From: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:07:07 GMT

>> 
>> How can you write something that cannot be interpreted many ways?
>> Look at textbooks on quantum mechanics? Does the existence of alternative
>> interpretations invalidate the theory?

>	Wrong analogy.  Every different version or statement of quantum
>mechanics  predicts exactly the same phenomena.  Not the plethora of recomended
>behaviors above.


Au contraire, I have read interpretations of QM that claim it is connected
to mysticism and eastern religions. I think you are referring to the
standard scientific interpretations of QM. My point is that given a book
there is no stopping people ffrom making up interpretations until the
cows come home. That does not prevent the book having a valid message.
 

>> The centre of the message that God put in the Bible is that Jesus Christ
>> died for all people. So the following guide to religions will quickly
>> sort out which ones are contenders for an intelligent person.

>	No, this is your assertion that this is the main message of the bible.

Awww, come on. read the Bible, every part of it records GOd's interaction
with mankind. The OT leads up to the expectation of a Messiah the NT records
the coming of said Messiah.
Regardless of whether you believe in God, the book itself makes it clear
that Jesus Christ is the central Word of God sent to mankind.
(ie that is what the book says whether it is true or not).

> 
>> Start with two facts: 1 The world exists.
>>                       2 There is a lot of suffering in the world.
>> 
>> What do religions say about suffering?
>> What can be our response?
>> Either we ignore it and go on our merry way or we try to reduce it and 
>> eliminate it. If the latter there are basically two choices: the
>existentialist view
>> (see A Camus in The Plague, J P Sartre etc); or a religious view (ie invoking
>> a Deity).

>	Personally, I mistrust ANY arguement that begins with a dichotomy.
>While I am unfamiliar with the existentialist writings, I assume that any other
>expressed motivations will be shoehorned into them?

Hmm, either an argument starts with a dichotomy or it does not?
What do you mistrust about it?
The existentialist view is that there is no god of any kind and that all
philosophising about our place in the world should start from our existence
rather than abstract ideals. (existence precedes essence). SO I use it
to sum up all a-theistic philosophies: the alternative is a philosophy that
invokes some kind of deity (I cannot say theistic because it has
connotations).
>> The existentialist view is that suffering is real and has to be eliminated,
>> there is nothing worth while in it and mankind should spend its time
>> removing evil. However, this is a sisyphean task and will never be achieved,
>> so all attempts to remove evil will fail. But we must try.

>	This is also one of many versions of existentialism, I bet.  Sounds
>like a depressing philosophy; no wonder I am unfamiliar with it.


What is with this "there are so many different views that I can ignore 
all of them" rejoinder? Does the fact that there are millions of species
of beetle stop me from saying things about beetles. It is IRRELEVANT
whether there are different interpretations of existentialism as long
as they share what I say above in not invoking a deity.

>	Why monotheistic religions?  Why can't all of the evil in the world
>be caused by the machinations of Loki, who Thor strives to suppress?

Survival of the fittest I am afraid. If a religion dies out then presumably
its "deity" is not interested in the world anymore. If christianity
ends up with no adherents, I will take that as evidence that God has given up
and gone home.
(The converse is not true, of course, just because a religion has adherents
does not mean it is true).
>>                                         if you think that the evil in
>> the world demands a God-size sacrifice then you are left with 
>> christianity.

>	What if I don't think this, but I do believe that man can, by his own
>efforts, lift himself up and eliminate suffering?  
> 
No problem, that is Dr Rieux's position in the Plague that I cited above.
Also, btw, Ivan Karamazov's in Dostoyevsky's book. Both of which are
very depressing depictions of human life. If you dwell on the real
meaning of that position (as opposed to simply ignoring it for most of
one's life) I would probably agree with Camus and commit suicide.

julian