From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:33:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.030539.14018@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.193930.2799@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>>
>>>One more time... sure it's causal, *anything* can be said to be causual.  What
>>>does it tell you in general, however, about the cause of the universe?
>>
>>About as much as religion does. What can one say about 'god created the
>>heavens and the earth' other than it is a causal claim. I see the distinction
>>you are making, but not the difference.
>
>You mean to tell me that certain logical conclusions don't fall
>into place for you if you accept the premise that a Supreme Being
>(god) created the heavens and the earth?

You mean the previously mentioned 'purpose'? Logical conclusions are
usually worth no more than whatever they are based upon. Strictly logical
arguments have no connection to the real world. Unless an argument is
based upon something of substance, it can be no more than logically
consistant. Geometry did just find with Euclids 5th postulate. And as
soon as others came up with self-consistant geometries based upon other
assuptions (elliptical, hyperbolic, etc) we had many useful geometries.
Change the religious assumptions, and you get different beliefs, all
more or less self-consistant ( for the sake of argument ), and almost
all telling you a different way to live, and the different things that
will happen when you die. 

But knowing only that "(god) created the heavens and the earth" tells
me nothing of it's purpose or nature. For that, you need to study the
religious manuals and doctrines. Usually, parents teach this to their
children before they are old enough to understand it. For most it catches
on, and they will either belive, or at least go through the motions. Some
ask questions right off, and never become believers. But this is more
a measure of human interaction than proof of god, or evidence of purpose
or the nature of the universe.

If it is self-evident to you, then why not share your wisdom.

>>>>>This is not to say that you couldn't have a set of religious
>>>>>beliefs that would contain this belief.  In that case, it would
>>>>>not be superstition. 
>>>>
>>>>Christians have the same evidence of the existance of god, heaven, and
>>>>hell that the fellow knocking on wood has this will bring good luck.
>>>>How is it that one is superstition, and the other is not? 
>>>
>>>My such claims!
>>
>>Oh? You have some clear objective evidence for any of the above? If not,
>>my claim is true. And I claim only lack of objective evidence.
>
>Actually, the superstition can probably be objectively tested.
>That is, a study could be done to determine if knocking on wood
>statistically changed the presence of what we think is good luck.
>The control group would, of course, have an object that felt like
>wood but was not.  If the study was scientific and conclusive, I'd
>bet you'd start the practice of knocking on wood... :)

No, I was asking if you had any such proof of the validity of religion.
And I still do not see what differentiates religion from superstition.
 
>>>>>>Rich
>
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com

Rich

payner@netcom.com