From: jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-Religious Practice
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:06:29 GMT
Organization: Wheaton College, IL

Before reading this response:  Please take a brief pause to think about what
assumptions are taken to (non-)religious thought, both in yourself and in
others.  If you look at and keep assumptions in mind, it will help you to see
more clearly.

In article <Sep.23.23.58.05.1992.3331@athos.rutgers.edu> jwong@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Jack Wong) writes:
>
>     I'm a non-religious person.  What I don't like about
>     religion is that I think it tends to split people apart
>     more than uniting them.  One group say their god is real and

Not at all like your post here...

>     another say their god is the only god.  Since all you religious
>     believer claim there is a god, why can't you prove that there is
>     one.  Oh, I know what you all will say, the Bible says there is.

Well, if I could prove that there is one, it would immediately follow that
the God I believe in doesn't exist.

Let's look at two self-consistent but circular assumptions (note: I'm not
saying that these are the only two such assumptions that exist, but I'm only
looking at these two for the sake of brevity):

1: God exists.  Granted that assumption, God can't be proven to exist, because
   God's nature is such as does not wish to be tested like a lab rat - "Do not
   put the Lord your God to the test"

2: God doesn't exist.  This is an assumption too.  Given this assumption, God
   still can't be proven to exist.  The improbable but possible experiences I
   have had are just that - the workings of chance, me being the person out of
   a million who hits the one in a million chance.

>     I've heard that line over a million times.  Sorry, but I'm not
>     used to believing what I don't see or experience.  

So how do you believe that God doesn't exist?

Or does your belief not count because it is a belief in non-existance instead
of existence?

>     I also dislike the concept that if people don't agree with your
>     beliefs, you will do anything it takes to force them to see your
>     side.  To me that's like communism.  I believe that I as human

Let's talk about stereotypes now...

If (at least here, a 99% white suburb of Chicago) you look at the 10:00 news
around here, a very significant portion (~30%) of the time you see black people
will be in relation to something rather illegal - drugs and gang violence for
the most part.

Now, due to my interactions with white people, it is extremely rare (<1%) for
my seeing another white person to be related to something illegal.

Thus a far greater (by bigger than a factor of ten) proportion of my contact
with black people is seeing something illegal than with seeing white people
doing something illegal?

Is it thus fair and appropriate for me to draw the conclusion that blacks are
intrinsically of more criminal tendencies than whites?  NOT!

Let's look at why I see much more criminal activity on the part of black people
than on the part of white people:

The area I live is mostly white.

The people I am in contact with are mostly white, and I see them as they are -
people who make mistakes, but do not spend most of their time doing drugs,
fighting, and getting into jail.

Chicago is not anywhere near as close to being exclusively white as where I am.
Black, as well as a good number of other races, is found there.

The news does not air reports of an honest citizen who lives without harm to
neighbors.  The news airs reports of criminal activity.

When I see someone white on TV, at a police station or in court after getting
caught doing something highly illegal, it is checked by a larger base of
knowledge that says "this is not characteristic of white folk in general."

When I see someone black on TV, at a police station or in court after getting
caught doing something highly illegal, it is not necessarily checked by a larger
base of knowledge that says "this is not characteristic of black folk in
general."  (Note: due to my experiences and managing to get to less racially
segregated areas than here, I do have a base of experience, and come from a
community where race is not even an issue - humans treat other humans as
humans.  The people who were obnoxious and got into trouble were fairly well
spread throughout all groups - "red and yellow, black and white".  Most of my
suburb has not been around this much, however, and I'm pretending for the moment
that I've only been here for all of my life)

Now, do you see how it is possible to develop stereotypical and completely
off-base beliefs about other people?

Go through my example again, and substitute "non-religious" for "white" and
"religious" for "black".

It's not quite as accurate of a depiction of reality, in that religious people
tend to be somewhat more likely to be participating in humanitarian activities,
but it is very accurate in explaining how your Spanish Inquisition/Nazi
stereotype of religion most likely came to be, and exactly how accurate it is.

>     have my rights and my own beliefs.  I do not need to be told 
>     what's good for me, and what's right for me.  Just because
>     you believe in the Bible, it doesn't mean you're better
>     than me as a person.  Again, I've heard the lines about not

Are you better than me as a person because you don't believe in the Bible?

Then why are you acting like you are?

>     going to heaven because I didn't believe in the Bible.  Tell
>     me, where is heaven?  The fact to me is that, unless I see it

In this universe?  It isn't.  Whether it exists or not, it cannot be proven.
If it does exist, it's not a physical location, like the parking lot to
Universal Studios, or a moon of Jupiter.

>     for myself, I just can't believe it.  Ex:  If a stranger in
>     the street claims he is a billionaire, I won't believe him 
>     unless I have the facts.  So, the Bible says nothing about

If I told you that a few years ago I was ranked 7th nationally in a math
competition, would you believe me?

If not, what would it take for me to validate my claim?

Would demonstrating unusual ability in solving math problems work?  (there is
plenty of room to be good or exceptional at mathematics without winning a
trophy, and at best that would prove to you that I _could_ have done such a
thing, not that I did)

How about showing you the trophies?

If you answered no to the initial question, tell me what makes your faith in my
not being what I claim to be so strong.

>     God in detail enough to claim what it is.  Sure, I know what
>     you all will say again.  You claim it does.  Look I'm not
>     an illerate person nor am I mentally incapacitated.  If I

Then will you at the very least enumerate what assumptions you are making and
_taking_on_faith?_  Will you explain why your _faith_ is intrinsically superior
and more intellectual than mine?  Will you explain why you have addressed me as
a person who is illiterate and mentally incapacitated?

>     see nothing in the Bible, I just simply wouldn't accept it.

"The naked intellect is an extraordinarily inaccurate tool."
	-Madeliene L'Engle

################################################################################
# "God, give me mountains # "But the greatest   # Jonathan Hayward             #
# to climb and the        # of these is love."  # Jonathan_Hayward@wheaton.edu #
# strength for climbing." # I Corinthians 13:13 # jhayward@imsa.edu            #
################################################################################