1334. AlexKhan - December 4, 1996
JEREMIAD, MJNPERRY & ELLIOTRW

Forgive me, all of you, if I seem to be vacillating. Indeed I am.

About the need for a definer in order to possess moral knowledge, I am still unswervingly with JEREMIAD. A materialist can never make an "ought" out of an "is." For a materialist, all that can exist is a moral solipsism.

However, I am now moving closer to MJNPERRY's position on reason & logic. Ideals - suchas beauty, love, reason, truth, etc. - do NOT exist outside of the mind. Just as the universal called "redness" is the common denominator of a property we discern in particular things, like in a particular rose, or on a particular leaf, or in a particular vial of blood, so the ideal called "rationality" is a universal constructed from properties of particulars.

What is that property? I think MJNPERRY comes to close to answering it in Message #1317. We deem a mental process "rational," which yields useful answers, or optimal strategies, in interacting with the material world. We accidentally strike some stones together and produce a flicker which ignites some leaves. If we rememberthat flicker and deliberately recreate the circumstances that produced the flicker, then we have found something useful. The process of remembering and acting upon the memory in order to achieve the desired end, we characterize as rational.

But again, I am not certain of what I'm saying. But I think it's fairly coherent.

1335. AlexKhan - December 4, 1996
MJNPERRY - Re: Message #1325

Oh, come on! Be fair! JEREMIAD has NOT asked you "prove" materialism or rationality!

JEREMIAD has asked you, given your materialism, how you can believe reason and logic to be real. I think I am now on your side in this issue, but your rhetorical tactics are either sloppy or deplorable.

1337. jeremiad - December 4, 1996
IN response to AlexKhan in post 1334. Let me state that I appreciate your openness to both sides of the argument - and your insistence that either side present their case with reasonable polemic instead of caustic aspersions.

You state that you begin to "see" things from mnjperry's point of view. This is fine. I have had no problem with the point of view. The problem I have is how you think you can "reach" that "conclusion" if only brains exist. As I demonstrated in my earlier posts (Message #1170 and following, I think), in order for a person to _reach_ and _ought_ from evidence or reason, one must have the capability to do so from (1) agency; (2) free will; (3) truth/real propositions. That is, there must be a"you" that endures through the argument to reach the conclusion; that this "you" is actually free to conclude something based on evidence or reason instead of being bound to reach a conclusion because of physical reaction in the brain; and that there must be some "truth" to the propositions in order for there to exist an "ought" to be reached. This is much abbreviated, but sound. I can't figure out how a person can "believe" anything without accepting these propositions.

mnjperry stated he that he basically agreed that I had properly described his beliefs in my Message #1324. If this does, then he is not free to hold any opinion other than the one he holds unless stimuli can be produced to hissenses that create a different brain state. Ultimately, as far as I can tell, this means that under this view there can be _no_ claims to _knowledge_ at all.

This is where I think I have to just agree to disagree with mnjperry. I _know_ I exist. I _know_ reason and rationality exist. I _know_ love, beauty and justice exist. These are clear in historical human experience and my own personal experience. Thus, I cannot see how his view can be correct. Further, I have not seen a basis for defending th

1338. jeremiad - December 4, 1996
(Continued from previous post) Further, I have not seen a basis for defending this basic belief system from its own self-refutation. I still believe you must begin your inquiry with a belief about God - and this will ultimately color your conclusion.

1353. RDGRAHAM - December 5, 1996
alexkahn:

1) Your recent statement, "Ideals - such as beauty, love, reason, truth, etc. - do NOT exist outside of the mind," is a bit perplexing. Do you mean by this that "truth" is merely subjective? If you do, then your statement asserting as much is an attempt to state an objective truth and is thus self-refuting, as I believe jeremiad has tried to point out.

2) Your statement, "We deem a mental process "rational," which yields useful answers, or optimal strategies, in interacting with the material world," leaves a lot of ground untilled. You are referring only to reasoning that involves simple cause and effect; but what about reasoning that involves ground and consequent (A=B, C=B, therefore A=C)? Making an inference like this is not based on the fact that I have never observed the contrary, but that it is NECESSARILY so. This is what we supernaturalists mean by reason.

3) Also, you stated that you can't believe that the number system exists independently of someone thinking about it. I assume then you mean that reason can't exist in the same way. I might agree with you. But those of us who agree with jeremiad do not assert that reason exists ABSOLUTELY, in and of itself. This is the crucial point. Reason rests ultimately on God's existence, "God" at this point being no more than the god of the philosophers. The point jeremiad has been trying to make is that reason cannot come from non-rational causes; that would be absurd. If it is to remain reason, it must come from another source that is itself reasonable.

[continued on next post]

1354. RDGRAHAM - December 5, 1996
[cont. from above]
4) At times you have claimed to be an atheist, other times an agnostic. I suggest to you something that I think you already know, but are reluctant to admit. Jeremiad's arguments are philosophically sound; indeed, I would have thought that you could have made some of them yourself in your agressive defense of rationality in the ancient history of this thread. But I am bewildered at your recalcitrance. You related to me once that you were familiar with Mortimer Adler's refinements of Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God, and you have indicated through your vast contributions of how much you know about the subject. And you should know that materialism and naturalism, subjectivism and skepticism are self-refuting philosophical systems. For me, it is like wondering how the O.J. jurors sitting in on his criminal trial could possibly find him not-guilty, given the mountain of evidence available. You described for me in a previous post that "faith" could be seen as a sort of "capstone" to a pile of evidence. Now the time has come to ask you: "Just what would it take, short of an epiphany, to convince you?"

* 1360. jeremiad - December 5, 1996
I think it is clear that most reasonable people cannot accept the worldview as espoused by the statement in Message #1324, above. We _know_ that some things are _wrong_ with more certainty than we know some basic facts in science (which are you more sure of: the existence of quarks or the evil of torturing children? which as the greater liklihood of being true in a century or two?). We _know_ that beauty, justice and love are real - that they exist as more than mere brain states concocted through biochemical cause-and-effect.

Finally, we _know_ that rationality exists - the mere idea that we can discuss ideas, review evidence and make decisions is grounded in the idea that we are actually performing rational operations.

In the case of the materialist, the burden of proof is on him/her to show why his/her belief is sound and better than nonmaterialist belief.

Mnjperry's admits in Message #1325 that s/he cannot demonstrate why materialism is not self-refuting; nor can s/he show logically how rationality can exist under a materialistic worldview.

I have previously shown what I believe to be the requirements of rationality and how materialism fails to meet these requirements. Mnjperry has failed to develop a view of rationality without these tenets nor can s/he show how materialism can support their existence. I see no need to discuss the issue further based on these concessions.

1361. slaterdr9 - December 5, 1996
1161. jeremiad - December 2, 1996 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_.

I strongly disagree. I have never seen a report of any experimental evidence for substance dualism and the belief in true mental events.

Am I unaware of a Nobel Prize winning experIment? If so, please be kind enough to share some details.

Currently the we do not understand how a brain works - whether it belongs to an ant or man. This is no reason to suggest mystic forces.

Until Wohler synthesized urea in 1828 mystic forces were supposed by many to be needed to synthesize organic compounds. Again mystic forces were supposed by many (including one of the discoverers of quantum mechanics, Shrodinger) to be required for life until DNA function was unravelled.

Complex phenomena are difficult to unravel. But progress can be rapid. For example. The last Nobel Prize in chemistry was given for a new form of carbon, buckfullerenes. Buckfullerene is now commercially available, yet for about two years in the 1980's their very existance was questioned.

* 1362. jeremiad - December 5, 1996
Re: Post 1361 by slaterdr9 -

Nobel Lauret John Eccles - a recognized leader in neurophysiology has this to say in a paper submitted to _Truth Journal_ in 1991 (Volume 2, Paper 4, p. 1):

"With the exception of the hard-core radical materialists there is general agreement on the existence of mental events such as thinking. Thinking is of course subjectively experienced and is not objectively identifiable in the way that we perceive the world around us through our senses."

You simply overstate the case and are misinformed. I have an additional string of references to scientific papers that hold similar views to that of Dr. Eccles.

* 1363. jeremiad - December 5, 1996
I think I should offer a clarification to slaterdr9 and others who read my posts: If you will review what I have said in this thread, I have never presented arguments for substance dualism (although I certainly have them and believe this position to be both logically consistent and true). I have (1) stated a logical basis for rationality, and, (2) stated why materialism is inconsistent with this basis. I have, further, asked for someone to provide a logical basis for rationality that _is_ consistent with rationality.

So far, the responses have been either insults or statements about what science might discover in the next century or so. I have made it clear that I don't believe either of these are a logical basis for determining something _now_.

It is important to note that there are forms of atheism that are not materialistic - and as such may avoid the self-refuting qualities of that particular worldview.

1364. slaterdr9 - December 5, 1996
1362. jeremiad - December 5, 1996
I can only reiterate my question: Is there any experimental evidence to support the conjecture that mystic forces are responsible for human (or that matter ant) thought processes?

Simply quoting authorities whosupport your view does not make it so. I have already given examples of the futility of this approach. The history of science is littered with them. (See Message #161)

I reiterate that mere physical processes will be adequate to explain brain function. Whether far out concepts such those explicated by Penrose in The Shadows of the Mind or just biochemical processes by themselves will prove adequate remains to be demonstrated.

* 1365. jeremiad - December 5, 1996
I only quoted a recognized expert in neurophysiology to counter your question "Am I unaware of a Nobel Prize winning experIment? If so, please be kind enough to share some details." I know of no experiential data to suggest physicalism. The opinions among scientists are varied (as I demonstrated) so _no one_ can make experiential claims _either way_. Your basic position seems to be: "we can't explain the mind, but it must be physical because this is all there is". This is begging the question.

Finally, you state, "I reiterate that mere physical processes will be adequate to explain brain function." But you have no evidence or logic to support this position. It rests as a mere opinion - worth no more than any other.

You miss the point though, where do you gain the authority to demand evidence? If rationality does not exist (as I have shown it cannot in a materialist universe), then you cannot reach conclusions based on inference and reason - you are _determined_ to reach your conclusion without any appeal to logic or reason. If this is not so, please explain.

1373. slaterdr9 - December 5, 1996
1365. jeremiad - December 5, 1996 As should have been evident from the context of "Am I unaware of a Nobel Prize winning experIment? If so, please be kind enough to share some details.", I was asking for experimental evidence. (Which, if itexisted, would surely win a Nobel Prize.) Not conjecture.

Currently, AS YOU AGREE, there is no experimental evidence of mystic forces acting within neurons - whether they be in the human brain or the brains of other animals (such as ants). Therefore, observing that mystical forces have failed to materialize in the past (see Message #1361) and invoking Occam's razor, mystical forces can be banished into the imaginery realms in which they have historically dwelt.

Also, as you will surely agree, there are NO mystic forces enabling life to exist.

However you seem to believe that life on this planet had a mystical origin. What flavor of creationism do you espouse?

1375. jeremiad - December 5, 1996
Re: 1373. slaterdr9.

I will restate:

"[W]here do you gain the authority to demand evidence? If rationality does not exist (as I have shown it cannot in a materialist universe), then you cannot reach conclusions based on inference and reason - you are _determined_ to reach your conclusion without any appeal to logic or reason. If this is not so, please explain."

* 1376. jeremiad - December 5, 1996
Also, you state, "observing that mystical forces have failed to materialize". Do you understand the contradiction of this statement or does it require explanation to you? Your statements are pointless. No empircal data _evidence_ exists either for or against the _real_ existence of _mental_ events. Statements for or against are _equally_ conjecture. Your demands for evidence stand in direct opposition to you [apparant] belief that determinism and physicalism are true. Again, please explain how your view is justified.

* 1377. jeremiad - December 5, 1996
A clarification of my statement in Message #1376:

I wrote, "Statements for or against are _equally_ conjecture."

I mean this only in the context of evidentiary claims.

I have shown why physicalist explanations of rationality are incoherent and directly refute the necessary premises for reason to exist. Thus, logically, some explanation of mental events beyond rank physicalism is required _only if you make claims about rationality_.

I have no problem with a person who will state:

I do not believe rationality exists

I do not believe reason or logic exist

I do not believe real knowledge exists

The problem is, no one in this forum - even though they may say they agree with these statements - lives consistently with these holdings - they all believe they can reason and argue and reach conclusions based on evidence. Their belief, however, by their own admission, is groundless.

1378. slaterdr9 - December 5, 1996
1375. jeremiad - December 5, 1996 You do not appear to have true faith since you ducked the direct question: "What flavor of creationism do you espouse?"

And you do not seriously believe your own philosophy statements: "We _know_reason works" (Your Message 1159.

Anyway, let's examine your logic.

"If rationality does not exist (as I have shown it cannot in a materialist universe)"

I assume you are referring to Message #1199 where you state:

"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."

Your argument is based on a logical paradox.

For example:

God does not exists. All sentences in this paragraph are false.

Any system of logic or beliefs requires a set of unverifiable elements. (Using meta-statements to attempt to define the elements in terms of themselves is meaningless.) The challenge is to try to choose the set that are not in conflict with each other and consistent with our observations of reality.

Also we try to choose carefully. Just because:

1. You can not prove that physical reality is not your dream. 2. Neither can you prove that physical reality was not created by some mystical entity a few milliseconds before you read this message. (Perhaps just to see how you respond.)

I very much doubt that you would consider them viable options.

* 1380. jeremiad - December 5, 1996
1378. slaterdr9: You misunderstand. I am _pointing out_ the logical paradox (actually the self-refutation) of a materialist claim to knowledge of any kind. If a person believes nothing exists but matter, there simply is _no_ rationality - nor any logical way to show how there can be.

But you go on to prove my point. You state, "I very much doubt that you would consider them viable options." Referring to your two suggestions of possibilities. I have a _basis_ as a non-materialist to reject such views. A materialist has no basis to claim or reject any view because to _claim_ or _reject_ a view requires one to reason out evidence and reach conclusions. Again, I have shown why this is not consistent with materialistic thinking. If you can show how it is, you will be the first person in the Fray (or anywhere else) to do so.

Finally, as to your judgment, "You do not appear to have true faith since you ducked the direct question: "What flavor of creationism do you espouse?"" I did not _duck_ the question. I chose not to answer it because it is irrelevant to the present discussion. (See my earlier posts on atheists' attempt to divert the discussion because of their inability to argue the issue.)

If you wish to undertake a theological discussion with me, please email me at crichars@cswnet.com.

* 1381. jeremiad - December 5, 1996
Further, slaterdr9, you accuse me of ducking a question that was completely off the subject, yet you have failed _three times_ now to provide your basis for rationality without claims beyond materialism.

I will restate the question again:

"[W]here do you gain the authority to demand evidence? If rationality does not exist (as I have shown it cannot in a materialist universe), then you cannot reach conclusions based on inference and reason - you are _determined_ to reach your conclusion without any appeal to logic or reason. If this is not so, please explain."

1594. slaterdr9 - December 9, 1996
FRAYMASTER (There seems to be a bug in your software. Please remove my last post.)

FRAYMASTER: A Problem of Netique and Copywrite

I was/am(?) in an exchange (my posts from 1204 to 1207) with jeremiad in the thread of the Fray IsThere a God?. In this exchange I have successfully (I hope) shown the fatal flaw in the logic used by jeremiad to claim "rationality" is impossible for materialists.

My posts were (1) post Message #1287*, (2) post Message #1297*, (3) post Message #1361*, (4) post 1364, (5) post 1373, (6) post 1378, (7) post 1390, (8) post 1409, (9) post 1481

jeremiad has put a document on the Net of exchanges with others as well as myself at
http://www.cswnet.com/~circhars/god_debate.html
The heading is

Is God There?
A Debate
c, 1996, Jeff Richardson

This document only contains posts from Slate. Therefore it seems unreasonable that the document is displayed as copywrited by Jeff Richardson.

Continued.

1595. slaterdr9 - December 9, 1996
FRAYMASTER (continuation) (Interesting. Bug still a problem.)

jeremiad's only aim in the document appears to have been to demonstrate that his infallable logic has won the day against the dastardly materialists.

In keeping with this aim, jeremiad did not use my posts fairly.

He omitted my first two posts that sets tone of our exchange. Also, he truncated my third post making it virtually meaningless. Finally, he used my fourth post and finished the document with his response. Even more troubling is the way he used my posts: there is no indication that I was attacking the foundation of his logic or that the exchange was unfinished.

FRAYMASTER Perhaps a suitable document can prominently posted in Slate to help discourage blatant perversion of the purpose of the Fray.

(This document was also posted to Is There a God? to give jeremiad a chance to respond.)

1607. jeremiad - December 9, 1996
slaterdr9: I attempted to include all posts directly sent to me or posts to which I was directly responding. If you failed to make your point, you have only yourself to blame. Further, I have removed the copyright line (this is set up to be automatically inserted when I create my web pages). Also, I made a post stating that I was going to use my exchanges - anonymously if requested - in some writing I was doing. Since Slate quickly truncates the messages in this forum, I have _provided_ my web page as a reference to those following _my_ discussions.

Finally, you really need to get something straight here. You repeated the same meaningless line of logic four times - each time I patiently stated your misunderstanding and requested you substantiate a materialistic basis for rationality. You have failed to do so. I see this as a clear concession that you _cannot_ provide a basis for rationality within the confines of a materialistic paradigm. Again, I ask you do so.

Running to "mamma" when things don't go your way certainly reveals a lot about your intellectual and emotional maturity.

1609. jwendell - December 9, 1996
to: jeremiad
Is god materialistic or does it have a materialistic base?

* 1610. jeremiad - December 9, 1996
Re: jwendell post 1609: No.

1617. slaterdr9 - December 9, 1996
December 9, 1996 Message #1607 Since you complain, I give you another chance to respond to my message 1481.

Response to Message #1475 You have only conjured up an illusion that appeals to your vanity.

The fundamental problem is that there is no meta-system to judge the validity of knowledge. Consider:

You have divided knowledge into 'true' knowledge and 'false' knowledge.

You agree: 1. All my FK would become TK if I decided that God created the universe.
2. If I did believe and lost my belief all my TK would become FK.
3. When a non-believer lies and claims to believe then her/his FK will be mistakenly classified TK.
4. When believer lies and claims not to believe then her/his TK will be mistakenly classified as FK.
5. When you mistakenly think a person is a believer then FK will be classified as TK.
6. When you mistakenly think a person is a non-believer then TK will be classified as FK.

Is this the fruit of valid logic?

Further consider:

1273. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 "It is clear...that rational thinking must be guided by rational insight in the light of sound reasoning. That is to say, one must "see", rationally, that the conclusion is justified by the evidence - and one is helped to see this by principles of reasoning,-----"

You go to the world's best medical specialist for the fatal disease you have. After lengthy tests and consultation with other doctors, she/he states that, based on her/his current knowledge, she/he can probably save your life. You agree to be her/his patient. While chatting with her/him, you discover she/he is an atheist. Do you allow her/him to use her/his FK to save your life?

1621. slaterdr9 - December 9, 1996
jeremiad - December 9, 1996 Message #1607 (Also see Message #1592 and Message #1617 )

I am very disappointed in your attitude and actions.

I have read your postings and I have been impressed by your intellect. From your posturing, I assumed that you were also intellectually honest. Unfortunately you are not.

slaterdr9: I attempted to include all posts directly sent to me or posts to which I was directly responding.

Really? Since our posts were direct exchanges you should have been honor bound to include my postings along with your replies. Unfortunately, I am sure you would have quickly included them if you would have been winning in our exchanges.

Probably about ten people have the patience to follow our exchanges. And in a month nobody will remember them. But this moral failure wil be seared into your soul. I can only pity you for your hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy .

1624. jeremiad - December 9, 1996
Re: slaterdr9: Please provide the materialist definition of hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy (since both imply "real" standards of integrity, honor, honesty and truth, you'll need to provide that elusive logical support for rationality under a materialistic worldview that I've been asking for for the last two hundred posts).

As to who was "winning" in our discussion - as far as logic is concerned, only one of us was even in the competition - and it wasn't you!

You seem to be in water that's well over your head.

1625. jeremiad - December 9, 1996
RE: Post 1617 by slaterdr9 - If there is no standard by which to determine if knowledge is real or not; then why do you believe materialism to be superior to supernaturalism?

You alluded earlier to the premise of rationality being an a priori syntheticaxiom - on the basis of the premise that there "is no meta-system to determine the validity of knowledge". This is exactly my point, actually. We all _know_ it is self-evident that rationality exists and that we can intentionally act on reason to reach conclusions. Yet you state that you are a materialist. I have shown exhaustively in posts 1270-1274 why materialism is a self-refuting epistemology and, further, how it undermines the existence of rationality and reason at all.

Again, please state your logical argument for the existence of rationality within the materialist worldview. I am not asking for you to state how we determine some knowledge to be false and some to be true. I am asking you to establish logically how you reconcile the "truth" of materialism as you "believe" it and the existence of rationality.

1628. slaterdr9 - December 9, 1996
jeremiad - December 9, 1996 Message #1624 Your simply sophistry amazes me.

Just reply to Message #1617 and stop mouthing high school insults.

Unfortunately only sociopaths try to divide humanity into us and them. If you find the meanings of my words confusing try using a dictionary for the definitions.

And don't insult the memory of Einstein by quoting him at your site. He was intellectually honest. Also he believed in the God of Reason. Not the God of Mystery.

1629. slaterdr9 - December 9, 1996
jeremiad - December 9, 1996 Message #1624 Re my post Message #1628

Sorry. I did not see your last post. Before I posted. I guess I should not get angry. We all in our own ways are trying the best we can.

I will read your post through carefully and try to give my views.

1659. mnjperry - December 10, 1996
"RE: Post 1617 by slaterdr9 - If there is no standard by which to determine if knowledge is real or not; then why do you believe materialism to be superior to supernaturalism?" --Jeremiad (#1625)

For the reasons he has already explained. The point is that there is no basis for the distinction you make between true knowledge and false knowledge, not that there is no basis for knowledge of any kind. The things that you claim to know with utter certainty--such as the immorality of torturing children--are no less subjective and open to question than any other kind of knowledge.

* 1660. AlexKhan - December 10, 1996
MJNPERRY

You are truly vulgar. Jeremiad has not raised questions of certainty or truth of this knowledge or that knowledge. Even SLATERDR has realized this.

Jeremiad says, he has a particular standard, however arrived at, which can explain a variety of things. According to Jeremiad, a radically materialist standard can only to lead to a contradiction of its own claims about reason, logic, rationality, etc.

The debate with Jeremiad is NOT (at least not yet) about how valid any particular standard is. He is asking materialists to explain how their standard (that there is only matter) is consistent with their conclusions (that reason, logic and rationality exist).

As for the certainty about the wrongness of killing children, he has premises which consistently lead him to this conclusion. He charges that materialists do not possess any such thing.

It is AMAZING you have failed to fathom this.

* 1661. slaterdr9 - December 10, 1996
jeremiad - December 9, 1996 Message #1625

I will briefly summarize what I think has transpired. But I am disinclined to reiterate what has already been posted by mnjperry Message #1279*, etc.

A
There is no meta-system to judge the validity of knowledge. The best you can do is to generate knowledge within the constraints of a given system. My previous postings clearly (I hope) indicate and illustrate why. Therefore it is meaningless to claim that knowledge does not exist for materialists. And just as meaningless for anyone to claim that knowledge does not exist for non-materialists.

B
Your belief is that a mystical force is required and absolutes are required for the brain to make complex judgements leading to knowledge. You have woven this into a philosophical argument which you are convinced is correct.

C
Materialists believe that a mystical force is not and absolutes are not necessary to explain how humans formulate knowledge. Since your mystical force and absolutes lie outside the materialistic system, they can not be invoked in a logical argument unless you postulate a meta-system to validate knowledge.

D
Materialists accept the scientific method. Therefore, if a mystical force was experimentally demonstrated then materialism would vanish.

I doubt whether I have changed your mind. And, unfortunately, I do not see how we can agree. Anyway, it has been an interesting exchange.

1663. jeremiad - December 10, 1996
Re: slaterdr9, post 1661. Thanks for your response. I will attempt to address each point and demonstrate why you have failed to substantiate your point. First, let me make this statement of my understanding: Because of the way in which you have argued and your claims about the scientific method, I am going to assume two things (please correct me if I am mistaken): (1) you believe rationality exists because we can discuss and reach conclusions, (2) you believe that a "correct" answer exists - that is, that there is a "reality" that exists that we can attain knowledge about (I _am not_ saying we necessarily know that this knowledge is correct, but that you believe knowledge exists).

RE: A
You deny that a meta-system exists to judge the validity of knowledge. THIS IS A SELF-REFUTING POSITION. YOU HAVE JUDGED THIS STATEMENT TO BE A VALID STATEMENT WITHOUT A SYSTEM TO BASE THIS KNOWLEDGE ON. Further, I have not invoked a "mystical" force at all; this is your word and your reference. I suggest that this merely reflect your own prejudices and lack of understanding. I believe that Ideals exists. This is not _mysticism_ or _mystical forces_. You display a lack of understanding here.

Continued.

* 1664. jeremiad - December 10, 1996
RE: B
(See RE: A above on your invoking mystical forces.) I have stated five basic premises for the existence of rationality. You have implied you believe rationality exists. I ask you to refute my premises, show how these premises can be reconciled to materialistic doctrine, or propose your own premises. Rationality is not a properly basic belief (this doesn't mean it is not self-evident).

RE: C
Again, I haven't invoked mysticism of any kind. Have you ever actually studied philosophy? Since when are premises that are not empirical considered illogical? Reference my posts about the demise of logical positivism.

RE: D
I suggest you not speak for materialists. Much smarter materialists than you have seen the force of the arguments I have presented here and reformed their paradigms to go beyond the scientific method - realizing this is a failed attempt to substantiate _knowledge_ as opposed to facts in the natural world. You also need to think a bit more through your statements. You said, "if a mystical force [which I never invoked]... [were] demonstrated..." You don't experiment using materialistic methods on what is immaterial.

Your ultimate point seems to be that none of us can _know_ anything, really - that since so basis for validation of our knowledge exists, it's all potluck, anyway. Thus, why materialism over supernaturalism? Why the scientific method over mysticism? In your system, either is as valid as the next. THIS IS WHY YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE SELF-REFUTING. YOU STATE A PHILOSOPHY AS TRUE THAT DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF TRUTH. E.g., "All statements are false". This is the outgrowth of your version of materialsim.

I appreciate your [much kinder] demeanor in this last post. I agree that we may not reach agreement, but I believe it is because you have refused to question your religious adherence to materialist doctrine. Your faith is great indeed.

1665. mnjperry - December 10, 1996
"Your ultimate point seems to be that none of us can _know_ anything, really - that since so basis for validation of our knowledge exists, it's all potluck, anyway. Thus, why materialism over supernaturalism? Why the scientific method over mysticism? In your system, either is as valid as the next. THIS IS WHY YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE SELF-REFUTING. YOU STATE A PHILOSOPHY AS TRUE THAT DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF TRUTH. E.g., "All statements are false". This is the outgrowth of your version of materialsim." -- Jeremiad (#1664)

What's in dispute is not whether we can have knowledge about the world that is useful to us or that seems correct--such as that science is a better guide to the nature of the world than religion--but whether there exists a kind of knowledge that you have been calling "real" or "true" or "meaningful" that is distinct from other kinds of knowledge which, you claim, do not have real meaning. The only basis you have presented for this distinction is the simple assertion that it exists, that you *know* that, for example, it's wrong to torture children, or that beauty and love are more than just a manifestation of physical brain activity. But how do you know this knowledge is "real" and that other kinds are not? The answer is that you don't. You just feel them to be more certain in your own mind, that's all. It all boils down to your own subjective experience. And the simplest explanation of that experience is that it is an emergent phenomenon of the workings of your physical brain.

* 1667. jeremiad - December 10, 1996
Which can be stated with more certainty:

torturing children is wrong

-- or --

evolution explains biological diversity

Which statement has the greatest potential to be held as true in two centuries?

My claim is simple: You do not live according to your philosophy. You (mnjperry & slaterdr9) both live, I assure you, as if we can have real knowledge of love, beauty, justice, mercy and other Ideals just as much as I do. Both of you know, I assure you, that Hitler was wrong, that torturing children is wrong, that racism is wrong. The difference is, I have an epistemological basis for my belief and you do not. You believe it because of "tribal knowledge" or religion affectations. I believe it because my epistemology demonstrates it. You believe it _in spite of your belief system_. I believe it _because of my belief system_.

Who is the more consistent and logical among us?

* 1668. jeremiad - December 10, 1996
What each of us must do is seek that system of presuppositions that is most reasonable in its conclusions to explain our universe and the self-evident truths we all know. If you begin with the presuppositions of materialism, you are led inexoribly to self-refutation, logical inconsistency and nihilism which not only stands opposed to reason (which materialism rejects anyway) but also conflicts with the self-evident truths we all know.

If you begin with the presuppositions of supernaturalism, you can constuct logically coherent (both internal and external coherency), consistent conclusions that readily fit in with our understanding of the natural world _and_ our knowledge of self-evident truths. We may deny these things in the name of science, but science itself refutes naturalism by its support of and belief in rationality - which is inconsistent with materialism, as I have repeatedly and conclusively demonstrated.

Of course, if someone can defend rationality, reason and their requisite premises within the confines of materialistic doctrine, I am ready to agree that materialism may not be prima facia self-refutational and self-contradictory. I've been very, very patient on this point, but no one has been able to provide this yet.

I believe as this exchange demonstrates, irrational religious zeal exists on both sides of the God debate.

* 1669. jeremiad - December 10, 1996
A point of clarification: Lest someone accuse me of interjecting theology into philosophy prematurely, when I use the term "supernatural" I use it in its philosophical sense; i.e., to mean that something beyond the "natural" or "material" world exists. In this realm fall Ideals such as mathematical axioms, numbers, propositions, statements, ideas, etc., as well as the potential for spiritual existence. Further, this is _not_ mysticism. Mysticism is that set of beliefs in the "unknowables" - that realm of existence or knowledge beyond our ability to understand or discern. I am not claiming mystic belief is necessary for truth, justice, love, rationality, etc. to exist; only that something beyond matter must exist.

1671. mnjperry - December 10, 1996
Re:#1668 (jeremiad):
Let me try again: "materialism" would be "self-refuting" if your premises were true, but I don't accept that they are (and I don't think slaterdr9 does, either), so I don't accept your conclusion. Specifically, I don't see any basis for classifying different kinds of knowledge in the way that your argument requires, other than by each individual's subjective evaluation of what seems most certain to him. You just keep saying, essentially, "I *know* that this is so. It's not very cogent or persuasive, no matter how many times you insist that we're wrong and that you have proved it.

1672. jeremiad - December 10, 1996
Since both of you (mnjperry & slaterdr9) seem incapable of stating your position, allow me to do so for you. You can bring our discussion to a close by simply agreeing with the following:

1. Absolute morality and knowledge may or may not exist - but in either case, we cannot know them.

2. Any claims to knowledge we have are merely subjective judgments based on sensory data processed by our individual brain material and have no extrinsic value.

3. Any beliefs we hold should be held strictly on their usefulness - and usefulness should be the only indicator of the value of any belief.

4. Humans do not have free will or the capability to reason. We are "meat machines" that process and respond to stimuli in a deterministic fashion. Any beliefs we arrive at are strictly the result of chemical causation and are not due to independent reason or rationality. Our brains have been, effectively, programmed to respond to stimuli as they do by the random mutation of our genetic ancestry.

5.We cannot prove or substantiate with empirical proof or logical argument any of these statements but adopt them as a belief system based on faith that these provide a useful way to live and reach belief.

* 1673. jeremiad - December 10, 1996
RE: 1671 by mnjperry. I have not asked ANYONE to determine which knowledge is TRUE or FALSE. I don't know if this is a deliberate attempt by mnjperry & slaterdr9 to digress and divert discussion away from issue or just lack of comprehension on their part.

Either way, it's simply wrong.

I have asked that ANY materialist provide a set of premises for rationality and reason within the materialist doctrine. (I have provided a set of premises for rationality that are coherent within a supernaturalist paradigm.) You cannot prove your point by simply stating, "I don't agree". You have to either refute my premises logically; show how you can reconcile my premises with your versin of materialism; or develop your own set of premises.

You have still failed to do this. I take this as concession.

Finally, anyone not gripped with the religious fervor of materialism as you are, would be able to see the simple logic of the self-refutation of materialist doctrine.

1674. mnjperry - December 10, 1996
"Since both of you (mnjperry & slaterdr9) seem incapable of stating your position, allow me to do so for you." -- Jeremiad (#1672)

Leaving aside the question of how our position became known to you if we are incapable of stating it, whether you understand my position or not, you have managed to mangle it in #1672 by weaving your own interpretations and value judgements into your description of it. For instance, contrary to what you say, I do believe that human beings have free will and the capacity to reason. Our disagreement is not over whether these powers exist, but about what the causes them. Similarly, you say that my position is that knowledge has no "extrinsic value." I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I believe that knowledge helps people interact with the outside world in ways that they deem valuable. In that sense, it certainly has extrinsic value, as I understand the meaning of those words.

1675. mnjperry - December 10, 1996
You cannot prove your point by simply stating, "I don't agree". You have to either refute my premises logically; show how you can reconcile my premises with your version of materialism; or develop your own set of premises." -- jeremiad (#1673)

I don't see how your premise about real vs. unreal knowledge, which seems to me to be the foundation of your claim that materialism is incoherent, can be logically refuted. It is impossible to logically refute an assertion made simply on the basis that one "knows" it to be true, which is the only basis you have offered. Since I believe the premise is false, I am not obliged to reconcile it with my position.

1686. slaterdr9 - December 10, 1996
1663. jeremiad - December 10, 1996 Message #1663 "Further, I have not invoked a "mystical" force at all; this is your word and your reference."

I can only apologize if I misrepresented your ideas. I assumed from the quotation below that you were conjecturing that thinking and reasoning involved had a supernatural aspect which, for simplicity, I designated as due to a mystical force. I would appreciate clarification of what you were referring to as beyond biochemical causation.

1159. jeremiad - December 2, 1996
"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."

"You deny that a meta-system exists to judge the validity of knowledge. THIS IS A SELF-REFUTING POSITION. YOU HAVE JUDGED THIS STATEMENT TO BE A VALID STATEMENT WITHOUT A SYSTEM TO BASE THIS KNOWLEDGE ON."

All you are stating is that jeremiad is correct and can not be disproved. And this is why I went to great lengths to allow you to disprove yourself as summed up in Message #1617. So please go back to Message #1617 and please tell me how you interprete it.

1700. jeremiad - December 11, 1996
mnjperry: You state that you find it impossible to logically refute my premese about real truth existing. If you'd read carefully, I have, twice now, stated three options you have in your substantiation of rationality (which you now, amazingly, say you believe in):

1. Refute one or more of my premises for rationality. Note that if you can't refute any of these premises, you might want to ask yourself why.

2. Show how your position can be reconciled to these premises.

3. Develop your own premises for rationality.

You have been consistently evading these issues for hundreds of posts now. I can only describe you responses as ignorance or intellectual cowardice.

1701. jeremiad - December 11, 1996
RE: Message #1686 by slaterdr9. You ask me to offer my interpretation of your previous message, Message #1617. Here goes. (Note that unlike slaterdr9 & mnjperry, I am answering their queries, whereas both of them have failed to answer the question I put to both of them hundreds of posts ago.)

You state,

"You agree: 1. All my FK would become TK if I decided that God created the universe."

No. I have made no claims about how I can know true and false knowledge, about how "God" plays a role in our knowledge or how His non-existence would change the noetic value of knowledge. You have a serious reading comprehension problem. You continue:

"2. If I did believe and lost my belief all my TK would become FK."

Again, I have never implied or said anything of the sort. I have merely stated that a proper premise for the basis of rationality is that real propositions and real knowledge exists. BTW, there is no such thing, actually, as false knowledge -only false belief. Further,

"3. When a non-believer lies and claims to believe then her/his FK will be mistakenly classified TK."

Any person regardless of their belief system is capable of holding false beliefs. What your system of belief resolutely denies is the existence of any capacity to hold knowledge at all - because it denies rationality. I'm still waiting for your defense of rationality in the light of materialist doctrine. You continue,

"4. When a believer lies and claims not to believe then her/his TK will be mistakenly classified as FK.

You really need to read some basic philosophy. This sounds like dorm-room drivel. Knowledge is true by definition. Belief may be false. What I believe has no claim on what _is_. Thus knowledge is correct regardless of my beliefs. Can a person hold false beliefs? Of course. You do.

Continued.

* 1702. jeremiad - December 11, 1996
(Continued from Message #1701.)

"5. When you mistakenly think a person is a believer then FK will be classified as TK."

The drivel continues. This is just stupid! I have attempted throughout my posts to be reasonable and logical. I have never asserted that a person's beliefs would be _made_ correct by their theological system. I HAVEN'T EVEN INVOKED THE NAME OF GOD - YOU HAVE! I have established through pure philosophical means a basis for rationality that requires the existence of Ideals. You have failed to provide any basis for you belief in rationality within materialist dogma. This is because YOU CANNOT.

"6. When you mistakenly think a person is a non-believer then TK will be classified as FK."

Are you really serious about this? This is beyond sophomoric. This is just pathetic! I believe nothing of the sort.

The reason I never responded to this post is because I gave you some credit. I thought you'd probably written this at 2AM after a drinking binge. Idon't necessarily delight in embarassing people, so I thought I'd let it pass. You, however, have invoked this absolutely specious series of unfounded, irrational, illogical statements three times now, so your embarassment is long overdue.

I recommend you take up knitting. Argument is _not_ your strong suit.

* 1703. jeremiad - December 11, 1996
slaterdr9 stated in Message #1686:

" I can only apologize if I misrepresented your ideas. I assumed from the quotation below that you were conjecturing that thinking and reasoning involved had a supernatural aspect which, for simplicity, I designated as due to a mystical force. I would appreciate clarification of what you were referring to as beyond biochemical causation."

You _really_ have a reading comprehension problem. Combined with you apparant lack of philosophical understanding, you're almost amusing. In my Message #1663, I carefully define the term supernatural and mystical. If you can't read, don't blame me.

1677. jwendell - December 10, 1996
to: jeremiad

If one were to define the Universe as everything that exists, would God, if God exists, simply be another thing in the universe? Please explain your answer rather than simply yes or no.

* 1704. jeremiad - December 11, 1996
RE: Message #1677, jwendell.

You linguistics are sloppy, but I'll try to use what I believe is your intent. If I define the word "universe" to be that term that describes "everything that is", then, yes, God would be described within that term. This really is equivalent, however, to saying "If I define the word "toaster" to be that term that decribes "everything there is"". It's quite pointless and has no bearing on the ontological nature of the universe. I think, if I judge your intent correctly, that you are presuming that the word "thing" only describes material objects. This is a unsupported presupposition on your part.

1711. mnjperry - December 11, 1996
Jeremiad: Insulting me adds nothing to your argument and reflects badly on your character. I think I have explained repeatedly why your basic premise concerning the nature of knowledge--and thus the nature of rationality--is wrong. I don't know how to articulate this view any more clearly than I already have. The most definitive explanation of this is probably my post #1665. I urge you to read this post again and think about it further.

* 1712. jeremiad - December 11, 1996
RE: Message #1711, mnjperry.

In the post you referenced, the "definitive explanation" you are apparently referring to is:

"What's in dispute is not whether we can have knowledge about the world that is useful to us or that seems correct--such as that science is a better guide to the nature of the world than religion--but whether there exists a kind of knowledge that you have been calling "real" or "true" or "meaningful" that is distinct from other kinds of knowledge which, you claim, do not have real meaning. The only basis you have presented for this distinction is the simple assertion that it exists, that you *know* that, for example, it's wrong to torture children, or that beauty and love are more than just a manifestation of physical brain activity. But how do you know this knowledge is "real" and that other kinds are not? The answer is that you don't. You just feel them to be more certain in your own mind, that's all."

Go back and read my posts 1270-1274 where I spell out the five basic requirements for rationality. The above "statement" is not a refutation or logical argument of any kind. Demonstrate logically how rationality exists without the existence of knowledge.

As I have described earlier - and have given you the opportunity to admit - what you are calling "knowledge" is nothing of the sort - but is _belief_. You _believe_ science is reliable, but you don't _know_ it because your materialist belief precludes any objective ("real") _knowledge_. You believe this or that because it is useful, but you don't _know_ it.

Again, without that initial premise, you end up with the refutation of the existence of rationality and reason - which leaves you groundless to present any arguments for any belief system. Please go back and read Message #1672. Are you stating your agreement? Have you formulated an alternative set of premises for rationality within your materialist doctrine?

1714. mnjperry - December 11, 1996
Re:#1689 (Phriedom)
"The theist started to explain that if we were forced to acknowledge and love God, it wouldn't be real, but he didn't back up that statement. I'm not an apologist, but let me try to illustrate:If you kept a gun pressed against your spouse's head, would his/her "I love you" mean as much?"

But as I understand christian theology, if I don't love God, accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, etc., then I will face unpleasant consequences in the hereafter. God is essentially putting a gun to our heads and demanding that we love him, or he will pull the trigger. Conservative christians have explained this to me many times, and often seem to derive a certain pleasure from their belief that we heathens will be punished for what they see as our rejection of God. But the problem is that this is coerced love. God is saying: Love and worship me, or else! If God wants us to love him freely, he cannot demand it under threat of punishing us for withholding it. You can't have it both ways: either your love for God is freely given or it is coerced. If it is free, there can be no punishment for not providing it. If there is punishment, then your love is not free.

* 1720. jeremiad - December 11, 1996
Jumping topics, in Message #1714, mnjperry supposes that "[i]f it is free [one's love for God], there can be no punishment for not providing it. If there is punishment, then your love is not free."

Sounds great. But you've overlooked a cornerstone of Christian theology. God _is_ love. There is no "punishment" for failing to love God, there is simply the absence of God's love. When I reject a person's love - or when I fail to love a person - I have severed myself from that loving relationship, and, accordingly, from the fruits of that relationship. Thus, when we, by our own choice, separate ourselves from the love of God, we are separated from the fruits of that relationship.

Calvin Miller said it this way in _The Singer_:

Man:"Father, would you actually send me to hell?"
God:"No, my child, but I would never stop you from choosing to go."

1723. mnjperry - December 11, 1996
"Sounds great. But you've overlooked a cornerstone of Christian theology. God_is_ love. There is no "punishment" for failing to love God, there is simply the absence of God's love." -- Jeremiad (#1720)

It doesn't matter how you define God. Either he gives us a choice or he doesn't. Either the choice has consequences (going to hell, or whatever) or it doesn't. If God gives us a choice, and imposes consequences on us for choosing one way rather than the other, then the choice is coerced, not free. If the choice is coerced, this contradicts the claim made by Andrew Sullivan and phriedom that God does not make his existence as clear as the midday sun because that would be coercive. If the choice is free, this contradicts the christian claim that it has consequences. Which is it?

* 1728. jeremiad - December 11, 1996
RE: mnjperry Message #1723. This is bifurcation. You have constructed a false dilemma. We are free to choose. We may choose one way or the other. Every choice has consequences - or it isn't really a choice. You are requiring God to perform the logically impossible. We must choose and we must live with the consequences of that choice. If the consequences of a choice affecting our decision is defined as coercion by you, please explain how any choice is not coercion. When I choose to eat too much, the consequence may be weight gain or an upset stomach. While I might enjoy eating too much, the consequences of such action might cause me to choose not to. In your false dilemma, this is coercion!

It appears I was wrong about you. You're capable of irrationality in a whole field of discussion outside ontology and noetics.

* 1730. jeremiad - December 11, 1996
In Message #1726, mnjperry writes, "There is nothing close to a consensus, let alone unanimity, that God exists."

I'll bite. I believe it is fair to say that _every human being_ free of mental defect has an inborn, natural tendency to religious belief - belief in a higher power. However, through self-deception, immorality and culturalization, this can be overcome (as can any of our innate morality with enough effort). Are people as willing to submit to belief in God as they are to submit to belief in the sun? No. The exponents of the two beliefs are so different (one requiring a radical life change, the other requiring no change at all) that comparing the two is irrelevant. But, still, the great majority of people past and presentbelieve in God in some form. Atheists are and always have been a small minority.

If it takes such energy to prove God - and if His/Her existence is in such serious doubt, it would seem the opposite would be true. I believe the burden of proof given the weight of human knowledge and history, is on the unbeliever.

1731. mnjperry - December 11, 1996
Re:#1728 (Jeremiad):
Well, there are consequences and there are consequences. Choosing between chocolate or vanilla ice cream based on my preference is what I would call a free choice. Choosing between them when someone has a gun to my head and threatens to pull the trigger if I don't choose chocolate is what I would call a coerced choice. The choice you claim God is presenting us with is the latter. Either we choose to love him or we choose not to. The consequences of choosing not to love him are described in various ways--going to hell, eternal damnation, permanent separation, etc.--but, apparently, they will be very, very unpleasant. I don't see how that choice can be considered anything other than extremely coercive. God is attempting to force our hand by threatening us with something very nasty. How can any decision taken under such duress be said to be made freely?

* 1732. jeremiad - December 11, 1996
Again, I refer to the Christian definition of God - since you brought it up. If God is [all good things] and we refuse to have a relationship with God, can we then expect to receive any good thing? This is the problem. God is what we desire. He is what we want. And when we choose to be separated from Him, He abides by our request. This is our choice - it is not within the realm of possibility for God to be with us [and thereby to provide for us good things] and to be not with us.

Perhaps an illustration will help you understand. Say I have cancer and have been told it is terminal. Say you have a cure for cancer and are willing to help. I am resigned to a cruel death should I refuse to come to you for help. Are you being coercive simply becauseyou possess what will help me? When God is defined, as He clearly is in Christian theology, as being [all good things] it is not His "fault" that He has all good things and that being apart from Him separates us from all good things.

You are attempting to use the power of God's goodness as something He withholds from us. It is here you are mistaken (at least with respect to Christianity). God is not withholding _something_ from us; He is, at our request, withholding _Himself_ from us. It is this separation that causes the unpleasant consequences you reference.

1733. slaterdr9 - December 11, 1996
jeremiad - December 11, 1996 Message #1703 "In my Message #1663, I carefully define the term supernatural and mystical."

Unfortunately these terms are not defined in the your post. Perhaps your posting was truncated. I would very much appreciate these definitions.

Also you refer to Ideals. How are they defined?

1159. jeremiad - December 2, 1996 "The mere fact that I can reason - and that my reason proves itself out in the material world is evidence thatreasonis 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 biochemicalcausation."

I was remiss in not asking how you view the mechanism of rational thought. What is the function of the organic part of the brain? How the do we utilize Ideals and the supernatural in formulating rational thought.

* 1734. jeremiad - December 11, 1996
Re: Message #1733 by slaterdr9.

I reference you to my posts 1270-1274 for a logical basis for rationality and the requirements for objective ideals in this formulation. I'm not sure if these are still available in this forum. However, you may find them at my web page for this debate at Is God There?.

As to the organic part of the brain, I view it much as a materialist would - as an advanced data processing tool. The issue is, is it processing anything real or just random phenomena. In my basis for rationality, I explain the need for objective knowledge and truth in order to have rationality. I also discuss intentionality and agency and why these, too, must exist forrationality to exist.

I am still open to hearing a materialist statement of the premises required for rationality that don't make these claims.

* 1736. jeremiad - December 11, 1996
slaterdr9: I checked my Message #1669, and the definitions are there. I'll copy them here for you:

"A point of clarification: Lest someone accuse me of interjecting theology into philosophy prematurely, when I use the term "supernatural" I use it in its philosophical sense; i.e., to mean that something beyond the "natural" or "material" world exists. In this realm fall Ideals such as mathematical axioms, numbers, propositions, statements, ideas, etc., as well as the potential for spiritual existence. Further, this is _not_ mysticism. Mysticism is that set of beliefs in the "unknowables" - that realm of existence or knowledge beyond our ability to understand or discern. I am not claiming mystic belief is necessary for truth, justice, love, rationality, etc. to exist; only that something beyond matter must exist."

Hope that clears it up. Maybe you should check your browser set up?

1737. mnjperry - December 11, 1996
Re:#1730 (Jeremiad):
So your explanation of why so many people doubt God's existence is that they are all either: 1) mentally defective, 2) immoral, 3) delusional, or 4) brainwashed into disbelief by culture. Do you deny that there are *any* people whose doubts or denials result from an honest contemplation and search for the truth? And why couldn't these same factors (mental defects, etc.) explain *belief* in God? If God has revealed himself to everyone, why is there so much disagreement regarding his fundamental nature even amoung people who believe in him. Is it just atheists and agnostics who are mentally defective, etc., in your view, or does this also apply to Deists, Pantheists, Muslims, Jews, Hindis, Buddhists, Santerians, and everyone else who rejects the Christian understanding of God--which is most of the world's population?

1738. slaterdr9 - December 11, 1996
jeremiad - December 11, 1996 Message #1736

Thanks. I am impressed by your response time!

I guess what I do not comprehend is the connection you are requiring between the brain, Ideals and the supernatural.

Is this an actual connection of some sort or does it arise in some other fashion?

1740. mnjperry - December 11, 1996
Re:#1732 (Jeremiad):
"Say I have cancer and have been told it is terminal. Say you have a cure for cancer and are willing to help. I am resigned to a cruel death should I refuse to come to you for help. Are you being coercive simply because you possess what will help me?"

But under christian theology (or, at least, the version you seem to hold to), God is not just asking us if we want the cure; he's demanding that we love him as a condition of getting the cure, after having put us in the position of needing it in the first place. God is saying, "If you choose to love me, I'll give you the cure; otherwise I won't." How can love given in such circumstances be true and free? If God had wanted us to give our love to him freely he would have set things up so that we wouldn't have to suffer for choosing not to give it. He would still be respecting our free will, but the choice would not be coerced. If he loves us, doesn't it make more sense that he would want us to love him back freely rather than under the threat of torment?

1741. mnjperry - December 11, 1996
Re:#1732 (Jeremiad):
Regarding these people who fail to accept and love God because of "culturization," delusion, or mental deficiency, if they are not responsible for their choice, if it was not freely made, why would a just and loving God hold them responsible for it? If it wasn't their fault, but was the fault of their cultural environment, or a set of defective genes that God gave them, how can they be said to have freely rejected God? Does God actually embrace these people and take them up into Heaven, in your view?

1747. jwendell - December 11, 1996
to jeremiad
ref 1677 the universe
thank you for your response. I had asked eariler if god was material and you said no. Then you say that he is only a part of the universe if the universe were so defined. So, by your definition would you say god is part of the universe or not?