From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Answering John Muehlhausen's questions. (was Re: THE MIND OF...etc.)
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:58:14 -0400
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Dec14.192145.18552@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> I would like to present, for your analysis, the reaction of such a mind to
> what you have written:
> 

None of my beezwax, but these were intriguing questions...:)

> 2: Where is the supposed harm that this is doing?  I don't see it anywhere in my
>    life - in fact, God has changed my life for the better!

This is something, in fact, that the article hasn't dealt with yet. 
I wonder if it will. Some people seem to really need a cast-iron
dogma into which to pour their minds. In some cases, I am sure that
dogmatic religion acts as a much less harmful alternative to other
forms of addiction, like drugs, gambling, video games, Usenet NEWS, etc.

> 3: Given that God does in fact exist, re-write the analysis.

Nothing would change, I expect, except that one would have to 
conclude that God himself is a master of exploiting people's
psychological vulnerabilites. 

A more interesting question would be: if God exists, why does he rely
on such brutal methods? 
 
> 4: Why is presupposing that He does not exist any more credible than
>    presupposing that He does?

It isn't, is it?  But the fact of the matter is that no one knows. And
psychology (since Freud) arose as an attempt to understand the mind
in scientific terms. Since God is an unfalsifiable proposition, it is not
admissible to use him in scientific discourse. 

> 5: How could Biblical authors write such a cohesive and psychologically
>    influential book, separated in time and space as they were?  

It is a BUNCH of books, not one. It was only assembled into one
book in the fourth century (fifth)?  The books were SELECTED for their
doctrinal coherence. Books that didn't fit the prevailing dogma of the
time were left out.  It is more surprising that there is such internal
dissonance in the Bible, considering the book was assembled by what 
amounted to a form of censorship (to put it harshly). 
 
>    For that
>    matter, given the Old Testament, could -YOU- construct such a masterpiece
>    in your life-time, given the education of any one of the Biblical
>    authors?

Lots have people have written great books since then. Just because you
can't do it doesn't mean Shakespeare couldn't have. 
  
>  Would -YOU- suffer and die for your careful lie?  What possible
>    gain is there?  I think "THE MIND OF THE BIBLE WRITER" is in order...
 
Writer(s). Plural. And we know next to nothing about virtually all of them, 
except St, Paul, who was arguably insane.  Why do Muslim terrorists
die for their faith?  Why did Joseph Smith die a martyr to his book,
which you would no doubt call "a careful lie?"
 
> I think all of these are pertinent and need to be answered...

Well, I tried...:) 

> Expounding on 4:  The human mind seems to exist in a greater state of
> "comfort" when there are no loose ends - when questions are answered.

Some human minds, comrade. Some people are terrified by uncertainty, some
people thrive on it. Some people don't like it, but recognize that the only
escape from it is to shut your eyes, and they want to see, so they
learn to live with it. 

> Credibility aside, why should someone choose to reject such a powerful 
> "answer" given (2)?

Because for some people, it does not make their lives better, it makes them
worse. That's it, really. 

> John M.


Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc