947. jimwhiting - November 26, 1996
I'm very disappointed that nobody's even nibbled on the Problem of Evil, which was left glittering among the weeds of the Argument from Authority in the SUMMA CONTRA CREDENTES (#707). And why is God being defended vigorously only by Christians and a couple of vedantists? And why are so many defenders actually defending Faith and its character-building and personality-enhancing effects, rather than the postulate that God exists?

948. jeremiad - November 26, 1996
jimwhiting in 947 asks someone to "nibble" on the "problem" of evil. Theodicy is not a particular epistemic specialty of mine, but I'll nibble for nibbling's sake. The "problem" of evil is, unfortunately for non-theists, a discussion open only to theists of one stripe or another. One will simply have to use another term of radically different construction than evil if one doesn't ascribe to a higher power of some kind. In essence, an atheist discussing the problem of evil is much like a man arguing about the existence of air; the very fact that he argues contradicts his predicate. Nonetheless, for theists, the theodical issue is a real one that bears serious discussion. I doubt it bears any real philosophical or epistemic weight, however, on the matter of God's existence. As for why only Christians defend God - I can only say for my own sake, that I don't intend to defend God - he doesn't need my help. I do, however, feel obligated to point out lapses in thinking and honesty. Finally, as to the mercenary benefits of belief in God ("faith"?), I have only this to say: If faith happens to be good for a human being, that's fine. Its benefits, however, are entirely beside the point. God exists whether it's good for me or not.

951. mnjperry - November 26, 1996
Re: #948 (jeremiad): I fail to see why discussions of problems with theism-such as the problem of evil-cannot be open to non-theists. This is like saying that only people who believe in astrology can legitimately discuss problems with astrology. It's rather self-serving, isn't it? You also say that you don't intend to defend God because he doesn't need your help. But if he didn't need your help, and the help of others who believe in him, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Given that believers in the God of the Bible don't even constitute a majority of the world's population, it seems to me that he needs all the help he can get. So what is your answer to the problem of evil? Why does God allow little children to suffer appalling pain? Why did he create a world in which earthquakes decimate entire towns? I have been asking questions like these since they first started occurring to me, and the most frequent response from believers is to ignore the question or change the subject.

953. jeremiad - November 26, 1996
mnjperry, #951 states that he/she can't see the problem in a non-theist discussing the problem of evil. The problem of it is this: for a non-theist to enter the debate, he/she must suspend a basic presupposition of his/her belief system. This, of course, doesn't mean atheists can't debate the issue (mnjperry is ready enough, apparently), it just means they can't do it and be logically consistent. The fact that most atheists aren't usually logically consistent should explain why mnjperry had to ask this question. Atheists who willingly presuppose a theistic tenet in order to enter a theodical discussion are, of course, welcome to do so - but they enter the debate as theists (albeit for the sake of argument), not atheists. If this fact proves to support my position more credibly than the position of mnjperry, I attribute it to the fact that God exists - mnjperry just has to attribute it to chance! So, self-serving or not, this is simply the way it is. As for mnjperry's "argument" about believers being numerically fewer than unbelievers, I have one clarification: I never invoked the God of the Bible in my discussion - simply the term theist. The statement says more about mnjperry's emotionalism than my intellect. I have two replies, having made this clarification: (1) it is incorrect - theists have always and largely outnumbered atheists; (2) it commits the logical fallacy of "ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERUM" - even if believers are outnumbered, it bears not-in-the-least on the rationality of belief. I am under no pressure to defend God - if he/she exists (as I know he/she does) - he/she is more than capable of dealing with unbelievers as he/she sees fit. (See following post for more.)

954. jeremiad - November 26, 1996
(Continued from Post 953) As to my "answer" to the problem of evil, I plan to offer no explanation of God's actions. I have several ideas about how suffering is used and viewed by God, but ultimately I can only speculate. First, note that when you enter the discussion of "evil" you are now conversing as a theist - one who believes there is a God who defines good and evil. As a theist, you must recognize that God operates, at times, without your knowledge, assent or understanding. Thus, he/she will do things that you may misinterpret, confuse and mislabel. However, as a theist, you realize that God is God and you are not and he/she can do whatever he likes - whether good or evil. It is at this point you must decide what kind of God you are going to believe in - if you believe him/her to be a good God, then you must (a) assume his/her actions are good even if they don't appear so now to you, or (b) determine why things that initially seem evil may, in fact, be good. None of this, of course, has any bearing on the debate about his/her existence, since it is a presupposition of the issue of evil. If, however, anyone wishes to discuss theodicy with me privately (since this thread is about God's existence, not the problem of evil given God's existence), email me at crichars@cswnet.com.

958. mnjperry - November 26, 1996
Re: #953 (jeremiad): By asking a question like, "If God exists, why is there so much evil?" I do not accept that he actually does exist any more than a believer who asks, "If God doesn't exist, where did everything come from?" has accepted that he doesn't. One can enter the debate from either position, ask these questions, and explore the answers. So I ask you again, if God exists, why does he give horrifying diseases to innocent young children? Why do bad things happen to good people and good things to bad people? Why does life seem like such a crap shoot? Doesn't it just make more sense--and take more courage--to believe that there really isn't any great power up there controlling things, and that your life is ultimately in your own hands?

976. jeremiad - November 27, 1996
In response to Post 958 by mnjperry, I reference him/her to my previous post. You have done as I said you would have to - you have added a (pseudo-)acceptance of God's existence to your question - "_If God exists_, why is there evil?". As I said before, I will gladly continue this debate in another forum devoted to theodicy or discuss it privately, but it doesn't have anything to do with a debate over God's existence. However, since you seem bent on steering the discussion away from the topic, I will offer a cursory response to some of your specific questions. "why does he give horrifying diseases to innocent young children?" Perhaps the Deist model is correct. Perhaps because he/she sees time differently than we do and suffering in this life is comparatively brief and minor compared with future rewards. Perhaps he/she allows the consequences of biological and material existence to run its course. "Why do bad things happen to good people and good things to bad people?" Jesus once said, "God causes the rain to fall on the righteous and unrighteous" offering no further explanation - the Jewish mindset of resignation to our lot may be the proper response. As I said before, these questions are healthy for the theist to ponder and ask, but ultimately they seem to require information that we simply do not have access to - that is, the motivation and intent of God in his/her actions. I will offer this decisive response to your one question, "Why does life seem like such a crap shoot?": It doesn't. As a believer, I see God's fingerprints everywhere. I see him/her in Uganda and Zaire and in the inner cities of America. Life is exactly as God expressed it in the pages of the Bible. (Note here that I, at the insistence of mnjperry, leave the more generic debate of God's existence and invoke my more specific beliefs about who God is - for me, Jehovah God of the Bible.) Nothing in this life is anything if not exactly described in Judeo-Christian Scripture.

977. jeremiad - November 27, 1996
(Continued from Post #976) Go and read the Psalms - see how often the Psalmist laments the injustice and evil in this world - but ultimately trusts in God to aright the wrongs suffered here. Let me also note this: mnjperry asks if it doesn't take more courage and make more sense to reject theism and to believe life is in our own hands; this is the exact position that is logically untenable. If there is no "great power up there controlling things" then the last thing we are left with is courage and sense and control. In fact, these three concepts - courage, sense and control - can only exist in a theistic worldview. If there is no Ultimate Reality of some sort, then your thoughts are merely the random smacking together of atoms in your brain - chance biochemical cause-and-effect actions in an organic tissue produced randomly in an hospitable ecosystem. Concepts such as love, justice, mercy, evil, good, beauty, etc., DO NOT EXIST for the atheist - at least if you are logically consistent. In fact, this entire debate is cause-and-effect - that is, there is no free will or decision to have the debate - we were all bound to do it by the chemical determinants in our brains. This is the "control of your life" you are left with - Marquis de Sade's chemical determinism. No good. No evil. No justice. No love. No hope.

966. wileycoyote - November 26, 1996
I, myself, have always been an atheist...nothing "happened" to me, there was never a "moment" where it "dawned on me" that there is no God. It was always simply my belief. Ironically, Atheism is actually as much a "belief" as any religion. The belief, or faith, if you will, in the existence or non-existence of a God is just that...a belief. God's existence has not, and currently(maybe never)can not be proven or disproved. While not "religious" in the traditional sense, I believe I lead a rather good life, by good, I mean biblically-speaking. I don't need the fear of God to keep me in line, the threat of Hell hanging over my head to keep me from doing wrong, nor the bribe of eternal life to motivate me to do the right thing. I had parents who raised me properly, and taught me right from wrong. And in response to jeremiad #948 `s rather typical holier-than-thou attitude that only theists can discuss problems of evil is both an insult to those of us that do not subscribe to the belief of a supreme being, and conveniently ignores the scores of religious inmates that populate our prisons. There are good and bad people in ALL groups. Getting back to the original question, I would have to say that, no, I don't believe in God. I have absolutely no problem with religion...it is religious intolerance that IS a problem. I am reminded, rather fondly, of a question I purposely posed to a rather religious co-worker of mine during lunch, many years ago. . . it is, to this day, the BEST answer I've ever heard to what is usually a volatile question: "Do you believe in God?" Answer: "Well, I believe there is SOMETHING out there we don't understand. " Beautiful. . . what sane person could argue with THAT answer! I think the Pope, Einstein and myself would all agree!!!

978. jeremiad - November 27, 1996
Re: Post 966 by wileycoyote. I apologize if my tone was holier-than-thou. I suggest, however, that the tone is in the mind of the hearer - at least in this case. I was not at all saying or implying (nor did any statement in my comments lead one to think so) that theists are somehow "good" while non-theists are "evil" as wileycoyote seems to infer from his statement about religious people in prison. I was making the point that the _discussion_ of evil is restricted to those people who have a basis upon which to define evil. For those people who choose to disbelieve in any higher power or absolute reality, there can be no definition of good and evil except as subjective, personal opinions - which precludes them from entering a larger circle of debate. Certainly, good and bad people exist in all groups - Christian, Hindi, Islamic, Taoist, atheist, Buddhist, etc. The problem is for the atheist that he or she can't define good and evil so that he or she can enter a debate with a Hindu or a Christian because there is no common foundation of what good and evil are. If logical implausibility is an insult to you, Mr. Coyote, I don't see how this is my fault.

980. larrysmith - November 27, 1996
Re: Post 978 by Jeremiad. I apologize if this continues the thread away from the existence of God, but I must take exception to the premise that only Atheists or agnostics lack the ability to "define good and evil. " That ability is certainly lacking--in any absolute way--in all religions, including Christianity. Despite the wishes of fundamentalists from all religions, every dogma is subject to various interpretations. Therefore, all discussions on good and evil are bound by "subjective, personal opinions. " Is there a consensus on this matter among the different religions of which I am unaware?

983. jeremiad - November 27, 1996
Re: Post #980 by larrysmith. Is there a consensus on this matter? Absolutely. An honest assessment of the five great religions would reveal an almost identical definition of good and evil. Particular religious dogmas are obviously going to vary widely and radically, but the moral definitions of good and evil are constant. In fact, the ideas of justice, mercy, inhumanity, etc. are all very clearly espoused not only by theists but by atheists who see that good and evil really are fairly obvious - except that the atheist has no explanation as to why such obvious ideals exist and are common to all civilizations and religions. You have made a bold statement (the "ability is certainly lacking in all religions") but have failed to provide the faintest hint of empirical evidence or logical force to support such a statement. In fact, you stand directly at odds with the consistent testimony of the history of all humankind. It should not be an easy thing to mistake the petty, selfish bickering of small-minded religionists for the real philosophical positions of serious believers, yet you have made it seem so.

984. jeremiad - November 27, 1996
Re: Post 982 by mnjperry. I don't claim that God exists in order to _explain_ anything. I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. In fact, the entire exchange has been based on my premise that the problem of evil has nothing to do with the debate of God's existence at all because it is question-begging in this logical arrangement - a point you either cannot or will not concede. And now, through a lack of understanding or, perhaps, jovial repartee, you state that my response to the issue of evil "assumes that God exists". Well of course I do!! That's the entire point you can't seem to get! There is _no_ debate about "evil" at all _unless_ a Definer of Good and Evil exists!

I will attempt, again, to explain my argument: Premise 1: God exists. Premise 2: God defines what is good and what is evil. Premise 3: Evil exists. Conclusion: God must be evil, impotent or apathetic to our suffering, or have some plan or action outside of my knowledge that explains why both God and evil both exist.

Your argument: Premise 1: There is no God or Definer of Good and Evil. Premise 2: Something exists that I don't like or find repugnant (your only possible definition of evil without a Definer of Good and Evil) Conclusion: There is no ultimate, real meaning to the existence of what I don't like because what I like is meaningless and without definition as well.

Note that both positions begin with an assumption about God's existence. This is _why_ it is question begging to use the problem of evil to discuss God's existence. The problem of evil to discuss God's characteristics, but this is after reaching consensus on God's existence.

985. wileycoyote - November 27, 1996
First, in Re: #978 jeremiad, I apologize if I incorrectly read-into your post what you didn't mean it to say, but the way it was worded, made that fairly easy to do. While I disagree with you on several issues, this is, as you correctly stated, not the forum for discussions on good and evil, or even the merits or lack thereof, of any particular religion, though religion cannot help but become the dominant topic when one's innermost and most fundamental beliefs are dredged-up to the surface to be analyzed, picked-apart and subject to cross-examination by others. This is the nature of a public forum. To get back to the original topic of this forum, the existence of God(or not), let me state the painfully obvious. . . no amount of debating is going to prove or disprove God's existence here, and as such, attempts to do so would be ludicrous. Equally ludicrous are statements like "I KNOW there's a God" NO, you DON'T "know". . . you BELIEVE there is. You may believe it with all your heart and soul, with every fiber of your being, but you don't "know" it for fact. THAT'S why it's called a "religion", a belief or set of beliefs that can neither be proven or disproved. To give one's beliefs any more credence than that, does injustice to the word "know". I, myself, am not an agnostic. . . I'm an atheist. . . I don't BELIEVE in God, I won't say: "I know there's no God". There's a subtle but important difference.

986. wileycoyote - November 27, 1996
OK, I've put on my spf-1000 sunblock and fire-retardant suit. . Here goes. . . In the brief history of mankind on this earth, by mankind, I mean "homosapiens", not our predecessors, homoerectus and cro-magnon man, etc., etc. . . up until only a few hundred years ago, (a mere "second" in the time-frame of life), before modern science came into it's own, there were many, many things that couldn't be explained by anything humans had available, either physically or intellectually. Religion and ignorance ruled. Science was in it's infancy, and men like Kepler were in danger of imprisonment for heresy. By even suggesting that the results of his careful observation conflicted with the Church's view of the world, put one in danger of being tried/excommunicated for blasphemy. I can just imagine how Darwin would have fared during the Spanish Inquisition. The point I'm trying to make is this: must we automatically ascribe some religious explanation to some event or phenomenon that we currently cannot explain? Can we not simply accept the fact that some things resist explanation and/or understanding at the current time, without resorting to regressive bible-diving for answers? Things that we take for granted as being common-knowledge today, were, not too long ago, viewed as earth-shaking, controversial revelations, and often viewed with sometimes fatal suspicion by the Church. When lacking true knowledge of something, why must a religious explanation be substituted until the real answer can be found. As an atheist, I can readily accept the fact that much remains unexplained, and may even perpetually elude mankind's attempts at understanding, perhaps due to a physiological limitation of the human species itself, much like the fish being incapable of understanding the scuba diver. While man may well be the highest life-form on Earth, rest assured, the universe holds a humbling surprise in store for us.

987. larrysmith - November 27, 1996
Re: 983 by Jeremiad. I realize that there are similarities among the major religions as to the existence of good and evil. I simply took exception to your idea that there is a consensus that approaches "absolute reality. " I believed this to be obvious, and thus requiring no empirical evidence, although when you removed the qualifying phrase "in any absolute way" when you quoted me, my statement regarding all religions did sound bold, even arrogant I am glad that I misunderstood your point about Atheists not being able to "define good and evil, " since you now write that they see the distinctions as "fairly obvious. " I would question your assertion, however, that Atheists do not understand why these similarities exist among the major religions. Darwin and subsequent evolutionary biologists have provided some explanations for common impulses among the entire species, including what we consider right or wrong, or good or evil. And, although I disagree with their arguments, Jung and Joseph Campbell have also suggested reasons for our common belief systems. Even though you may disagree with them, Atheists do have explanations for these similarities.

* 1068. jeremiad - December 1, 1996
Re: Post #985 by wileycoyote: Thank you for the apology. I appreciate your willingness to be corrected.

You, however, go on to state that "[e]qually ludicrous are statements like "I KNOW there's a God" NO, you DON'T "know". . . you BELIEVE there is. You may believe it with all your heart and soul, with every fiber of your being, but you don't "know" it for fact. "

This is exactly the kind of self-deception atheists are usually guilty of. I know God exists just as much as you know gravity exists or that the speed of light is 186000 MPS in a vacuum.

You presume certain kinds of knowledge are concrete without any philosophical, logical or epistemic right to make such assumptions. How do you know gravity exists? You don't by your [inferred by me] definition of "knowledge". You make numerous unstated and undefended assumptions - among them things such as the trustworthiness of your senses, the reality of material existence, the moral certitude of your brain to correctly interpret sensory data, and so on. I know God exists because I see the cause and effect of God's existence everywhere. You know gravity exists because you see its cause and effect everywhere. If I disagree with your interpretation of the evidence of gravity because I am predisposed to disbelieve it, does this somehow relegate your "knowledge" to some ethereal existence? Of course not. Thus, just because you choose to disregard the abundant evidence (material, logical, presumptive, epistemic and philosophical) for God's existence due to your disposition to disbelieve it doesn't move my knowledge to the category of "religion" anymore than a person's doubt of gravity tranforms your knowledge to that of "belief".

Finally, your statement about "religion" is an attempt to disregard my argument by casting pejoratives. Sorry, no dice. If you can't argue the point, then concede.

1069. jeremiad - December 1, 1996
Re: Post 986 by wileycoyote: On to your second and, stunningly, even more sophomoric post: This is one of the many examples in this exchange where the atheists have invoked specific religious dogma in the debate in order to [attempt to] refute a larger argument. Nowhere have I ascribed any specific action to God in the physical realm. Nowhere have I quoted Scripture in defense of my position. This is another inane attempt on your part to create a straw man composed of the typical stereotypes of theists. You are guilty not only of poor argument, but just plain unethical tactics. If we're going to discuss this issue, please respond to what I say, not what you wish I'd said so your arguments make sense! (I find this typical of atheists - they can't really argue the points, they have to resort to name-calling and religious bigotry to make it look like they're the "intellectual" in the discussion - it just won't work, people! Come to the debate and state your case - and just deal with it if it doesn't hold water!)

But beyond the pedantic attempt at argument, you need to go back and read some history instead of believing everything you here from college freshmen trying to sound smart. The entire basis for scientific explanation and investigation is rooted in and grew from the religious worldview that the Creation makes sense because it was designed with and by intelligence. Without this pivotal tenet, there would be no reason to expect the cosmos to be lawful.

* 1070. jeremiad - December 1, 1996
(Continued from previous post) Furthermore, it was religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam that lifted civilization from shamanism and animism to believe we could understand and master our world. I don't deny the existence of fanatics, narrow-minded bigots and sadists, but to characterize the whole of religion by these exceptions is just dishonest. Furthermore, a study of Kepler, Newton, Bacon, and on and on would reveal these men to be deeply religious - and that they believed their scientific investigation would not bring into question God's sovereignty or existence, but would further prove his/her power and intelligence. It's easy to create history - harder to read and understand it - but I suggest you try it anyway. You conclude your dizzying display of [pseudo]logic with this statement: "rest assured, the universe holds a humbling surprise in store for us". Resting assured is the _one_ thing an atheist has no right to do! In the words of Bertrand Russell, you must build "upon the solid bedrock of uncompromising despair" as an atheist. You cannot rest on anything except the ultimate meaninglessness, futility, cruelty and injustice of existence - in fact, you really can't even do this - because as an atheist, terms such as meaning, justice and purpose are in themselves completely meaningless. I, however, have a basis for believing the universe will continue to yield marvelous and beautiful discoveries in scientific exploration because I believe we _can_ learn because we live in a universe that is intelligible because it is sustained by Intelligence. I have a basis for believing this because I believe in a God who is higher than I am. What is your epistemic right for this belief?

* 1071. jeremiad - December 1, 1996
During my absence from The Fray, little progress has been made, it seems. The atheists continue to use insults and diversionary tactics to avoid dealing with the fundamental issue that they have no claim to knowledge of any kind without leaps of faith. The fact that theism is the only worldview generally (and Christian belief, specifically) to consistently explain our cosmos (along with the fact that humanity is innately religious) is ignored or maligned without being discussed. Atheists practice serious self-deception in denying their essentially religious nature. This can be noted by their driving need to constantly debate the issue. Go back and review this forum - you'll see that contrary to the atheists' "stereotypes" of religious people, it's the atheists spurring on the debate and firing off aspersions and trivial pabulum instead of reasoned debate.

1073. larrysmith - December 1, 1996
Re: Post #1070. jeremiad. ". . . in fact, you really can't even do this - because as an atheist, terms such as meaning, justice and purpose are in themselves completely meaningless. " Again, you seem to waffle on this point. Are things such as those listed above self-evident even to atheists, as you suggest is some places or are they really meaningless, as you suggest in others. Also, suggesting that all religious conflict throughout the ages is simply the workings of a few fanatics is as dishonest as characterizing all religion by looking just at narrow-minded bigots.

1077. mnjperry - December 1, 1996
Re: #984 (jeremiad): You misunderstand my argument. Perhaps I didn't explain it clearly. Here it is: 1) A loving God may or may not exist.
2) Evil definitely exists (murders, earthquakes, disease, etc.)
3) Evil cannot be reconciled with a loving God.
4) Therefore, there is no loving God.

Your response, as far as I can tell, is to assert that God does exist and that he can be reconciled with evil, but that you can't explain how. Apparently, we are just supposed to take it on faith that God has some sort of master plan that explains why he inflicts so much suffering on so many people that he really loves. It's difficult to escape the impression that this response is a rather transparent attempt to explain away the inconvenient fact of human tragedy in order to protect an irrational but cherished belief that conflicts with it, like a battered wife who insists that her husband really loves her even as he beats her up one more time. Human suffering is universally experienced (unlike belief in God) and seems utterly indifferent to our concerns about justice, love, morality, or anything else. It just happens, and it often happens in its worst forms to the best people. Doesn't that undeniable fact speak more powerfully to the true nature of the world than anyone's claim about "feeling" the presence of God in their life?

1078. AlexKhan - December 1, 1996
JEREMIAD Re: Message #1068 --- Bravo for your comments here. For the first several hundred posts of this huge and unwieldy thread, I was arguing something similar to your argument, though from an agnostic point of view. I maintained that there is much more epistemological parity than is ordinarily supposed, between what most would regard as empirical knowledge and propositions about the existence of God. Both depend, to varying degrees, on a marginal leap of faith. Given all this, atheism is no doubt a form of religion. In fact, the most trouble I've had, has been with posters who failed to see the a proposition about God need not be proven in the same way theorems in logic or mathematics are demonstrated. That is, just as we needn't achieve certitude in the corroboration of gravity or the causes of the French Revolution, so there isn't a need to prove that God exists or not exists. A few detractions, however. First, though an admirer of natural religion and believer in the possibility for a "rational faith, " as found among the ancients and the medievals, I don't think that the "evidence" point either way about the existence of God. The argument from first cause is the only really good argument for the existence of God, but, despite it's relative robustness, is not without problems. There is a physical chemist who has argued here that the idea of causality is vitiated on the quantum scale. I would say that if causality is meaningless to talk about even in a single isolated instance, the need to posit the existence of God as a first cause is severely diminished, though not eliminated. Second, I think your historicism in #1069 is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that the origin of modern scientific inquiry was religious or not. Please explain the statement, "Without this pivotal tenet, there would be no reason to expect the cosmos to be lawful. "

1086. ProdigalSon - December 1, 1996
Re: jeremiad Message #1070 Wow - digging up stuff by Bertrand Russell, exposé's on Bacon and other's quest for understanding God's design! Good stuff. . . Did you study logic through graduate philosophy, or is it just a hobby? As to the nature of this thread. . . Ahem. . . God IS because he said so, shortly after he pulled the Israelites from Egypt. Exodus 3:14 - "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM. " Interesting note - despite Pharaoh's (Ramses II) decree that the name of Moses be wiped from the Egyptian history books (it was), the fact that the Israelites were slaves of the Egyptians for about 400 years is well-known among Egyptian scholars, again, giving credence to the authenticity of the Bible as an historical text.

So, to answer those who question my quoting of scripture, hear this: The Bible is one of the most internationally reknowned historical texts, and is even required reading for many universities teaching history.

1127. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
Re: Post 1073 by larrysmith. You make my point for me. And, no, I don't waffle on it at all. I _do_ believe things such as beauty, justice, meaning, good and evil are self-evident to atheists. But _according to that worldview_ no explanation or reason for such concepts can exist - since to Definer exists. Thus, to the atheist, these concepts and ideals must simply be the outgrowth of cause and effect biology - and have no _real_ meaning. Please explain why this is not so.

Further, I was not addressing religious conflict at all. Rather, I was debunking the characterization of religion as a whole as being in control of madmen - which is typically done by invoking such horrific scenes as the Inquisition. Certainly this was an example of small-minded bigotry and abuse of _power_. But characterizing religious action in history according to a few events (however terrible) is not only to take a prejudiced and myopic view of history, it is simply ignorant. Ultimately, however, this issue is irrelevant in the debate of God's existence. It's just irritating to see intellectual dishonesty so widely accepted as factual. My point is that atheists such as yourself attempt to divert the argument from the real issue of epistemological substrata to diversionary -and typically irrelevant - issues such as the fact that theistic people have the same tendency to be evil as atheistic people. (I've an explanation for this fact but it, too, is irrelevant to this debate. )

1128. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
Re: Post 1077 by mnjperry. My point is you have _no_ basis for your second (2nd) premise. Subsequently you have no basis for premise three or four. This is simply horrible logic. Defend your premises or concede the debate.

* 1129. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
Re: Post 1078 by AlexKhan. Thanks for the agreement. In response to your detraction let me offer some clarification. You state "I don't think that the "evidence" point either way about the existence of God". This is my point in an earlier post - #1068, to be exact. You are _predisposed_ to disbelieve the evidence because you begin with the epistemological assumption that God does not exist. I, however, begin with the antithesis of this premise and the result is abundant evidence for God's existence. If you begin by saying "there is no God", then, certainly, you should not be surprised to find that there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary - you concoct clever explanations for what you see - the Cosmos began not because of a Choice, but because of Chance; I understand good and evil not because of a Divine Spark, but because of evolutionary psychology, etc.

As to my "historicism", I was refuting the implication made by wileycoyote in post 986 that the church has always stood in the way of scientific exploration. I regret invoking these issues into a debate about God's existence, but the atheists keep bringing up smoke screens to divert the discussion. I can't resist blowing them away when they are _so_ misinformed. Perhaps I've more in common with the Marquis de Sade than I care to admit?

As to my [Post 1069] statement about the pivotal tenet you ask about, what I was attempting to show was the opposite of wileycoyote's statement. That is, that religious belief was the _foundation_ of scientific inquiry - without the presupposition that the universe is _intelligible_, we are relegated to shamanism and mysticism and rank religiosity. Augustine and Aquinas point this out well.

1130. larrysmith - December 2, 1996
Re: Post #1127. jeremiad. "Thus, to the atheist, these concepts and ideals must simply be the outgrowth of cause and effect biology - and have no _real_ meaning. " In that case, I guess that I should forsake these concepts, and instead seek out things that have meaning for atheists(I'm sure you could list a few). I'm not a philosopher, but I understand the 'real' meaning of truth and beauty--and good. I do not need to have these things listed for me in order to understand them. Again, saying that the negative effect of religion throughout history can be seen only in a "few events" is--I'll use your word--ignorant. What do you figure, two or three? I think we should all stop taking liberties with history just to make a polemical remark.

* 1132. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
Re: Post 1130 by larrysmith. You state: "I guess that I should forsake these concepts, and instead seek out things that have meaning for atheists". Actually, I can't list any because the concept of meaning is in itself meaningless to the truly consistent atheist. This is my point - you have no empirical basis (since atheists love Clifford's dictum so much) for belief in these ideals and you should - by your own rules of evidence ("no one anywhere should believe anything without sufficient evidence" - W. Clifford) - reject belief in such things until evidence of their objective reality is provided. It's obvious you're not a philosopher. You state: "I understand the 'real' meaning of truth and beauty--and good. I do not need to have these things listed for me in order to understand them. " How do you know the real meaning of truth, beauty and good. You have provided no explanation of why you believe in such things. You have failed to promote even one logical reason why you should accept such things. You _do not_ understand. You _do not_ know. You are simply adhering to these things on _blind_ faith with hidden presuppositions. Your belief system is groundless.

Further, concerning your [continuing] misrepresentation [or misunderstanding] of my earlier statements, I _am not_ attempting to white-wash any of the wrong-doings of religious people in history. But your myopic viewpoint to[apparently] represent religion in history as a negative force is farcical. My facts are sound despite _your_ attempts attacking liberties with history.

* 1131. AlexKhan - December 2, 1996
JEREMIAD (1129)In the first paragraph of your post, either I am misunderstanding you or you have misunderstood me. I am not predisposed to any proposition about God's existence. I neither believe nor disbelieve. I start with no assumption about God's existence. I fail to understand your procedure with the premise "God exists. " The logic of this procedure potentially allows for negative proof by reductio ad absurdam, but I see neither positive proof nor "abundant evidence" rising out of it. Perhaps you can explain your procedure. (If you have already done so, please point out where. ) "The Cosmos began not because of a Choice, but because of Chance. " This is almost begging the question, and I really see no compelling reason to believe either case. But I do think the only meaningful way to talk about God rationally is to define him in two ways: 1) first and uncaused cause; and 2) possesses the ability to create something out of nothing. I have no interest in questions of good and evil. But I don't see any contradiction between believing that God exists and subscribing to evolutionary psychology. I think you are giving much too much credit to Christianity for the origins of scientific inquiry. The assumption that the universe is intelligible (and the implicit contempt for mysticism) far predates Christianity, or Aquinas and Augustine. (I object to your pairing Augustine with Aquinas in this regard. )

1133. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
Re: post 1131 by AlexKhan. I thought you understood epistemology. My point is that you _cannot_ begin with no belief. You either begin by assuming God's (fill in your own "ultimate reality" term here if you wish) existence or by not assuming it. You may, from either standpoint, then evaluate what you perceive to determine if it is consistent with your presupposition.

I think it should be obvious that I did not begin with the premise "God exists" to _prove_ that God exists. Rather, to the theist - one who presupposes belief in God, the evidence is abundant and clear. You can't see it because you are a presuppositional atheist (whether you like this or not is really irrelevant). When a person looks at the world as a theist, ultimate philosophical questions are answered in a theistic way. When a person looks at the world as an atheist, questions are answered in an atheistic way. Perception of reality is defined by one's predicates for the definition of reality. This is logically why you cannot approach the argument as an objective observer - by the time you get to the debate, you've already made up your mind.

You really should've read some philosophy texts before you attempted to write paragraph 3. This is not petitio principii, it is honesty. You see no compelling reason to attribute the Cosmos to either Chance or Choice because you haven't thought about it. You are, however, logically bound to develop some basis for its existence if you are going to actually discuss God's [non]existence. Your "rational" definition of God is similar to Aquinas' Ontological argument that has been brought into serious philosophical question by Kantian dialectic. It is shaky ground, logically, to begin from. This is, by the classic definition, petitio principii because the premises are at least as doubtful as the conclusion. (Continued)

* 1134. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
(Continued) You overstate the case in paragraph 4. You say you have no interest in "questions of good and evil". This is either incorrect or displays a lack of understanding on your part. Good and evil do enter the debate. The point I have been arguing is that the atheist has no [epistemological] basis for the terms even though they recognize the obvious existence of good and evil. I have pointed out that the debate of God's causality in the existence of evil is irrelevant to a discussion of his/her existence - this is completely different than the issue of the basic existence of good and evil as perceptual reality. I did not say that theistic belief is in anyway at odds with evolutionary psychology. Are you really reading my posts? I stated that this (evol psych) is used by atheists to explain things that it cannot explain.

Finally, as to the basis for scientific inquiry, I _never_ said _anything_ about _Christianity_. When are you people going to quit trying to use religious bigotry as reasoned debate? Theistic presuppositions lead to the belief that the cosmos is intelligible - even in pantheistic religions such as Hinduism, and Roman & Egyptian pantheism. As to the objection about Augustine and Aquinas, I can only reference you to what they wrote and ask you to complain to them about their agreement.

* 1135. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
I've seen a lot of bad technique in debate and argument here. I reference you to the alt.atheism FAQ for details on argumentation. Also, see my Notes on Argumentation essay for further details.

1136. larrysmith - December 2, 1996
Re:1132. jeremiad. " But characterizing religious action in history according to a few events (however terrible) is not only to take a prejudiced and myopic view of history, it is simple ignorant." These are your words. This--and others like it-- is the only concept with which I will continue to take issue. I do not really care about your philosophical hyperbole. Your above statement is simply misleading. It suggests--maybe that was not your intention--that negative religious action in history can be seen in only "a few" events. How is this not whitewashing history? Also, I never stated that religion had an overall negative effect on history. I would not presume to make such an analysis. Please do not accuse me of taking liberties with history. . . I'll leave that to you.

* 1139. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
Re: Post 1136 by larrysmith. Let me clear up the misunderstanding: I recognize the good _and_ evil in history caused by religion. I have not performed nor seen any quantitative analysis of the ratio of the good to the evil. I take issue, simply, withattempts to malign religion based on accusations about it being a negative force in history. This is historically inaccurate because it ignores the positive influences of religion. I don't see how this position is anything but an objective view of history as it now stands. I apologize if I have taken liberties with history and welcome you to point out my errors. My statement that you quoted in #1136 was about people characterizing the whole of religious action in history according to a few abuses such as the Inquisition or the Crusades. I _did not_ state that there exist _only a few_ abuses, but rather that generalizations are made from the most notorious abuses about religion as a whole.

1137. AlexKhan - December 2, 1996
JEREMIAD (1133, 1134) - I really fail to understand your impatient and annoyed tone. I would understand had I been some rabid and scurrilous religion-basher, but I have been perfectly civil. So what is your problem? Why then have you wasted so much time arguing with obvious troglodytes in this thread if impatience is your invariable reaction to disagreement?

1) "When a person looks at the world as an atheist, questions are answered in an atheistic way. Perception of reality is defined by one's predicates for the definition of reality." Would you say this remark applies to all knowledge? For example, does natural science proceed from assumptions which, rather than deriving from the observation of facts, are determinative of the facts that could possibly be observed?

2) Well, yes, technically you did not begin with the premise "God exists." But you did say, "You begin with the epistemological assumption that God does not exist. I, however, begin with the antithesis of this premise." If there is a huge difference between your remark and my paraphrase of it, then please illuminate it.

3) "You see no compelling reason to attribute the Cosmos to either Chance or Choice because you haven't thoughtabout it." This is not an argument. "You are, however, logically bound to develop some basis for its existence if you are going to actually discuss God's [non]existence." And this is precisely the principium to be begged, I think. Maybe I'm being a sloppy, but if one determines that the cosmos is attributable to choice, then we are already saying God exists. Likewise, a cosmos attributable to chance requires, I think, no God for it to exist.

* 1138. AlexKhan - December 2, 1996
JEREMIAD --- continued from #1137 4) I don't see how my definition of God can amount to an ontological argument or to a p.p., since the definition doesn't compel any particular conclusion. After all, there may be no need for a first and/or an uncaused cause. So, while the definition may frame the question, it does not answer it. At any rate, can't think of a better definition.

5) "...the atheist has no [epistemological] basis for the terms even though they recognize the obvious existence of good and evil." Please explain the first clause. Are you saying that an atheist cannot know how to deem a thing good and another evil? If so, I agree. "...the debate of God's causality in the existence of evil is irrelevant to a discussion of his/her existence." Precisely why I have no interest in theodicy or questions of good and evil. Are YOU reading me properly?

6) OK, so you never said anything about Christianity and scientific inquiry. "When are you people going to quit trying to use religious bigotry as reasoned debate?" This is a slanderous remark, no? Where have I EVER displayed religious bigotry?

1141. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
Re: Post 1137-138 by AlexKhan. First, let me apologize if my tone was upsetting to you. I admit some frustration with those who continue to misquote, mischaracterize and insult instead of debate. However, you miss my point, AlexKhan, concerning your remarks. You have, truly, been civil, but bigotry stated in soft tones is nonetheless bigotry. You immediately began attacking my argument using a "straw man" constructed of your stereotypes of "Christians". I point this out now, without impatience, in the hopes that you can separate your preconceived ideas from rational discourse.

Re: (1): I have said and still say that all claims to knowledge are based on some presuppositions about what constituted reality and how we perceiveit. The natural scientist, among numerous other beliefs and presuppositions held without defense, believes he/she can trust his/her senses - that the natural world is "real" and that he/she can determine "reality" based on stimuli processed through his/her brain. We take this presuppositions for granted, but they are monumental epistemologically.

Re: (2) It wasn't your quote of what I said that I took issue with, it was your misinterpretation of my conclusion. My fundamentalpoint is that to a person with theistic presuppositions, the world will appear theistic. To the person with atheistic presuppositions, the world will appear atheistic. I was not attempting to argue that God exists because I assume he/she exists. I wassimply making the point that either perception of reality begins with one or the other presupposition.

Re: (3) I was not attempting to argue with you on the point because you stated that you held no position. I was pointing out that, in reality, you do hold a position, it is simply unstated. Your last conclusion (about no God existing if the Cosmos is caused by chance) does not follow from your [stated] premises. However, the general point you are making is correct.

* 1142. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
(Continued from Post 1141) Re: (4) You are correct. I jumped ahead of your statement to the argument about First Cause and the necessity or contingency of the infinite hiearchical regressive. Sorry.

Re: (5) I agree with your first statement in (5). But you still don't understand me on the theodicy issue. Theodicy pertains to the resolution of God's [presupposed] existence with the [presupposed] existence of evil. I didn't mention theodicy, however. What I did mention was the universal understanding of good and evil. Why is it that we know good from evil? How can we state that some actions are good while others are evil without first reaching a conclusion as to what defines good and evil? In this respect, the believe the ideals of goodand evil _do_ play a part in the debate of God's (or at least some objective Definer) existence.

Re: (6) I, again, apologize for the tone. However, as I said before, just because you said it nicely makes it no less bigoted. You need to ask yourself why you bring up Christianity when no Judeo-Christian dogma was interjected by me or necessitated by my statements. You jumped to this point, I simply suggest, because you have a reaction to any claims about the Christian religion. I'm trying to discuss theism v. atheism in general - not discuss specific religious dogma.

1140. mnjperry - December 2, 1996
Re: #1127 (jeremiad): "I _do_ believe things such as beauty, justice, meaning, good and evil are self-evident to atheists. But _according to that worldview_ no explanation or reason for such concepts can exist - since to Definer exists. Thus, to the atheist, these concepts and ideals must simply be the outgrowth of cause and effect biology - and have no _real_ meaning. Please explain why this is not so."

I fail to see why the idea that beauty, justice, and so on originate from human reason and emotion, rather than a supreme being, means that they cannot have "real meaning." The "Definer" of these concepts is us, and the "explanation" of them is our understanding of ourselves and the world around us that comes from experiencing and reflecting on our lives. Why is anything more than that necessary?

* 1143. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
Re: Post 1140 by mnjperry: If you are stating that you believe the ideals of beauty, justice, etc. originate only in the emotio-cognitive recesses of the human brain, then I applaud your honesty. Most atheists would refuse to concede this much epistemological territory. The reason is because it displays the ultimate irrelevance of such ideals. By admitting this belief, you answer your own question of why such a belief brings into question the "real meaning" of these "concepts". If these ideals exist only because of evolutionary psychology (or whatever your favorite materialist jargon is), they have no more real "value" or "morality" than the urge to kill or dominate. In fact, it may even be argued that the urges to kill and dominate (and pursue rampant copulation) are superior to "altruistic" instincts because they more actively protect a creature's gene pool. You are left with no basis for determining right from wrong except the argument from biological necessity. E.g., it is wrong to kill six million Jews unless it protects your gene pool, then, for you, it is acceptable because this is an act of self-preservation. Once again, please explain why I should behave in any way other than complete selfishness if you are correct about Ideals. Also explain why you believe such Ideals can have value (besides survival of the fittest - where they ultimately break down) if they only arise due to biochemical reactions in a human brain.

1144. mnjperry - December 2, 1996
Re: #1128 (jeremiad): "My point is you have _no_ basis for your second (2nd) premise. Subsequently you have no basis for premise three or four. This is simply horrible logic. Defend your premises or concede the debate. "

My second premise is that evil, by which I mean all the things that cause human suffering, definitely exists. I take this to be a self-evident truth. People do suffer. Do you deny this? Prodigalson's curious response was that this wasn't evil but "misfortune." Fine. Let's call evil (or at least, natural evil-- natural disasters, disease, etc.) misfortune. Why does God allow it? Why would he inflict "misfortune" on innocent people that he loves? It doesn't make sense. This is one of the central problems of Christianity.

* 1146. ElliottRW - December 2, 1996
JEREMIAD (1143) I'm having difficulty understanding this. Are you suggesting that, without God, all moral arguments degenerate to "might makes right"? Or just those arguments that rely on the premise that aesthetic and ethical ideals originate from human physiology?

* 1148. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
Re: Post 1146 by ElliotRW: I am suggesting that if there is no Definer, "might makes right" is as good a basis for defining reality as any I can think of - at least it's consistent with evolutionary biology.

I am ultimately suggesting that without some "Other" to define objective reality, _all_ arguments of _any kind_ (moral, aesthetic or other) degenerate into random biochemical reactions in the human organism. In an atheistic cosmos, there is no Definer or Objective Reality that can define "morality", "good", "evil", "beauty", "justice" or any other ideal. Rather, we become one of two things - depending on your belief about free will.

If, somehow beyond explanation, an atheist believes human beings have free will, then ideals are relative - and we are reduced to some variant of Dewey's Pragmatism where we act in a way that we deem appropriate for our particular situation (thus, in some cases, genocide might be defensible). The other possibility is that no such thing as free will exists (this is, at least, consistent with atheistic tenets). In this view, you can't even discuss ideals because everything you say, do, think or believe is simply the result of atoms smashing around in your brain. In effect, you don't choose to believe in "justice" at all. If you believe it, it is because the electro-chemical condition in the tissue of your brain _determined_ that you would feel this way. The summation of this view is that personality is fiction and that human reason has no ultimate claim on reality. If you have a better explanation of how ideals can be defended without a claim to Pragmatism or some Other, please share it.

* 1152. ElliottRW - December 2, 1996
JEREMIAD Thank you for that clarification. Let's see if I understand: Atheists, by rejecting the existence of the "Other," also reject the possibility of objective morality. That is, ethics and aesthetics are either meaningless concepts or relative concepts. The "Other" is essentially an ordering of reality which enables the existence of objective ethics and aesthetics. What I'm pretty sure I don't understand is the relationship of this "Other" thing to conceptions of God.

* 1153. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
Re: Post #1152 by ElliottRW. Conceptions of God are widely varied even within particular religious sects. I have not sought to establish a logical connection between the existence of some superhuman reality and a particular set of characteristics. I, personally, believe the God of Christianity in the orthodox sense to be the most consistent characterization of this Other. However, I rest this belief on several additional presumptions that have not be discussed or defended in this forum. Namely, the belief in the text of canonical Scripture as being revelatory of the will of God and the belief in the person of Jesus Christ as being a living human being who suffered under Pilate, was crucified, buried and resurrected. With these two beliefs based on evidence and the logical and perceptual compulsion I have to believe in the existence of this Other, I formulate my conception of this Other as the Judeo-Christian God, Jehovah.

Note: I have not tried to prove or based my belief in God's existence upon the authority of Scripture or the historical witness to Jesus' life, death and resurrection. These are subsequent beliefs to the belief in the existence of God.

Since these issues are not germane to the subject of this forum, if anyone wishes to discuss these beliefs with me, please email me at crichars@cswnet.com.

1156. mnjperry - December 2, 1996
Jeremiad: I still don't understand the basis of your claim that all our ideas about morality, truth, etc. cannot ultimately boil down to atoms smashing around inside our brains, as determined by our genes, environment and so on? What is so unreasonable (let alone impossible) about this notion? You seem to believe that good and evil must have some objective or absolute reality, but you cannot say why this must be so. Yes, free will may be an illusion--our mental processes may ultimately turn out to be entirely deterministic-- or it may be real--a consequence of some inherent uncertainty in the nature of the universe. Either way, so what?

* 1159. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
Re: Post 1156 by mnjperry.

I reject this as unreasonable because I believe I _can_ reject it as unreasonable! The mere fact that I can reason - and that my reason proves itself out in the material world is evidence that reason is above the mental processes in my brain. The fact that I can think in abstract terms and philosophize in a way that is cogent and rational is insurmountable evidence that there is more to "thinking" and "reasoning" than biochemical causation. The way in which you casually brush aside the issue of free will is proof in itself you don't even begin to understand the implications of what you're saying!

Simply put, to believe what you present - that human reason is a farce; that personality and free will arefiction; that justice, love and beauty are just chemical precipitates - is completely ludicrous to anyone willing to step back from the jargon and just look at that statement.

We _know_ reason works. We _know_ the cosmos is intelligible. We _know_ good and evil exist. We _know_ that justice and love are real things. We _know_ that there is an "I" inside our skulls - and not some illusion created by aggregate neurological reactions. Read the statement again and say it aloud to yourself. Do you smile? Do you cringe at your own self-consciousness about uttering so ridiculous a phrase?

These are "properly basic" beliefs - requiring no evidence beyond the subjective witness of the individual. Further, if you are correct (and you are _obviously_ far from it), all you have succeeded in doing is to prove your logic worthless - and your cries for evidentiary substantiation as pointless. This is the ultimate irrationality and frustration of the materialist viewpoint.

1160. mnjperry - December 2, 1996
Re:#1159 (jeremiad):
"The fact that I can think in abstract terms and philosophize in a way that is cogent and rational is insurmountable evidence that there is more to "thinking" and "reasoning" than biochemical causation."

I don't see why. As far as we can tell, there is nothing more to our brains and our mental life than "biochemical causation." You insist that this is ludicrous, but you cannot say why. Why is it ludicrous to think that beauty and love ultimately boil down to "chemical precipitates" in our brains? I find the idea humbling and ennobling, not absurd.

It would be interesting to see your reaction if and when we create intelligent machines, with humanlike consciousness and mental capacities, and an appreciation of concepts like beauty and love. Or perhaps we will one day be able to create a species of intelligent apes with similar capacities by manipulating their DNA. Religion has a rather sad history of making claims about the real world, including the nature of human beings, that science has later shown to be false.

1161. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
You display a dizzying lack of understanding of artificial intelligence. The adherents to "hard" AI are few and far between - and are actually becoming fewer year by year as we progress in technology. "Soft" AI adherents are by far the more common among AI scientists. You state: "As far as we can tell, there is nothing more to our brains and our mental life than "biochemical causation." This is _false_, _false_, _false_. You've seen too many episodes of Star Trek without consulting AI journals to balance your thinking. The present state of neurophysiology is one of complete humility. Not only is the concensus _not_ that there is nothing more to our brains than biological causation, there has been a groundswell in the past two decades (since AI research has made great strides) of substance dualism and the belief in true mental events. You simply don't have the facts and are espousing fantasy in place of truth.

Finally, you actually make my point. You state: "It would be interesting to see your reaction if...we create intelligent machines, with...an appreciation of concepts like beauty and love." My reaction would be one of satisfaction - for my point would be even more established. If these creatures are ever built, it will be so because we have "created" them to understand love and beauty. This is exactly why God must exist! Because you and I understand love and beauty as real things, there must be some Definer/Creator that has made it so.

You say that I "cannot say why" materialism is ludicrous. I did state why it is ludicrous in my previous post. Go back and read it. It is ludicrous because it requires prima facie fact to be self-contradictory - and because Reason and Logic _do_ exist, this cannot happen, therefore the premise must be false.

* 1162. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
(Continued) You're simply going to have do better than this. Covering your ears and muttering to drown out my response isn't arguing - it's childish.

You have failed to answer even one question I have put to you. I am waiting for you to form any cogent argument at all, actually. (And casting aspersions on religion has nothing to do with anything I've said. Just another case of atheists unable to debate the issue and using insults and pejoratives to divert the conversation.)

All you have to do is establish why you can argue without believing logic and reason really exist. I'll even let you use metaphor to make your point. Explain why it was evil, wrong or bad for Hitler to systematically execute six million Jews. Please, I really can't wait for you to enlighten me.

* 1163. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
(Continued) Let me go ahead and respond to your remark about religion. Imagine this: suppose that, say, science once held beliefs that were later proven to be false, would this in any way cause you to throw science aside because it had made mistakes? Now, I'm, of course, not saying that science has ever been wrong, but just suppose...

* 1165. AlexKhan - December 2, 1996
JEREMIAD - I still have some disagreements with you from #1141 and #1142, but they are now made irrelevant and trivial before the simple, stark and astouding magnificence of your posts in #1159, 1160, 1161 and 1162.

I have been sparring in the Fray from the very beginning of SLATE, and hundreds of Fray participants can testify that I am neither easily awed nor prone to humbling myself nor much given to praising anyone. For you I will make an exception. I am truly impressed. I doff my hat, JEREMIAD.

* 1167. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
In response to Post 1165 by AlexKahn, let me say, the check is in the mail! Seriously, though, I appreciate the compliment. I believe, however, that my statements only seem to be very impressive because of the usual lack of perspecuity in these kinds of arguments. Usually, within the first few posts, the whole thing degenerates into infantile name-calling. This is why I have so adamently (and on occasion, too much so) opposed those who have attempted to resort to bigoted stereotypes, faulty argument technique and just plain bad manners in their discussion with me.

I bring no special knowledge to the forum - but I refused to be diverted with the typical nonsense atheists use to obfuscate the discussion. I also _believe_ in people discussing things rationally - because I believe Reason and Logic exist and that their existence is no coincidence. We are responsible to _think_. So many on both sides of this debate refuse to do so. It was noted atheist Bertrand Russell who said, "Most people would rather die than think; and they often do."

1166. jwendell - December 2, 1996
I think mmjperry is doing a pretty good job of debating the issues. The question of the existance of a Christian God was resolved to my satisfaction many years ago. In the words of Carl Sagan, "I see no evidence". Scientists have evolved a "scientific method" over the course of many years. Any and every phenomenon that is observed is open for investigation, if an explanation is suggested, it must be an explanation that itself is based on nature. In other words, scientists cannot publish in a credible journal that they have found a supernatural being to explain something like lightning or the reason why the sun shines. So now, the question that interests me is "What are some of the hypotheses about how religion evolved?".

* 1168. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
Re: post 1166 by jwendell. You should read Bertand Russell. He's much more interesting than Sagan, much funnier and much smarter, too, I might add. He was once asked what he would say if, after death, he found himself at the judgment seat of God. He replied, "I'd simply say, 'Not enough evidence, God; not enough evidence!'"

You are duly misinformed as to the origin of the scientific method. I think you're confusing it with the theory of evolution! It did not "evolve", but was stated crisply by Francis Bacon.

Additionally, I believe you are either not a serious truth-seeker, or your requirements for "evidence" are far too lenient. What you are relying on is the epistemology commonly called "materialism" (later variants included logical positivism and empiricism depending on some of the specific requirements of knowledge you rely upon). I have discussed at length in previous posts why it is incredibly short-sighted and intellectually dishonest to say, in essence, "Well, God's not in the test tube, so he must not exist!"

You have made huge presuppositions about knowledge and reality that perhaps you haven't even thought of. I reference you to my summary of the exchanges I've had here in The Fray on this issue titled Is God There?

1175. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
Re: post 1171 by jwendell. In the series of arguments I have made, I attempted to show [logically] why it is simply not possible for a materialist to make the claims you make in this post. I, as a theist, am perfectly free epistemologically to make assumptions about meaning, causality and intelligibility of the universe. You are not.

You state that you see no proof of God's existence having first presupposed that the universe is intelligible based on some "natural law". I have argued forcefully that such a claim already _presupposes_ the non-existence of God - and therefore precludes you reaching any conclusion other than an atheistic one.

Finally, if you honestly answer the following series of questions, I think you'll actually be ready to enter the debate:

(1) how do you know you exist?

(2) how do you know anything other than yourself exists - including the physical world?

(3) how do you know you can trust your senses?

(4) how do you know logic and reason are real and can lead you to understanding?

(5) how do you know the universe is intelligible - that is, on what basis have you determined that the universe will be understandable at all?

The problem with your position is it rides [very shallow] on the surface of a large body of epistemological presuppositions that you have failed to admit or defend. This is typical of atheists. You want to discuss an issue half way down the page without first establishing your hidden beliefs. Your points are quite meaningless unless you can answer the above five questions and defend them.

Did you read my previous post in response to your earlier post? I gave you a reference to my earlier arguments on this issue. Rather than clutter up the forum re-establishing this point, I suggest you read what I've already said about the kinds of claims you are making.

1187. atheistatpeace - December 2, 1996
JEREMIAD, as well as many others who participated with you "to long to list" I want to applaud you on your input to this thread. Something to definitely investigate and think about. I, however, still have much difficulty with the God of religion and hence my username exists. I think is it reasonable to assume that the discussion opened by the two members was to debate the religious aspect, the part where every individual or group that does superficial duties is somehow rewarded with something so called good and tangible, i.e.,: peace of mind, afterlife, etc..

Most people don't even begin to understand let alone think about what they are getting into when they join a religion. Many flock to religious beliefs and then make very high assumptions as to consequences "threats" for non-believers. As regard to this, the numbers of Cults on high increase. I have definitely elevated my thinking and hopefully others as to, Is There a God? At this point I would have to admit that God is quite possible. What kind of possible is anyone's guess. I will leave that to those of you who operate outside of everday normal deductive reasoning. One thing I seem to think now is that God should be separated from religion. Could you comment on the last sentence?

Maintaining Atheistatpeace.

1190. cjgrayce - December 3, 1996
Gee, alexkhan, how come you doffed your hat to an argument by authority by jeremiad? What relation has the majority opinion of AI folks to the truth about the nature of thought? Also, so far as I know as a practicing chemist, jeremiad's opinion about current opinion on the biochemical basis for thought is pure invention. I would be happy, of course, for a relevant biochemical journal citation proving me wrong; I'll admit I don't read these journals all that often. Perhaps it's worth mentioning some nice work I recall by workers at WU St. Louis in which they imaged by PET the activity in the brain corresponding to recognition of objects previously seen (as distinct from seeing or verbally naming those objects). That is, they took photographs of the biochemical activity in the brain that corresponded precisely to a "purely mental" act of recognition. Would you call this "photographing a thought?" What does this do to the vital force argument, which, by the way, I thought had gone out with Pasteur?

1191. cjgrayce - December 3, 1996
Further along those lines, the folks who argue here that creating living things is a mark of Godhood haven't been keeping up with biochemistry for the past 50 years. It's not that hard. I don't think any synthetic organic chemist would argue that synthesizing from scratch (from air, water, and, say, crude oil) any of the molecules in a living cell is anything more than a matter of sufficient time and money. Furthermore, DNA is routinely manipulated by biochemists, and cells are regularly structurallymodified by molecular biologists -- again, I don't think anyone would argue strongly that it is beyond the science of the next 50 years to be able to put together a living cell, given the ingredients and some perfectly forseeable advances in micromanipulation. So what then? A single cell can give rise to as complex an organism as you like, from man to killer whale. It certainly looks to me that creating from inorganic starting points a genuinely living thing is by no means out of the question within the next 50 years, assuming anyone would be willing to go to the astronomical cost. If you want to put God into the picture in terms of life, I think you need to invoke him either for the *design* of life (or more probably of consciousness) or creation of the conditions under which life (consciousness) can exist. Or, of course, you could take the point that the creation I'm talking about is pretty much the same as conception in a test tube or, er, in the more natural way, and God just breathes a soul into the corpus at whatever point the Supreme Court decides life begins. . .

1194. jeremiad - December 3, 1996
Re: cjgrayce in posts 1190-1191. I will offer some brief responses. First, you accuse me of making an argument from authority (which I _did not_ do), then you immediately begin an argument based on the fact that you think your position has been printed in journals! If _this_ isn't argumentum ad verecundiam, I don't know what is!

You go on to state that my "opinion about current opinion on the biochemical basis for thought is pure invention". No, this is not correct. My opinion about _neurophysiology_ is gleaned from several recent articles I _did read_ in recent editions of the IEEE Journal of Artificial Intelligence. Further, you make a perfect point (for me, that is) about "photographing" a thought. Simply put, you just missed the boat on this. What was photographed was the bioelectrical activity concurrent with a thought - that mental events are wedded to physical events is a fundamental tenet of substance dualism. To presume they are the _same thing_ is a mockery of science at this point.(You also missed the boat on citing Pasteur: I would think - as a "practicing chemist" - that you would know it was Pastuer who developed techniques to kill bacteria and _Pascal_ who espoused substance dualism (along with Descartes and many others).

You continue by discussing how you are so confident that scientists can "create" life. Yet this has never been done. My recent reading (admittedly a couple of years old) led to the conclusion that the more we learnedthe further we believed we were from "creating" life. I doubt seriously if we ever will (and many scientists do, too). But if we do, it has no bearing on God's existence as you already pointed out.

I would suggest that if you are going to enter this discussion as a "practicing chemist" you should then speak as a chemist and cite evidence as such. If you want to discuss the issues without making claims to authority, then keep your professional pedigree to yourself.

* 1196. jeremiad - December 3, 1996
Re: Post 1187 by atheistatpeace. I thank you for the nod. You asked me to comment on God being separated from religion. I will be glad to. First, let's clear some of the air, though. Religion can be a very individual and personal thing. I do not think any need exists to separate a person's understanding of God from that person's practices in life based on their belief, do you? Further, I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say "that God should be separated from religion". I don't think we should have religions without gods! I think these would be even more destructive than the most harmful theistic religions! Are you asking if one can have belief in God without ascribing to a particular religion? If so, then I think this is certainly true. Ultimately, belief in God begins with the simple acknowledgement that "there is more in heaven and earth..than is dreamt of in [our] philosophy".

I would like to point out two falsities in your post, however. First, you state than many people "flock" to religion and then make assumptions about "threats" to non-believers. This is not true. In most practicing religions (all that I am familiar with), tenets of belief and the consequences are clearly spelled out in that religion's sacred writings - I don't think believers join in and start adding consequences (e.g., "I vote we hang 'em on spits and roast 'em!"). That believer _adopt_ the tenets of their religion is, I think, what one should expect. Finally, you state that you will leave the description of God to those who "operate outside of everday normal deductive reasoning". This is too short-sighted. I believe that having accepted belief in God, a person can then apply the same criteria to the evaluation of God that we apply to any hypothesis (namely, the four criteria of adequacy, internal coherency, external coherency, and fruitfulness) - but this is another discussion.

* 1198. AlexKhan - December 3, 1996
JEREMIAD -

I would like a clarification, by synopsis, of an argument of yours.

Do you say that if an atheist, or other, answers the questions in #1175 materialistically (especially [4]: "How do you know logic and reason are real and can lead to understanding?"), then s/he is compelled to make a claim about reason which is contradicted by his/her very ability to argue and reason? And do you say that this constitutes a reductio ad absurdam? Does this constitute, for you, a cogent argument that atheism, at least coupled with materialism, is an untenable position?

* 1199. jeremiad - December 3, 1996
Re: Post 1198 by AlexKhan. I would hesitate to say that atheism is untenable because the term "atheist" - like "theist" - can mean so many things. However, I would, without hesitation, say that any person adhering to radical materialism - or, specifically, logical positivism, empiricm or scientism - is in philosophical checkmate. I actually draw this conclusion from the defeat of the Verifiability Criterion of Meaning used as the cornerstone of logical positivism. Stated simply, the VCM says that a thing has no meaning unless (a) it can be verified analytically with the senses or (b) is true by definition (such as mathematical statements or tautologies). This enjoyed a real hey-day in the 60's, but suffered a quick philosophical death with the spirit of the boy who proclaimed, "the emperor is naked!" (apparently Sagan and Asimov never got the message). It's defeat rests on three basic truths: (a) fundamental scientic tenets cannot meet the criteria (nature's uniformity, for instance), (b) moral arguments cannot meet the conditions, (c) it is self-defeating - that is, how does one verify the VCM analytically? Thus, all claims that evidence must be provided to believe in something are themselves unbelievable by their own criteria. In this sense, then, radical materialism is internally incoherent.

Note that in that series of questions, however, I was not forming an argument, but was attempting to show jwendell how he was beginning the discussion "in medias res". I was trying to get him to acknowledge and defend his presuppositions. It would be in this attempted defense that I would argue that it is internally incoherent.

* 1200. jeremiad - December 3, 1996
Since I introduced the VCM and it's defeat in my previous post, I would like to point out that Antony Flew's Principle of Falsifiability was constructed as the corollary to the VCM and as such stands defeated as well. Not to mention the fact that honesttheists admit possible defeaters to God's existence. Among these possible defeaters are the demonstration of the universe not being radically contingent and the demonstration of the concept of God being internally incoherent (the same salvo that sunk basic evidentialism).

1202. mnjperry - December 3, 1996
Re: #1161 (jeremiad) "You say that I "cannot say why" materialism is ludicrous. I did state why it is ludicrous in my previous post. Go back and read it. It is ludicrous because it requires prima facie fact to be self-contradictory - and because Reason and Logic _do_ exist, this cannot happen, therefore the premise must be false."

If there is a comprehensible explanation of this alleged contradiction among your voluminous postings, I have yet find it. Perhaps you could explain it one more time. As far as I can tell, your argument against "materialism" consists of the assertion that because we have the capacity for reason and emotion there must be something beyond our biological selves. If you consider this a self-evident truth, further debate is probably useless. I see no reason to believe that reason and emotion require anything other than the human brain, a machine that appears to have been created entirely by natural processes described by evolutionary biology, and I know of no serious evidence that anything else is present or necessary. Simply saying, over and over again, that there must be more to it than that, or that "materialism" is a "contradiction" does not constitute a serious argument against this view, in my opinion. Despite your claims about my lack of knowledge regarding AI and neuroscience, I believe this basic view is shared by most scientists working in those disciplines.

* 1204. jeremiad - December 3, 1996
Re: post 1202 by mnjperry. You are certainly entitled to your belief about the basic view of scientists concerning AI. It just happens to be wrong.

As to my argument about the internal incoherence of materialism, I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you, sir. You are presenting a position of materialism against the commonly accepted body of knowledge to the contrary. _You_ please describe why your presupposition of radical materialism is a consistent logical position - and please describe how you can make claims to logic in first place.

This is the issue I've asked you to comment on for about four posts now. Yet you are still unable to answer, I see.

While continued efforts to decry and deny my arguments (that have been stated and commented on -and evened acknowledged as having some merit - by some of your atheist peers) are certainly clever evasive techniques, they do not constitute support for your proposal. Vis a vis, Why should I believe that personality, free will, logic, reason, beauty and morality do not exist as real things? Even atheist philosophers in general admit this as a problem - thus, they typically do not argue as you are attempting to do so because they see the obvious conundrum that results.

Finally, I _do_ argue that belief in Reason and Logic are synthetic a priori beliefs without which this whole thing - included everything you said - is pointless. Please describe by argument why this is not so.

1203. AlexKhan - December 3, 1996
JEREMIAD - Re: Message #1200

"Among these possible defeaters [to God's existence] are the demonstration of the universe not being radically contingent."

Wait, isn't this what I said, basically and without the jargon, in Message #1078, Message #1131, and Message #1137? If the universe were found to be radically autonomous, i.e., not requiring a creator or a cause for its own existence, or being due to chance, then God's existence would be superfluous to posit.

And doesn't this bear out my position that one can be rational and go either way, believing or disbelieving in God? Doesn't this allow for a rational agnosticism AND a decision criterion, so to speak, for when one might as well say, hell, God exists, or hell, God doesn't exist?

1207. jeremiad - December 3, 1996
Re: Post 1203 by AlexKhan. I stated that if the universe were found to be not radically contingent (not the same thing as radically autonomous), this would constitute a _possible_ defeater to God's existence. I also said this in the context of showing the refutation of Flew's Falsifiability Principle. The possible defeaters were presented by theistic philosophers answering Flew's questions. Subsequent to (or possibly concurrent with - I don't have the exact timeline) the submission of these possible defeaters, the theistic philosophers offered defeater-defeaters for these problems. The response to the radical contingency defeater was, if I remember correctly, the intelligibility of the cosmos. A point I have already argued earlier.

I have not said that it is irrational to disbelieve in God. I have said that radical materialism is internally incoherent and therefore logically unsound. Further, my point on the disbelief in God is atheists never take it far enough. Ultimately, an honest atheist (unlike, for example Sagan - or our very own mnjperry), must recognize that nothing exists for certain except possibly, their own doubt of everything. If they can reach this position - which I believe is their only honest option - then I recommend Augustine's argument for God - which lays its foundation on nothing more than a person's doubt of everything and builds from radical skepticism to belief.

1206. mnjperry - December 3, 1996
Re: #1162 (jeremiad): "All you have to do is establish why you can argue without believing logic and reason really exist. I'll even let you use metaphor to make your point. Explain why it was evil, wrong or bad for Hitler to systematically execute six millions Jews. Please, I really can't wait for you to enlighten me."

It is certainly a surprise to me to discover that I don't believe logic and reason really exist. This is one of many opinions you attribute to me that I have not expressed and do not hold. This makes useful debate difficult.

It was wrong for Hitler to kill the Jews because that action was an unjust violation their right to life. I believe people have that right by virtue of being people; it is inherent in their nature as human beings. I consider this view entirely sane, rational and non-contradictory.

If there is a God and he loved the Jews, why did he allow Hitler to massacre them? Why didn't he stop it? Doesn't the fact that the Holocaust actually happened give us reason to doubt that a loving God really exists?

* 1208. AlexKhan - December 3, 1996
MJNPERRY (1206) ---

Damn it, you are evading the questions!

Right to life? Where does that come from? Calling it self-evident is ludicrous.

You DO believe logic and reason really exist. JEREMIAD never said the contrary. He said believing they exist and holding a materialist conception of their origins is LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT!