----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 4:29 PM Subject: Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
> Dan wrote: > > > Uh-huh, just like no data is necessary or possible concerning your > > self-awareness. But, talking about that is diverting, because you > > believe in it. :-) > > Don't we see instances of what _appears_ to be free will and self > awareness almost continuously throughout our lives? But, that is totally dependant on mindset; not data. For example, the compexity of nature was long thought to be a compelling arguement for a designer. We now realize that there is another explainition that works as well. The complex actions of human beings was long thought to be evidence of free will and self awareness; more recently we have seen why this is not necessary to explain human behavior. The difference in the two is the difference in the feeling of internal justification; which is certainly not emperical evidence. What I find facinating is the claim of things that can be tested emperically, and that the evidence of data varies from strongly against to very strongly against as the "rational" explaination. For example, the idea that self-sacrificing for others is really enlightened self interest. That someone who risks his life to warn others of a fire in a building really does so out of the calculation that the potential for his life later being saved by one of them is high enough compared to the probability of his losing his life so that it was simply a matter of looking after himself. Let me give a personal counter example. We took a homeless young women into our house for a year. When we did it; I realized that there was the potential for tremendous risk; we didn't know her _that_ well and it was possible that she would try to blackmail me with claims that I made advances on her; that she would bring unsuitable folks in the house; use drugs; etc. But, I asked myself if I was a real Christian or not; and took the risk. It was a matter of me believing in the unprovable; my belief that her life was just as important as my own. I realize to many, this would be an example of how I am irrational. But, I don't think that caring for other people is inherently irrational. Another example was that the present supremacy of the US was an automatic; that its supremacy proves that a system with freedoms will always win over totalitarian governments, thus validating the principals enumerated in the Declaration of Independance. But, Gautam and I have shown; without any significant counter-arguement, that there were many times when small factors being just slightly different could have made a world of difference. Yet, beliefs in ideas that are subject to emperical testing are undaunted in the face of contradictory evidence. > Doesn't the existence of a deity require almost total fabrication since we > see nothing that induces us to believe that there is a god that can not be > explained in more logical terms? Not really. If you don't see love; instead of just evolutionarly favored instictive responses...then we just see things differently. > Doesn't it follow that religion was invented in order to explain things > that we could not otherwise understand, and doesn't the evidence show that > religion has evolved from primitive ways to explain things to more > sophisticated artifices? You mean the fact that we grow in understanding is a point against religion? The true point of religion is not to explain observation...that has been argued for roughly 2000 years, if not longer. It is about relationships, meaning, love, the inherent worth of people. None of these have lended themselves to scientific examination. Look at the atheistic (or a-religeous) philosophies developed in the last 150 years. Most of them have had a rather sorry track record in providing meaning and support for human rights and the self-worth of humans. There is Marxism; which sneers at individual rights as a bueswa construct. There is strong racial nationalism, which gave us the Nazis. Its true they had a place for religion, as one of the tools of the nation, but the true focus of the movement was the supremicy of the race/nation over the individual. More benign, there was existentialism, which declared the absurdity of life. Having studied Sartre for a semester, I can certainly see where his was coming from. Then, of course, there's the modern favorite, PoMo. It declares there is no truth, no human rights, no good, no evil, just politics. There is objectivism which tries to claim that altruism is evil. Finally, there is secular humanism. It is unique among these because it actually has a good track record. It grew out of Christian humanism, with an easily traciable path through people such as Erasmus and various Enlightenment philosophers. It claims it does not need God; and I think it is right there. But, it is totally dependant on the existance of the Trancendental. That is to say, without positing human rights, the value of each human, etc, there is no humanism. This is clearest in the Social Worker code of ethics, which clearly and deliberately posits the value of each human being. > IMO, you need strong evidence to _disprove_ something that appears to be > true and strong evidence to _prove_ something that appears to be a > fabrication. But, by what standards do we assign "appears to be"? To me the real dividing line is the acceptance/rejection of the transcendental on faith. Once that is accepted; the arguments are basically between different theologies. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
