From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:34:09 GMT
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <julian.715986818@sfu.ca>, julian@tantalus.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
writes:
> martin@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk (Martin Spenceley) writes:
> 
> >That book which he is supposed to have written, which version should I
> >be reading? The ones with the Virgin birth or the ones that are
> >supposed to be translated properly?  Why was it written so that it can
> >be interpreted in many ways, 'Thou shall not kill', but to defend God,
> >King and country, say the church (who studies it more than the average
> >person) is okay?
> 
> >Which version of the book has that right connection? How about the
> >Mormans (with their extra guide?), the J. Witnesses with its easy to
> >read, lets ignore the stuff we don't like style.
> 
> >On second thoughts, if someone provides so many alternative ways in
> >seeing the world around us and expects us see through everything and
> >not make a mistake in the process, (aren't we all supposed to be
> >fallable, automatically sinning, etc) and expects us to worship
> >something I cannot see, feel, touch or talk to in a sensible way. Who then
> >acts childishly and not to forgive my mistakes in the end. Well I think I'll
> >forget it,  its not worth the bother.
> 
> 
> >Martin.
> 
> 
> Julian responds:
> 
> 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.

> 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.
 
> 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?

> 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.

> The religious view is that suffereing is somehow "necessary" in the world.
> Perhaps, God could create a world without it, but that is not the world
> we live in. So how do religions deal with this suffereing?
> The Bible says that God loves the world and as it is inconsistent to love 
> people and leave them suffering He did something about it. Namely, he
> came to earth himself to deal with it. In living on the earth he simply went
> around helping people, but he was executed for being a threat to the
> religiouas rulers of his time. This death was unfortunate but that's the
> way the world is. Still he left us a good example.
> As far as I know (having read some of Judaism, the Koran, Buddhism)
> no other relgion makes the claim that the person who died on that cross
> in Palestine was God. 

	None of these religions make any claims about there own progenitors
being god.  In Isalm, Muhammed was 'the great prophet'.  In Buddhism, Buddha
was 'the great teacher'.  

>                        If it was not God then we have a nice example
> of a good man dying uselessly. (See the existentialist view above).
> Christianity (in all its interpretations except those originating
> in the 19th century by strange people with an eye for publicity,
> pace J Smith, Mary Eddy Baker, etc, which were throwbacks to earlier
> ideas) claims that the person on the cross was God himself, who is the only
> person able to pay the penalty for there being evil in the world.
>   
> So there are not that many options: if you don't care about children
> dying of starvation then get on with living; if you do care but
> reject a Deity then be an existentialist, and recognise that history
> will be "a long record of defeat", if you care and accept a deity
> welcome to the monotheistic religions; 

	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?

>                                         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?  
 
> Your choice?

	Yes, but I think the options are wider than you have permitted.
> 
> julian
> 
> PS The above argument is not meant to insult the manhy members of
> Buddism, Islam etc. It is meant to say that I do not see in those
> relgions a satisfactory resolution of the problem of evil. It is obvious the
> amount of suffering in the world
> is enormous and no human being is able to do anything about it,
> so the only person left if God. Unless, of course, he does not exist.
> But then I would be an existentialist. I do not know how God dying 
> saves people but it is the only solution tha gives me hope that
> there is a solution. 

	One thing I don't like about christianity is its racial inferiority
complex; the idea man is evil and bad (or fallen) and totally worthless and 
can't get anywhere with the help of this 'God' person.  Methinks I would be
in better company with Einstein and Ghandi in hell then with many of the
christians I've seen on this net in heaven

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011