries to walk on rocks > "Ouch."
Rescuer: "Here's a stretcher. Let's carry her."
Dragon: "Don't trust them! It Was Your Fault, and it is Supposed to Hurt."
Rescuer: "No it isn't. Just ride or walk as you prefer. We can ask somebody
all that stuff later. I've heard of a place called the Brown Derby...."
Persephone: "Then why does Lucas let the Dragons say things like that about
Him?"
Rescuer3: "Comedy relief?"
Golias: "Actually, the characters who rebel against the
Dragon-version-of-Lucas ... get big bonuses from the real Lucas, I've
heard....**"
*who has been busy making shadow-pictures of deformed rabbits
**tho usually in a longitude without a platitude
--
Mary
Pistol
At 06:33 PM 2/6/98 -0800, you wrote:
PROBLEM
>> Well, no, it is nothing like that. Gravity, evolution and other
>> scientific theories are so called because they have been
>> experimentally verified over and over again. This is decidedly NOT
>> the case with your hypothetical. So far, you seem to want me to grant
>> that it is true simply because you say so, which is what you always
>> end up with when you discard science, and quite a different matter.
>You know, you don't need to disreguard science to believe in God -
>not at all. First of all, lets go over the scientific method. In order
>to really prove something, it must be reproduced, otherwise it cannot be
>proven. It must be a repeatable event in other words.
That is incorrect. The scientific method works on the
principle of repeatable, falsifiable verification, not
replication. To be scientific, a theory must produce
predictions that can be tested and verified. The theory or
item itself is not required to be reproduced. Think about it.
With a standard like that, one would be "scientifically"
justified to refuse to believe in the existence of the sun, or
the great pyramids, unless someone could find a way to create
one of them. It is the fact that we can make and verify many
predictions with these items that makes their existence
scientifically proven. Your interpretation will lead to many
strange conclusions, such as:
>Therefore the
>scientific method cannot prove or disprove evolution, God, or
>Napoleon.
By your standard, what you say is correct, and you can add the
pyramids and the sun to the list. See how silly that is? But
everything we have named here except for Napolean and God CAN
be scientifically proven by repeated experimental verification.
What is PREDICTED by evolution can be verified over and over
again, and THAT is what makes it scientifically proven.
As for Napolean, what you are getting into is historical
evaluation, and burdon and sufficiency of proof arguments, which
are slightly different than straight scientific verification.
>We really have no hard _proof_ of Napoleon's existance. But we
>do have docuements telling about him.
You also have people alive today who are related to him,
multiple records of his exsitence as a ruler, effects of his
existence with regard to the wars he was involved in, land
deals (The Louisiana Purchase), etc. In short, the evidence
that there was once a French ruler named Napolean is so
overwhelming that one would have to be either insane or
incredibly stupid/ignorant to deny it. This stands in great
contrast to the claim that Jesus was God, as I'll explain below.
>There are more ancient documents of
>the Bible than even of Homers great epic "The Illiad". The problem is not
>that there is a lack of evidence, it is that people do not want to believe
>it.
No, the problem is that the evidence is somewhat less than one
might expect, given the events mentioned, and of a considerably
low quality. Quality of evidence is FAR more important than
quantity. For example, we have a great deal of evidence for
Santa Claus, but it is all of very low quality. And just how
is it that all the dead saints could rise and run around (per
Matthew) and this event ONLY be mentioned in the Bible. Pretty
suspicious, wouldn't you say?
The Bible is a very poor evidenciary source. It contains many
errors of a scientific (rabbits don't chew their cud) and
historic nature (armies in the millions were impossible prior
to railroads), and seems to contradict itself at every turn
(the four versions of the resurrectin story).
>If it is something you are questioning about, don't take my word for
>it - read up on it. There are many good books on this subject around, and
>make sure it is subjective - not biased towards any viewpoint.
I think you mean "objective" above, and I return the challenge.
I challenge you to go out of your way to read books
that ARE biased - biased AGAINST your viewpoint. See if you
can defend your views against what they have to say. I have done
so. I have read Josh McDowell, RC Sproul (the best of the
bunch, IMO), JP Moreland, William Lane Craig, CS Lewis and many
others.
I recommend you read Dennis McKinsey's "The Encyclopedia of
Biblical Errancy" and get a copy of Farrel Till's "The
Skeptical Review". I don't see how a belief in an accurate
Bible could withstand such a study, but if you are interested
in truth, its something you cannot pass on.
Then read Paul Kurtz' "The Transendental Temptation" and Dan
Barker's "Losing Faith in Faith". How one can still believe in
Jesus after reading these eludes me.
Then, if you are interested in evolution, read Arthur
Strahler's "Science and Earth History", Richard Dawkins "The
Blind Watchmaker" and the Pulitzer prive winning "The Beak of
the Finch" (I forget the author). Through these books
evolution is presented theoretically, against critical
challenge, and finally EMPIRICALLY. It is no longer a "mere
theory" - it is proven fact.
>Also, as a student in ORganic Chemisty, I know that science is not
>as cut and dry as people would like it to be -
But you see, it is YOU who try to make it cut and dry, by
insisting something is not scientific unless it can be
reproduced. This all-or-nothing attitude is NOT science.
Science is about verifying theories one little bitty confidence
step at a time.
>you should just see some of
>the ways molecules break up and see the NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance)
>and GC/MS spectras for even simple molecules. And it gets even more
>complicated, and more exceptions arise. Science is a process where people
>are constantly learning, and it is not the rock-solid foundation people
>may think it is - my professor even said that, and I definately don't go
>to a Christian university (The University of Washington).
But no scientific-type presents it any other way. That is just
a straw man many xian apologists set up so they can justify
going against it.
>And again, like
>I said before - the mere fact of th universe being as it is is a testimony
>to God. There is not way everything could have "banged" in the first
>place - even with an oscillation theory, which is disproved anyway because
>of the way the galaxies are moving - because the gravity would have been
>much too great.
You are merely employing a variation on the fallacy of
ignorance. Your argument essentially amounts to "You can't
explain how the universe came to be, so I am justified in
making up an answer and calling it 'God'". That is
intellectually invalid. The correct response, if you decide
that all current theories are incorrect, is to say "I don't
know how the universe came to be", and then search (if you are
so inclined) for an answer.
>The way some scientists explain it is that there were
>different laws of physics governing the universe at that time which
>overcame the gravity and let all the matter fly out. But where do you
>think those different laws of physics came from? Why would we
>propose something which breaks all the mathematical and physical laws we
>know of? Because we don't want to admit perhaps that we have made
>mistakes and there is something bigger than us.
They are just theorizing. That is what science does - theorize
and try to find answers. You should not criticize them because
they do not share your predilection to leap to the answer you
want.
>I challenge you if you are truly searching to look into these
>things - don't take my word for it. Read lots of books and things about
>these subjects. I am one of those people who likes to see a lot of things
>for "proof" also, and Christianity has lots of proof supporting it. But
>are you ready to look?
Again, I return the challenge to you. I've been there. I'll
bet I've read all the books you have on the subject and then
some. It simply isn't true. There ISN'T a lot of proof
supporting Christianity. Any objective analysis of the facts
reveals that. And there is only wild speculation with regard
to the existence of God. THAT is what YOU will learn if you
accept MY challenge and read the books I have listed.
So, are you really interested in truth, or merely interesting
in clinging to comfortable dogma? I look forward to your book
reports :)
Pistol
On 6 Feb 1998 18:49:07 GMT, d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:
PROBLEM
>Ok, here ya go. Suppose I get you a completely intellectual solution to
>the problem of Fermat's last theorem. Here it is, a mere couple of
>hundred pages of dense math. Assuming you're not a mathematician of high
>order, and in the proper specialty to boot, you can't understand it.
>(And if you _are_ a hot-shot mathematician, need I bother to come up
>with an example in a different field?)
>
>As to verifying it, we may find that an increasing number of real
>mathematicians will vouch for it. But--
>
>Vouch for it, ouch for it! That would be the argument from authority,
>which we agree is a bit less than rigorous. And by the way, if you read
>and understand every line of the proof, how about all the prior results
>that it cites -- have you checked them all? Or accepted the argument
>from authority with respect to them?
OK, I see where you were going. Sure, I can accept the
valdiity of a proof if I have some evidence on which to base
that conclusion. In the case of an area with which I am not
all that educated or familiar, I my have to depend on the
opinions of those I trust in those areas. The fallacy of the
argument from authority is the calim that something is true
necessarily because so-and-so says so. Opinions can still be
validly considered evidence, albeit evidence of a weak nature.
But in that case we are back where I said we'd be earlier.
Were the problem of evil resolved, that would merely elevate
the theory of God from "impossible" to "possible but unproven".
There are some pretty good efforts out there to resolve the
problem of evil, good enough that I'd not be totally shocked if
it WERE solved one day. But the evidenciary challenge appears
far more formidalbe, and THAT is the crux of my atheism. I
haven't seen the very first baby step in that area. EVERY
claim I've seen of evidence for God is a variation of the
argument from ignorance.
>Kindly don't accuse me of making an argument from ignorance, a sort of
>"Since nothing can be really proved, you can't criticize anything as
>invalid." Just questioning the apparent principle "If I can't
>understand it, it isn't -- can't be -- truth."
That's a valid questioning, but in the case of the problem of
evil, it is worse than that. I can't find a solution anywhere
than any of the most elevated minds on the subject accept, on
both sides of the aisle. You might expect none of the atheists
to accept them, although as I mentioned earlier, they could
still reject God on the evidenciary basis. But eve the better
Christian/deistic writers, such as RC Sproul (and a lesser
light, Dennis Prager), admit that the problem of evil has not
been resolved.
So it goes way past me personally being unable
to understand it, and I'm no slob philosophically. I might
even be able to accept the validity of an argument I couldn't
understand if those gurus of the field agreed it was valid.
But in the case of the existence of evil, not only do I
understand the arguments, I can specifically identify their
flaws.
Pistol
Pistol
On 6 Feb 1998 00:34:49 GMT, d...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Danny Pitt
Stoller) wrote:
PROBLEM
>Okay, as long as we're on the topic of "the problem of evil," why don't
>we discuss some of the actual proposed solutions? Pistol, have you
>looked at the Free Will Defense? It goes something like this: "God
>could have created a bunch of robots who would always do the right thing,
>but if He did that then there would be nothing particularly remarkable or
>admirable about it. By creating beings capable of choosing between right
>and wrong according to their will, God brought into existence a new good
>-- freely chosen good -- that could not have existed if free will hadn't
>been created. But, for free will to exist, there had to exist the
>possibility of evil. God therefore allowed evil to exist, because He
>recognized that the freely chosen good is valuable enough to justify the
>possibility of evil." Is there a problem?
Many:
1) Evil is not required for free will. Its elimination simply
would reduce the possible choices. We would still have the
choice of all possible good choices, as well as neutral
choices. After all, the fact that we cannot fly does not mean
that we do not have freedom of movement.
2a) Why does it make the slightest difference whether God's creation
is "remarkable or admirable"?
This seems to imply that these traits are more important than
goodness.
2b) "Remarkable or admirable to whom?"
2c) Given that we are not even close to being able to create
such robots, I'd certainly categorize such a feat as remarkable
and admirable. Why wouldn't you?
3) Why is a good act more good if done freely? When you feed a
starving bum, do you think it matters a whit to him whether you
did so via free-will, threat of punishment, or according to
programming?
4) Since God is omniscient, there is no "possible" involved in
discussion of his actions. He knew with 100% certainty what
the results of his actions would be. He KNEW what level of
evil would result from his chosen design. So your last
statement would have to be revised to say "God recognized
that the freely chosen good is valuable enough to justify the
resulting evil."
5a) Does it? Can you really claim with a straight face that the
good/evil differential is higher in the current universe than it would
have been with only populations of all-good-doing robots?
5b) How the heck do you measure such a thing anyway? Isn't
this what you conservative rightly criticize government for,
making such personal value decisions for us? Do you think
Amber Hagerman or Nicole Simpson think the trade off was worth
it?
Yes, to your question - I have looked at the defenses in
detail, and with all my intellectual efforts. I have yet to
find coherent explanations for the objections I've raised.
It still seems FAR more likely that an omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent being would have created a world with ZERO evil.
Now if you want to posit a slightly less perfect being with a
devious dark sense of humor, THEN the world as we know it,
complete with underarm odor and flatulation, makes sense. :)
Until then I still must reject the Christian God as wishful thinking.
Daryl Gene
Header says on Mon, May 4,1998 (eerie aint it) Pistol(pis...@cyberramp.net
wrote:
>
>(sigh). Every group, be they chiropractors, faith healers, or
>psychics, claims that science is not the arena to prove or disprove
>their hypothesis. Coincidentally, they bluster so only AFTER it
>becomes clear tha science is not going to give them the answer they
>want.
Pistol, check my posts. I think you'll find I've been rather consistant about
my position. (ie. that knowledge of God is logically prior to the existance of
Science ( as a sorce of volition etc.) You are free to argue aganist His
existance using what you know of logic, the nature of Man and the Universe; but
you can no more apply a scientific test to this than you can to your own
conciousness.
For centuries church leaders insisted that science would
>support God in every way (Aquinas and Newton as well). Theyt only
>began this pathetic cop-out when they lost the battle in the
>scientific arena.
>
>Conversely, they are all way too eager to claim scientific validity
>when it looks like something they promote has scientific backing.
>Look at all the "scientific" creastionists, and design theorists.
>THEY claim to have scientific backing.
>
>Inconsistency of convenience anyone?
This is an excellent point and neither I nor Lewis would argue that the
current "fads" of science can really provide any basis for a sound theological
approach. Please call me on it if I fall into such an error!
>>But if, for the sake of our lost brethern we attempt it , we should
>>remember that it is a work in progress sort of thing; current theories being
>so
>>tenuiously grounded in hypothesis that any new influx of data causes the
>whole
>>template to be remodeled.
>
>That is a fantasy version of the history of knowledge, promoted by
>those who wish to find comfort in denying current knowledge that
>doesn't fit in with their desires. The most cursory view of the
>knowledge of man reveals the simple fact that knowledge moved very
>slowly, almost acquired by random chance, until the enlightenment and
>the discovery and embrace of the scientific method. Since then our
>knowledge has increased incredibly rapidly. Whole templates are
>rarely remodelled in the manner you describe anymore. Theories are
>much more often subtley refined, not overturned. The earth will be
>nearly spherical forever.
Alas, you are so young! When I was in school we had an entirely different
science of Geology for example. Synclines and anticlines anyone? {there was no
contenential drift.subduction, seafloor spreading et al). Saturn had only three
rings. Slightly earlier the electron was the smallest possible particle. I
could go on (Dinosaurs care for their young and travel in herds???) but trust
me Cosmology is not the most stable branch of science either. Which was my
point don't try to build a philosophy on what we think to be true today. (If
you did Pistol you would have to be a determinist anyway and I doubt that that
would appeal to you)
>>If poor Pistol thinks this provides him a surer base
>>for approaching life he is truly a pitiable creature.
>
>Your case must truly be weak to resort to an ad homenim such as this.
>I, sir, have the evidence and logic on my side. You have only your
>desires, and mystical arguments outdated by about 100 years. Can
>there be any doubts which is the surer base for approaching life?
What??? Is the Physician gagging on his own medicine??? Almost every phrase in
every post you have written contains at least one pejoritive ad Hominem
statement. Checking this post alone there are about twenty. When You can avoid
terms like mystical, pathetic etc. When you can argue without attributing your
opponents positions to desires (see above) or a wish to avoid reality then make
this critisisim, not before. And besides, I was expressing genuine concern for
you anyway, and only indirectly being critical
David R L Porter
Re-reading much of this thread and the Meaning of Words thread, I
would like to ask a general question of the group.
Has any Christian reading these threads found Pistol's arguments
conclusive in proving to them that their faith was worthless?
(I apologise for asking this as if Pistol weren't here!)
I ask because I am increasingly feeling that the argument, beginning
on the excellent and necessary premise that we must address honest
objections h0nestly presented, on their own terms rather than
shifting the ground to more comfortable ground of our own choosing,
has tended to suggest that the whole ambit of Christianity must lie
within the sphere of logical verification; that a kind of Thomism is
setting in, whereby the argument 'I believe that certain areas of
faith are not susceptible to logical demonstration/proof' is ruled
out of court.
I do believe that the Christian faith is not irrational. I believe
that I can have adequate reasons for believing in God. I don't
believe I can have absolute reasons that are secure against any
logical objection. God loves me and I can prove it: my sister didn't
have a malignant tumour when operated on on Christmas Eve. God hates
me, and I can prove it: my mother died of a malignant tumour. The
argument that in both cases we cannot assess logically the goodness
of God because we cannot know what might have been (was she spared
from worse suffering? Taken to a better place? Robbed of a sparkling
future? The victim of an uncontrolled fallen creation?) seems to be
sidelined here as at best irrelevant and at worst hopelessly and
meaninglessly illogical. Yet for me it's an essential in my
understading of providence.
What prompted me to ask the question was the mention of the Holy
Spirit in a recent post. Where indeed is the room for the numinous
here? Are the workings of the Holy Spirit susceptible to 'proof'?
What about the mysterious call of God, meaningless to those who
reject the necessary premise that God exists and communicates?
I believe, with Queen Elizabeth I, that true Christianity has to do
with what we do with Jesus Christ and that all is is a dispute about
trifles. I don't think that lets me off the homework but it shows me
where the foundation lies. My faith is essentially a relationship not
a creed. When asked to prove a relationship you don't define the
nature of existence and thus prove the existence of the Other; you
turn and look at the Other.
I'm very eager to go on working at the issues Pistol and other have
presented us with and I deplore the tone of some recent Christian
postings here. But am I the only one who feels we are not actually at
the core of the issue in these threads? Has anybody lost their faith
because of the arguments presented by the atheists here? Personally I
feel my apologetic skills have been found wanting in some important
areas, but the root of my faith has not been touched. Blind
pig-ignorance, or bibliacal faith?
Pistol
>Re-reading much of this thread and the Meaning of Words thread, I
>would like to ask a general question of the group.
>
>Has any Christian reading these threads found Pistol's arguments
>conclusive in proving to them that their faith was worthless?
Whoa! Let's not mess up a potentially intriguing post by
misrepresentation. I have not, here nor anywhere, claimed that
religious faith was worthless. I DO question whether it can be
defended rationally. But being irrational and being worthless are not
even close to synonymous.
I assume you meant to ask "Has Pistol convinced you that your faith is
intellectually irrational?" That is a truer representation of my
view.
>(I apologise for asking this as if Pistol weren't here!)
No problem. You'll have to try a whole lot harder than that to offend
me :).
However, let me jump the gun and answer that the majority of
Christians reading your question (if properly rephrased) would answer
honestly "no". It takes a lot more than a few e-mail discussions to
cause someone to change long held and emotionally fulfilling beliefs.
I know it took a lot more than that for mine to change. What changed
me was the repetitious challenges, the constant questions I could not
answer, and the piling up over time of contrary evidence to what I
believed.
For example, many Christians have no idea just how much flat-out
ridiculous stuff appears in the supposedly inerrant Bible. This
information should be out there for all to see.
I don't intend to deconvert anyone right here and now. I do this for
emotional enjoyment, intellectual growth, and the hopes that whoever
of us is right will plant seeds that will eventually grow to change
the minds of the other.
>I ask because I am increasingly feeling that the argument, beginning
>on the excellent and necessary premise that we must address honest
>objections honestly presented, on their own terms rather than
>shifting the ground to more comfortable ground of our own choosing,
>has tended to suggest that the whole ambit of Christianity must lie
>within the sphere of logical verification; that a kind of Thomism is
>setting in, whereby the argument 'I believe that certain areas of
>faith are not susceptible to logical demonstration/proof' is ruled
>out of court.
I definitely so rule. The claim that such-and-such belief should be
beyond rational analysis is the first mark of a charlaten, and at the
source of a great deal of misery in the world. Would a Koresh or
Hitler have been conceivable were it not for those people willing to
grant intellectual immunity to the silly ideas that they spout?
And before anyone gets excited, I am not for one minute claiming that
Christianity is anywhere near as abhorrent or ridiculous as Nazism or
Koresh. I am merely pointing out that the standard you would present
for Christianity is beneath it. If it is true, it should be able to
withstand the greatest of intellectual efforts.
>I do believe that the Christian faith is not irrational. I believe
>that I can have adequate reasons for believing in God. I don't
>believe I can have absolute reasons that are secure against any
>logical objection.
I don't know what you mean by "absolute". If you mean "without
contradictin", then you darn well SHOULD have such reasons. ANYTHING
can be justified if contradiction are allowed.
If you mean "Evidence that shows Christianity to be true with 100%
certainty", then I would agree with you that is an unreasonable
standard, for Christianity or anything else.
My challenge to Christianity is the same as for any other theory -
show that the evidence logically implies that it is PROBABLE. Does
this involve some subjectivity? Sure! But I can't get there even
with the most lenient of interpretations of the evidence. That is why
aI am so critical of it, and why the fact that so many intelligent
educated people believe it fascinates me so.
> God loves me and I can prove it: my sister didn't
>have a malignant tumour when operated on on Christmas Eve. God hates
>me, and I can prove it: my mother died of a malignant tumour. The
>argument that in both cases we cannot assess logically the goodness
>of God because we cannot know what might have been (was she spared
>from worse suffering? Taken to a better place? Robbed of a sparkling
>future? The victim of an uncontrolled fallen creation?) seems to be
>sidelined here as at best irrelevant and at worst hopelessly and
>meaninglessly illogical. Yet for me it's an essential in my
>understading of providence.
All you have shown is how many BAD conclusions can be drawn on the
topic, and how many theories ca be created if unlimited baseless
conecture is allowed. give me the same sort of leeway and I'll make
an equally convincing case that Santa exists.
Like I said above, if Christianity is true, it deserves better than
that.
>What prompted me to ask the question was the mention of the Holy
>Spirit in a recent post. Where indeed is the room for the numinous
>here? Are the workings of the Holy Spirit susceptible to 'proof'?
>What about the mysterious call of God, meaningless to those who
>reject the necessary premise that God exists and communicates?
Where is there in Christianity for the Snark. Does snarkness have a
place in your world? Are they susceptible to proof? Is there room
for Kharma here? What about the call of the Mermaids, meaningless to
theose who refuse to hear?
Is my point clear yet? The sort of silliness I wrote above is what is
kosher if you reject the burdon of proof. We could spend all day
talking about Gremlin dietary habits. The question remains - why
should anyone believe in such a thing merely on your (or my) say so?
>I believe, with Queen Elizabeth I, that true Christianity has to do
>with what we do with Jesus Christ and that all this is a dispute about
>trifles. I don't think that lets me off the homework but it shows me
>where the foundation lies. My faith is essentially a relationship not
>a creed. When asked to prove a relationship you don't define the
>nature of existence and thus prove the existence of the Other; you
>turn and look at the Other.
And don't you see that if Jesus was merely a man your whole system
collapses? How can you see that as a trifle? Again, Christianity
itself seems to be trivializedby such talk.
>I'm very eager to go on working at the issues Pistol and other have
>presented us with and I deplore the tone of some recent Christian
>postings here. But am I the only one who feels we are not actually at
>the core of the issue in these threads?
There are, at any given time, multiple topics being bantered around.
If you are so convinced that Christianity is true that you are
unwilling to entertain objections, than by all means avoid my
postings. They will be as boring to you as a claim that the earth is
flat, or that communism has a higher growth rate than capitalism (one
I saw recently elsewhere) are to me.
>Has anybody lost their faith
>because of the arguments presented by the atheists here?
Am I plural now?
>Personally I
>feel my apologetic skills have been found wanting in some important
>areas, but the root of my faith has not been touched. Blind
>pig-ignorance, or bibliacal faith?
With all due respect, probably a bit of both. We simply cannot allow
questions to go unanswered. If you think you've answered all of mine,
fine. But if you haven't, you owe it to yourself to find answers.
"Truth is my agenda, reason my bias"
ma...@sonic.net
Dan Drake wrote:
> Jeremy Bernstein wrote a fine essay "How do we know Einstein wasn't a
> crank?" on what goes away and what remains when science topples one of
> its theories. More recommended reading. Tells of the things that a new
> theory has to _preserve_ if it's to be taken seriously.
Haven't read it, but.... Taken seriously by whom? That decade's grant-writers?
Lewis wrote somewhere that the real fallacies of each era are usually in the
assumptions that neither side questions. (Tho I don't remember whether he meant
this to apply very far into the hard sciences.)
> We can all agree that building great structures of philosophy on the
> current ideas in science is a bad idea. (If Pistol disagrees, he'll let
> us know.) The question is whether there's anything that's fundamentally
> outside science,
Outside the "current ideas in science" (1) or outside any stretch of the
scientific method altogether (2)?
> and yet is not just blather and (in the positivists'
> phrase) meaningless noise.
Might try a little yoga and see for yourself? :-)
It's not theoretical (blather etc), because you get real hands-on experience. It
doesn't claim to be outside (2). Possibly the (1) envelope may someday stretch
that far, but I think most western scientists would call it outside their
present (1).
--
Mary
Peter Kirby
John Lively wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>
> >On 6 Feb 1998 00:34:49 GMT, d...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Danny Pitt
> >Stoller) wrote:
> >PROBLEM
>
> >>Okay, as long as we're on the topic of "the problem of evil," why don't
> >>we discuss some of the actual proposed solutions? Pistol, have you
> >>looked at the Free Will Defense? It goes something like this: "God
> >>could have created a bunch of robots who would always do the right thing,
> >>but if He did that then there would be nothing particularly remarkable or
> >>admirable about it. By creating beings capable of choosing between right
> >>and wrong according to their will, God brought into existence a new good
> >>-- freely chosen good -- that could not have existed if free will hadn't
> >>been created. But, for free will to exist, there had to exist the
> >>possibility of evil. God therefore allowed evil to exist, because He
> >>recognized that the freely chosen good is valuable enough to justify the
> >>possibility of evil." Is there a problem?
>
> >Many:
> >
> >1) Evil is not required for free will. Its elimination simply
> >would reduce the possible choices. We would still have the
> >choice of all possible good choices, as well as neutral
> >choices.
>
> "choice" is certainly necessary. To eliminate a category of choices is to rig
> the game in favor of certain outcomes.
>
> > After all, the fact that we cannot fly does not mean
> >that we do not have freedom of movement.
>
> is the brain, rather than wings -- I'm surprised to find such a lapse in an
> admirer of Rand .
But you miss the point. There *are* categories of choices that are not
available to us.
Although an example shouldn't be necessary, it is impossible for me to visit
Alpha Centauri.
If we have 'free will' yet some things are not available options, then why
cannot God put evil things on the list of impossibilities?
> >2a) Why does it make the slightest difference whether God's creation
> >is "remarkable or admirable"?
> >This seems to imply that these traits are more important than
> >goodness.
>
> No, it means that the good which is freely chosen is to be preferred to the good
> which is "programmed in".
It further means that a world with 'free will' beings yet also 10 million
turps of evil (this one) is preferrable to a world with neither evil nor
'free will'.
> >2b) "Remarkable or admirable to whom?"
>
> To us, of course. We are the ones with the faculty of judgement -- nothing can
> be admirable or remarkable to entities without such faculties.
Interesting. So, even if there are no humans, what they would consider
"remarkable" is important?
> >2c) Given that we are not even close to being able to create
> >such robots, I'd certainly categorize such a feat as remarkable
> >and admirable. Why wouldn't you?
>
> I dispute your assumption that we are unable to create such robots -- have you
> ever seen a robotic riveter in action? Drills the correct sized hole, puts the
> right fastener in the right place -- all a function of its programming. The
> person who created the first one, I'll grant you, did something remarkable and
> admirable, but everybody else has been following in his footsteps.
Of course, the 'robots' that he referred to are of far greater complexity,
and if indeed there were one that is able to deal with the variety of tasks
confronting humans, I daresay we would hesitate to call it a 'robot'.
> >3) Why is a good act more good if done freely? When you feed a
> >starving bum, do you think it matters a whit to him whether you
> >did so via free-will, threat of punishment, or according to
> >programming?
>
> It may not matter to the bum, but it should to you -- or do you work equally
> well when given the choice of a whip across your back or a dollar in your
> pocket?
In his _Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting_, Daniel C.
Dennett makes an interesting point. It is that nearly all arguments for
'free will' uncritically rely upon such 'intuition pumps' against the horrors
of any alternative. "And in fact there are a host of analogies to be found
in the literature: not having free will would be somewhat like being in
prison, or being hypnotized, or being paralyzed, or being a puppet, or..."
(ibid., p. 5).
But what is the reasoning behind these caricatures? Cannot a being with
'free will' be in prison? And cannot one without have a pleasant existence?
> Still working on the rest . . .
Adding to your workload . . . :-)
--
Peter Kirby <ki...@earthlink.net>
XTIANITY list owner, alt.atheism atheist #16
Visit my home page: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/
ma...@sonic.net
Dan Drake wrote:
>
> So the "can't be
> truth" applies to an argument that's in principle not understandable to
> yourself and also not understood by any convincing consensus of
> specialists. Fair enough.
Funny, that was my reaction to finding the same argument used by both
Lewis and Rand ( in /Miracles/, against 'naturalism' ).
Well, not 'can't be', but -- 'if the experts can't agree, I'm probably not
up to this either.'
--
Mary
Dan Drake
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:56:35, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
+... Sure, I can accept the
+ valdiity of a proof if I have some evidence on which to base
+ that conclusion. In the case of an area with which I am not
+ all that educated or familiar, I my have to depend on the
+ opinions of those I trust in those areas. The fallacy of the
+ argument from authority is the calim that something is true
+ necessarily because so-and-so says so. Opinions can still be
+ validly considered evidence, albeit evidence of a weak nature.
OK, no problem with that. Less than none.
+
+..
>. I can't find a solution anywhere [to the problem of evil]
+ than any of the most elevated minds on the subject accept, on
+ both sides of the aisle. You might expect none of the atheists
+ to accept them, although as I mentioned earlier, they could
+ still reject God on the evidenciary basis. But eve the better
+ Christian/deistic writers, such as RC Sproul (and a lesser
+ light, Dennis Prager), admit that the problem of evil has not
+ been resolved.
+
Right, and the parallel to Fermat's Last Theorem, where there is a
consensus, or at least a developing one, ends here. So the "can't be
truth" applies to an argument that's in principle not understandable to
yourself and also not understood by any convincing consensus of
specialists. Fair enough.
+...
+
Dan Drake
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:58:36, dary...@aol.com (Daryl Gene) wrote:
+
+ Header says on Mon, May 4,1998 (eerie aint it) Pistol(pis...@cyberramp.net
+ wrote:
+ >
+ >...
The most cursory view of the
+ >knowledge of man reveals the simple fact that knowledge moved very
+ >slowly, almost acquired by random chance, until the enlightenment and
+ >the discovery and embrace of the scientific method. Since then our
+ >knowledge has increased incredibly rapidly. Whole templates are
+ >rarely remodelled in the manner you describe anymore. Theories are
+ >much more often subtley refined, not overturned. The earth will be
+ >nearly spherical forever.
+ Alas, you are so young! When I was in school we had an entirely different
+ science of Geology for example. Synclines and anticlines anyone? {there was no
+ contenential drift.subduction, seafloor spreading et al). Saturn had only three
+ rings. Slightly earlier the electron was the smallest possible particle. I
+ could go on (Dinosaurs care for their young and travel in herds???) but trust
+ me Cosmology is not the most stable branch of science either. Which was my
+ point don't try to build a philosophy on what we think to be true today....
Well, I'm less young than Pistol, and in fact I watched the development
of plate tectonics (in the non-specialist press) with great fascination
and wonder. More and more things were making sense, and every time some
new evidence popped up, it strengthened the case. Well, almost every
time.
And yet after plate tectonics came in, the rocks were still there. The
ages of the rocks were unchanged in any essential way. Sedimentary rocks
were still petrified sediments, though now we had a better idea of how
they got on top of Mount Everest. (Yes, I've read a couple of McPhee's
books. Highly recommended.) Igneous rocks were still hardened magma and
the like, though now we could say much more about how and why they got
there.
Three rings for Saturn? If anybody attached any intellectual
significance to that, I missed it -- which is quite possible. The number
of rings looks to me like an accident, in Aristotle's sense.
Likewise, I don't recall any theoretical basis given for the electron's
status as the smallest particle, or any far-reaching conclusions drawn
from it. Not being a physicist, maybe I missed something here?
Nit-picking: Electrons are still not decomposable into anything smaller;
they're less massive than any quark; and I believe they still behave in
a way uncomfortably similar to something that has zero radius. It's hard
to get smaller than that. Neutrinos are lighter, but they've been around
since the 1930s; so in fact electrons haven't been considered the
smallest thing since before my time and probably yours.
Dinosaur bones are still dinosaur bones. If birds are dinosaurs, that's
a lot of fun to know, and it will help biologists to think more clearly
about their subject, but can it alter anyone's ideas of the Universe?
Cosmology is notoriously unstable. Is there anybody silly enough to draw
philo or theo logical conclusions from its current state? And yet, when
it's all settled, if it ever is, you can bet that the Hubble expansion
will still be there. Oh, and the earth will still be pretty much
spherical.
Jeremy Bernstein wrote a fine essay "How do we know Einstein wasn't a
crank?" on what goes away and what remains when science topples one of
its theories. More recommended reading. Tells of the things that a new
theory has to _preserve_ if it's to be taken seriously.
We can all agree that building great structures of philosophy on the
current ideas in science is a bad idea. (If Pistol disagrees, he'll let
us know.) The question is whether there's anything that's fundamentally
outside science, and yet is not just blather and (in the positivists'
phrase) meaningless noise. Or,as you might prefer, sounding brass and
the tinkling of cymbals. On that, it appears that I disagree with
Pistol. But arguing the constant changes in the contents of scientific
knowledge doesn't move us to a resolution.
The funny thing is, nothing will lead us to a resolution. Can one prove
scientifically that there things that are knowable and important but not
testable scientifically? Not bloody likely, even if Goedel did something
almost like that for math.
David R L Porter
The message <34e0e32a...@newshost.cyberramp.net>
from pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) contains these words:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:48:09 GMT, David R L Porter
> <david....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >Re-reading much of this thread and the Meaning of Words thread, I
> >would like to ask a general question of the group.
> >
> >Has any Christian reading these threads found Pistol's arguments
> >conclusive in proving to them that their faith was worthless?
> Whoa! Let's not mess up a potentially intriguing post by
> misrepresentation. I have not, here nor anywhere, claimed that
> religious faith was worthless. I DO question whether it can be
> defended rationally. But being irrational and being worthless are not
> even close to synonymous.
You misunderstand my point, Pistol. I wasn't attenpting to represent
your argument. You could paraphrase my question: 'Has any Christian
reading Pistol's arguments been convinced by them, with the
inevitable conclusion that they now consider their faith worthless?'
You may be willing to grant that a faith is worthwhile that has an
irrational belief in a non-existent God and believes in a merely
human Jesus, or equates the reality of the Holy Spirit with the
reality of the Snark, but *I* won't grant that. Such a faith is
worthless in terms of everything that Christianity considers worth,
and if I were convinced by your arguments I would throw the whole lot out.
I was merely wondering whether any readers had actuaklly reached that
point in response to what you have been arguing.
> I assume you meant to ask "Has Pistol convinced you that your faith is
> intellectually irrational?" That is a truer representation of my
> view.
> >(I apologise for asking this as if Pistol weren't here!)
> No problem. You'll have to try a whole lot harder than that to offend
> me :).
> However, let me jump the gun and answer that the majority of
> Christians reading your question (if properly rephrased) would answer
> honestly "no". It takes a lot more than a few e-mail discussions to
> cause someone to change long held and emotionally fulfilling beliefs.
> I know it took a lot more than that for mine to change. What changed
> me was the repetitious challenges, the constant questions I could not
> answer, and the piling up over time of contrary evidence to what I
> believed.
I do seem to remember that you have got very cross in the past when
people have tried to put answers to questions in *your* mouth .... :)))))
> For example, many Christians have no idea just how much flat-out
> ridiculous stuff appears in the supposedly inerrant Bible. This
> information should be out there for all to see.
Well, there exists as you know a large literature of books pointing
out biblical errancies and books answering them with
counter-arguments. Much of the discussion requires a knowledge of
biblical langauge and archaeology, and I don't think this newsgroup
is the best place to achieve an academically sound evaluation of the
literature. All I would say is that I have grown up with biblical
scholars both Christian and non-Christian, and I can't accept your
sweeping generalisation as expressed here.
> I don't intend to deconvert anyone right here and now. I do this for
> emotional enjoyment, intellectual growth, and the hopes that whoever
> of us is right will plant seeds that will eventually grow to change
> the minds of the other.
Fair enough and well put.
> I definitely so rule. The claim that such-and-such belief should be
> beyond rational analysis is the first mark of a charlaten, and at the
> source of a great deal of misery in the world.
I think you'll find that I wasn't excluding rational analysis at all.
My point was that the *whole* of Christianity cannot be proved by
rational analysis, though *much* of it can.
> I am merely pointing out that the standard you would present
> for Christianity is beneath it.
This is Bernard Shaw-ism, isn't it? 'I won't believe in Christianity
but I'll tell you how it should be run ...' :))) A great many
Christians from peasants to professors have lived under the standard
I sketched, though expressed it more lucidly I'm sure.
> I don't know what you mean by "absolute". If you mean "without
> contradictin", then you darn well SHOULD have such reasons. ANYTHING
> can be justified if contradiction are allowed.
> If you mean "Evidence that shows Christianity to be true with 100%
> certainty", then I would agree with you that is an unreasonable
> standard, for Christianity or anything else.
The second, as I think was clear from what I said.
> My challenge to Christianity is the same as for any other theory -
> show that the evidence logically implies that it is PROBABLE. Does
> this involve some subjectivity? Sure! But I can't get there even
> with the most lenient of interpretations of the evidence. That is why
> I am so critical of it, and why the fact that so many intelligent
> educated people believe it fascinates me so.
That's what I thought your position was. BTW How lenient is 'most
lenient'? Would you give some examples of concessions you've made in
this area that have failed you?
> >What prompted me to ask the question was the mention of the Holy
> >Spirit in a recent post. Where indeed is the room for the numinous
> >here? Are the workings of the Holy Spirit susceptible to 'proof'?
> >What about the mysterious call of God, meaningless to those who
> >reject the necessary premise that God exists and communicates?
> Where is there in Christianity for the Snark. Does snarkness have a
> place in your world? Are they susceptible to proof? Is there room
> for Kharma here? What about the call of the Mermaids, meaningless to
> theose who refuse to hear?
> Is my point clear yet?
Is it fair to say that you reject a supernatural element to religion
that transcends human reason? You seem to be dismissing Lewis's
'numinous' completely out of hand, without even bothering to discuss it.
> And don't you see that if Jesus was merely a man your whole system
> collapses? How can you see that as a trifle? Again, Christianity
> itself seems to be trivialized by such talk.
But I don't have to justify Jesus logically any more than I have to
justify my wife logically. I believe that Jesus is alive and that he
is knowable. That is the Christian faith. At that point it isn't even
a system -- it's a relationship.
> >I'm very eager to go on working at the issues Pistol and other have
> >presented us with and I deplore the tone of some recent Christian
> >postings here. But am I the only one who feels we are not actually at
> >the core of the issue in these threads?
> There are, at any given time, multiple topics being bantered around.
> If you are so convinced that Christianity is true that you are
> unwilling to entertain objections, than by all means avoid my
> postings.
Hang on, I just said I wasn't eager to avoid your postings, didn't I?
And I didn't say I was unwilling to entertain objections.
> >Has anybody lost their faith
> >because of the arguments presented by the atheists here?
> Am I plural now?
Certainly in neither the royal nor the papal sense :)))
Some have supported you in this group. I just thought it would be
polite of me to acknowledge that.
Interesting point, though. You could be a whole philosophy department
writing under a common pseudonymn :)) [Incidentally, recently you
raised an eyebrow over my suggestion that your real name might be Mr
Gunn. It was just a pleasantry, an elementary play on words ...
pistol=gun ... no in-jokes or deeper meanings intended.]
> >Personally I
> >feel my apologetic skills have been found wanting in some important
> >areas, but the root of my faith has not been touched. Blind
> >pig-ignorance, or bibliacal faith?
> With all due respect, probably a bit of both. We simply cannot allow
> questions to go unanswered. If you think you've answered all of mine,
> fine. But if you haven't, you owe it to yourself to find answers.
Well, lets leave it there for now and see if anyone else answers my question.
Daryl Gene
Mon,feb9,1998; Pistol (pis...@cyberramp.net) wrote
<snip>
>1) Evil is not required for free will. Its elimination simply
>would reduce the possible choices. We would still have the
>choice of all possible good choices, as well as neutral choices. >After all,
the fact that we cannot fly does not mean
>that we do not have freedom of movement. Free will implies
the choice between alternatives: we need to define some terms here. If evil is
that which opposes the will of God than any choice other than following that
will would be evil. (Neutral choices Pistol? St. Ayn would turn in her grave.)
Nor is there any merit in choosing good if there are only good choices. It is
concievable that God having set the perameters for human existance (ie.
granting a spirit) to a particular end (ie. recieving their love, freely
given) found the existance of evil......well.... a necessary evil :-)
>
>3) Why is a good act more good if done freely? When you feed >a starving bum,
do you think it matters a whit to him whether you
>did so via free-will, threat of punishment, or according to
>programming?
Is feeding a starving bum then our definition of good? I can think of
instances where it would be questionable at best. Just as a crime requires the
ability to distinguish right and wrong (and is exaserbated by malice) one
aquires no merit if an act is not done knowingly and freely. I cannot believe
anyone conversant with Rand could take the above position, perhaps the
corollary , the fact that without volition there is also no guilt is the end
you are truly seeking. no?
>4) Since God is omniscient, there is no "possible" involved in
>
>discussion of his actions. He knew with 100% certainty what
>
>the results of his actions would be. He KNEW what level of
>
>evil would result from his chosen design. So your last
>statement would have to be revised to say "God recognized
>
>that the freely chosen good is valuable enough to justify the
>
>resulting evil."
>
>5a) Does it? Can you really claim with a straight face that the
>
>good/evil differential is higher in the current universe than it would
>
>have been with only populations of all-good-doing robots?
Without a doubt or a qualm! Have you really passed over to the determinists
or is this just an arguing posture? What are you defining as good here Pistol?
I thought I knew where you were coming from but this line is from left field.
Would you say a raincloud was good for releasing rain when it had no choice?
Not at all, it was simply a raincloud. Do you really want to go in this
direction???
>5b) How the heck do you measure such a thing anyway? Isn't
>this what you conservative rightly criticize government for,
>making such personal value decisions for us? Do you think
>Amber Hagerman or Nicole Simpson think the trade off was worth
>it?
Perhaps they do. Their perspective is a little different now. (O Pistol, by
the way, did you notice you are assuming they still have a position? curious.)
>Yes, to your question - I have looked at the defenses in
>detail, and with all my intellectual efforts. I have yet to
>find coherent explanations for the objections I've raised.
>It still seems FAR more likely that an omnipotent, omniscient,
>omnibenevolent being would have created a world with ZERO evil.
But He says He didn't want to, argue with Him. Actually the likelihood is
exactly ZERO since He either didn't choose to (here at any rate) or He isn't.
>Now if you want to posit a slightly less perfect being with a
>devious dark sense of humor, THEN the world as we know it,
>complete with underarm odor and flatulation, makes sense. :)
>Until then I still must reject the Christian God as wishful thinking.
Couldn't a perfect being have a sense of humor too? Perhaps he is tolerent
of evil so he can love and cherish the wit and perceptivity of one (alias)
Pistol. To do that he couldn't take all the evil out of the world now could
he? Or have we placed the perfect one a couple of millenia too early ;-)
Joe M. Turner
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:40:12 -0800, Peter Kirby
<ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> But you miss the point. There *are* categories of choices that are not
> available to us.
>
> Although an example shouldn't be necessary, it is impossible for me to visit
> Alpha Centauri.
>
> If we have 'free will' yet some things are not available options, then why
> cannot God put evil things on the list of impossibilities?
>
For one reason, "evil" is not a single thing to be done or not done,
to be had or not had. Rather, it is primarily a characteristic to be
attributed to the doer and the deed based primarily on the motives of
the doer and to some extent on the consequences of the deed. (A
Christian would go on to say that the classification of those motives
and deeds is done by evaluating them in relation to a standard for
conduct given by God.)
Because we exist in this world, we know that evil *can* exist as a
moral choice. Now, if this universe had been constructed so that evil
actions or thoughts were not physically possible, would that *truly*
have eliminated them from the realm of overall possibility? No.
Therefore, IF God had constructed the universe so that we couldn't
experience any evil motivations, and even if we did, we couldn't
implement any evil actions, THEN our moral will would not actually be
"free." If we still thought it was, then God would be lying, and no
longer omnibenevolent. If we thought our will wasn't free, then we're
back to the automaton illustration, albeit we would at least *know* we
were robots.
We may be running up against the mind/body problem here soon. Are you
saying that private evil thoughts or motivations are equivalent in
nature to physical actions?
> It further means that a world with 'free will' beings yet also 10 million
> turps of evil (this one) is preferrable to a world with neither evil nor
> 'free will'.
It may mean *exactly* that! A world where good and evil can be chosen
by beings with a capability for making real moral choices *may in
fact* be preferable to a world where such choices are denied.
> But what is the reasoning behind these caricatures? Cannot a being with
> 'free will' be in prison? And cannot one without have a pleasant existence?
Pleasant in contrast to what? Perhaps that being has not as pleasant
an existence as a free-will being who chooses obedience.
...
Regards,
Joe M. Turner
mailto: jmtu...@atl.mindspring.com
<http://www.atl.mindspring.com/~jmturner>
Tim Fulmer
>Peter Kirby wrote:
>
> But you miss the point. There *are* categories of choices that are not
> available to us.
>
> Although an example shouldn't be necessary, it is impossible for me to visit
> Alpha Centauri.
>
> If we have 'free will' yet some things are not available options, then why
> cannot God put evil things on the list of impossibilities?
This implies that what we call evil god also calls evil.
You treat god as though it's some "big person" making choices for the
universe, whereas (at least as I define it) god *is* the universe and
everything in it.
Such an agency does not choose good or bad behviors. This would make no
logical sense. For such an agency is all behaviors both good and bad,
where good and bad are defined by humankind and not by god.
Human free will is not the same as god's will.
God's will is everything in its spatial and temporal totality.
<snipped the rest on Daniel Dennet--wrong newsgroup. :-)>
Dan Drake
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:58:25, "ma...@sonic.net" <ma...@sonic.net> wrote:
+ Dan Drake wrote:
+
+ > Jeremy Bernstein wrote a fine essay "How do we know Einstein wasn't a
+ > crank?" on what goes away and what remains when science topples one of
+ > its theories. More recommended reading. Tells of the things that a new
+ > theory has to _preserve_ if it's to be taken seriously.
+
+ Haven't read it, but.... Taken seriously by whom? That decade's grant-writers?
By people who are interested in the advancement of learning. The entire
point is to get outside of any decade's preconceptions. Or, to bare my
teeth just a little against fashionable New-Age credulity, people who
fit Bertrand Russell's definition, in the Good Citizen's Alphabet, of
Pedant: A man who cares whether what he says is true.
With due apologies for the outdated gender-biased language.
+
+ Lewis wrote somewhere that the real fallacies of each era are usually in the
+ assumptions that neither side questions. (Tho I don't remember whether he meant
+ this to apply very far into the hard sciences.)
He was quite right about that. He was also quite canny, admirably so,
about skirting the dangers of making prescriptions for fields he didn't
know much about, like science.
+
+ > We can all agree that building great structures of philosophy on the
+ > current ideas in science is a bad idea. (If Pistol disagrees, he'll let
+ > us know.) The question is whether there's anything that's fundamentally
+ > outside science,
+
+ Outside the "current ideas in science" (1) or outside any stretch of the
+ scientific method altogether (2)?
The latter is what I meant. At least, any stretch that we can begin to
imagine. That's my whole point, and I probably don't need to mention
that it's a bit controversial.
+
+
+ > and yet is not just blather and (in the positivists'
+ > phrase) meaningless noise.
+
+
+ Might try a little yoga and see for yourself? :-)
I have, and yoga in the broadest sense has contributed to my
understanding. But I wouldn't place much hope in it as a way of
inducing doubt in a dogmatic materialist. Anything that "a little yoga"
shows up, including a clear experience of the third-eye chakra, can be
explained away easily enough. As Lewis, in a slightly different
connection, pointed out.
+
+ It's not theoretical (blather etc), because you get real hands-on experience. It
+ doesn't claim to be outside (2). Possibly the (1) envelope may someday stretch
+ that far, but I think most western scientists would call it outside their
+ present (1).
Fine, but if it's not outside (2), then it's outside the realm of things
that really bother me philosophically. The current vast areas of
ignorance in science I can deal with quite comforably. I hope it was
clear that I am not in the ranks of those who take the blather line; if
I were, I could easily fall back into my dogmatic slumbers.
Danny Pitt Stoller
Pistol, thank you for your thoughtful response to my formulation of the
Problem of Evil. I haven't been able to check this newsgroup for a
while, and I haven't yet looked at what has been posted later in this
thread, but I would like to take this opportunity to respond to your
thoughts.
A common theme running throughout my responses is that, in order to
understand the Free Will Defense, you must presuppose a certain set of
values in which freely chosen good is "better" than predetermined good, a
creature more closely resembling God is greater and more glorious than a
creature resembling God less, etc. You may feel that this begs the
question, since it presupposes a set of moral values consistent with
belief in God. However, the Problem of Evil itself presupposes a set of
values: after all, there is no Problem of Evil unless certain things or
states of affairs are judged as evil. So the Free Will Defense takes
over the conception of evil as presented in the Problem of Evil, and
revises that concept. In my opinion, the values of good and evil as
described by the Free Will Defense correspond closely to an intuitive and
rational account of morality.
Pistol (pis...@cyberramp.net) wrote:
: On 6 Feb 1998 00:34:49 GMT, d...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Danny Pitt
: Stoller) wrote:
: >"God could have created a bunch of robots who would always do right,
: >but if He did that then there would be nothing particularly remarkable or
: >admirable about it. By creating beings capable of choosing between right
: >and wrong according to their will, God brought into existence a new good
: >-- freely chosen good -- that could not have existed if free will hadn't
: >been created. But, for free will to exist, there had to exist the
: >possibility of evil. God therefore allowed evil to exist, because He
: >recognized that the freely chosen good is valuable enough to justify the
: >possibility of evil." Is there a problem?
: Many:
:
: 1) Evil is not required for free will. Its elimination simply
: would reduce the possible choices. We would still have the
: choice of all possible good choices, as well as neutral
: choices. After all, the fact that we cannot fly does not mean
: that we do not have freedom of movement.
Very true. But it is not just "free will" generally, but the ability to
choose good over evil, that is valued here. One might speak of "free
will" in a restricted sense meaning "the ability to choose any of several
good options," but that is not what is meant by "free will" in the
context of the Free Will Defense.
That particular freedom which allows for the possibility of our choosing
evil is itself a good, since the possibility of us freely choosing to be
good depends on this sort of freedom. And the argument presupposes that
creatures freely choosing good is an objectively good state of affairs,
preferable to any state of affairs where creatures do good out of
necessity. (Note that creatures with restricted "free will," though they
would indeed have a range of free and good choices, would not be freely
choosing good.)
: 2a) Why does it make the slightest difference whether God's creation
: is "remarkable or admirable"?
: This seems to imply that these traits are more important than
: goodness.
: 2b) "Remarkable or admirable to whom?"
: 2c) Given that we are not even close to being able to create
: such robots, I'd certainly categorize such a feat as remarkable
: and admirable. Why wouldn't you?
Such words as "remarkable" and "admirable" were, perhaps, not the best
choices. No one is claiming, of course, that God is tailoring His
universe in such a way as to maximize the likelihood of someone else
remarking about it or admiring it. The idea is that He is creating a
universe that is actually, objectively glorious and great -- and, unless
our value systems are totally deranged, we should find that which is
objectively glorious and great to be remarkable and admirable. The fact
that a glorious creation is remarkable and admirable is not a cause, but
a consequence, of its glory.
And of course I agree that if WE were able to create robots that could
perform all sorts of good actions, that would indeed be very clever of
us, and it would be a very remarkable scientific achievement. But, on
the theist view, of course God can whip up robots like that any time He
pleases. Even you can surely see that it would be a more daring and more
ambitious project if we tried to make minds that were moral reasoners
like we are. This is what God is doing, according to the Free Will
Defense: creating moral reasoners, capable of weighing good and evil and
choosing the good over the option of evil.
: 3) Why is a good act more good if done freely? When you feed a
: starving bum, do you think it matters a whit to him whether you
: did so via free-will, threat of punishment, or according to
: programming?
Of course not, but this is the difference between a subjective and an
objective good. The homeless man doesn't care how OBJECTIVELY good your
action is, because it is equally good TO HIM whether or not you committed
the act freely. But that is because he is not really concerned about the
goodness of your action at all -- he is solely concerned with the
benefits that he gains from your action, which are not really a measure
of its moral goodness.
Oops! I'm out of time -- I have to go now, but I want to come back later
and address the rest of your questions. You've been raising important
points, Pistol, and I think it's good for all of us to think this stuff
through and figure out how these arguments are supposed to work. I will
return soon.
ma...@sonic.net
Very hastily, mountains are sliding around here.... :-(
Dan Drake wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:58:25, "ma...@sonic.net" <ma...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> + Dan Drake wrote:
> +
> + > Jeremy Bernstein wrote a fine essay "How do we know Einstein wasn't a
> + > crank?" on what goes away and what remains when science topples one of
> + > its theories. More recommended reading. Tells of the things that a new
> + > theory has to _preserve_ if it's to be taken seriously.
> +
> + Haven't read it, but.... Taken seriously by whom? That decade's grant-writers?
>
> By people who are interested in the advancement of learning.
Wouldn't Lewis say the phrase 'the advancement of learning' carries quite a
few preconceptions?
> The entire
> point is to get outside of any decade's preconceptions.
Good, as in preserving things across teh centuries, so the theory will be
taken seriously next century too, or something? Put it up to a sort of
"Meeting of Minds" on a houseboat on the Styx, with visitors from teh future
too? Bravo.
Might the Lewis passage about "if our current theories of vitamins are
discarded, people will go on eating their dinners just the same" apply at
all here?
> Or, to bare my
> teeth just a little against fashionable New-Age credulity,
< scenting the battle afar off and shouting "Haha", she brandishes her New Age
Wand of Rock to Gravel -- tho briefly :-) >
Definitions of 'belief', 'true', etc?
And -- in what area? I'm not too happy with people being creduluous about
matters of fact, like assassinations and chemistry. (Incredulous about the
accepted 'facts', yes; like Lord ARglay, wasn't it, and didn't Lewis
recommend some global scepticism in an essay on NT miracles? Buddha would
have approved. But not throwing out the Atlantic Monthly 'facts' only to
replace them with tabloid 'facts'.)
In other realms -- remember Lewis' last chapter of /Discarded Image/,
masthead quote "The best in this kind are but shadows."
And wasn't there something in Timaeus about keeping in mind those images
that are wholesome for the soul ... I have it associated with geo-centrism,
but not sure.
> people who
> fit Bertrand Russell's definition, in the Good Citizen's Alphabet, of
> Pedant: A man who cares whether what he says is true.
Could you make that a bit more precise? :-) Says to whom, in waht language?
What if different listeners have different definitions of the words he uses?
"Man is a non-feathered biped." True, or mis-leading?
> With due apologies for the outdated gender-biased language.
It's much more elegant, let's keep it. :-)
> + > The question is whether there's anything that's fundamentally
> + > outside science,
> +
> + Outside the "current ideas in science" (1) or outside any stretch of the
> + scientific method altogether (2)?
>
> The latter is what I meant. At least, any stretch that we can begin to
> imagine.
Imagine drunk or sober? Before or after giving the mind a bit of a massage?
> That's my whole point, and I probably don't need to mention
> that it's a bit controversial.
Well, we would have to define waht teh limits of stretch are. Which might be
a very wholesome exercise, if carried out in Boethius vocabulary.... :-)
/snip/
> + Might try a little yoga and see for yourself? :-)
>
> I have, and yoga in the broadest sense has contributed to my
> understanding. But I wouldn't place much hope in it as a way of
> inducing doubt in a dogmatic materialist.
Nor was I. Nor does it matter, to many yogis. Some of the best Buddhists are
indistinguisable from dogmatic materialists.
> Anything that "a little yoga"
> shows up, including a clear experience of the third-eye chakra, can be
> explained away easily enough. As Lewis, in a slightly different
> connection, pointed out.
On page one of /Miracles/? Person who saw a ghost but still didn't believe
in them, trick of nerves, everything presented to our senses can always be
labelled hallucination, depends on philosophy we bring to the questin, etc?
Right, I agree. Think Pistol said something similar. So there's three of
us.... :-)
> + It's not theoretical (blather etc), because you get real hands-on experience. It
> + doesn't claim to be outside (2). Possibly the (1) envelope may someday stretch
> + that far, but I think most western scientists would call it outside their
> + present (1).
>
> Fine, but if it's not outside (2), then it's outside the realm of things
> that really bother me philosophically.
Could you expand this a little? Where do you draw the line of what is inside
and outside of (2)? Then give some examples of things you consider outside,
but relevant?
--
Mary
email replies appreciated ma...@sonic.net
Aaron
Ok, ok. Why does evil exist? Here's one possible answer: It doesn't.
WAIT! WAIT! BEFORE YOU START FLAMEING, LISTEN TO MY LOGIC, FIRST. If God
is everything (good, omnipotent, benevolent, loving) then the opposite of
that would be nothing. In other words, pure evil is in and of itself
non- existant... BUT any act of evil (or sin) is a movement towards
nothingness, or a diSINtigration, if you will. For if God is defined as
a being of pure love, or pure happiness and goodness, then evil is not
some other force, but simply less of that love, happiness, goodness.
Evil is loss of those good elements, just like when you lose a loved one,
you feel like something bad(or evil) happened.
whataya think? just a thought.
Aaron
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Pistol
On 10 Feb 1998 08:58:36 GMT, dary...@aol.com (Daryl Gene) wrote:
PROBLEM
>>
>>(sigh). Every group, be they chiropractors, faith healers, or
>>psychics, claims that science is not the arena to prove or disprove
>>their hypothesis. Coincidentally, they bluster so only AFTER it
>>want.
>Pistol, check my posts. I think you'll find I've been rather consistant about
>my position. (ie. that knowledge of God is logically prior to the existance of
>Science ( as a sorce of volition etc.) You are free to argue aganist His
>existance using what you know of logic, the nature of Man and the Universe; but
>you can no more apply a scientific test to this than you can to your own
>conciousness.
The existence of consciousness is self-evident. That is,
even to argue against it forces one to acknowledge it. This
CANNOT be said for God, and so the comparison fails from that.
Apply whatever label you want. I reject your theory
simply because it is pure speculation, plain and simple. You
hypothesize God as the source of volition based on ... nothing.
I mean that literally. This is yet one more variation on the
argument from ignorance. You reject all current theories on the
source of volition. That's fine as far as it goes. You should
simply say "I don't know" and move on. But you go too far.
You take this universal ignorance on the subject, this
nothingness of an explanation, and infer from that a license to
invent whatever explanation suites your fancy. That is unwarrented.
To illustrate my point, I'll for the sake of argument adopt a
similar position to yours. I'll hypothesize a God identical to
yours, responsible for everything you attribute to yours, with
the following differences: He is infinitely EVIL, and when we
die, it is the believers in Him who are tortured in Hell-fire
forever, whereas all the believers experience eternal bliss.
Explain why your theory is more legitimate than mine. I say
they are both pointless conjecture.
>> For centuries church leaders insisted that science would
>>support God in every way (Aquinas and Newton as well). They only
>>began this pathetic cop-out when they lost the battle in the
>>scientific arena.
>>
>>Conversely, they are all way too eager to claim scientific validity
>>when it looks like something they promote has scientific backing.
>>Look at all the "scientific" creationists, and design theorists.
>>THEY claim to have scientific backing.
>>
>>Inconsistency of convenience anyone?
> This is an excellent point and neither I nor Lewis would argue that the
>current "fads" of science can really provide any basis for a sound theological
>approach. Please call me on it if I fall into such an error!
I certainly would. But this discussion is far bigger than you
and I. I'll not pick on you personally (and I mean in a
rational sense, not in the namecallig sense). I carry on too
many correspondances simultaneously to remember exactly who
said what anyway. If this makes for confusion for you, I
apologize.
I also think you give science a tremendous short shrift by
labelling its finding "fads". Science is THE method for
truth-finding, and the fact that scientific theories are far
more often refined than overturned is strong evidence of that.
>>>But if, for the sake of our lost brethern we attempt it , we should
>>>remember that it is a work in progress sort of thing; current theories being
>>so
>>>tenuiously grounded in hypothesis that any new influx of data causes the
>>whole
>>>template to be remodeled.
>>That is a fantasy version of the history of knowledge, promoted by
>>those who wish to find comfort in denying current knowledge that
>>doesn't fit in with their desires. The most cursory view of the
>>knowledge of man reveals the simple fact that knowledge moved very
>>slowly, almost acquired by random chance, until the enlightenment and
>>the discovery and embrace of the scientific method. Since then our
>>knowledge has increased incredibly rapidly. Whole templates are
>>rarely remodelled in the manner you describe anymore. Theories are
>>much more often subtley refined, not overturned. The earth will be
>>nearly spherical forever.
>Alas, you are so young! When I was in school we had an entirely different
>science of Geology for example. Synclines and anticlines anyone? {there was no
>contenential drift.subduction, seafloor spreading et al). Saturn had only three
>rings. Slightly earlier the electron was the smallest possible particle. I
>could go on (Dinosaurs care for their young and travel in herds???) but trust
>me. Cosmology is not the most stable branch of science either. Which was my
>point don't try to build a philosophy on what we think to be true today. (If
>you did Pistol you would have to be a determinist anyway and I doubt that that
>would appeal to you)
Sure, these theories have changed over time. But look closely
at what is happening. Saturn was thought to have three rings,
now it has been found to have more. PROGRESS! We'll never go
back to thinking it has three, will we? Electrons were thought
to be the smallest, now they are not. Will they ever be again?
Of course not. And each of these changes makes a smaller and
smaller impact on the knowledge we have.
Asimov had a great article on this subject called "The
Relativty of Wrong", wherein he showed how one can measure this
mathematically. The example he gave was with the theories of
the earth's shape. Sure the earth is not flat, but it is very
nearly flat (off about 4 inches per mile), so that theory
wasn't TOTALLY wrong, just not as good as the next theory, the
spherical earth. But that theory isn't exactly right either.
The earth is really an elliptoid, wider in the middle. But,
again measuring the curvature, the sphereical to eliptoidal
improvement was smaller than the flat to spherical one. And it
isn't EXACTLY elliptoidal either. It actually bulges a little
in the southern hemisphere.
Now here you come, claiming that science is tenuous, as
evidenced by all these theories about the earth's shape, and
that were I to base my philosophy on the slightly bulging
ellipoid earth, that I am somehow taking a tenuous position, and
that for all we know we'll someday discover that the earth is
shaped like a triangle. A hyperbolic version of your view,
perhaps, but I think essentially correct. If you want to try to
build a philosophy ignoring scientific knowledge, be my guest.
Your odds of having horribly flawed premises are incredibly
high. Be sure to go to a witch doctor instead of an MD next
time you are sick while you are at it. :)
Try the same exercise with the history of religious thought.
First we are free, then we're not, then we are again. Reason
leads to God, no it doesn't, yes it does. Even on the most
basic questions, religious "experts" still cannot seem to make
the slightest headway.
>>>If poor Pistol thinks this provides him a surer base
>>>for approaching life he is truly a pitiable creature.
>>
>>Your case must truly be weak to resort to an ad homenim such as this.
>>I, sir, have the evidence and logic on my side. You have only your
>>desires, and mystical arguments outdated by about 100 years. Can
>>there be any doubts which is the surer base for approaching life?
>
>What??? Is the Physician gagging on his own medicine??? Almost every phrase in
>every post you have written contains at least one pejoritive ad Hominem
>statement. Checking this post alone there are about twenty. When You can avoid
>terms like mystical, pathetic etc. When you can argue without attributing your
>opponents positions to desires (see above) or a wish to avoid reality then make
>this critisisim, not before. And besides, I was expressing genuine concern for
>you anyway, and only indirectly being critical
Please. There is a fundamental difference betwen telling
someone they are stupid and saying that their theory is stupid.
Likewise, their is a world of difference between claiming a
theory is based on desires, or is a cop-out, and telling
someone they are pathetic. You can't show me one, let alone
twenty, instances in this post where I called YOU personally a
name. I criticized your arguments, and that is all. If my
criticisms were a bit more colorful than your tastes dictate,
I apologize. But that doesn't make them ad homenim attacks.
The only ad homenim I've engaged in here is with Marty, who had
the audacity to bitterly claim that nonbelievers are bitter.
I must remember that the skin here in Christianland is somewhat
thinner than elsewhere on usenet. Believe it or not, I'm
pretty mild compared to some people on some groups. Methinks
we all see the splinter in the other man's eye... I suppose we
all must remember that the issues we discuss here are perhaps
the greatest of all, and therefore deserve the highest level of
discourse. I'll keep that in mind in the future.
I concluded that your theories are based on emotinal desires
because that tends to be the source of theories that have no
intellectual defense. So far, you've given me none - you just
keep repeating what you believe. Give me an intellectual
defense of how you came to conclude that God must exist because
we have volition, and I'll stand corrected.
Wilkerson
Aaron wrote in message <887253901....@dejanews.com>...
. If God
>is everything (good, omnipotent, benevolent, loving) then the opposite of
>that would be nothing. In other words, pure evil is in and of itself
>non- existant... BUT any act of evil (or sin) is a movement towards
>nothingness
This is an ancient and quite good account of evil, i.e. it is nothing
positive but simply a distortion of the good. St. Gregory of Nyssa once made
the argument that since we are created, and since creation is a change from
non-existence to existence, then being changeable is built into the nature
of humanity. Thus, we shall all change. The only question is whether it will
be toward fuller likeness to God (i.e. the Good) or to being less like Him
(i.e. Evil). Either direction is asymptotic in nature. That is if we go the
direction of evil we never quite come to total non-existence(God made us and
His Son died that we might live eternally). That is why damnation is
eternal. Of course, so is salvation; where we shall become more and more
like God, even though we shall never BE Him. That is why heaven is not a
static, boring place.
As to the problem of evil. It is inherent in the possibility of change. Of
course, as Lewis stated in The Problem of Pain, for those who argue against
God from the problem of evil there is the converse conundrum; i.e. the
problem of good.
Keith C. Wilkerson
Danny Pitt Stoller
Aaron (azc...@is4.nyu.edu) wrote:
: Ok, ok. Why does evil exist? Here's one possible answer: It doesn't.
: WAIT! WAIT! BEFORE YOU START FLAMEING, LISTEN TO MY LOGIC, FIRST. If God
: is everything (good, omnipotent, benevolent, loving) then the opposite of
: that would be nothing. In other words, pure evil is in and of itself
: non- existant... BUT any act of evil (or sin) is a movement towards
: a being of pure love, or pure happiness and goodness, then evil is not
: some other force, but simply less of that love, happiness, goodness.
: Evil is loss of those good elements, just like when you lose a loved one,
: you feel like something bad(or evil) happened.
Aaron, that's a perfectly reasonable point of view, and one that has been
discussed on this ng before. But it doesn't address the question. It
just plays around with the semantics of the word "exist." If someone
asked why there is cold, and you responded that there is no cold because
cold is just an absence of heat, the original questioner would merely
rephrase the question and ask why heat is sometimes absent. If you
claimed that darkness doesn't "exist" because it is merely absence of
light, that doesn't help us to understand why there is darkness. Evil is
something that we experience, it is an aspect of the world that must be
explained, whatever its ontological status.
Pistol
On 11 Feb 1998 00:53:59 GMT, d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:
EVIL
>On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:56:35, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>>. I can't find a solution anywhere [to the problem of evil]
>+ than any of the most elevated minds on the subject accept, on
>+ both sides of the aisle. You might expect none of the atheists
>+ to accept them, although as I mentioned earlier, they could
>+ still reject God on the evidenciary basis. But eve the better
>+ Christian/deistic writers, such as RC Sproul (and a lesser
>+ light, Dennis Prager), admit that the problem of evil has not
>+ been resolved.
>Right, and the parallel to Fermat's Last Theorem, where there is a
>consensus, or at least a developing one, ends here. So the "can't be
>truth" applies to an argument that's in principle not understandable to
>yourself and also not understood by any convincing consensus of
>specialists. Fair enough.
I guess. There is something about the way you write and the
way I read that makes understanding what you are getting at
difficult for me. I would not compare the problem of evil to
Fermat's theorum because the former is an argument that
such-and-such cannot be true, whereas the latter was a
demonstrable truth that had resisted formal proof. Those are
very different things. I'm not sure you agree or not.
Pistol
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:13:47 GMT, David R L Porter
<david....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
EVIL
>The message <34e0e32a...@newshost.cyberramp.net>
> from pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) contains these words:
>
>your argument. You could paraphrase my question: 'Has any Christian
>reading Pistol's arguments been convinced by them, with the
>inevitable conclusion that they now consider their faith worthless?'
Fair enough.
>You may be willing to grant that a faith is worthwhile that has an
>irrational belief in a non-existent God and believes in a merely
>human Jesus, or equates the reality of the Holy Spirit with the
>reality of the Snark, but *I* won't grant that. Such a faith is
>worthless in terms of everything that Christianity considers worth,
>and if I were convinced by your arguments I would throw the whole lot out.
I agree, and most people would. But I know some very
intelligent people who grant the validity of my arguments and
are Christians anyway. One summed his reason not embracing atheism
quite simply: "It gives me bad dreams."
>I was merely wondering whether any readers had actuaklly reached that
>point in response to what you have been arguing.
[snips]
>> However, let me jump the gun and answer that the majority of
>> Christians reading your question (if properly rephrased) would answer
>> honestly "no". It takes a lot more than a few e-mail discussions to
>> cause someone to change long held and emotionally fulfilling beliefs.
>> I know it took a lot more than that for mine to change. What changed
>> me was the repetitious challenges, the constant questions I could not
>> answer, and the piling up over time of contrary evidence to what I
>> believed.
>
>I do seem to remember that you have got very cross in the past when
>people have tried to put answers to questions in *your* mouth .... :)))))
I don't mind that being done when it seems reasonable and
obvious. Do YOU think I have deconverted many here?
>> For example, many Christians have no idea just how much flat-out
>> ridiculous stuff appears in the supposedly inerrant Bible. This
>> information should be out there for all to see.
>Well, there exists as you know a large literature of books pointing
>out biblical errancies and books answering them with
>counter-arguments. Much of the discussion requires a knowledge of
>biblical langauge and archaeology, and I don't think this newsgroup
>is the best place to achieve an academically sound evaluation of the
>literature. All I would say is that I have grown up with biblical
>scholars both Christian and non-Christian, and I can't accept your
>sweeping generalisation as expressed here.
OK, I'll give you some specifics (and forgive me that I don't
have the verse/chapter references). Genesis (?) tells a story
of Jacob causing sheep to produce spotted lambs because they
looked at spotted poplar when mating. Exodus (?) lists both
rabbits and rock badgers as cud chewers (they aren't). Many
old testament stories tell of armies of a million inflicting
casualty rates greater than that of the battle of the buldge.
One doesn't need to be an expert in archaeology to look at army
sizes the in modern and semi-modern world (American revolution
or Civil wars) to recognize that the sizes of the armies
reported in the old testament are exagerrations. One doesn't
have to be a biologist to know that rabbits aren't ruminents,
and that lamb coloring isn't effected by what the parent sheep
see. These statements are simply wrong.
As for "knowledge of Biblical language", that argument is a red
herring. When I say "The Bible has errors", I don't mean that
every book ever written with the title "Bible" attached to it
has errors. I mean this book (I hold up a Bible) written in
English, a language with which I am well acquanted, contains
errors as defined by an English Webster's dictionary. Whether
or not there might exist an inerrant version of the Bible somewhere
written in a langauge I (and 99% of Christians) can't read is
both conjecture and completely irrelevant.
When Christians say "The Bible is true", they can only be
talking (knowledgably) about the one they have read, ie, the
English version. Likewise, when I say it is flawed, that too
is the version to which I refer.
>> The claim that such-and-such belief should be
>> beyond rational analysis is the first mark of a charlaten, and at the
>> source of a great deal of misery in the world.
>I think you'll find that I wasn't excluding rational analysis at all.
>My point was that the *whole* of Christianity cannot be proved by
>rational analysis, though *much* of it can.
Well, that's better. Just which parts do you think can and cannot be
proven?
>> I am merely pointing out that the standard you would present
>> for Christianity is beneath it.
>This is Bernard Shaw-ism, isn't it? 'I won't believe in Christianity
>but I'll tell you how it should be run ...' :))) A great many
>Christians from peasants to professors have lived under the standard
>I sketched, though expressed it more lucidly I'm sure.
If it's Bernard Shawism, it's coincidental. I realize that a
lot of people have accepted xianity under the standard you
set. But a lot of people throughout history have accepted wide
assortments of untenable beliefs by all sorts of stanrdards.
The number of adherants in a belief has no bearing whatever on
its validity. I just think that if one is going to claim to
know the truth, and with the kind of certainty many xians
claim, about (need we even state this) the most important
questions humanity can ask, such a claim should be able to
withstand the most intense of scrutiny, and hold itself to the
highest, not lowest of standards.
This is sort of akin to one of my subjective disproofs of God.
A being who would torment his creation forever simply because
that creation refused to worship him (accept him as his savior,
whatever) is acting a lot more like an ignorant redneck than an
intelligent educated person, and it seems like a supreme being
would fall nearer the latter.
>> My challenge to Christianity is the same as for any other theory -
>> show that the evidence logically implies that it is PROBABLE. Does
>> this involve some subjectivity? Sure! But I can't get there even
>> with the most lenient of interpretations of the evidence. That is why
>> I am so critical of it, and why the fact that so many intelligent
>> educated people believe it fascinates me so.
>That's what I thought your position was. BTW How lenient is 'most
>lenient'? Would you give some examples of concessions you've made in
>this area that have failed you?
Sure. I recently debated a good friend on the rationality of
believing that Jesus rose from the dead, and I granted him the
following premises:
1) God exists
2) A man named Jesus lived around 1 AD and was executed by the Romans.
3) The Bible is internally consistent in every way.
Now a hardcore atheist would fight you on all of these (which I
would rate as conjecture, reasonable, and absurd,
respectively). But I granted them to reveal the what I see as the
weaknesses in
the case for Christianity. I simply cannot get there from here.
>Is it fair to say that you reject a supernatural element to religion
>that transcends human reason?
It is worse (in your view) than that. I reject the whole
notion of a "human" reason. Reason is the way reality works.
There is no doubt in my mind that if aliens ever landed on this
planet they would have the same system of logic that we do.
So in my view, the only thing that transcends reason is nonsense.
>You seem to be dismissing Lewis's
>'numinous' completely out of hand, without even bothering to discuss it.
I don't object to discussing it, although I have not read Lewis
extensively (MC and about half of TPoP is all). What is his view?
And the point of my "snark" comments was not to claim that
nothing was beyond reason, but rather to illustrate that before
one can have an intelligent discussion about something, one
must know what the things discussed are. Terms like "holy
spirit" are LITERRALLY meaningless to me, just like "snark".
Some atheists argue (Kai Nielson most prominent among them)
that all of God-talk is essentially meaningless. The terms
have relations to each other, but the entire system ultimately
is barren of meaning. Its like if I said "Snarks drink
meloncholy", it follows that snarks drink, and they don't drink
happiness (work with me here). But have I really said
anything? It's all, ultimately, gibberish.
>> And don't you see that if Jesus was merely a man your whole system
>> collapses? How can you see that as a trifle? Again, Christianity
>> itself seems to be trivialized by such talk.
>
>But I don't have to justify Jesus logically any more than I have to
>justify my wife logically. I believe that Jesus is alive and that he
>is knowable. That is the Christian faith. At that point it isn't even
>a system -- it's a relationship.
I guess, in the same sense a five-year-old has a "relationship
with Santa. If you say you believe by faith, that is your
business. It's just that that puts you on a par intellectually
with those who believed the Hale-Bopp comet had a spaceship
behind it by faith. Again, I would think a system that
represents the ultimate truth would merit a higher standard.
>Hang on, I just said I wasn't eager to avoid your postings, didn't I?
>And I didn't say I was unwilling to entertain objections.
Great. It's been fun so far.
>[Incidentally, recently you
>raised an eyebrow over my suggestion that your real name might be Mr
>Gunn. It was just a pleasantry, an elementary play on words ...
>pistol=gun ... no in-jokes or deeper meanings intended.]
Oh. There is a guy who submits to the Dr-Laura ng who uses a
psuedonym like that, and I agree with him a lot, so I thought
you thought I was him. I've been accused of being someone else
before, so I took your questin seriously and missed the joke.
Pistol
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:02:13 GMT, j4...@mindspring.com (John Lively)
wrote:
EVIL
>x-no-archive: yes
>pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>
>>On 6 Feb 1998 00:34:49 GMT, d...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Danny Pitt
>>Stoller) wrote:
>
>>>Okay, as long as we're on the topic of "the problem of evil," why don't
>>>we discuss some of the actual proposed solutions? Pistol, have you
>>>could have created a bunch of robots who would always do the right thing,
>>>admirable about it. By creating beings capable of choosing between right
>>>and wrong according to their will, God brought into existence a new good
>>>-- freely chosen good -- that could not have existed if free will hadn't
>>>been created. But, for free will to exist, there had to exist the
>>>possibility of evil. God therefore allowed evil to exist, because He
>>>recognized that the freely chosen good is valuable enough to justify the
>>>possibility of evil." Is there a problem?
>
>>Many:
>>
>>1) Evil is not required for free will. Its elimination simply
>>would reduce the possible choices. We would still have the
>>choice of all possible good choices, as well as neutral
>>choices.
>This doesn't ring true to me. "Evil" may not be required for free will, but
>"choice" is certainly necessary. To eliminate a category of choices is to rig
>the game in favor of certain outcomes.
Yes, but that is the case with all of those things about which
we claim to have "choices". There are always choices beyond
our implementation.
>> After all, the fact that we cannot fly does not mean
>>that we do not have freedom of movement.
>In point of fact, PistoL, we _can_ fly. Of course, in Man the organ of flight
>is the brain, rather than wings -- I'm surprised to find such a lapse in an
>admirer of Rand .
It wasn't a lapse, I was speaking quite literally. We cannot
fly by flapping our arms. But that fact does not change the
fact that we have freedom of choice of movement.
>>2b) "Remarkable or admirable to whom?"
>To us, of course. We are the ones with the faculty of judgement -- nothing can
>be admirable or remarkable to entities without such faculties.
NSS. But why should we even care?
>>2c) Given that we are not even close to being able to create
>>such robots, I'd certainly categorize such a feat as remarkable
>>and admirable. Why wouldn't you?
>I dispute your assumption that we are unable to create such robots -- have you
>ever seen a robotic riveter in action? Drills the correct sized hole, puts the
>right fastener in the right place -- all a function of its programming. The
>person who created the first one, I'll grant you, did something remarkable and
>admirable, but everybody else has been following in his footsteps.
I agree entirely, and in that limited sense we HAVE made such
creations. But I was thinking more along the lines of a Data or
Asimov-type robot, with tremendous range of thinking and
acting, but without the ability to do evil.
>>3) Why is a good act more good if done freely? When you feed a
>>starving bum, do you think it matters a whit to him whether you
>>did so via free-will, threat of punishment, or according to
>>programming?
>It may not matter to the bum, but it should to you -- or do you work equally
>well when given the choice of a whip across your back or a dollar in your
>pocket?
>
>Still working on the rest . . .
But we are not talking about what *I* personally want or think is
good.
We get back here to Daryl's question of just what it is we mean
when we say "good". It is certainly convenient to declare that
freedom is good. I certainly judge it to be so by MY
standards. But is it so by the Christian standards relevant
here? And is it SO much good as to outweigh the viscious evil
that comes with it? How do we even make such an evaluation?
Pistol
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:49:06 GMT, mart...@yahoo.com.nospam (Martin
Whitman) wrote:
EVIL
>On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:48:09 GMT, David R L Porter <david....@zetnet.co.uk>
>wrote:
>At this point, I cannot say for sure that certain areas of faith are not
>susceptable to logical proof. Lewis has demonstrated to me that faith is indeed
>perfectly logical. There are so many logical demonstrations of the rationality
>of belief. Truth would be rational -- by definition.
Geez, why do I feel like I'm being baited? :)
I'l bite - just what are these "logical demonstrations"?
>There is a misconception among beginning Christians, and "lite" Christians, that
>faith is a kind of wishful thinking; and for these people faith may very well be
>something like wishful thinking. But the idea that one cannot know, is a myth.
>You often hear older Christians, and the saints saying that they know, as Paul
>said: "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that
>which I've committed to Him until that Day." {II Timothy 1:12)
Some people say they "know" that they've been abducted by
flying saucers, others "know" than they've seen Elvis alive, yet
others "know" there is no god. Just how do you propose to
sperate those who REALLY know from those who merely make the
claim? The only way I know is through logical, scientific
analysis.
>Paul spoke of faith not as wishful thinking but as "evidence": "Now faith is the
>substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
And it is also the circularity of squares. :) I've seen
well-intended intelligent Christians tie themselves in knots
trying to explain EXACTLY what this line of gibberish means.
Care to take a whack at it?
>Obviously, the faith Jesus spoke of that could move mountains, had to be more
>than just a ray of hope. {Matthew 17:20} Even a little of it would bring
>amazing, concrete results.
Or maybe it was just a metaphor :).
>>What prompted me to ask the question was the mention of the Holy
>>Spirit in a recent post. Where indeed is the room for the numinous
>>here? Are the workings of the Holy Spirit susceptible to 'proof'?
>>What about the mysterious call of God, meaningless to those who
>>reject the necessary premise that God exists and communicates?
>
>Yes. If we answer this one "on its own terms" the discussion is over. If we
>allow the premise that God does not interact with His children, pretending that
>God can only be the result of logical operators in two dimensions, we have
>eliminated the real proof of His existence -- experience.
We are back to Elvis sightings and the alien abductions. They too
claim experience. Do you believe them? If not, why not?
>We are created beings, and the source of our being must be greater than our own
>being. We cannot "prove God" in the sense of isolating his essense and
>demonstrating its existence.
Your premise is false, and as you correctly pointed out, that
will often lead to erroneous conclusions. There is no
justification for the claim that "the source of our being must
be greater than our own". Of course, you have to explain what
you mean by "greater" for the claim to even have meaning.
(does that mean I'm jumping the gun a bit in claiming it's
false? Yep. :))
>We can experience God. That science has been around since the beginning of the
>human race. And it is a science. There is a way to experience God. Following
>that way, with a sincere heart, we will experience God. {Matthew 7:7}
I am really interesting to see if you can back any of these
remarkable claims with any evidence.
>I'm sure Pistol would try to convince you that calling his bluff is a form of
>abuse. I do not believe that it is, and even find his "whipped puppy" tactic
>rather trite. Those of us who refuse to dance to his tune cannot be blamed for
>his complaints of mistreatment.
(sigh) Why should we expect your conclusions about me be any
more accurate than any of the other blather you keep
splattering around? And you claim the nonbelievers are bitter?
>Further, those who give credibility to loaded arguments against belief -- like
>the one you mentioned above where experience of God is not allowed -- are not
>doing him or themselves any service.
They are if there is no god, a possibility you seem to have
eliminated from your world view. That is your business. But
if you expect any intelligent open-minded person to give your
claims that my arguments are "loaded", or that so-called
experience of God REALLY IS experience of said being, you'll
have to give us more to work with than your say so.
Aaron
In article <6buqdr$n...@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> >is everything (good, omnipotent, benevolent, loving) then the opposite of
> >that would be nothing. In other words, pure evil is in and of itself
> >non- existant... BUT any act of evil (or sin) is a movement towards
>
> This is an ancient and quite good account of evil, i.e. it is nothing
> positive but simply a distortion of the good. St. Gregory of Nyssa once made
> the argument that since we are created, and since creation is a change from
> non-existence to existence, then being changeable is built into the nature
> of humanity. Thus, we shall all change. The only question is whether it will
> be toward fuller likeness to God (i.e. the Good) or to being less like Him
> (i.e. Evil). Either direction is asymptotic in nature. That is if we go the
> direction of evil we never quite come to total non-existence(God made us and
> His Son died that we might live eternally). That is why damnation is
> eternal. Of course, so is salvation; where we shall become more and more
> like God, even though we shall never BE Him. That is why heaven is not a
> static, boring place.
> As to the problem of evil. It is inherent in the possibility of change. Of
> course, as Lewis stated in The Problem of Pain, for those who argue against
> God from the problem of evil there is the converse conundrum; i.e. the
> problem of good.
>
> Keith C. Wilkerson
But suppose that we were to argue that God is equivilant to existance.
That God is all that is there, the only thing there really is. That God
is not A being, but BEING itself. God is only a being in the sense of
being a state of being, and the ONLY state of being, or existing. Now if
we were to say this, then mortality would not be anything ELSE, since
there is no anything else, but only something less, a dissolving of what
is. Analogously, when a liquid is dissolved, its molecules, which were
connected before the dissolving, are now separated, so the substance
which is the only substance existant, seperates into the individual mind.
Hence, we are made in "God's image." Now evil by opposition would be
nothingness. The individual mind is obliged to make sense of its own
world, since it is separated from others, and in doing so, makes false
assumptions about the truth of its origin. These false assumptions are
called sin. And move the individual toward nothingness. Once the mind
can find the correct knowledge about its origin, it can act on that and
that is called virtue. But if its fellow minds, which it needs to make
up the whole mind, or God, are still making false assumptions and acting
on them, the mind that knows the truth finds it harder to act on because
of the digressing of its fellow minds, and wanting to stay with its
fellow minds is called temptation. Satan is the smallest mind, and is
therefore in a sense the most "individual". Now because God is
collective and Satan is individual, the mind which is ignorant of the
collective truth will tend to follow the Most Individual, or Satan. The
mind which comes to know the truth will follow the Most True, or God, but
that minds task is more difficult because of the resistance of all the
minds which are ignorant of the collective truth.
Wilkerson
Aaron wrote in message <887323928...@dejanews.com>...
>In article <6buqdr$n...@enews3.newsguy.com>,
>But suppose that we were to argue that God is equivilant to existance.
>That God is all that is there, the only thing there really is. That God
>is not A being, but BEING itself.
To this I can only say I would never argue that. As God is beyond any of our
conceptions of what His essence might be He is also beyond our conceptions
of existence. God is not all there is precisely because He chose to create.
Creation posits a dependent but distinct existence(mode of existence). I
said "precisely" above but in the sense that all such talk is analogical it
is not 100% accurate. It is true but not exhaustive.
Keith C. Wilkerson
David R L Porter
The message <34e37f9...@newshost.cyberramp.net>
from pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) contains these words:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:49:06 GMT, mart...@yahoo.com.nospam (Martin
> Whitman) wrote:
> EVIL
> >On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:48:09 GMT, David R L Porter <david....@zetnet.co.uk>
> >wrote:
But I didn't! Not any of what followed.
Please take care over quoting - in what is becoming a very crowded
post - so that people don't get attributed wrongly. We've almost all
done it on occasion, but we should all try not to. Nothing worse than
being called a blatherer when it wasn't your own blather being quoted ... :))))
Now if you *really* want to hear some blather, here are *my* views on
Bill Cl<snipped to save bandwidth>.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
In article <oOD23kbSWpj7-p...@srf-40.nbn.com>,
d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:56:35, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>
> + valdiity of a proof if I have some evidence on which to base
> + that conclusion. In the case of an area with which I am not
> + all that educated or familiar, I my have to depend on the
> + opinions of those I trust in those areas. The fallacy of the
> + argument from authority is the calim that something is true
> + necessarily because so-and-so says so. Opinions can still be
> + validly considered evidence, albeit evidence of a weak nature.
>
> OK, no problem with that. Less than none.
>
> +
> +..
> + than any of the most elevated minds on the subject accept, on
> + both sides of the aisle. You might expect none of the atheists
> + to accept them, although as I mentioned earlier, they could
> + still reject God on the evidenciary basis. But eve the better
> + Christian/deistic writers, such as RC Sproul (and a lesser
> + light, Dennis Prager), admit that the problem of evil has not
> + been resolved.
> Right, and the parallel to Fermat's Last Theorem, where there is a
> consensus, or at least a developing one, ends here. So the "can't be
> truth" applies to an argument that's in principle not understandable to
> yourself and also not understood by any convincing consensus of
> specialists. Fair enough.
>
> +
>
> --
> Dan Drake
> d...@dandrake.com
> http://www.dandrake.com/index.html
>
> Many things are not seen in their true nature and as they really are,
> unless they are seen as beautiful. Behavior is not intelligible, does
> not account for itself to the mind, and show the reason for its
> existing, unless it is beautiful.
> --Matthew Arnold
>
>
There is a "philosophy" -- even a Christian "sect" (not orthodoxy, of course)
which DOES "solve" entirely the problem of evil. It's called "Mormon"
Christianity. May I refer you to my own posts describing John Hick's EVIL AND
THE GOD OF LOVE on "alt.religion.mormon." Hick, a well-respected "orthodox"
Christian professor candidly admits after exhaustive review of the literature
and history that orthodox Christianity does NOT have any solution to the
"problem of evil" after all. But in his discussion Hick ADMITS there does
exist a real "solution" ("avoidance" he calls it) to that very important
problem, referring to J.S. Mill.
What I wish to note here is that J.S. Mill's "solution" to that problem is
interesting, but not at all the actual "divine revelation" given directly to
Joseph Smith which does fully solve that important problem. J.S. Mill in
England and Smith in New York were exact contemporaries. They never met each
other nor read each other's writings. Smith remains the ONLY Western
"prophet" in the Judeo/Christian tradition to have solved the problem of evil
via direct Divine revelation in a completely Christian (but not orthodox
Christian) context.
Smith is worth looking into, especially for atheists, who generally speaking
are right (and orthodox Christianity wrong) on the issue of the problem of
evil.
Respectfully,
Gerry L. Ensley.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
ma...@sonic.net
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
> There is a "philosophy" -- even a Christian "sect" (not orthodoxy, of course)
> which DOES "solve" entirely the problem of evil. It's called "Mormon"
> Christianity. May I refer you to my own posts describing John Hick's EVIL AND
> THE GOD OF LOVE on "alt.religion.mormon."
Thread name and dates? I didn't see anything in your Author Profile at DejaNews
that looked like this.
--
Mary
AJA
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:19:08 -0800, "ma...@sonic.net" <ma...@sonic.net>
wrote:
Thanks for the direct question above! Who appoints DejaNews as
repository of one's existence/thoughts/aspirations/being? A pet peeve
of mine, as you can tell, Mary. The excess of cataloging folks- apart
from dialog is UseNet sin? Little chunks of info may not the person
make? Just a small rant. :-) Trouble with sitting at these machines
instead of reaching out to know folks. Giving it a lot of thought
these days! Author Profile! How pompous of DejaNews! They never
shook MY hand or said a kind word to me, or asked me one blessed (or
otherwise) thing.
In haste, but wishing you all the best,
Ann
Daryl Gene
<big snip>
>We can all agree that building great structures of philosophy on the
>current ideas in science is a bad idea. (If Pistol disagrees, he'll let
>us know.) The question is whether there's anything that's fundamentally
>outside science, and yet is not just blather and (in the positivists'
>phrase) meaningless noise. Or,as you might prefer, sounding brass and
>the tinkling of cymbals. On that, it appears that I disagree with
>Pistol. But arguing the constant changes in the contents of scientific
>knowledge doesn't move us to a resolution.
>
>The funny thing is, nothing will lead us to a resolution. Can one prove
>scientifically that there things that are knowable and important but not
>testable scientifically? Not bloody likely, even if Goedel did something
>almost like that for math.
>
The axioms of science are not even provable scientifically. In fact science
is very good at amassing evidence (data pointing to a partucular conclusion)
but not well equiped for proof (the exclusion of all other possibilities) ; for
that we need math or logic or the exercise of the intuitive sense that
underlies both. As to wether or not this is "blather" that sort of depends on
your viewpoint. the Hindus have a term for all discussion of what we percieve
as reality who's spelling I do not know but sounds like prepancha: translates
as the meaningless chatter of fools or I guess "blather?". Wether you feel
this way or not dosen't really constitute an argument :-)
Daryl Gene
To simpilify reading I am deviding my replies to Pistol's
(pis...@cyberramp.net) response to my post
.>
>The existence of consciousness is self-evident. That is,
>even to argue against it forces one to acknowledge it. This
>CANNOT be said for God, and so the comparison fails from that.
>
>
>The existence of consciousness is self-evident. That is,
>even to argue against it forces one to acknowledge it. This
>CANNOT be said for God, and so the comparison fails from that.
If the existance of consciousness is self-evident why has most current
"scientific" theorising reduced it to nothing but a electro-chemical reaction
most likely occuring in or near the hypothalmus? Likewise volition is reduced
to an illusionary self-delusion to facilitate rapid decision making. Find me
current SCIENTIFIC evidence that consciouness exists (this self-evident stuff
sounds pretty mystical to me :-) ) .
It is the exercise of the same intuitive sense which provides us with these
insights into the axiomatic precursors to knowledge that allows the spritually
aware person to percieve God.
>
>Apply whatever label you want. I reject your theory
>simply because it is pure speculation, plain and simple. You
>hypothesize God as the source of volition based on ... nothing.
>I mean that literally. This is yet one more variation on the
>argument from ignorance. You reject all current theories on the
>source of volition. That's fine as far as it goes. You should
>simply say "I don't know" and move on. But you go too far.
>You take this universal ignorance on the subject, this
>nothingness of an explanation, and infer from that a license to
>invent whatever explanation suites your fancy. That is >unwarrented.
You still don't seem to understand the argument so I will try again to make
myself clearer. If I were to attribute to God something that I simply don't
know (the sorce of the energy for Quasars for example) or even something
unknowable(what is it like on the surface of a black hole) your point would be
meaningful. My point is that we are dealing with a whole different catagory
of existance. That there is no POSSIBLE explaination for volition in the
physical universe because we are dealing with a difference in kind from all
other occurances not simply a difference in degree. There is no permissable
explination for volition in the extant universe because if there were it would
not really exist, the universe being bound by laws hostile to it. So we must
find a logically constant sorce outside reality as we experience it. Since we
have a very old claimant which offers a reasonable explaination we have a
pretty good starting point for further investigation n'est pas? The actual
proof has to come from somewhere else but I have never found that is too
difficult to come by once you're looking in the right place.
>To illustrate my point, I'll for the sake of argument adopt a
>similar position to yours. I'll hypothesize a God identical to
>yours, responsible for everything you attribute to yours, with
>the following differences: He is infinitely EVIL, and when we
>are tortured in Hell-fire
>forever, whereas all the believers experience eternal bliss.
>Explain why your theory is more legitimate than mine. I say
>they are both pointless conjecture.
My theory, as you call it, has greater weight since there are substantial
changes in the outlook, behavior and character of those who follow God, on a
scale that only someone really, really resistant to that message would fail to
notice. These changes have been consistant over the cenuries. They are
substantally the only evidence (in a scientific sense) that God seems to permit
us now. It has its weaknesses Pistol since it relies on corruptable carriers,
but the Christian down the street carries the weight of the arguments. If he
is not what he should be then he will regret it, and if it hurts your
perspective to observe him I promise you one day he will weep because of it.
Daryl Gene
There is no difference in saying an argument or a person is stupid Pistol
you are simply using "charged " words to elicit a reaction and not adding
anything to your argument. Rand constantly pointed out that ridicule and
detraction are non arguments. They are directed not at uncovering the truth
but at casting the arguer in a bad light so they are indeed ad hominem.
Attributing another's arguments to some mental state (that unless you are
claiming psycic powers you haven't the slightest way of knowing) is precisely
the same. For example, if I were to say that I have descerned from
Psycological examination of your arguments that you are rejecting God and
because all such arguments stem from a oedipal-sexual ambivilence to one's
father;{extreme, granted but basically the same as saying wish-fulfillment} you
would not expect to find such arguments valid nor helpful.
As to my skin I am not offended by that line of argument but niether do I
condone it in logical discussion. I was really surprised that you reacted so
strongly to my original assertion that you (under certain circumstances) would
merit pity. That was an opinion not an argument, and not intrinsically
derogatory.
As to the posters in other groups, I no longer subscribe to alt.atheism
because I found the posts (on both sides) petty and boorish, not offensive.
(just an opinion again, not an argument).
P.S. He should have said non-believers are OFTEN bitter to be more correct.
Paul Andrew King
In article <6c2ge7$l10$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>,
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>Smith is worth looking into, especially for atheists, who generally speaking
>are right (and orthodox Christianity wrong) on the issue of the problem of
>evil.
I would recommend Smith's fiction (disguised as "translation" - a device
used by other fantasy authors, such as Robert E. Howard) to any atheists
who need a good laugh. At least those who find the idea of anyone taking
work of fantasy seriously funny (especially when said fantasy is written
as a bad pastiche of the KJV Bible !)
--
"Hullo clouds, hullo sky, hullo pile of severed human heads," said Major
Basil Fotherington-Thomas.
(Eugene Byrne & Kim Newman "Teddy-Bear's Picnic")
Replace "nospam" with "morat" to reply
Paul K.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
In article <34E4D4...@sonic.net>,
"ma...@sonic.net" <ma...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> >
> > There is a "philosophy" -- even a Christian "sect" (not orthodoxy, of
course)> > which DOES "solve" entirely the problem of evil. It's called
"Mormon"> > Christianity. May I refer you to my own posts describing John
Hick's EVIL AND> > THE GOD OF LOVE on "alt.religion.mormon."
>
> Thread name and dates? I didn't see anything in your Author Profile at
DejaNews > that looked like this.
>
> --
> Mary
>
Forgive me, I'm a newbie on the Net.
Go to "alt.religion.mormon" (both "old" and "new" database) under my presently
listed URL as well as my old URL <gee...@concentric.net> for anything posted
before this calendar year.
Come to think of it, you won't find a lengthy discussion by me of the
classical Problem of Evil and Mormon theology's "answer" to that problem --
merely some introductory remarks to that end. I fully intend to do a lengthy
work on that subject. But at present I've merely solicited onlookers to read
John Hick's EVIL AND THE GOD OF LOVE [one time textbook for introductory
philosophy classes at UCLA] to disabuse themselves of the traditional (false)
notion that orthodox Christianity HAS a solution to that important "problem."
It hasn't. Hick's exhaustive treatment of the scriptural, historical, and
[Eastern and Western] philosophical record proves it conclusively.
You can find my singular piece written so far probably by searching my name +
"theodicy" or + "John Hick."
If you've read Hick's work, let me know, and we can launch forth into the
plain Mormon Christian "solution" to that imporant problem eo instanti.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
In article <B10B6700...@morat.demon.co.uk>,
Have you any evidence to support your claim of the Book of Mormon being
"fantasy"? What about archaeological evidence of Ancient Hebrews in Tennessee
radiocarbon and scriptographically dated to about 100 A.D.? The stone
inscription is in Ancient Hebrew of the kind of script used in the Near East
around the time of the Bar Kochba Revolt. The author is Dr. Cyrus Gordon,
non-Mormon world authority on ancient Hebrew texts:
"The stone was carved either ca. A.D. 100 in the Old World, or aboard
ship, or in America by someone trained in the tradition of that [Old
Hebrew] script, some time after the refugees landed in what is now the
eastern United States. By the time of its interment in Bat Creek Mound
#3, it might have been passed down as an heirloom for several
generations. But the carbon-14 test proves that the burial took place
over seven centuries prior to Columbus' discovery in 1492. The
letter-forms imply cultural contact between American and Palestine ca.
A.D. 100. The inscription cannot be a modern forgery, on the one hand,
nor can it be pre-Christian on the other."
"There are traces of Jewish influence in pre-Columbian America. We
may single out the Tepatlaxco (Veracruz) Stele (ca. 100-300) showing a
Mayan wearing phylacteries; the arm windings are seven in number and
are followed by finger windings. This monument is noteworthy because
no scholar, in any field, has ever questioned its authenticity or
pre-Columbian date. To be sure, the AMERINDIAN EXPERTS DID NOT DETECT
THE OLD WORLD ORIGIN OF THE RITUAL DEPICTED AND VERY FEW ARE EVEN NOW
AWARE OF IT."
"Between 1935 and 1938, when I was stationed at Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore, I often visited the SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
in nearby Washington, where I met the elderly and influential dean of
American archaeology, Ales Hrdlicka. His DOGMA was that Old World man
entered Pre-Columbian American by ONLY ONE ROUTE: across the Bering
Strait. UNLESS A YOUNG ANTHROPOLOGIST SUBSCRIBED TO THAT VIEW, IT WAS
VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO GET A MUSEUM OR UNIVERSITY JOB IN
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGY OR ARCHAEOLOGY. THIS EXPLAINS SOME OF THE
INFLEXIBILITY IN THAT FIELD DOWN TO THE PRESENT. Gradually evidence
for Pacific crossings found its way into respectable circles, but
until now the denial of Atlantic crossings before Columbus and the
Vikings is still common in academia. McCullough has demonstrated that
AS LONG AS THE BAT CREEK INSCRIPTION WAS CONSIDERED CHEROKEE, NO ONE
QUESTIONED ITS AUTHENTICITY. It was only after I found it to be
Hebrew that the pundits began to brand it as a forgery. But the
laboratory tests in 1988 show that all the contents of the undisturbed
tomb were interred long before the // 77 // Vikings and Columbus
reached America, while the letter-forms establish the Imperial Roman
date of the script. Similarly, the lead content of the brass bracelets
supports the Roman date, once the modern date is ruled out."
"A Hebrew Inscription Authenticated," pp. 76-77, EMPHASIS ADDED.
". . . Not long ago, New World civilization was regarded as quite
independent of developments in the Old World. The // 78 // fact that
no pre-Columbian inscription in a Old World script or language was
regarded as authentic in respectable academic circles enabled the
independent inventionists to maintain that pre-Columbian civilizations
in America had arisen in isolation from the rest of the world. The
carbon-14 dating of the Bat Creek wood fragments ushers in a new era
in which anyone who is not an obscurantist will have to accept not just
the possibility but also the actuality of specific contact between the
Eastern and Western hemispheres long before Columbus and the Vikings.
THE FULL STORY MAY TAKE A LONG TIME TO UNFOLD, BUT THE FACT OF GLOBAL
DIFFUSION IS HERE TO STAY. Moreover, interrelations are two-way
streets. Apparent pre-Columbian influences of the Western Hemisphere
on the Eastern have been pointed out (mainly, but far from
exclusively, by amateurish enthusiasts) and disregarded, if not
discredited. THE HISTORIC FACTS OF WEST-TO-EAST AS WELL AS
EAST-TO-WEST DIFFUSION ACROSS BOTH OCEANS WILL FORCE BLIND DENIAL TO
GIVE WAY TO OPEN-MINDEDNESS. THE AUTHENTICATION OF THE BAT CREEK
INSCRIPTION IS A MILESTONE IN THE PROCESS OF SIMULATING A CREDIBLE
UNIFIED GLOBAL HISTORY."
"A Hebrew Inscription Authenticated," pp. 77-78, EMPHASIS ADDED.
According to William Hamblin, ancient American Indians had a regular water
traffic up and down the Mississippi Valley during Book of Mormon times.
"An examination of a map of North America shows that it is possible to
sail along the coast of Mexico, up the Mississippi River, and then up
the Ohio River to within less than one hundred miles of the New York
hill where the plates were buried. Trails and waterways along these
major rivers have existed for several thousand years. Sorenson provides
a sixteenth-century example of someone walking a similar route in less
than a year;59 Moroni had thirty-five years between the final battles of
the Nephites and when he buried the plates.60 Thus, the plates could
have been transported by canoe to New York, along well-used waterways of
the Hopewell Indians (who flourished c. 200 B.C. to A.D. 400).61"
Hamblin's footnote # 59 cites Sorenson's "An Ancient American Setting,"
p. 45.
Hamblin's footnote # 61 states the following:
"61. For a map of American Indian civilizations in the Mississippi
River valley at the time of Moroni, see Michael Coe, Dean Snow, and
Elizabeth Benson, Atlas of Ancient America (New York: Facts on File,
1986), 51, where it shows that the Hopewell archaeological complex
extended from Louisiana to New York along the Mississippi and Ohio
rivers. Analysis of various artifacts has demonstrated that there was
extensive trade along these river systems in the fifth century A.D.;
Brian M. Fagan, Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent
(New York: Thames and Hudson, 1991), 366-67, 370-76, 392-94."
see William Hamblin at: http://www.farmsresearch.com/critic/critic04.htm
Let's be fair to the actually discovered archaeological evidence. It
exists. and it proves conclusively that ancient Hebrew mariners did, in
fact and in demonstrable deed, sail to the New World (Tennessee) about 100
A.D. The latter does not necessarily "prove" the historicity of the B of M
itself, but it does "prove" the accuracy and actual history of ancient Hebrew
mariners EXACTLY LIKE those mentioned in the B of M.
That's "archaeological evidence" supporting the story of the Book of
Mormon, if not the B of M itself. We don't know, of course, if the Tennessee
Ancient Hebrews were part of the ancient Hebrew marine immigrations
to the New World mentioned in the B of M, or not. Bat Creek Mound #3, Loudon
County, Tennessee is not conclusive on the B of M itself, but it in fact
exists to show that the B of M may not be "fantasy" at all.
I happen to share non-Mormon Dr. Cyrus Gordon's optimism that the
archaeological community will eventually abandon its anti-Mormon bias,
acknowledge ancient mariner excursions from Old World to New World and New
World to Old World, and help establish the truth of "A CREDIBLE UNIFIED GLOBAL
HISTORY."
It's interesting that you've apparently ignored the very purpose for which I
initially mentioned the "problem of evil" in the first place, i.e. Mormon
Christian theology's singular ability to "solve" or "avoid" (in John Hick's
terms) that significant and otherwise intractable "problem" -- a problem
which continues to baffle all other religious philosophies on this earth
[except some of the "nuttier" ones, such as Christian Science and the
mind-science cults, which tell us with a straight face that "evil simply does
not exist" in this world controlled by an All-good and All-powerful God!].
ki...@earthlink.net
In article <34E1D7...@bioc.rice.edu>,
The 'problem of evil' is directed primarily at Christians, or anyone (such as
some deists) who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God.
Pantheists, monists, polytheists, or Gladysians need not apply.
Peter Kirby <ki...@earthlink.net>
XTIANITY list owner, alt.atheism atheist #16
Visit my home page: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/
Jeff Wilson
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:40:12 -0800, Peter Kirby
<ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
>In his _Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting_, Daniel C.
>Dennett makes an interesting point. It is that nearly all arguments for
>'free will' uncritically rely upon such 'intuition pumps' against the horrors
>of any alternative. "And in fact there are a host of analogies to be found
>in the literature: not having free will would be somewhat like being in
>prison, or being hypnotized, or being paralyzed, or being a puppet, or..."
>(ibid., p. 5).
>
>But what is the reasoning behind these caricatures? Cannot a being with
>'free will' be in prison? And cannot one without have a pleasant existence?
I've made a note of that book so I can pick it up. Thanks for
mentionint it. I've read a couple of Dennett's books but not that
one. Surprisingly, I don't remember anything he specifically said
about free will, though it seems it would have been hard to
avoid considering the nature of his material. On the other hand,
I guess I would not have noticed if he held the same view as I do
and didn't make a big deal about it in the books of his I have read.
I'll be surprised and delighted if I ever see a good argument
that there's such a thing as free will, since I've never seen one
yet. I'm an atheist on the score of free will myself. It seems to
me an insupportable idea, and I'm amazed that so many people
believe it exists. Everything people do proceeds from their
makeup+environment or from chance (or from a combination).
Is there space left to fit in another possibility for what motivates
people? I don't see any. Neither of those two admit of free will.
Of course, without free will, the problem of evil is moot.
I guess I would define free will as "the possibility that a person
may choose an action independently of the forces acting on him
from within and without (possibly including bare chance)."
By "forces" I mean purely physical forces, such as the electricity
that drives the brain. Is that not other people's definition?
Perhaps my understanding of free will is different from other
people's, and that's why I can't see how people (other than
theists) can maintain that free will exists.
--
Please remove the two capital X's from my e-mail address before replying via e-mail.
(They are an attempt to thwart unsolicited commercial mail.)
Paul Andrew King
In article <6c521l$787$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>,
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
>In article <B10B6700...@morat.demon.co.uk>,
> pa...@nospam.demon.co.uk (Paul Andrew King) wrote:
>>
>> In article <6c2ge7$l10$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>,
>> gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>>
>> >Smith is worth looking into, especially for atheists, who generally
>speaking> >are right (and orthodox Christianity wrong) on the issue of the
>problem of> >evil.
>>
>> I would recommend Smith's fiction (disguised as "translation" - a device
>> used by other fantasy authors, such as Robert E. Howard) to any atheists
>> who need a good laugh. At least those who find the idea of anyone taking
>> work of fantasy seriously funny (especially when said fantasy is written
>> as a bad pastiche of the KJV Bible !)
>>
>
>Have you any evidence to support your claim of the Book of Mormon being
>"fantasy"?
Just read the book. It should be obvious. The references to fauna not
present in America at the supposed time of the events, for instance is
rather conclusive. The way the Lamanites act as a wierd hybrid of Biblical
Hebrews and stereotyped "injuns" is pretty amusing, too.
What about archaeological evidence of Ancient Hebrews in Tennessee
>radiocarbon and scriptographically dated to about 100 A.D.?
*What* evidence ?
The stone
>inscription is in Ancient Hebrew of the kind of script used in the Near East
>around the time of the Bar Kochba Revolt. The author is Dr. Cyrus Gordon,
>non-Mormon world authority on ancient Hebrew texts:
>
> "The stone was carved either ca. A.D. 100 in the Old World, or aboard
> ship, or in America by someone trained in the tradition of that [Old
> Hebrew] script, some time after the refugees landed in what is now the
> eastern United States. By the time of its interment in Bat Creek Mound
> #3, it might have been passed down as an heirloom for several
> generations. But the carbon-14 test proves that the burial took place
> over seven centuries prior to Columbus' discovery in 1492. The
> letter-forms imply cultural contact between American and Palestine ca.
> A.D. 100. The inscription cannot be a modern forgery, on the one hand,
> nor can it be pre-Christian on the other."
>
That hardly supports the BoM, which has a group of Hebrews from centuries
earlier arriving in America.
>
> "There are traces of Jewish influence in pre-Columbian America. We
> may single out the Tepatlaxco (Veracruz) Stele (ca. 100-300) showing a
> Mayan wearing phylacteries; the arm windings are seven in number and
> are followed by finger windings. This monument is noteworthy because
> no scholar, in any field, has ever questioned its authenticity or
> pre-Columbian date. To be sure, the AMERINDIAN EXPERTS DID NOT DETECT
> THE OLD WORLD ORIGIN OF THE RITUAL DEPICTED AND VERY FEW ARE EVEN NOW
> AWARE OF IT."
Oh, please. This is the same standard of evidence which links the Mayans
with Egypt because they built pyramids.
[...]
>
>According to William Hamblin, ancient American Indians had a regular water
>traffic up and down the Mississippi Valley during Book of Mormon times.
>
> "An examination of a map of North America shows that it is possible to
> sail along the coast of Mexico, up the Mississippi River, and then up
> the Ohio River to within less than one hundred miles of the New York
> hill where the plates were buried. Trails and waterways along these
> major rivers have existed for several thousand years. Sorenson provides
> a sixteenth-century example of someone walking a similar route in less
> than a year;59 Moroni had thirty-five years between the final battles of
> the Nephites and when he buried the plates.60 Thus, the plates could
> have been transported by canoe to New York, along well-used waterways of
> the Hopewell Indians (who flourished c. 200 B.C. to A.D. 400).61"
>
>Hamblin's footnote # 59 cites Sorenson's "An Ancient American Setting,"
>p. 45.
You call *this* evidence that the BoM isn't fantasy ?
>
>Hamblin's footnote # 61 states the following:
>
> "61. For a map of American Indian civilizations in the Mississippi
> River valley at the time of Moroni, see Michael Coe, Dean Snow, and
> Elizabeth Benson, Atlas of Ancient America (New York: Facts on File,
> 1986), 51, where it shows that the Hopewell archaeological complex
> extended from Louisiana to New York along the Mississippi and Ohio
> rivers. Analysis of various artifacts has demonstrated that there was
> extensive trade along these river systems in the fifth century A.D.;
> Brian M. Fagan, Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent
> (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1991), 366-67, 370-76, 392-94."
>
>
>see William Hamblin at: http://www.farmsresearch.com/critic/critic04.htm
>
This isn't archaeological evidence fot the BoM, either.
>
>Let's be fair to the actually discovered archaeological evidence. It
>exists. and it proves conclusively that ancient Hebrew mariners did, in
>fact and in demonstrable deed, sail to the New World (Tennessee) about 100
>A.D. The latter does not necessarily "prove" the historicity of the B of M
>itself, but it does "prove" the accuracy and actual history of ancient Hebrew
>mariners EXACTLY LIKE those mentioned in the B of M.
The Bat Creek stone - which is still disputed - is the only evidence you've
got. And it hardly deals with all of the major problems of the BoM.
>
>That's "archaeological evidence" supporting the story of the Book of
>Mormon, if not the B of M itself. We don't know, of course, if the Tennessee
>Ancient Hebrews were part of the ancient Hebrew marine immigrations
>to the New World mentioned in the B of M, or not. Bat Creek Mound #3, Loudon
>County, Tennessee is not conclusive on the B of M itself, but it in fact
>exists to show that the B of M may not be "fantasy" at all.
Try reading it again.
>
>I happen to share non-Mormon Dr. Cyrus Gordon's optimism that the
>archaeological community will eventually abandon its anti-Mormon bias,
>acknowledge ancient mariner excursions from Old World to New World and New
>World to Old World, and help establish the truth of "A CREDIBLE UNIFIED GLOBAL
>HISTORY."
Gorden, just possibly could be right - or partly right. The BoM ? never.
>It's interesting that you've apparently ignored the very purpose for which I
>initially mentioned the "problem of evil" in the first place, i.e. Mormon
>Christian theology's singular ability to "solve" or "avoid" (in John Hick's
>terms) that significant and otherwise intractable "problem" -- a problem
>which continues to baffle all other religious philosophies on this earth
>[except some of the "nuttier" ones, such as Christian Science and the
>mind-science cults, which tell us with a straight face that "evil simply does
>not exist" in this world controlled by an All-good and All-powerful God!].
I'm not surprised that Mormon theology avoids some of the problems of
Christian theology. They have the advantage of coming later and being able
shape their religion as they went.
ma...@sonic.net
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> > >
> > > There is a "philosophy" -- even a Christian "sect" (not orthodoxy, of
> course)> > which DOES "solve" entirely the problem of evil. It's called
> "Mormon"> > Christianity.
Found a summary of "Hicks' Theodicy" online at:
http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/hick.html
Is it accurate?
Mary
--
Keep Oz, Tarzan, and Avonlea free on the Net!
Email opposition to the "Copyright Extension Bill" (HR 2589) in House
Judiciary Committee:
mailto:mtme...@hr.house.gov | mailto:zoe...@lofgren.house.gov
mailto:mel...@hr.house.gov | mailto:nad...@hr.house.gov
mailto:nint...@hr.house.gov | mailto:jcon...@hr.house.gov
mailto:talk...@hr.house.gov | mailto:bin...@hr.house.gov
mailto:can...@hr.house.gov | mailto:sens...@hr.house.gov
More info: http://www.sonic.net/mary/housejud97.html
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
In article <34E742...@sonic.net>,
First of all, KUDOS to your research skills. Why didn't I see that website?
Thanks for pointing me to it. I dowloaded the entire website! (Notice in
that same Colorado series on J. Hick et al. a paper on Hick's "pluralism,"
i.e. from Hick's other works one comes to see that ultimately Hick turns out
to be more Buddhist than orthodox Christian in his analysis of theodicy.)
The short answer to your question above, is "Yes," but I've only glanced at
the Hick "theodicy" paper and haven't re-read my (paperback) EVIL AND THE GOD
OF LOVE (there are at least two slightly different editions thereof I'm aware
of, by the way; I have both, but haven't indulged by desire to compare and
contrast them as yet).
In Hick's "Irenaean theodicy" we find Mormon Christianity at its best.
Indeed, there are Mormon Christian scriptures (1840's, Nauvoo,
Illinois, revealed to Joseph Smith) supporting such a (modernly termed)
"Irenaean theodicy" or "soulmaking" theodicy. Orthodox Christianity, which is
entirely Augustinian, cannot allow such modern "Irenaean" novelties. Indeed,
Hick's ultimate rejection of orthodox "Augustinian" principles in substitution
for "Irenaean" principles is tantamount to what Mormon Christians would call
"apostasy" of the structural basis of orthodox Christianity away from Jesus'
own original (Irenaean) teachings. Too bad it took someone as brilliant as
Hick to locate such a structural error -- and 1800 years too late!
Nuts, I'm frutstated for lack of time; I must begin teaching criminal law at
night (a 2nd job parttime) this week and won't have sufficient time to devote
to this important subject. Thanks, again, for turning me on to that "nice"
website.
I'll try to "answer" some of the points made in that Hick "theodicy" paper as
time permits. Feel free to do the same thing yourself.
You know, no doubt, that such a limited, summarized paper can't hold a candle
to Hick's original work itself, EVIL AND THE GOD OF LOVE. Check it out of a
library, if you have to. It's worth your time.
Respectfully,
Gerry L. Ensley.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
Bancroft Gracey
In article <19980214115...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, Daryl Gene (dary...@aol.com) writes:
>To simpilify reading I am deviding my replies to Pistol's
>(pis...@cyberramp.net) response to my post
>.>
>>The existence of consciousness is self-evident. That is,
>>even to argue against it forces one to acknowledge it. This
>>CANNOT be said for God, and so the comparison fails from that.
>>
>>
>
>>The existence of consciousness is self-evident. That is,
>>even to argue against it forces one to acknowledge it. This
>>CANNOT be said for God, and so the comparison fails from that.
>
>If the existance of consciousness is self-evident why has most current
>"scientific" theorising reduced it to nothing but a electro-chemical reaction
>most likely occuring in or near the hypothalmus? Likewise volition is reduced
>to an illusionary self-delusion to facilitate rapid decision making. Find me
>current SCIENTIFIC evidence that consciouness exists (this self-evident stuff
>sounds pretty mystical to me :-) ) .
Umm... (a) no, it hasn't, and (b) quantum physics. :-)
'Science' hasn't actually got round to _defining_ 'consciousness' in
this sense, much less locating/explaining it. (Don't confuse
'consciousness' with the operation of the brain; it seems
reasonable to assume that a brain is required for 'consciousness',
but a quick glance over any natural history will suggest that it
isn't sufficient, by itself.) And any would-be particle physicist
can tell you about experiments that work differently depending on
whether the experiment is 'observed' (by a self-aware observer) or
not...
-bpg-
Bancroft Gracey
In article <19980214110...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Daryl Gene (dary...@aol.com) writes:
>
>
><big snip>
>>We can all agree that building great structures of philosophy on the
>>current ideas in science is a bad idea. (If Pistol disagrees, he'll let
>>us know.)
I'll just jump in & say I disagree anyway. <g>
>> The question is whether there's anything that's fundamentally
>>outside science, and yet is not just blather and (in the positivists'
>>phrase) meaningless noise. Or,as you might prefer, sounding brass and
>>the tinkling of cymbals. On that, it appears that I disagree with
>>Pistol. But arguing the constant changes in the contents of scientific
>>knowledge doesn't move us to a resolution.
>>
>>The funny thing is, nothing will lead us to a resolution. Can one prove
>>scientifically that there things that are knowable and important but not
>>testable scientifically? Not bloody likely, even if Goedel did something
>>almost like that for math.
>>
> The axioms of science are not even provable scientifically. In fact science
>is very good at amassing evidence (data pointing to a partucular conclusion)
>but not well equiped for proof (the exclusion of all other possibilities) ; for
>that we need math or logic or the exercise of the intuitive sense that
>underlies both.
PMFJI, but... Correction: logic is a subject within mathematics, and
mathematics, by its nature(s), underpins all science - including its
axioms. It's the fundamental axioms (no, that's not tautology) of
mathematics that can't be proved, iirc.
Can't see where intuition comes into the equation. Great
problem-solving tool, if used correctly, but completely incapable
of proof. Faith, yes; proof, no.
-bpg-
The Kurths
ki...@earthlink.net wrote in message
<6c5qf5$kan$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>...
>In article <34E1D7...@bioc.rice.edu>,
>
>The 'problem of evil' is directed primarily at Christians, or
anyone (such as
>some deists) who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent God.
>
>Pantheists, monists, polytheists, or Gladysians need not
apply.
>
I don't quite agree, although I think I understand what you're
trying to get at. The "problem of evil" is, in reality,
directed primarily at all *thinking* human beings, Christian
and heathen alike.
But along the lines that I believe you were suggesting, the
atheists, pantheists, monists, polytheists, or Gladysians have
their own special problem to deal with - the "problem of good".
It's a problem that apparently the "thinking atheists" (surely
an oxymoron if ever there was one) don't feel comfortable
grappling with, or else they aren't even sufficiently bright to
recognize that there is a problem for them to grapple with.
Given Man's selfish nature, given his alleged (in the mind of
the atheist) Darwinian "survival of the fittest", why do we
observe *good* in the world? Whence *its* origin?
Pistol
On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 06:23:05 GMT, Xjmw...@Xhooked.netX (Jeff Wilson)
wrote:
> I'll be surprised and delighted if I ever see a good argument
>that there's such a thing as free will, since I've never seen one
>yet. I'm an atheist on the score of free will myself. It seems to
>me an insupportable idea, and I'm amazed that so many people
>believe it exists. Everything people do proceeds from their
>makeup+environment or from chance (or from a combination).
>Is there space left to fit in another possibility for what motivates
>people? I don't see any. Neither of those two admit of free will.
>
> Of course, without free will, the problem of evil is moot.
Without free will, everything you say and "think" is moot. If your
opinions are NOt the result of a free wil, making decisions, but
instead is the result of a programming by the environment, then why
should anyone belief there is any value to any of it. you are simply
a robot spitting out what you have been programmed to say.
The existence of free will is self evident in this respect. You
cannot make a convincing argument against it, because that same
argument strips you of any credibility.
Pistol
>I don't quite agree, although I think I understand what you're
>trying to get at. The "problem of evil" is, in reality,
>directed primarily at all *thinking* human beings, Christian
>and heathen alike.
>
>But along the lines that I believe you were suggesting, the
>atheists, pantheists, monists, polytheists, or Gladysians have
>their own special problem to deal with - the "problem of good".
>It's a problem that apparently the "thinking atheists" (surely
>an oxymoron if ever there was one)
HA! Given that I've met a ton of idiots in my life and 100% of them
were believers, whereas the thinkers were split between the camps,
your statement strikes me as absolutely absurd. You'll never catch an
atheist responding to an argument with "I just believe". THAT idiotic
nonthinking response is the sole property of the Christian side of the
debates.
>don't feel comfortable
>grappling with, or else they aren't even sufficiently bright to
>recognize that there is a problem for them to grapple with.
Or maybe they are sufficiently brighter than YOU to recognize that
your so-called "problem" is a lesser mind playing semantic games. Of
course, an ego such as yours would never consider such a possiblity.
>Given Man's selfish nature, given his alleged (in the mind of
>the atheist) Darwinian "survival of the fittest",
"Alleged" in the evidence of the history of species.
>why do we
>observe *good* in the world? Whence *its* origin?
It's "origin" is in the evaluation of the minds of humans, who use the
term to describe those events and circumstances which meet with their
approval.
Any more "tough" questions?
Pistol
On 12 Feb 1998 18:10:20 GMT, d...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Danny Pitt
Stoller) wrote:
>Aaron (azc...@is4.nyu.edu) wrote:
>: Ok, ok. Why does evil exist? Here's one possible answer: It doesn't.
>: WAIT! WAIT! BEFORE YOU START FLAMEING, LISTEN TO MY LOGIC, FIRST. If God
>: is everything (good, omnipotent, benevolent, loving) then the opposite of
>: that would be nothing. In other words, pure evil is in and of itself
>: non- existant... BUT any act of evil (or sin) is a movement towards
>: nothingness, or a diSINtigration, if you will. For if God is defined as
>: a being of pure love, or pure happiness and goodness, then evil is not
>: some other force, but simply less of that love, happiness, goodness.
>: Evil is loss of those good elements, just like when you lose a loved one,
>: you feel like something bad(or evil) happened.
>
>Aaron, that's a perfectly reasonable point of view, and one that has been
>discussed on this ng before. But it doesn't address the question. It
>just plays around with the semantics of the word "exist." If someone
>asked why there is cold, and you responded that there is no cold because
>cold is just an absence of heat, the original questioner would merely
>rephrase the question and ask why heat is sometimes absent. If you
>claimed that darkness doesn't "exist" because it is merely absence of
>light, that doesn't help us to understand why there is darkness. Evil is
>something that we experience, it is an aspect of the world that must be
>explained, whatever its ontological status.
Amen brother!
Pistol
On 14 Feb 1998 11:03:53 GMT, dary...@aol.com (Daryl Gene) wrote:
>
>
><big snip>
>>We can all agree that building great structures of philosophy on the
>>current ideas in science is a bad idea. (If Pistol disagrees, he'll let
>>us know.) The question is whether there's anything that's fundamentally
>>outside science, and yet is not just blather and (in the positivists'
>>phrase) meaningless noise. Or,as you might prefer, sounding brass and
>>the tinkling of cymbals. On that, it appears that I disagree with
>>Pistol. But arguing the constant changes in the contents of scientific
>>knowledge doesn't move us to a resolution.
>>
>>The funny thing is, nothing will lead us to a resolution. Can one prove
>>scientifically that there things that are knowable and important but not
>>testable scientifically? Not bloody likely, even if Goedel did something
>>almost like that for math.
>>
> The axioms of science are not even provable scientifically. In fact science
>is very good at amassing evidence (data pointing to a partucular conclusion)
>but not well equiped for proof (the exclusion of all other possibilities) ; for
>that we need math or logic or the exercise of the intuitive sense that
>underlies both. As to wether or not this is "blather" that sort of depends on
>your viewpoint.
It isn't blather, but it DOES make a common mistake with regard to the
word "proof". Just because you can't prove something 100% doesn't
mean you have faith and nothing else ot go on. This amassing of
evidence pointing to a particular conclusion you mention above is a
way of increasing the probability that a certain theory is true, at
the expense of other theories. For all practical purposes, if you
prove that something is 99% likely, you HAVE proved it to be true, for
almost all our knowledge is probabilistic.
Daryl Gene
> pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>Mon, Feb 16, 1998 11:25 EST
Where you get me wrong Pistol is that you think I don't respect or appreciate
Science, in fact it was always my favorite subject in school ( I was going to
major in astronomy but couldn't get the prerequisite classes into my schedule).
But I don't worship it and simply take its current pronouncements on faith as
a lot of people do. What I want to address here is the difference between the
kind of proof you have in the areas of math and logic and scientific "proof".
One is absolute and unalterable and one is subject to refinement as our
understanding increases as our data base expands. I think this is also true of
Theology so don't assume I feel this weakens scientific percepts.
The problem is many don't destinguish "hard science" based on observation
and testing and "soft" science based on modeling and hypothesis. Your beloved
"Big Bang" has some bugs that even the more venturesome astrophysisists feel
need more explanition and Evolutionary theory has shifted far away from
Darwin's "survival of the fittest" idea to emphasize geographic seperation and
isolation. I am not saying this invilidates the original idea but it opens
the door to the possibility that an enlightened interpretation of scientific
ideas and growing understanding of the nature of God quite possibly could grow
nearer (or not, who knows). If you wish to limit scientific theory and
eliminate these speculative, model based hypotheses from your argumentation I
doubt we would have nearly as much to argue about.
Jeff Wilson
On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:09:10 GMT, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 06:23:05 GMT, Xjmw...@Xhooked.netX (Jeff Wilson)
>wrote:
>
>
>> I'll be surprised and delighted if I ever see a good argument
>>that there's such a thing as free will, since I've never seen one
>>yet. I'm an atheist on the score of free will myself. It seems to
>>me an insupportable idea, and I'm amazed that so many people
>>believe it exists. Everything people do proceeds from their
>>makeup+environment or from chance (or from a combination).
>>Is there space left to fit in another possibility for what motivates
>>people? I don't see any. Neither of those two admit of free will.
>>
>> Of course, without free will, the problem of evil is moot.
>
>Without free will, everything you say and "think" is moot. If your
>opinions are NOt the result of a free wil, making decisions, but
>instead is the result of a programming by the environment, then why
>should anyone belief there is any value to any of it. you are simply
>a robot spitting out what you have been programmed to say.
There's still value, though there's no absolute value. But there
never was any absolute value, in my view: that was just illusion.
After you shed the illusion, the world is not really any different.
You can still act out you desires and your feelings of brotherhood,
just as you did before. You just can no longer pretend that it's
of any consequence to the universe or to some deity.
>
>The existence of free will is self evident in this respect. You
>cannot make a convincing argument against it, because that same
>argument strips you of any credibility.
The fact that you might not like the implications of a proposition
does not automatically make the proposition false. Watch out for
that phrase "self-evident": it's a dead giveaway that what it refers
to cannot be defended. The credibility of the argument I made,
which you have not addressed, does not depend on my personal
credibility. My point was that "free will" necessarily involves
something inherent in people which is independent of the laws of
physics. There is no evidence of such a thing, and even if there
were, it would have to be either subject to other laws or random.
I see no other possibilities. "Free will" is an illusion.
You know, this isn't anywhere near as terrible a prospect as you
make it out to be. Without believing in "free will", you're no worse
off than you were before.
-----
Below is a passage from Voltaire's very worthwhile (still, after
all these years and changes in physics) argument against
"free will" in the Philsophical Dictionary, under "free will".
Someone cries: "If all this is true, all things are only machines,
everything in the universe is subjected to eternal laws." Well,
would you have everything subject to a million blind caprices?
Either everything is a necessary consequence of the nature of
things, or everything is the effect of the eternal order of an
absolute master. In either case we are only cogs in the machine
of the world.
(Of course, we've learned about quantum mechanics since
Voltaire's day, so the "million blind caprices" appear to play
a role after all. But they're blind caprices, not "free will".
Voltaire's position is undamaged.)
ma...@sonic.net
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
> In article <34E742...@sonic.net>,
> "ma...@sonic.net" <ma...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> > Found a summary of "Hicks' Theodicy" online at:
> > http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/hick.html
>
Not at all, it's all in Alta Vista.... :-)
> (Notice in
> that same Colorado series on J. Hick et al. a paper on Hick's "pluralism,"
> i.e. from Hick's other works one comes to see that ultimately Hick turns out
> to be more Buddhist than orthodox Christian in his analysis of theodicy.)
>
> In Hick's "Irenaean theodicy" we find Mormon Christianity at its best.
> Indeed, there are Mormon Christian scriptures (1840's, Nauvoo,
> Illinois, revealed to Joseph Smith) supporting such a (modernly termed)
> "Irenaean theodicy" or "soulmaking" theodicy. Orthodox Christianity, which is
> entirely Augustinian, cannot allow such modern "Irenaean" novelties.
What great new words this week!
Theodicy -- like /Problem of Pain/
Irenaean -- like /Mere Christianity/, ie HFCs or what we'd now call 'common
threads'.
Alta Vista didn't find much on 'Irenaean'; my OED shows it from 1500s or so as
describing a very general method, ie peace-making through finding agreements
instead of disagreements.
Now, pinning down "Irenean Theodicy" to mean this one particular doctrine, ie
no-fault 'vale of soulmaking' -- which doesn't sound exactly like a common
factor.... When did that usage begin? Is there an Irenean Pope to say which
doctrines can be called "Irenean"? :-)
Er, that is, it's a great word, and sounds like a great doctrine ... but I'm not
sure the two go together. Wouldn't the Irenean lose its savor on the modern
overnight?
Anyway, as to the 'no-fault soul-making', that does sound promising. If you add
pre-existence during which the souls volunteer for the vale, it would solve a great
many difficulties, wouldn't it?
>
> Nuts, I'm frutstated for lack of time;
Me too.
> I'll try to "answer" some of the points made in that Hick "theodicy" paper as
> time permits. Feel free to do the same thing yourself.
Why not bring it really on topic by comparing it to Lewis' /Problem of Pain/?
>
> You know, no doubt, that such a limited, summarized paper can't hold a candle
> to Hick's original work itself, EVIL AND THE GOD OF LOVE. Check it out of a
> library, if you have to. It's worth your time.
I'd rather start with Epictetus or somebody. How does Hick compare with them? What
did Boethius say about it? (Lewis described B as 'wanting to concentrate on the
areas where he could say 'we' ', ie the areas of agreement bewteen Christians and
(rather pale and outworn by that time?) Pagans.
Nick Matthewsen
><6c5qf5$kan$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>...
>>In article <34E1D7...@bioc.rice.edu>,
>>
>>The 'problem of evil' is directed primarily at Christians, or
>anyone (such as
>>some deists) who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient,
>omnibenevolent God.
>>
>>Pantheists, monists, polytheists, or Gladysians need not
>apply.
>>
>trying to get at. The "problem of evil" is, in reality,
>directed primarily at all *thinking* human beings, Christian
>and heathen alike.
Nope. The problem of evil is only relevant to those who, because of
other beliefs, might have reason to expect a benevolent universe. At
the very least, those who believe in a benevolent, omniscient,
omnipotent deity find that they have some "explaining to do" in order
to reconcile this belief with the existence of ebola, earthquake
fatalities, and so forth.
>But along the lines that I believe you were suggesting, the
>atheists, pantheists, monists, polytheists, or Gladysians have
>their own special problem to deal with - the "problem of good".
>It's a problem that apparently the "thinking atheists" (surely
>an oxymoron if ever there was one) don't feel comfortable
>grappling with, or else they aren't even sufficiently bright to
>recognize that there is a problem for them to grapple with.
Err... it's not really conducive to positive discussion to claim that
your opponents are "unthinking." To begin with, it makes them think
that you aren't interested in dicussion, but only in insult-swapping.
Furthermore, if you consider yourself a Christian, I'd ask you to
check out Matthew 5:22 to see what Jesus thought of insulting people.
>Given Man's selfish nature, given his alleged (in the mind of
>the atheist) Darwinian "survival of the fittest", why do we
>observe *good* in the world? Whence *its* origin?
(BTW, atheism does not require evolution, and evolution does not
require atheism.)
Well, this topic has actually been pretty well addressed by various
popularizers of evolution. If you'd check out Steve Pinker's _How
the Mind Works_ or Daniel Dennett's _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, then
you'd find fair treatments of this topic.
I'll summarize below. This will probably be a bit broad, however,
since I'm not sure what kind of 'good' you were referring to.
In brief, it is not surprising that we encounter positive, non-human
features in the world around us; as a product of natural selection, we
know how to recognize many opportunities. If there _were_ no positive
features of our environment, on the other hand, we never would have
been able to survive in the first place. [This isn't often what is
mean by 'good', but since your question was so vague, I'm trying to
be comprehensive.]
Furthermore, only a naive treatment of natural selection (one, for
example, which summarized it as "Survival of the Fittest") would imply
that good behavior could _not_ arise in intelligent animals.
Reciprocity and kin-selection have been advanced many times, and
Pinker (see above) discusses the genetic advantages of selflessness in
his book. I'd suggest that you get a copy from your local library,
since he explains these arguments far better than I could.
Yours,
--
Nick Matthewsen|"The only possible good in the universe is happiness.
aa 1011011011 | The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here.
Qni...@mit.edu| The way to be happy is to try and make somebody else so."
( Remove Q's to reply. Commercial email unwelcome.) -- R. Ingersoll
Ed. Stoebenau
<Hmm...this sounds like someone who will be killfiled very shortly.
Unless they stop posting to alt.ath.>
In article on Mon, 16 Feb 1998 06:57:47 -0000, "The Kurths"
<the_k...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>I don't quite agree, although I think I understand what you're
>trying to get at. The "problem of evil" is, in reality,
>directed primarily at all *thinking* human beings, Christian
>and heathen alike.
Tell me, why do I smell a false dichotomy? Oh, because there is one.
>But along the lines that I believe you were suggesting, the
>atheists, pantheists, monists, polytheists, or Gladysians have
>their own special problem to deal with - the "problem of good".
Huh? All of the above believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, and
omnimalevolent being? Because that is all a problem of good would
apply to.
>It's a problem that apparently the "thinking atheists" (surely
>an oxymoron if ever there was one)
Certainly you could be more subtle in your ad hominem attacks. After
all, you don't want people to be rightfully killfiling you too soon.
>don't feel comfortable
>grappling with, or else they aren't even sufficiently bright to
>recognize that there is a problem for them to grapple with.
>
>Given Man's selfish nature, given his alleged (in the mind of
>the atheist) Darwinian
But you are assuming that atheism implies Darwinism. Since there are
other logically possible ways life could have come about which do not
use God nor Darwinian evolution, the above is false. In addition,
Darwinian evolution do not claim humans to be by nature selfish. This
is in fact, a strawman social Darwinian position.
And finally, selfish does not equal not good at all. Your argument is
too poor to even repair.
>"survival of the fittest", why do we
>observe *good* in the world? Whence *its* origin?
That is easy. The teleological neutrality of the universe.
--
Just my four half cents worth Standard disclaimer
Ed. Stoebenau email: esto...@see.below
a#143 use headers to figure out
e-mail host
Ed. Stoebenau
In article on Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:09:10 GMT, pis...@cyberramp.net
(Pistol) wrote:
>Without free will, everything you say and "think" is moot. If your
>opinions are NOt the result of a free wil,
Woah! Free will is about actions, not beliefs.
>making decisions, but
>instead is the result of a programming by the environment, then why
>should anyone belief there is any value to any of it. you are simply
>a robot spitting out what you have been programmed to say.
And you are someone who chooses to say whatever you want to, whether
or not it corresponds to reality, and whether or not you are being
appeared to in that way. You have made it so that what you claim is
what you want to claim, not claiming how the world appears to you.
>The existence of free will is self evident in this respect. You
>cannot make a convincing argument against it, because that same
>argument strips you of any credibility.
And when you apply free will to beliefs, you go into much worse
problems. Tell me, do you hold the above beliefs because you only
chose to, or because they were forced upon you from the appearance of
the world?
Steve Caupp
The Kurths <the_k...@email.msn.com> wrote in article
<eAcazKt...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>...
[snip]
> I don't quite agree, although I think I understand what you're
> trying to get at. The "problem of evil" is, in reality,
> directed primarily at all *thinking* human beings, Christian
> and heathen alike.
>
> But along the lines that I believe you were suggesting, the
> atheists, pantheists, monists, polytheists, or Gladysians have
> their own special problem to deal with - the "problem of good".
> It's a problem that apparently the "thinking atheists" (surely
> an oxymoron if ever there was one) don't feel comfortable
> grappling with, or else they aren't even sufficiently bright to
> recognize that there is a problem for them to grapple with.
Step 1: "'thinking atheists' (surely an oxymoron if ever there was one)" .
Not very Christ-like, eh? "Bless them that curse you, do good to them
that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute
you;" (Need the chapter and verse?)
> Given Man's selfish nature, given his alleged (in the mind of
> the atheist) Darwinian "survival of the fittest", why do we
> observe *good* in the world? Whence *its* origin?
Step 2: The "problem" of altruism. *Research* before you decide you've got
the killer argument. Dawkins, Gould, Dennet, and others have mapped out
the evolution of altruism. It is not a problem. It enhances the chance of
the group's survival, and is therefore, a positive evolutionary trait. The
balance between the survival of an individual creature and the survival of
the group is not only not a "problem" for evolution, but explains the
dichotomy in the behavior of most (normal) people (the "outside law" of C.
S. Lewis, Paul's "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that I
do not; but what I hate, that do I" [again, you know the passage, I take
it]).
More precisely, it is a problem for the Christian. For if people are
naturally evil, and only Christ can transform the spirit, why do so many
heathens, pagans, sinners, atheists, homosexuals, etc. sacrifice themselves
for what they perceive to be a greater good (their children, parents,
community, country, whatever)?
Step 3: Given that the believer is a new creation in Christ, a partaker in
the spirit and being of Christ, and cannot sin, whence your arrogant
attitude's origin? Oh, yeah, "Blessed are the meek".
Step 4: See ya!
Daryl Gene
Bancroft Gracey (banc...@shoebox.win-uk.net
I really tire of repeating that just because a cause is not predictable it
is still a cause!! Randomness and uncertanty do not equate with volition and
never will. But as for the former the experiments (eg. with frog reflexes)
have even filtered down to Popular Psychology magazine. These
Crypto-determinists are the primary reason that our so called intellectuals are
almost worthless outside their rather narrow field of compentency. Don't look
to Einstein for a workable political system or to Sagan for a workable
Metaphysic.
Joe M. Turner
On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 20:05:15 GMT, Xjmw...@Xhooked.netX (Jeff Wilson)
wrote:
> (Of course, we've learned about quantum mechanics since
> Voltaire's day, so the "million blind caprices" appear to play
> a role after all. But they're blind caprices, not "free will".
> Voltaire's position is undamaged.)
Is "unpredictability" necessarily the same as "blind caprices?"
Speaking with regard to quantum mechanics, I mean. (Joshua?)
Someone threw Occam's Razor at me a while ago. Seems like our common
experience of the appearance of free will is a good place to invoke
said Razor -- it takes some inelegant and complicated doins' to
'splain it away!
...
Regards,
Joe M. Turner
mailto: jmtu...@atl.mindspring.com
<http://www.atl.mindspring.com/~jmturner>
Wayne Delia
In <eAcazKt...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>, "The Kurths" <the_k...@email.msn.com> writes:
>
>Given Man's selfish nature, given his alleged (in the mind of
>the atheist) Darwinian "survival of the fittest", why do we
>observe *good* in the world? Whence *its* origin?
I'm always pained to see that when theists mention Charles
Darwin, he's a theist when convenient ("Darwin converted on
his deathbed") and he's also an atheist when convienent, as
exemplified by the above paragraph.
The answer to your question is "Good must have come from
God, because you aren't clever enough to imagine any other
source."
Wayne Delia, red...@ibm.net, Atheist #61, MSTie #37634
"Excellent." (C. Montgomery Burns)
Tim Fulmer
Wayne Delia wrote:
> The answer to your question is "Good must have come from
> God, because you aren't clever enough to imagine any other
> source."
On the other hand, there's certainly nothing stopping me from redefining
"good" so that it is easily within the realm of humanity.
Let us finally put all words behind us.
Throw the ladder away.
Pantheism: god is all around us.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
>
> > > >
> > > > There is a "philosophy" -- even a Christian "sect" (not orthodoxy, of
> > course)> > which DOES "solve" entirely the problem of evil. It's called
> > "Mormon"> > Christianity.
>
>
> Mary
No, No! "Irenaean" was coined by Hick, himself. Same as his "Soulmaking."
Another reason why Hick is so important to modern understanding of religious
truth, i.e. that religion which can truly explain theodicy (problem of pain,
as you, Lewis, and others call it) HAS a great likelihood of being the true
religion. I think Mormon Christianity IS that correct religion, and can prove
it philosophically and experientially.
I haven't read C.S. Lewis in a while. My recollection is that, like Hick (who
is systematic and unrelenting) Lewis is literary, but less profound because
(unlike Hick) willing to "fuzzy over" demarcations and distinctions which
orthodox Christianity cannot allow, e.g. the omnipotent, transcendent,
creator-God as the first cause of our universe. The latter is, after all, the
first premise in the problem of theodicy, i.e. an omnipotent, omnibenevolent
God of omniscient power and goodness who apparently "creates" a universe of
almost immeasurable pain, lost opportunity, and evil of various kinds. How
can the latter be? Yet it plainly IS.
Mormon Theology is the only theology -- and certainly the only (unorthodox)
Christian theology -- to be able to "solve" (or "avoid" in Hick's words) the
Problem of Evil (which properly, I must add, tends correctly and honestly to
make unbelievers of us all).
The "solution" to theodicy involves an important "secret" (Joseph Smith's very
word) about the nature of (the Christian) God. The "secret" was revealed to
Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois, in the 1840's and forms one of MANY principles
revealed to Smith (not all of them inside the Book of Mormon) forming a
rational and understandable "whole" of Christian religious understanding.
Indeed, it was truly what Lewis (and all of us) was striving for. If you've
read any of my stuff on alt.religion.mormon (e.g. "Jesus' Henotheism" or
"Biblical Henotheism" or "Nag Hammadi Truths I and II," you may see some
pieces of that "whole" (and how properly "destructive" it is of orthodox
Christianity, which masquerades as "truth," but isn't, with far different
fundamental assumptions about God -- assumptions borrowed in toto from
traditional philosophical theology). Smith, of course, was the only one
outside of Jesus and the prophets of old to "put it all together," i.e.
produce a coherent Plan of Salvation directly given via Divine revelation AND
PRODUCING A RATIONAL GOSPEL WHOLE.
Theodicy is one of the keys for determining religious truth. That's why I use
Hick's EVIL AND THE GOD OF LOVE as a "criterion" for demonstrating the clear
superiority of Mormon Christian theology OVER orthodox Christian theology.
> Now, pinning down "Irenean Theodicy" to mean this one particular doctrine,
ie> no-fault 'vale of soulmaking' -- which doesn't sound exactly like a common
> factor.... When did that usage begin? Is there an Irenean Pope to say which
> doctrines can be called "Irenean"? :-)
"Irenaean" doesn't come from the Greek "irene," calm, serene (that's why the
OED is misleading here), but rather from the 2nd century Bishop of Lyons,
Irenaeus, 180 A.D.. You simply MUST read that portion of EVIL AND THE GOD OF
LOVE to understand where Hick is coming from. He is coming from orthodox
Christian history, contrasting Bishop Irenaeus' "soulmaking" theodicy (of
Adam/Eve's NECESSARY -- hence not tragic (Mormon Christianity would say,
"designed and good") -- "FALL" in the Garden and "good" stemming therefrom
despite admixed evil) contrasted with Bishop, later Saint, Augustine's
presently orthodox -- since roughly 430 A.D. -- "ABSOLUTE TRAGEDY" of the
purportedly unforeseen, drastic, evil Fall of mankind into our presently
mortal vale of tears.
If not the first historico-religious analyist to see the sharp distinction
between Irenaeus' version of the Fall of mankind and Augustine's (presently
orthodox) version of the Fall, Hick is correctly the first one to draw a sharp
line between the two and thereafter to SIDE with Irenaeus and AGAINST
Augustine (present Christian orthodoxy) on the issue of a "necessary" Fall of
mankind. If the "Fall of mankind" was "necessary," then MOST of orthodox
Christian theology, especially soteriology, is completely false, for grounded
upon false assumptions, i.e. the Augustinian tragic "Fall." If the "tragic
Fall" is wrong, then most of the orthodox creeds of Christendom are wrong.
Of course, Joseph Smith received additional revelation directly from God upon
many important principles now lost to orthodox Christianity, e.g. the
pre-existence of mankind as natural born children of a true Heavenly Father,
who looks like us and truly loves us, before formation of this earth for us to
live on. We have "fallen" here to this earth because that's precisely where
we're supposed to be at present. And that's "very good."
Mormon Christianity correctly understands our present mortality NOT to be a
vale of tears at all (although certainly personal tragedy does exist, and none
of us get out of it alive!) but rather a necessary testing ground for growth,
learning, experience, and progression toward our own individual Divine goal.
Unfortunately, "only few there be that find it." And, I must add, not many of
those will be orthodox Christians. In the difficulties of life, marriage,
family, work, learning, and experiencing orthodox Christianity will eventually
"abandon" one, for it lacks sufficient "explanatory power" to give meaning to
this earth life, our own pre-existent pre-mortal life, and our life in the
hereafter. Even Lewis, whom I accept as a giant within his orthodox Christian
limits, doesn't come close to the explanatory power of Mormon Christianity.
> Er, that is, it's a great word, and sounds like a great doctrine ... but I'm
not sure the two go together. Wouldn't the Irenean lose its savor on the
modern overnight?
>
> Anyway, as to the 'no-fault soul-making', that does sound promising. If you
add pre-existence during which the souls volunteer for the vale, it would
solve a great many difficulties, wouldn't it?
>
You're smarter than I thought!
> >
> > Nuts, I'm frustrated for lack of time;
>
> Me too.
>
>
> > I'll try to "answer" some of the points made in that Hick "theodicy" paper
as time permits. Feel free to do the same thing yourself.
>
> Why not bring it really on topic by comparing it to Lewis' /Problem of
Pain/?
>
Nuts, I haven't read Lewis in a long while. It's all part of the same
question, isn't it? Theodicy.
> > You know, no doubt, that such a limited, summarized paper can't hold a
candle to Hick's original work itself, EVIL AND THE GOD OF LOVE. Check it out
of a library, if you have to. It's worth your time.
>
> I'd rather start with Epictetus or somebody. How does Hick compare with
them? What did Boethius say about it? (Lewis described B as 'wanting to
concentrate on the areas where he could say 'we' ', ie the areas of agreement
bewteen Christians and (rather pale and outworn by that time?) Pagans.
>
> Mary
Please don't be offended if I "publicize" our correspondence which you
generously have sent by e-mail. I hope I haven't violated any of your
expected "privacy" (or assumed privacy - email connotes the latter) by doing
so. But this issue is too important to "keep to ourselves." C.S. Lewis would
approve!
Pistol
On 14 Feb 1998 12:26:48 GMT, dary...@aol.com (Daryl Gene) wrote:
SUBSET
>>There is a fundamental difference betwen telling
>>someone they are stupid and saying that their theory is stupid.
>>Likewise, their is a world of difference between claiming a
>>theory is based on desires, or is a cop-out, and telling
>>someone they are pathetic. You can't show me one, let alone
>>twenty, instances in this post where I called YOU personally a
>>name. I criticized your arguments, and that is all. If my
>>criticisms were a bit more colorful than your tastes dictate,
>>I apologize. But that doesn't make them ad homenim attacks.
>>The only ad homenim I've engaged in here is with Marty, who had
>>the audacity to bitterly claim that nonbelievers are bitter.
>>
>>I must remember that the skin here in Christianland is somewhat
>>thinner than elsewhere on usenet. Believe it or not, I'm
>>pretty mild compared to some people on some groups. Methinks
>>we all see the splinter in the other man's eye... I suppose we
>>all must remember that the issues we discuss here are perhaps
>>the greatest of all, and therefore deserve the highest level of
>>discourse. I'll keep that in mind in the future.
>>
>>I concluded that your theories are based on emotinal desires
>>because that tends to be the source of theories that have no
>>intellectual defense. So far, you've given me none - you just
>>keep repeating what you believe. Give me an intellectual
>>defense of how you came to conclude that God must exist because
>>we have volition, and I'll stand corrected.
>
> There is no difference in saying an argument or a person is stupid Pistol
How can you say that? A person is not his arguments. They are
seperate things. I have called some of my own comments and
actions "stupid" on occasion, and I assure you that I do not
think that *I* am stupid.
>You are simply using "charged " words to elicit a reaction and not adding
>anything to your argument. Rand constantly pointed out that ridicule and
>detraction are non arguments. They are directed not at uncovering the truth
>but at casting the arguer in a bad light so they are indeed ad hominem.
I agree. But I do not equate my use of words labelled by you
as "charged" (by some as yet unknown criteria) with ridicule
and detraction.
> Attributing another's arguments to some mental state (that unless you are
>claiming psycic powers you haven't the slightest way of knowing) is precisely
>the same. For example, if I were to say that I have descerned from
>Psycological examination of your arguments that you are rejecting God and
>because all such arguments stem from a oedipal-sexual ambivilence to one's
>father;{extreme, granted but basically the same as saying wish-fulfillment} you
>would not expect to find such arguments valid nor helpful.
Not unless they were backed by some sort of evidence, no. I
draw the conclusions I have about SOME Christian apologetics
based on hundreds if not thousands of hours of discussions on
the matter. It is almost a truism that, if someone cannot
logically explain why they believe what they believe, their
beliefs are basd on desires. Just generically, if someone
holds views that seem to have no basis in reality whatever, it
is totally justifiable to look for psychological motivations.
I am open to the possibility that my atheism is due to
rebellion of authority, that I hate my father, that I am
fighting god, or any other reason you care to present. They
are legitimate theories. But like all theories, they need
evidence to back them before they merit serious consideration.
If I have jumped the gun on the evidenciary front, I stand corrected.
> As to my skin I am not offended by that line of argument but niether do I
>condone it in logical discussion. I was really surprised that you reacted so
>strongly to my original assertion that you (under certain circumstances) would
>merit pity. That was an opinion not an argument, and not intrinsically
>derogatory.
Again, we seem to each be looking at the splinter in
each other's eyes, for I think that one comment by you was more
offensive than everything I said put together. A matter of
taste perhaps.
Regardless, your points about detracting from the logic of the
arguments is well taken, and a more careful approach seems
justified. Peace.
> As to the posters in other groups, I no longer subscribe to alt.atheism
>because I found the posts (on both sides) petty and boorish, not offensive.
>(just an opinion again, not an argument).
>P.S. He should have said non-believers are OFTEN bitter to be more correct.
What I've seen on that group is impatience and a lack of
control more than anything else. You have to admit, some of
the arguments presented in defense of Christianity can be
pretty stupid. 99% of my life experience has been with three
types of people - smart atheists, smart Christians, and stupid
Christians. Many atheists lack the patience to work with the
last group to reach mutual understanding.
Pistol
On 14 Feb 1998 11:58:51 GMT, dary...@aol.com (Daryl Gene) wrote:
EVIL
>To simpilify reading I am deviding my replies to Pistol's
>(pis...@cyberramp.net) response to my post
>
>>The existence of consciousness is self-evident. That is,
>>even to argue against it forces one to acknowledge it. This
>>CANNOT be said for God, and so the comparison fails from that.
>
>If the existance of consciousness is self-evident why has most current
>"scientific" theorising reduced it to nothing but a electro-chemical reaction
>most likely occuring in or near the hypothalmus?
I don't know. Why is this at all relevant? All this "current
scientific theorizing"
is doing is identifying the mechanism by which consciousness
comes to be. That doesn't change the fact of its existence.
>Likewise volition is reduced
>to an illusionary self-delusion to facilitate rapid decision making.
Reduced by whom, and on what basis? And if they have no
volition, then why should we believe anything they say?
>Find me
>current SCIENTIFIC evidence that consciouness exists (this self-evident stuff
>sounds pretty mystical to me :-) ) .
Denying self-evident concepts reduces speech to gibberish.
Take you challenge above. In it you assume the existence of:
evidence, science, yourself, me, and my ability to "find"
things. Now, if neither of us has consciousness, does ANY of
that make any sense? If we are unconscious, can we do science?
Of course not. Science, like any endeavor, rests ultimately
on philosophical presumptions. The self-evidence of
consciousness is one such presumption. The philosophy supports
the science, not the other way around.
> It is the exercise of the same intuitive sense which provides us with these
>insights into the axiomatic precursors to knowledge that allows the spritually
>aware person to percieve God.
It has nothing to do with intuition. That is the problem with
the attempts to create religious axioms of God's existence.
An axiom need not be intuitive, it need only be self-evident.
The two are not synonymous. And unlike the example I gave
above concerning the axiom of consciousness, no such
demonstration can be accomplished with the concept of God.
There is simply no problem with denying its existence.
>>Apply whatever label you want. I reject your theory
>>simply because it is pure speculation, plain and simple. You
>>hypothesize God as the source of volition based on ... nothing.
>>I mean that literally. This is yet one more variation on the
>>argument from ignorance. You reject all current theories on the
>>source of volition. That's fine as far as it goes. You should
>>simply say "I don't know" and move on. But you go too far.
>>You take this universal ignorance on the subject, this
>>nothingness of an explanation, and infer from that a license to
>>invent whatever explanation suites your fancy. That is unwarrented.
> You still don't seem to understand the argument so I will try again to make
>myself clearer.
By all means.
>If I were to attribute to God something that I simply don't
>know (the source of the energy for Quasars for example) or even something
>unknowable (what is it like on the surface of a black hole) your point would be
>meaningful. My point is that we are dealing with a whole different catagory
>of existance.
And that category is what, exactly? Consciousnes does not
"exist", not in the same manner as, say, elephants exist.
Consciousness is a trait, not a thing. It exists only in the
sense that weight and logic exist. Is THAT what you mean?
If so, why would you look for an "explanation" of consciousness
any more than you would look for an "explanation" of logic?
>That there is no POSSIBLE explanation for volition in the
>physical universe because we are dealing with a difference in kind from all
>other occurances not simply a difference in degree. There is no permissable
>explanation for volition in the extant universe because if there were it would
>not really exist, the universe being bound by laws hostile to it.
You have said all this before, but you never give and backing
for it. How does the premise that volition is different from
all other occurrences imply that there cannot be a physical
"explanation"? This sound's like a Lewisian non-sequitor
conclusion jump (ie, god would communicate with us through our
minds). Why are the laws of the universe hostile to volition?
Why would volition not exist if there were an explanation for
it? And what does that mean anyway?
>So we must
>find a logically constant sorce outside reality as we experience it.
OK. Now, all my objections above aside, this conclusion you've
drawn is totally rational given the premises you've presented.
This is where, as I said originally, you should just say "I
don't know" and move on. You should not continue as you do.
>Since we
>have a very old claimant which offers a reasonable explaination we have a
>pretty good starting point for further investigation n'est pas?
A very old claimaint, which hasn't itself been shown to exist,
is not the SLIGHTEST bit good as a starting point for anything.
It is baseless conjecture, pure and simple. You have to
present evidence that God exists, and THEN demonstrate that
he'd create volition (the one could be true without the other).
This is why I said this is a variation on the argument from
ignorance. It boils down to "I can't think of anything else it
could be, so it must be God".
Imagine that my wallet was stolen in a room full of 1,000
people. Now, does it make the slightest bit of sense for me to
start investigating the first person I met in the street?
After all, they COULD have been in the room and they COULD have
stolen the wallet. So what? I'm just grasping at straws.
Ditto with God.
>The actual
>proof has to come from somewhere else but I have never found that is too
>difficult to come by once you're looking in the right place.
Oh? Present some please.
>>To illustrate my point, I'll for the sake of argument adopt a
>>similar position to yours. I'll hypothesize a God identical to
>>yours, responsible for everything you attribute to yours, with
>>the following differences: He is infinitely EVIL, and when we
>>are tortured in Hell-fire
>>forever, whereas all the believers experience eternal bliss.
>
>>Explain why your theory is more legitimate than mine. I say
>>they are both pointless conjecture.
>
> My theory, as you call it, has greater weight since there are substantial
>changes in the outlook, behavior and character of those who follow God, on a
>scale that only someone really, really resistant to that message would fail to
>notice. These changes have been consistant over the cenuries. They are
>substantally the only evidence (in a scientific sense) that God seems to permit
>us now. It has its weaknesses Pistol since it relies on corruptable carriers,
>but the Christian down the street carries the weight of the arguments. If he
>is not what he should be then he will regret it, and if it hurts your
>perspective to observe him I promise you one day he will weep because of it.
Even if your claim is true, that those who
believe in God exhibit behavior and character changes, that
does not provide ANY evidence of the truth of their beliefs.
The placebo effect is well established in psychology. The
effect of a person's beliefs on them is dependant on the
content of the belief. Whether or not it is true is irrelevant.
Andrew Rilstone
In article <34e86412...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, Pistol
<pis...@cyberramp.net> writes
>Without free will, everything you say and "think" is moot. If your
>instead is the result of a programming by the environment, then why
>should anyone belief there is any value to any of it. you are simply
>a robot spitting out what you have been programmed to say.
Egad, I think you are right... And, dammit, if everything I think is the
product of chemical and physical processes, then (at some level) my
brain *is* "programmed by my environment". And if that is true, and I
*am* only a robot spitting out what I have been programmed to say (or a
lunatic spitting out what random quantum events determine I will say)
then I have no reason to trust my thoughts. No reason to believe in
science, or rational thought, or anything else. No reason to think that
my brain could ever tell me anything about the universe at all.
Which would mean, dammit, that either I stop thinking altogether, or I
admit the existence of some sort of rational element in my "brain" which
exists seperately from scientific processes of the universe.
That is to say, if we admit the possibility of rational thought, then we
have admitted the existence of what, for the sake of argument, I shall
call a "soul". And now we have proved that, who knows what else we might
prove. The existence of God, perhaps; maybe even the existence of
miracles...
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/
*******************************************************************************
"At last, the 1998 show."
*******************************************************************************
The Kurths
Pistol wrote in message <34e864d0...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
>On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 06:57:47 -0000, "The Kurths"
><the_k...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't quite agree, although I think I understand what you're
>>trying to get at. The "problem of evil" is, in reality,
>>directed primarily at all *thinking* human beings, Christian
>>and heathen alike.
>>
>>But along the lines that I believe you were suggesting, the
>>atheists, pantheists, monists, polytheists, or Gladysians have
>>their own special problem to deal with - the "problem of good".
>>It's a problem that apparently the "thinking atheists" (surely
>>an oxymoron if ever there was one)
>
>HA! Given that I've met a ton of idiots in my life and 100% of them
>were believers, whereas the thinkers were split between the camps,
>your statement strikes me as absolutely absurd. You'll never catch an
>atheist responding to an argument with "I just believe". THAT idiotic
>nonthinking response is the sole property of the Christian side of the
>debates.
Yep, your method of "argument" here sounds pretty much like the Pistol that
we've all come to know, if not love.
>
>>don't feel comfortable
>>grappling with, or else they aren't even sufficiently bright to
>>recognize that there is a problem for them to grapple with.
>
>Or maybe they are sufficiently brighter than YOU to recognize that
>your so-called "problem" is a lesser mind playing semantic games. Of
>course, an ego such as yours would never consider such a possiblity.
Wow, I had no idea just how powerful your reasoned arguments could be, Pistol!
>>Given Man's selfish nature, given his alleged (in the mind of
>>the atheist) Darwinian "survival of the fittest",
>
>"Alleged" in the evidence of the history of species.
>
>>why do we
>>observe *good* in the world? Whence *its* origin?
>
>It's "origin" is in the evaluation of the minds of humans, who use the
>term to describe those events and circumstances which meet with their
>approval.
>
>Any more "tough" questions?
>
No, Pistol. You've answered them all. I can see that I am no match for your
thinking.
The Kurths
Steve Caupp wrote in message <01bd3b62$fedd6d40$c24289d0@aqualung>...
>The Kurths <the_k...@email.msn.com> wrote in article
><eAcazKt...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>...
>
>[snip]
>
>> I don't quite agree, although I think I understand what you're
>> trying to get at. The "problem of evil" is, in reality,
>> directed primarily at all *thinking* human beings, Christian
>> and heathen alike.
>>
>> But along the lines that I believe you were suggesting, the
>> atheists, pantheists, monists, polytheists, or Gladysians have
>> their own special problem to deal with - the "problem of good".
>> It's a problem that apparently the "thinking atheists" (surely
>> an oxymoron if ever there was one) don't feel comfortable
>> grappling with, or else they aren't even sufficiently bright to
>> recognize that there is a problem for them to grapple with.
>
>Step 1: "'thinking atheists' (surely an oxymoron if ever there was one)" .
> Not very Christ-like, eh? "Bless them that curse you, do good to them
>that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute
>you;" (Need the chapter and verse?)
I take it that you are appealing to Christ-like behavior as being a good
thing?
ma...@sonic.net
Joe M. Turner wrote:
> Someone threw Occam's Razor at me a while ago.
< grin >
> Seems like our common
> experience of the appearance of free will is a good place to invoke
> said Razor -- it takes some inelegant and complicated doins' to
> 'splain it away!
Er, so does the Problem of Pain. :-)
BTW, did Occam have more than one razor? 1. Don't multiply
entities. 2. Don't discard certain traditional ones?
Wayne Delia
In <34E9CA...@bioc.rice.edu>, Tim Fulmer <ful...@bioc.rice.edu> writes:
>Wayne Delia wrote:
>
>> The answer to your question is "Good must have come from
>> God, because you aren't clever enough to imagine any other
>> source."
>
>On the other hand, there's certainly nothing stopping me from redefining
>"good" so that it is easily within the realm of humanity.
OK. Good is anything that God does, which unfortunately includes
some genocide, along with affars with virgins that are really hard
to believe.
>Let us finally put all words behind us.
>
>Throw the ladder away.
>
>Pantheism: god is all around us.
Sorry - "pantheism" is one of the words you told me to put behind us.
Ed. Stoebenau
In article on Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:29:47 +0000, Andrew Rilstone
<and...@aslan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I'm just going to snip this whole thing. Andrew, your basic argument
was that "if our beliefs are completely determined by our environment,
then we have no reason to believe that they are reliable or generally
true. Since a belief in the above antecedent would therefore be self
defeating (ie, believing that our beliefs were completely determined
by our environment would by the above argument mean that we should not
believe that our beliefs are not completely determined by our
environment). Therefore, our beliefs are not completely determined,
so cannot be solely material, and we must have a soul." Please
correct me if this is not an accurate statement.
I do not think this argument is valid. I think it is quite possible
that our beliefs are determined by our environment, and that it is
rational to hold them. (I do not actually hold to this view, but that
is not important.) This is because one possible way our beliefs are
determined by the environment would be that when we perceive the world
to be P, there is a causal relation which makes us believe that the
world is P. In such a case our beliefs would be determined, and,
because they would have a very high truth ratio, they would be
reliable and hence we would be rational to hold them.
Therefore, I do not believe such an argument for the existence of a
soul succeeds.
ma...@sonic.net
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
> In article <34E742...@sonic.net>,
> "ma...@sonic.net" <ma...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > Alta Vista didn't find much on 'Irenaean'; my OED shows it from 1500s or so
> >as describing a very general method, ie peace-making through finding
> >agreements instead of disagreements.
>
> No, No! "Irenaean" was coined by Hick, himself. Same as his "Soulmaking."
Coined? Keats used the same word for the same idea, and I'm pretty sure both
were in Epictetus if not sooner.
/Snip/
> > Now, pinning down "Irenean Theodicy" to mean this one particular doctrine,
> ie> no-fault 'vale of soulmaking' -- which doesn't sound exactly like a common
> > factor.... When did that usage begin? Is there an Irenean Pope to say which
> > doctrines can be called "Irenean"? :-)
>
> "Irenaean" doesn't come from the Greek "irene," calm, serene (that's why the
> OED is misleading here), but rather from the 2nd century Bishop of Lyons,
> Irenaeus, 180 A.D..
All right, we can take a Bishop.
> You simply MUST read that portion of EVIL AND THE GOD OF
> LOVE to understand where Hick is coming from. He is coming from orthodox
> Christian history, contrasting Bishop Irenaeus' "soulmaking" theodicy
180 A.D. is not exactly modern, unless Hick changed it quite a lot. SEriously,
wasn't 'soul-making' a pre-Christian idea? All in Plato, maybe?
> > Anyway, as to the 'no-fault soul-making', that does sound promising. If you
> add pre-existence during which the souls volunteer for the vale, it would
> solve a great many difficulties, wouldn't it?
> >
>
> You're smarter than I thought!
Er, thank you.
Actually, either volunteering without pre-existence (if possible), or
pre-existence with an opportunity to get some bad karma, could also solve many
logical difficulties.
But then comes the question ... can pre-existence heal, when the patient wasn't
yet etherized upon the table? Tho there's an answer in the first-hand experience
of being quite different personalities at different ages.
Also -- who says we're all in the same vale for the same reason? Joe, would
Occam say find one reason that fits everyone, or say abandon the search? Maybe
some volunteered for a macho adventure, some are tourists, some are Red Cross to
help the others....
The Kurths
Pistol wrote in message <34ea160...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
>On 14 Feb 1998 12:26:48 GMT, dary...@aol.com (Daryl Gene) wrote:
>SUBSET
[snip]
>>
>> There is no difference in saying an argument or a person is stupid
Pistol
>
>How can you say that? A person is not his arguments. They are
>seperate things. I have called some of my own comments and
>actions "stupid" on occasion, and I assure you that I do not
>think that *I* am stupid.
[snip]
That last sentence of yours is an interesting assertion, Pistol. However, to
quote one of the beloved in this newsgroup:
"That and a quarter gets you a cup of coffee. So far, you've
made claims without any backing reasoning, evidence, or
examples, and cited anonymous authorities as supporting your
claim. This is hardly convincing."
Pistol
On 11 Feb 1998 07:30:47 GMT, dary...@aol.com (Daryl Gene) wrote:
EVIL
>Mon,feb9,1998; Pistol (pis...@cyberramp.net) wrote
>>1) Evil is not required for free will. Its elimination simply
>>would reduce the possible choices. We would still have the
>>choice of all possible good choices, as well as neutral choices. >After all,
>the fact that we cannot fly does not mean
>>that we do not have freedom of movement.
> Free will implies
>the choice between alternatives: we need to define some terms here. If evil is
>that which opposes the will of God than any choice other than following that
>will would be evil. (Neutral choices Pistol? St. Ayn would turn in her grave.)
Well, she was brilliant, but she was no saint :). But there
ARE neutral choices, unless you are going to try to say that
painting my house blue is somehow more or less moral than
painting it white. If it is in my interest (per Rand) to paint
it, then doing so is moral, and you forcibly preventing me from
doing so is immoral. But there are still a host of subsets of
choices which defy any moral lable.
> Nor is there any merit in choosing good if there are only good choices. It is
>concievable that God having set the perameters for human existance (ie.
>granting a spirit) to a particular end (ie. recieving their love, freely
>given) found the existance of evil......well.... a necessary evil :-)
But there AREN'T only good choices. There are always neutral
ones, ie, inaction. A doctor passing an accident can choose to
go on his merry way (a neutral choice) or he can choose to
render assistence to the injured parties (a good one). Faced
with 5 dying people, and only time to save one, I really don't
think the choice to save Bob has no merit (especially to Bob),
even if I grant you that the only other choice was to save
Fred. And of course, the choice to just sit there is also
available, and you've really got to stretch the meaning of evil
to apply it to inaction.
>>3) Why is a good act more good if done freely? When you feed a starving bum,
>>do you think it matters a whit to him whether you
>>did so via free-will, threat of punishment, or according to
>>programming?
> Is feeding a starving bum then our definition of good?
No, it was an example, not a definition.
>I can think of
>instances where it would be questionable at best.
So can I, but such details aren't important. Just take any act
X, which we both agree is good, that has beneficial
consequences for someone else. That person is going to place
value on your behavior whether you choose it freely or not.
>Just as a crime requires the
>ability to distinguish right and wrong (and is exaserbated by malice) one
>aquires no merit if an act is not done knowingly and freely. I cannot believe
>anyone conversant with Rand could take the above position, perhaps the
>corollary , the fact that without volition there is also no guilt is the end
>you are truly seeking. no?
But I am not trying to eliminate volition, only acts of evil.
The two are not synonymous. Had God, who after all is
omnipotent, he could have created the universe in a manner such
that we had volition, but only within the realm of good and
neutral acts, without the ability to venture into the realm of
evil.
Further, human created evil is but one version. As far as I'm
concerned, everything that is undesireable, like natural
disasters, diseases, and predatory animals, are just as
contradictory with God's supposed omni-potence, -presence and
-benevolence as human willed evil is.
>>4) Since God is omniscient, there is no "possible" involved in
>>discussion of his actions. He knew with 100% certainty what
>>the results of his actions would be. He KNEW what level of
>>evil would result from his chosen design. So your last
>>statement would have to be revised to say "God recognized
>>that the freely chosen good is valuable enough to justify the
>>resulting evil."
>>5a) Does it? Can you really claim with a straight face that the
>>good/evil differential is higher in the current universe than it would
>>have been with only populations of all-good-doing robots?
> Without a doubt or a qualm! Have you really passed over to the determinists
>or is this just an arguing posture? What are you defining as good here Pistol?
Again, it makes no difference how you define it. Let's say you
define it as "a lack of pain". You somehow are trying to claim
that a pain-free existence freely chosen is somehow superior to
one that comes about simply because we are designed without
pain receptors. I don't see how you get that.
> I thought I knew where you were coming from but this line is from left field.
Well, it is obvious that we have not communicated well to this
point. I hope this post makes some amends.
>Would you say a raincloud was good for releasing rain when it had no choice?
Yes, I would. That's where we are missing each other. I
raincloud gives me what I need, therefore I'd categorize it as
good.
>Not at all, it was simply a raincloud. Do you really want to go in this
>direction???
Yes, it is crucial to the point. You seem to want to restrict
the definition of "good" to volitional actions, in which case
you are quite right to say that without volition (FTSOA) no
such thing is possible. I'm saying, sure, but that just means
that God, being interested in a world without evil, would not
have allowed THAT category of good to come to be. That still
leaves MANY categories of good as possible.
>>5b) How the heck do you measure such a thing anyway? Isn't
>>this what you conservative rightly criticize government for,
>>making such personal value decisions for us? Do you think
>>Amber Hagerman or Nicole Simpson think the trade off was worth
>>it?
> Perhaps they do. Their perspective is a little different now. (O Pistol, by
>the way, did you notice you are assuming they still have a position? curious.)
And it is interesting that even though you are
sure you are going to spend eternity in eternal bliss, you
still seem inexplicably determined to remain in this
less-than-perfect existence as long as possible. :) We don't
want to go down those lines.
Back to the point, simply examine Amber's mother's views, or
the Brown family. Or how about the people laying in
excruciating pain from some act of evil committed upon them.
Care to interview trhem and see if they think the trade off was
worth it? Surely my point is clear at least on this count.
>>Yes, to your question - I have looked at the defenses in
>>detail, and with all my intellectual efforts. I have yet to
>>find coherent explanations for the objections I've raised.
>>It still seems FAR more likely that an omnipotent, omniscient,
>>omnibenevolent being would have created a world with ZERO evil.
> But He says He didn't want to, argue with Him.
He hasn't said diddly. Many people have ASSUMED that certain
words in certain books are His, but any reasoned examination
shows quite clearly that they are not, unless you want to
change the definition of Him to include lack of attention to
detail and lying.
>Actually the likelihood is
>exactly ZERO since He either didn't choose to (here at any rate) or He isn't.
Well, I could quibble with your phraseology, but you are
essentially correct. Since the world is not as it should have
been, either God is not as we have depicted him, or he does not
exist at all. Many theologins, having gone through this
discussion, go the former route, and begin to redefine God,
usually dropping the omnibenevolence trait. Since I see no
evidence that there is any such being in the first place, I go
the latter route.
>>Now if you want to posit a slightly less perfect being with a
>>devious dark sense of humor, THEN the world as we know it,
>>complete with underarm odor and flatulation, makes sense. :)
>>Until then I still must reject the Christian God as wishful thinking.
> Couldn't a perfect being have a sense of humor too? Perhaps he is tolerent
>of evil so he can love and cherish the wit and perceptivity of one (alias)
>Pistol. To do that he couldn't take all the evil out of the world now could
>he? Or have we placed the perfect one a couple of millenia too early ;-)
Possibly :). But no, to your question (and I'm not sure you
wanted an answer). A perfectly benevolent being could not
(would not) create evil just to allow himself to love and
cherish me (sigh, my vanity). When a person creates evil for
his own enjoyment, we rightly condem him. I fail to understand
why you place God above such evaluations. For if you do, then
saying "God is good" startss to lose its meaning.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
In article <34EBEB...@sonic.net>,
"ma...@sonic.net" <ma...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> >
> > In article <34E742...@sonic.net>,
> > "ma...@sonic.net" <ma...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > > Alta Vista didn't find much on 'Irenaean'; my OED shows it from 1500s or
>>>>>so as describing a very general method, ie peace-making through finding
> > >agreements instead of disagreements.
> >
> > No, No! "Irenaean" was coined by Hick, himself. Same as his
"Soulmaking."
>
> were in Epictetus if not sooner.
I'll have to look that up.
> /Snip/
> > > Now, pinning down "Irenean Theodicy" to mean this one particular
>doctrine, ie no-fault 'vale of soulmaking' -- which doesn't sound exactly
>like a common factor.... When did that usage begin? Is there an Irenean Pope
>to say which doctrines can be called "Irenean"? :-)
> >
> > "Irenaean" doesn't come from the Greek "irene," calm, serene (that's why
>the OED is misleading here), but rather from the 2nd century Bishop of Lyons,
> Irenaeus, 180 A.D..
>
> All right, we can take a Bishop. :-)
>
> > You simply MUST read that portion of EVIL AND THE GOD OF
> > LOVE to understand where Hick is coming from. He is coming from orthodox
> > Christian history, contrasting Bishop Irenaeus' "soulmaking" theodicy
>
> 180 A.D. is not exactly modern, unless Hick changed it quite a lot.
>Seriously, wasn't 'soul-making' a pre-Christian idea? All in Plato, maybe?
Plato taught soul transmigration, and anamnesis, which is not the same as
Mormon "pre-existence." There is no Mormon Christian "reincarnation." Each
of us goes thru the pre-existence/mortality/post death
duration/resurrection/Final Judgment cycle only once. The Final Judgment
really is "final."
> > > Anyway, as to the 'no-fault soul-making', that does sound promising. If
you add pre-existence during which the souls volunteer for the vale, it would
> > solve a great many difficulties, wouldn't it?
> > >
> >
> > You're smarter than I thought!
>
> Er, thank you.
>
> Actually, either volunteering without pre-existence (if possible), or
> pre-existence with an opportunity to get some bad karma, could also solve
>many logical difficulties.
Yes, the latter is the Mormon Christian position. The pre-existence, like
earth life here below, allows decisional action/inaction creating BOTH "good"
and "bad" karma (justice). We're getting into meta-ethics a bit. In some
sense mortal birth may be a "partial judgment" (but in no wise a final
judgment) for conduct already done, and may account in part for the
variability of WHEN a person is born into mortality as well as WHERE =
significant variables, i.e. to be born in Damascus in 1402 B.C. to a peasant
farmer rather than born in New York in 1993 A.D. to a computer engineer.
Mormon theology has not "worked out" a singular meta-ethical "Table of
Variables" for nuances of birth into mortality (nor am I sure it can nor
should do so), nor decided the question of whether we "choose our parents," or
not. Suffice it to say that the almost countless variability of ethical
conduct in mortality exists as well in our pre-existence for each of us
individually.
> But then comes the question ... can pre-existence heal, when the patient
>wasn't yet etherized upon the table?
2 Prufrock 8:3? Why did T.S. Eliot hide himself in a St. Louis
bank? "In the room the women
come and go, talking of Michaelangelo."
Why "heal"? Our pre-existent spirits exist independently and individually in
self-determined status as choosers (with immediate Divine help, while yet in
the presence of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother and billions of
pre-existent siblings) of their own futures = same as we do here in mortality.
(This ought to destroy racism forever. We all stem from identical Divine
Parents, hence are quite literally "brothers and sisters" no matter where
born, what time, what nation, what race, what language, what economic or
social group, etc. Each of us is a literal child of co-equal value in God's
eyes.)
>Tho there's an answer in the first-hand experience
> of being quite different personalities at different ages.
Interesting analogy.
> Also -- who says we're all in the same vale for the same reason?
We ARE all in it "for the same reason," although most of us don't know that.
One reason we designedly "forget" our individual life in the pre-existence is
to maximize our freedoms here below in mortality. By forgetting our pre-earth
life while stepping out of the direct presence of Heavenly Father, we greatly
maximize our potential choices, especially our choices for evil. That, alas,
is one purpose for earth life, i.e. to test us individually to see how we'll
perform alone in the absence of an immediately visible God to give us direct
instruction on how to govern our lives/choices. God aids us occasionally, but
He may not do so directly and often; otherwise our mortal freedoms would not
be real, but illusory. We must now "seek" in order to "find" God, unlike our
pre-existence where God resided in loco.
>Joe, would Occam say find one reason that fits everyone, or say abandon the
search?
Occam's razor allows (even demands) a human pre-existence to explain the vast
variety of human differences confronting humans here below, especially
differences in birth, class, economy, society, etc.. Allowing human infants
wherever born a fully "soulmaking" pedagogy of human life and experience in a
world of such immense variety, adequately explains the origins of human
differences, while properly according each of us eternal justice at the Final
Judgment, which is a real "judgment" of individuals with individual
consequences/punishments/rewards, rather than merely a wholesale condemnation,
as in orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christians talk of the "judgment," but
what they mean is "Hell." In Mormon Christianity the Final Judgment is a
real judgment of each individual with real rewards and punishments for acts
done and not done while in mortality.
>Maybe some volunteered for a macho adventure, some are tourists, some are Red
>Cross to help the others....
Not bad! You seem to understand. You're the first nonMormon I've ever
encountered who appears to understand this without heavy pleading. (Orthodox
Christians spend much powder and ball upon assaulting the Mormon Christian
idea of "human pre-existence." Thereby they turn their own unlimited,
omnipotent "God" into a Pagan substitute.)
The "most important" individuals (realizing we're all equal in value), most
would agree, are the true Christian prophets and those "in charge" of Jesus'
Gospel Plan, including modern LDS Church leaders. But even the latter can
err. Personal individual responsibility for our own
salvation/progress/understanding and ultimate "exaltation" is ours alone. We
can't rely upon our leaders, our spouses, nor our siblings for our own life's
decisions.
> Mary
> --
> Keep Oz, Tarzan, and Avonlea free on the Net!
> Email opposition to the "Copyright Extension Bill" (HR 2589) in House
> Judiciary Committee:
> mailto:mtme...@hr.house.gov | mailto:zoe...@lofgren.house.gov
> mailto:mel...@hr.house.gov | mailto:nad...@hr.house.gov
> mailto:nint...@hr.house.gov | mailto:jcon...@hr.house.gov
> mailto:talk...@hr.house.gov | mailto:bin...@hr.house.gov
> mailto:can...@hr.house.gov | mailto:sens...@hr.house.gov
> More info: http://www.sonic.net/mary/housejud97.html
>
Are you connected with the House Judiciary Committee or some such?
ma...@sonic.net
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
Mary wrote:
> > > > Alta Vista didn't find much on 'Irenaean'; my OED shows it from 1500s
Gerry wrote:
> > > No, No! "Irenaean" was coined by Hick, himself. Same as his "Soulmaking."
Mary:
> > Coined? Keats used the same word for the same idea, and I'm pretty sure both
> > were in Epictetus if not sooner.
Mary, later:
Woops, I meant Keats used 'vale of soul-making' and described the idea. He didn't
use the word 'Irenaen', at least not in that letter. Epictetus taught pre 180
A.D.
>
> I'll have to look that up.
> Gerry:
> > > You simply MUST read that portion of EVIL AND THE GOD OF
> > > LOVE to understand where Hick is coming from.
My library doesn't have that title. It has /God Has Many Names/. Amazon.com says
/Evil/ is hard to find.
> >Seriously, wasn't 'soul-making' a pre-Christian idea? All in Plato, maybe?
>
> Plato taught soul transmigration, and anamnesis, which is not the same as
> Mormon "pre-existence." There is no Mormon Christian "reincarnation." Each
> of us goes thru the pre-existence/mortality/post death
> duration/resurrection/Final Judgment cycle only once. The Final Judgment
> really is "final."
Sounds like a simplified version of Plato's.
Mary:
> > Actually, either volunteering without pre-existence (if possible), or
> > pre-existence with an opportunity to get some bad karma, could also solve
> >many logical difficulties.
>
> Yes, the latter is the Mormon Christian position.
Karma rather than volunteering? Or a combination?
> > But then comes the question ... can pre-existence heal, when the patient
> >wasn't yet etherized upon the table?
> Why "heal"?
"Time cannot heal, because the patient no longer exists." Eliot somewhere.
What we all want a theodicy to solve, is 'why bad things happen to innocent
3-year-olds'. IE sweet, innocent, trusting personalities. Are the pre-existing
people consenting adults making an informed choice? Does it make sense to say
'this young Persephone was harmed because she herself volunteered for it during
pre-existence'? Is the one harmed the same as the one who volunteered?
> Our pre-existent spirits exist independently and individually in
> self-determined status as choosers (with immediate Divine help, while yet in
> the presence of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother and billions of
> pre-existent siblings) of their own futures = same as we do here in mortality.
Ours here is pretty murky. Is theirs clearer?
> >Tho there's an answer in the first-hand experience
> > of being quite different personalities at different ages.
>
> Interesting analogy.
>
>
> >Joe, would Occam say find one reason that fits everyone, or say abandon the
> search?
>
> Occam's razor allows (even demands) a human pre-existence to explain the vast
> variety of human differences confronting humans here below, especially
> differences in birth, class, economy, society, etc..
This is a pretty common and orthodox idea in the reincarnation religions. A
little amnesia between births is a smaller assumption than most of the other
possible solutions to PoP. (Reincarnation per se has other supports than PoP:
some memory leakage, child prodigies, analogies with perenneal plants, with other
natural cycles, etc.)
> >Maybe some volunteered for a macho adventure, some are tourists, some are Red
> >Cross to help the others....
>
> Not bad! You seem to understand. You're the first nonMormon I've ever
> encountered who appears to understand this without heavy pleading. (Orthodox
> Christians spend much powder and ball upon assaulting the Mormon Christian
> idea of "human pre-existence." Thereby they turn their own unlimited,
> omnipotent "God" into a Pagan substitute.)
???? Pagan ???? Aarg, and we were getting along so well! :-)
>
> > Mary
> > --
> > Keep Oz, Tarzan, and Avonlea free on the Net!
> > Email opposition to the "Copyright Extension Bill" (HR 2589) in House
> > Judiciary Committee:
>
> Are you connected with the House Judiciary Committee or some such?
No, only with Oz, Tarzan, Avonlea, and suchlike.
Bancroft Gracey
In article <19980217061...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, Daryl Gene (dary...@aol.com) writes:
>
> Bancroft Gracey (banc...@shoebox.win-uk.net
>
>>
>>'Science' hasn't actually got round to _defining_ 'consciousness' in
>>this sense, much less locating/explaining it. (Don't confuse
>>'consciousness' with the operation of the brain; it seems
>>reasonable to assume that a brain is required for 'consciousness',
>>but a quick glance over any natural history will suggest that it
>>isn't sufficient, by itself.) And any would-be particle physicist
>>can tell you about experiments that work differently depending on
>>whether the experiment is 'observed' (by a self-aware observer) or
>>not...
> I really tire of repeating that just because a cause is not
predictable it
>is still a cause!!
Never doubted it. <g> But I'm talking about *repeatable*
experiments, with well-defined outcomes. (Oddly enough, there's a
fairly good layman's description of what I'm talking about in the
play 'Hapgood', by Tom Stoppard.)
> Randomness and uncertanty do not equate with volition and
>never will.
See above. <g>
But you could be wrong... but I don't want to confuse the argument
with the mathematics of uncertainty, so let's not go there.
>But as for the former the experiments (eg. with frog reflexes)
>have even filtered down to Popular Psychology magazine.
If you mean what I think, they've filtered down to the school
syllabus over here (at least, they had when I was taking my GCE's
<ahem> years ago). But those experiments are about nerves, not
brains.
>These
>Crypto-determinists are the primary reason that our so called intellectuals are
>almost worthless outside their rather narrow field of compentency. Don't look
>to Einstein for a workable political system or to Sagan for a workable
>Metaphysic.
Read Einstein's letters? If he *had* accepted the Presidency of
Israel when it was offered to him, I suspect the recent history of
the Middle East (though still bloody) would have been very
different, and possibly much less depressingly racist & tribal. Old
Albert was one of the most frighteningly competent men around, in
rather more than the one field (mathematics) for which he is
remembered.
-bpg-
Joe M. Turner
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:52:34 GMT, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>
> But there AREN'T only good choices. There are always neutral
> ones, ie, inaction. A doctor passing an accident can choose to
> go on his merry way (a neutral choice) or he can choose to
A neutral choice? If you were the judge, you wouldn't attribute *any*
moral detriment to this doctor for this choice? (Given that he wasn't
already en route to the hospital to save a dying patient or share his
witness of Christ with his dying father one last time, etc.... Let's
say he had *no* pressing emergencies, but was on his way to play golf
with some folks he really didn't like anyway. :)
> render assistence to the injured parties (a good one). Faced
> with 5 dying people, and only time to save one, I really don't
> think the choice to save Bob has no merit (especially to Bob),
> even if I grant you that the only other choice was to save
> Fred. And of course, the choice to just sit there is also
> available, and you've really got to stretch the meaning of evil
> to apply it to inaction.
>
<snip>
> But I am not trying to eliminate volition, only acts of evil.
> The two are not synonymous. Had God, who after all is
> omnipotent, he could have created the universe in a manner such
> that we had volition, but only within the realm of good and
> neutral acts, without the ability to venture into the realm of
> evil.
I don't think that it takes much "stretching" to see that at least
some of our choices *not* to act can be considered evil. For an
atheist who admits the existence of evil, there should be even *less*
problem or hesitation in attributing evil to some choices of inaction
than for a Christian!
Let's say a madman attacks and begins to brutally rape a person -- in
this example, maybe Pistol is the victim. For me to be present and to
sit idly by while I had the means and opportunity to defend him can
certainly be considered "evil" without stretching any definitions.
Have we looked at this problem from the perspective of not attributing
logical nonsense to God? Didn't Lewis write about how omnipotence
means to be powerful enough to do all "things?" Saying that an
"omnipotent" God should be able to create, say, an object that is both
a sphere and at the same time and in the same sense is *not a sphere*
is not really a "thing" at all, but rather words strung together to
produce nonsense. Most any opportunity for one of us to do good can
be twisted into an opportunity to do evil -- if the will is truly
free. Only allowing "good" and/or "neutral" choices is obviously not
the same as allowing "free" will on a moral scale. And if there's
sufficient value in moral freedom -- value enough to "outweigh" the
cumulative results of all our evil choices, if one insists on putting
them in some balance -- then the most *good* thing to do may actually
be to allow the moral freedom, particularly if you as an omnipotent
God have also provided the means to be redeemed to complete goodness
despite our inability to choose perfectly all the time in this life.
Another way to look at the problem is to realize that God *is*
actually dealing with the problem of evil, but simply in a progressive
way. Given that I don't have the same perspective as He, I cannot
evaluate whether my preferred method for dealing with evil is, in
fact, better than His. Nevertheless, at some point, those who accept
His gift of salvation *will* have free will, but at the same time will
be freed from that part of their (fallen) nature that seeks to
distance itself from God. Salvation, then sanctification --
redemption. (Amen!)
It is difficult if not impossible to legitimately posit a world where
a moral scale included only good or neutral choices. Could an
omnipotent God have made a world where addition was the only allowable
mathematical operation? Doesn't the existence of addition imply that
subtraction is an option, or at least that it must exist so long as
addition exists? If the option to draw nearer to God exists, so must
the option to move away. We are all making that choice now, and one
day we shall all get what it was we desired. One day there will be no
more movement -- those that have desired God will have Him and there
will exist no more desire to go away -- all those wishing to go away
will have gone already. That is when the problem of evil will have
been dealt with.
Thomas Wheeler
I'm late to this party too, no doubt, but I wonder how we stumbled into
discussion of Irenaean anything here.
I believe that the citation of Irenaean as referring to peace-seeking is
rooted in a slightly different word, eirenic or irenic which goes back
to the Greek eirene, "peace"; Irenaean things go back to Irenaeus,
bishop of Lyons in 170 or thereabouts AD. His "soulmaking" idea, which
in essence stressed the Scriptural thread which says that we're the
co-heirs of Christ, shall judge angels, are in the image & likeness of
God (as against the thread which would emphasize out depravity, utter
"otherness" from God, etc.) may be debated, Goodness knows; and has been
often quoted and (mis)used by folks that haven't done their homework;
but one thing it isn't is 'modern'.
You can find discussion of "theiosis" in many of the Greek fathers, and
ideas which have some affinity with Irenaeus' (on this score at least)
in John Wesley's ideas about human sanctification...
Cheers,
Tom Wheeler
Pistol
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:29:47 +0000, Andrew Rilstone
<and...@aslan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
EVIL
>>Without free will, everything you say and "think" is moot. If your
>>opinions are NOT the result of a free wil, making decisions, but
>>instead is the result of a programming by the environment, then why
>>should anyone believe there is any value to any of it. You are simply
>>a robot spitting out what you have been programmed to say.
>Egad, I think you are right...
Uh, oh. Massive sarcasm alert!!! :)
>And, dammit, if everything I think is the
>product of chemical and physical processes, then (at some level) my
>brain *is* "programmed by my environment". And if that is true, and I
>*am* only a robot spitting out what I have been programmed to say (or a
>lunatic spitting out what random quantum events determine I will say)
>then I have no reason to trust my thoughts. No reason to believe in
>science, or rational thought, or anything else. No reason to think that
>my brain could ever tell me anything about the universe at all.
Pretty good. I'd revise it a bit, however. You need to add
"nonvolitional" to the "chemical and physical processes".
That's sort of the big unknown when it comes to brain function.
More importantly, your brain could stil give you information
about the universe, in the form of sensory images (as does a
snakes). What you could NOT trust are any CONCLUSIONS you
might draw. For confidence there, you need a conceptual
faculty capable of evaluating and making decisions.
Programming doesn't do that very well.
>Which would mean, dammit, that either I stop thinking altogether, or I
>admit the existence of some sort of rational element in my "brain" which
>exists seperately from scientific processes of the universe.
No, you are jumping to conclusions. What you should do is
either reject the validity of your own thoughts, which is
pretty self-defeating, or, you admit that you have volition,
free will, and move on. To claim that this must be "Seperate
from scientific processes of the universe" is to claim
knowledge you can't possibly have, unless you are going to
claim to have knowledge of all scientific processes of the
universe (our roles seem eerily reversed, don't you think?).
>That is to say, if we admit the possibility of rational thought, then we
>have admitted the existence of what, for the sake of argument, I shall
>call a "soul".
Fine by me. Call it whatever you like. I prefer "volitional
consciousness", since it restricts the meaning of the word to
what we know, and avoids unwarrented conjectures.
>And now we have proved that, who knows what else we might
>prove. The existence of God, perhaps; maybe even the existence
>of miracles...
Or maybe the existence of mermaids, or gremlins, or perpetual
motion machines, etc. The fact that we know that we have
volition in no way give credence to any of these other issues.
Pistol
>>Mon, Feb 16, 1998 11:25 EST
>
>>On 14 Feb 1998 11:03:53 GMT, dary...@aol.com (Daryl Gene) wrote:
>>> The axioms of science are not even provable scientifically. In fact
>>science
>>>is very good at amassing evidence (data pointing to a partucular conclusion)
>>>but not well equiped for proof (the exclusion of all other possibilities) ;
>>for
>>>that we need math or logic or the exercise of the intuitive sense that
>>>underlies both. As to wether or not this is "blather" that sort of depends
>>on
>>>your viewpoint.
>>It isn't blather, but it DOES make a common mistake with regard to the
>>word "proof". Just because you can't prove something 100% doesn't
>>mean you have faith and nothing else ot go on. This amassing of
>>evidence pointing to a particular conclusion you mention above is a
>>way of increasing the probability that a certain theory is true, at
>>the expense of other theories. For all practical purposes, if you
>>prove that something is 99% likely, you HAVE proved it to be true, for
>>almost all our knowledge is probabilistic.
>
> Where you get me wrong Pistol is that you think I don't respect or appreciate
>Science, in fact it was always my favorite subject in school ( I was going to
>major in astronomy but couldn't get the prerequisite classes into my schedule).
Well :), where you get me wrong is assuming I had drawn such a
conclusin in the first place. All I paid attention to was that
I thought you'd made erroneous statements about it.
> But I don't worship it and simply take its current pronouncements on faith as
>a lot of people do.
This is when I get irritated with Christian apologists, when
you (collectively) start mishing and mashing words and
distorting their meanings. For example (and perhaps I've jumped
the gun and you AREN'T doing what I suspect), when you say you
take scientific pronouncements on faith, do you mean that you
weigh the evidence and draw the best (albeit uncertain)
conclusion you can, ready to change that conclusion upon
receipt of new evidence? Or, are you using the term in a
religious sense, saying that since any theory can be wrong, we
pretty much believe whatever we feel like believing?
In short, when you say "faith" here, do you mean it as in "I
have faith that when I drop this rock it will fall", or as in
"I believe through faith that Jesus is my lord and savior"?
It can't be both, because the two are totally dissimilar.
>What I want to address here is the difference between the
>kind of proof you have in the areas of math and logic and scientific "proof".
>One is absolute and unalterable and one is subject to refinement as our
>understanding increases as our data base expands. I think this is also true of
>Theology so don't assume I feel this weakens scientific percepts.
OK, I'm with you on the first part. But I question your equation of
the "refinement" that goes on in science with that which occurs in
theology. Can you, for instance, rattle off a few theological
concepts
that have been discarded by the theological community upon receipt of
new data?
The reason I ask is that there are any number of beliefs that
seem to be held by a large number of "theologins" (and we may
quibble over who qualifies) REGARDLESS of any data provided.
The beliefs in Biblical inerrancy and divine creation 6,000
years ago are the most blatent examples. These beliefs
are demonstrably false in any number of ways, and yet many
continue to believe.
It is interesting to ask such believers what it would take to
convince them that they were incorrect. Usually the answer is
either indefinitely witheld (marking a HUGE difference in
comparison to scientists), or is something that is darn near
impossible, or is something that strips his original claim of
any weight.
An example of the former is one creationist I know who said
the only way he'd be convinced is if he could personally
witness evolution of a species on a lab table. An example of
the latter is the Biblical inerrantist I know who said the only
way he'd believe he was in error is if I could show him a
contradiction that could not POSSIBLY be misinterpreted. By
that standard EVERY piece of literature is inerrant, since
EVERY statement can be POSSIBLY misinterpreted.
In other words, they seem to cling to their current beliefs
unless absolute irrefutable evidence (at least) is presented
against it. They treat it like a math proof.
Now maybe you don't consider people who hold beliefs by such
standards legitimate theologins, putting in the same category as
so-called scientists who work at building perpetual motion machines.
> The problem is many don't destinguish "hard science" based on observation
>and testing and "soft" science based on modeling and hypothesis.
But that is not the distinction. A "science" that is ONLY
based on modelling and hypothesis, with no observation and
testing, is not a science at all. "Hard" and "soft" sciences
are on a continuum, with the "hard" sciences, like chemistry
and physics, at the highly tested and verified end, the "soft"
sciences, like psychology and social studies at the end where
there are many theories and little high quality data. and then
there are the many other studies, such as biology, that are
more in the middle.
Perhaps we agree, and merely use different ways of expressing
ourselves?
>Your beloved
>"Big Bang" has some bugs that even the more venturesome astrophysisists feel
>need more explanition and Evolutionary theory has shifted far away from
>Darwin's "survival of the fittest" idea to emphasize geographic seperation and
>isolation. I am not saying this invilidates the original idea but it opens
>the door to the possibility that an enlightened interpretation of scientific
>ideas and growing understanding of the nature of God quite possibly could grow
>nearer (or not, who knows). If you wish to limit scientific theory and
>eliminate these speculative, model based hypotheses from your argumentation I
>doubt we would have nearly as much to argue about.
I'm not sure I get your point. Evolutionary theories have
changed over time as more evidence has come to light. But this
says ZIP with regard to the question of god. It's one heck of
a nonsequitor to go from "Evolution has changed since its
inception" to "there might be a god".
And how you go from "evolution has changed" to "science and
religion might meet" also screams for explanation.
Besides, the meaning of "might" is so broad as to make it
almost bland and devoid of impact. Saying there might be a god
almost says nothing at all. The real question is, IS there
one, or do we have any reason to believe so.