From: johnsd2@jec321.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: <None>
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec321.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:39:46 GMT

In article 1@cubldr.colorado.edu, miller_jh@cubldr.colorado.edu () writes:
[deletia- the Mother of all Deletias]

>Hmmm, as a "virgin" to this debate and in this first, general perusal to
>this point there are some well reasoned and an excellent exercises of the Mind
>operating here! I especially liked the analysis and "dismissal" of
>phenomenology as a basis for...anything! (after all, it only worked in a
>partial and ultimately fatal sense against the Bomb in "Dark Star") Our senses
>as "proof" for anything, or jumping boards for deeper proofs is demonstrably
>inadequate insomuch as the failings of our senses are so easy and frail. (any
>number of chemicals or conditions can distort the "reality" so produced and
>deduced! Ask anyone on Acid about Reality!)

:) The thing is, we have no better approach than our sences. So, we
must rely on them if we wish to function. It seems to work.. :)

>Still, I would incline in my "heart" (the metaphysical projection separate from
>yet connected to the large muscle situated in the center of my chest!) and
>"soul" (the non-emperical projection of the metaphysical into no particular
>material metaphor; i.e.; what is the "organ" of soul?) that there is a God.

Heh heh. Maybe you do, but I bet its just a figment of your imagination. 
:)

>Specifically I would invoke Christ as my Boddhisatva, but that is just
>a 'personal' projection which best resonates with what I would consider my
>'religious sense'

Whoa nelly.. are we mixing Christianity and Buddism here? Can you DO that?
Are you sure it wont explode in a monstrous spiritual conflagration?

>But of course "proofs", "axioms" and other intellecual artifices are ultimately
>futile to EITHER side of this debate, though certainly within the cofines of
>logic and rationality they are the only tools that can be reasonably utilised.

Therein lies the use of it! You see, we are all to one degree or another
within the confines of logical and rationality. You are free
to reject it- but who does? So long as you do not, we have the basis
for a discussion. We can convince each other of things.

>In this sense I am supposing and proposing as an axiom, in defiance to what I
>just said!, that there may be/is a Spiritual realm which is distinct and
>semi-separate from the material. In that case material 'proofs' would be
>without meaning or function. 

Not so; so long as the Spiritual Realm interacts at all
with the material, we can detect it.

>The 4 known forces of Nature define all that is possible or
>knowable in the material Universe and offer no 'proof' of the existence or
>non-existence of anything "outside" their realm. (or even that there IS any
>"Outside") 

That is so- but what's to stop you from coming up with a theory that
works differently- that does not use the 4 forces. Or brings in a 5th.
Or whatnot.

>The synopsis of arguments offered in the introduction are very Good, and I
>would hate to be pedantic or repetitious of points I haven't encountered yet.

What introduction? You mean the FAQ?

>Still, I would be curious and interested on the debate of the points of the
>limits of phenomenology and even philosophy as foundations for ANY belief
>structure.

It is the best we have. Observation does pretty well at creating
a belief structure, even though we can't KNOW this produces
the Truth (tm), we have no reason to doubt it.

>Also, the argument about "all peoples have religions" and the "majority of
>great minds were theists" was aptly disputed on those narrow confines.
>What I find interesting is that ALL cultures have SOME form of super-material
>inclination.

So far! :)

>(the specifics are worse then irrelevent, as "the atheists" have pointed out
>these specifics have led to far more contention then harmony!) In this vein I
>am 'curious' in the sense that as Jung pointed out there are certain
>"Universal" instincts which serve as the basis of our archetypes and the
>Collective Unconcious that not only 'bind' us as a species but makes possible
>any kind of connection or communication between any people at all. The point
>here is just that while there are thousands of foods we can eat, and thousands
>of preferences (some odious to some, delicious to others. "We don't eat dogs,
>insects or people; others "love" them!) that there IS still an emperical thing
>that is Food. The same seems true with other instincts such as Sex and/or
>whatever.

Ah, whatever! Can't forget whatever! :)

> The question/contention therefor is "What is the basis of an instinct
>for "God"?"  Does that 'imply' an existence of 'something' in the same sense
>that 'hunger' implies food; or 'horniness' implies an opposite gender? 

Well, no. How bout it implies MORTALITY. We desire an escape
from death, and find one in spirits and such. We don't REALLY die,
we just leave our bodies. It's a reflection of something real,
but not necessarily something spiritual.

Here's annother one: early humans found they could imagine things like
old departed friends, and various other things that they knew weren't
real. Rather than thinking "aw, I just made that up" they thought
"Gee whiz, that must come from SOMEWHERE! Fred still lives, or else
how could I see him in my mind?" In this case, the real thing being
implied is imagination.

And so on.

>Since this is quite a large DB can the responses be more clearly directed back
>to me then by scanning this large field?
>

What do you mean? DB? Field?


---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism