From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Need Input
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:08:07 GMT

[Originally sent via mail; it was long enough I thought I'd post]

Sean Maurer writes:
>Hi I am writing a paper on the argument in rec.org.mensa and was wondering
>if you could answer a few questions.

Here are a few answers.  I hope you don't mind if I rearrange your
questions a bit.

>Is it irrational to believe in god?

It seems that way to those who don't.  In a logical sense, most
believers do not appear to base their belief on reasoning; those who
claim to have such a basis generally cannot produce a valid argument
in their support.

>Is it unproductive?

Not necessarily; it obviously gives many people comfort, happiness,
motivation, meaning.

>What about the human purpose of god? The idea that if he didn't exist we would
>have invented him?

Since he doesn't, we must have ;-).  Seriously, one can't deny the
historical prevalence of belief in the supernatural.  If Leprechauns
didn't really hide pots of gold at the end of rainbows, would we have
invented them?  Different cultures have had different ideas about
gods; most American Christians have no problem whatever considering
the gods of Greece, Rome, Babylonia, or Egypt, and the stories/myths
about them as being completely fictitious, though mythically important
to their respective cultures.  Atheists/agnostics consider the same to
be true of the God of the Abrahamic tradition.

>Compare your beliefs to traditional religion.

Can I continue on the back of the page?  As concerns behavior, I try
to behave in the way I would like others to behave; this is compatible
with Judaism and its offsprings Christianity, Islam, and Baha'ism, as
well as Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism,
so I guess it's traditional.  I don't, however, believe that behaving
that way is calculated to bring me favor in the eyes of supernatural
beings, or to reap specific rewards beyond mundane happiness, or to
avoid some punishment (not to suggest that these motivations are
universal to the above-listed set of religious traditions).

As concerns beliefs as distinguished from behavior, I don't believe
that natural forces are the result of the activity of supernatural
beings, that such things as the sun and moon are intelligent personal
beings, that burning animals will bring me favor in the eyes of gods
who may then assist me in supernatural ways, that my consciousness
will continue to exist after my death...  

>Do you thing as intelligence increases belief in god is less prevelant?

I think as intelligence increases thoughtfulness increases, and that
introspective reflection is likely to cause people to have beliefs
other than those that they were taught as a child.  This seems to
manifest itself as a greater tendency to disbelieve in a traditional
simplistic view of God.  There certainly are and have been many
intelligent believers.

>Wait now I have more..
>In the face of non evidence is it more logical or productive to believe or
>disbelieve (in reference to anything)

In a true case of non-evidence, there is no reason to believe, though
that is not the same as adopting strong disbelief.

>Do you accept the possiblity of 'aliens' that are further developed (read: highe
>r
>) beings than us? 

Yes, it's a possibility.  I would neither claim that there are such
beings or that there aren't, but that the possibility exists.  Even if
they were to exist, it's quite likely that we would never find out
about them, nor them about us.  I do not give particular credence to
those who claim to have encountered humanoid alien visitors to Earth.

>What evidence is there against God?

Which God?  Against Zeus and his family there is the evidence that
Mount Olympus has been explored without revealing them.  Various
astronomic techniques seem to show conclusively that the sun is not at
all a god in a golden chariot.  There's a fair amount of evidence that
Egyptian priests simulated 'gods' via articulated statues, hidden
voice tubes, and so on.  It's rather obvious that a fair number of the
hucksters requesting "Prayer offerings" and "Faith Wagers" on TV are
lying through their teeth to make a buck.  Against any particular,
testable claims about God, there can be evidence, and it tends to be
negative.  Against a God who is defined to be inherently untestable
and incomprehensible, there is of course no evidence; by definition.

>What is the purpose then if there is no God?

The purpose of what?  What is the purpose if there *is* a God?

>Also is there any such group for agnostics?

As a practical matter, there is no particular distinction between
people who call themselves atheists and those who call themselves
agnostics, though in each case they may claim that the other group
believes something different.  As such a separate group is not
necessary, and would only confuse matters.
-- 
Jim Perry   perry@apollo.hp.com    HP/Apollo, Chelmsford MA
Our show may not be fancy, but it's noisy and it's free.