From: yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 9 Sep 1992 09:08:08 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <dabrowsk.715286818@liveboard10>, dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>SUMMARY: Once more I show my agnostic way from 'I am' to 'God exists'. I
>         explain why ANY thinking has its roots in faith. I also discuss
>         similarities and differences between science and (my) theology.
>
>In <17t7k2INN66d@sam.ksu.ksu.edu> Jonathan W Newton wrote:
>
>>I assume you are a christian,
>>
>Correct. 
>
>>because you do have a very naive view of things you
>>have to think about on your own.
>>
>Please show that my view is naive, or say 'sorry'. In the following, I
>will agree with you that it is impossible to give an absolute proof even
>of a simple 'I am' but I will argue that you did not draw consequent
>conclusions from this fact. Your agnosticism appears as superficial.


Because you have faith, you are relieved of the burden of thinking about certain
subjects.  Because you believe in too many things without fact to support them,
you are naive.  Now, how is my agnosticism superficial?


>
>-Jonathan W Newton:
>>I cannot prove whether or not I exist [... I could assume that I don't
>>exist as an individual but it would not be practical] so I choose not
>>to live that way. [...] I assume [...] that I exist as an individual,
>>because it is the only thing that I can perceive and function as. 
>>
>Exactly.
>
>>I would argue that this is VERY different from christian faith.
>>
>And I argue that there's no difference (at least in my case) because my
>introspection has shown to me that the notion of God is built into the
>way I feel 'I am'. Thus, I know that God exists with the same certainty
>(or uncertainty) as I know that I exist. (See the discussion below)


You are drawing far more conclusions.  Granted, the difference is quantitative,
but it is still a very important difference.  The only difference between 2
people might be that one has faith in his country being good and true to its
citizens.  This 1 difference has caused millions to die in countless wars.

Furthermore, I am always open to changing my beliefs; I am only utilizing my
assumptions which I treat as temporary.  A christian's faith is supposed to be a
solid as a mountain.


>
>-Jonathan W Newton:
>>Faith involves absolutely believing in something that is impossible to
>>be perceived,
>>
>But is not limited to it. You can perceive things which are illusions
>and have a strong faith in their existence. And even when we limit faith 
>to things which CANNOT be perceived, it includes unexpected things. For
>example, you have a strong faith that when you hit a key then a letter 
>will appear on your screen. You cannot perceive it UNTIL it actually
>shows there; your prediction relies in fact on your faith in (eg.) your
>sanity. The same applies to your 'I am': You believe that what you feel
>right now makes sense, reflects your past, and can be used to predict
>your future reactions; still, you cannot PERCEIVE these past and future
>objects of your belief as the only thing you can perceive is NOW. The
>bottom line is that even your choice between 'I am' and 'I am not' was
>based on a deep FAITH: to be able to conclude that your choice was "the
>only practical one", you extrapolated beyond possible perception...


Like I said, the difference is quantitative.


>
>Now, let's focus on atheism:
>
>-Jonathan W Newton:
>>Where do you get the idea that there is such a thing as a "atheistic system". 
>>
>Atheistic system is (in short) ANY system of thought which doesn't
>include God or gods as really existing being(s).


Well, at least I know what you mean.

>
>-Jonathan W Newton:
>>You couldn't be more mistaken when you claim that "there's NO important
>>difference between a logically valid theistic system and a logically
>>valid atheistic system" 
>>
>I'll explain why there's no difference. Show the difference or agree: 
>
>>All atheism is is a lack of beleif in god(s).
>>
>Simplified (I guess you know it), but let it be so.


I don't think it could be anymore descriptive.


>
>>By definition, it cannot be faith.
>>
>Wrong. You can apply my discussion of 'I am'... In brief, as just to say
>'I am' (and nothing more) requires a deep faith and as you admitted that
>your 'I' is the only thing you can perceive directly, then any step from
>solipsism requires even more faith: You have to believe not only in your
>sanity but also that your indirect perception of objects which are 'not
>you' and the way you analize them make sense. Though, alternatively, you
>may ASSUME instead of believing, there's still no difference because you
>cannot make any non-circular verification of these assumptions.
>
>CONCLUSION: All systems of thought, so also atheistic systems (not "lack
>of belief in gods" but "systems which do not implement the notion of any
>really existing deity"), are effectively based on faith, though they MAY
>contain no significant beliefs about gods.


Of course.


>
>-Jarek:
>>>I cannot test the existence of God. I cannot test the existence of my
>>>wife. I can only test internal consistency of what I say about God or
>>>about my wife, ASSUMING that the standards I use for this test are
>>>reasonable. 
>-Jonathan W Newton:
>>I would LOVE to see this test that shows it is equaly difficult to
>>prove the existence of god and your wife.  You've had just as much
>>experience with god, as with your wife?
>>
>As I said, my belief in God relies on my belief in my sanity. I believe
>that my wife exists (and that 'I am' is not an illusion) because the way
>I feel that God exists requires that there are also beings other than He
>(and also beings other than me). Again, I accept this feeling because I
>accept my sanity. The procedure to prove "I am" and "God exists" is thus
>formally the same: Note 'I', look closer and note 'God'; assume sanity,
>look closer and note "'God is the source' is true"; then note "'I am' is
>true", "'He is' is true", "'He is not me' is true"; conclude "I exist"
>and "God exists". 'True' means here 'in agreement with my self'; it is
>IMPOSSIBLE to achieve any higher degree of logical confidence. OK, and
>what about the proof of the existence of my wife?


Are you paraphrasing Descartes?  This is a classic example of circular thinking.
You assume you exist --->  assume therefore that god must exist ---> since god
exists, I must exist.

1)  All these are assumptions, and for no reason does one follow from the other.
2)  We do have in common the assumption of sanity and self.  Keep in mind, that I
remember those are only assumptions.

>
>To prove "she exists" requires further steps: look around, note 'her';
>look inside and note "'other beings exist' is true"; look around and
>inside, note "'my perception is reliable' is true"; look inside, note 
>"'she is not me' is true"; conclude "she exists".
>
>Though it was LESS straightforward to show to myself that my wife exists
>than to show to myself that God exists, both proofs have (to me) about
>the same degree of certainty because they rely on my sanity. If my wife
>suddenly changed into a rose, I would doubt my sanity and, possibly, I
>would have to give up thinking for a while (until they let me go :-D).
>
>>The problem is, there is no way to observe "god".
>>
>Why not? Can *you* "observe your self"? Can *I* "observe your self"? 


Inablility to observe self is also a problem.  You're accepting both of them as
fact.


>
>>Also, please stop trying to compare theists to scientists.
>>
>I won't, because it's a useful comparison, especially when I am talking
>to atheists. I use the same methodology in science (FYI, I have a phD in 
>theoretical physics; I also spent many years as experimentalist) and in
>theology. Only the source of information is completely different. 


Would you please answer my relativity questions in the mail I sent you?


>
>-Jonathan W Newton:
>>Scientists make far fewer assumptions that they're willing TO CHANGE
>>THEIR MIND ABOUT
>>
>I assume you didn't mean that scientists make far more assumptions that
>they are NOT willing to change their minds about :-D. 


In theory they should be willing to change their mind.  Those who aren't are
limiting themselves; they probably have an additional phd in theology.


>
>First of all, scientists make INCREDIBLE number of assumptions. Second,

Such as?  If so, they are still treated as assumptions.


>the correspondence between science and theology is: experiment <-> mind, 
>so 'to change mind' is more or less equivalent to 'reject experiment'.
>You need good reasons to reject experiment; you need good reasons to


You also need good reasons to accept an experiment.


>reject results of introspection. You do not reject BASIS, unverifiable
>assumptions which make science a science and theology a theology, like
>"facts should be verified experimentally" in science and "God exists" in


Science is based on experimentation; religion is based on faith.  Plain and
simple.


>theologies. Third, science and religions work in orthogonal event spaces
>and the comparison of the number of assumptions is meaningless. Fourth


I totally disagree.  The number of assumptions is totally relevant.


>(just for any case), science is as far from theism as from atheism. 


Oh really?


>
>-Brett G. Lemoine:
>>>>why should I, as a non-believer accept your claim to his existence
>>>>based on faith any more than someone elses claim that he doesn't exist?
>-Jarek:
>>>You accept the claim which you prefer. This is a good personality test:
>>>Personality is the only factor that really counts. 
>-Jonathan W Newton:
>>Typical narrow chrstian views.  There is also the 3rd possibility that
>>you don't draw a conclusion due to a lack of evidence.
>>
>Typical pseudo-agnostic response. "I can't draw any conclusion" is a
>conclusion itself :-D :-D :-D. At any rate, this is a good personality


Yes, and it is a very sound conclusion.


>test as well, because it's still only personality that counts. It's
>strange that you, a nominal agnostic, didn't notice that...


Oh, so the original post that I responded to, was just something to incite a
flame war.  Would Jesus approve?


>
>>Furthermore, there are more arguements against a CHRISTIAN god than the
>>total lack of proof of god. 
>>
>Of course I disagree, but this issue doesn't belong to this thread.
>
>Well, thanks for a careful response. It was a pleasure to read it. And
>don't take my sarcastic notes too seriously, John. (If you want to avoid
>them, please leave out remarks like 'a typical narrow christian view'.)
>
>
>Best wishes,
>             Jarek
>======================================================
> .-----.            Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com       
> `-> <-'       I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET



Jon Newton


P.S.  Please do not write me and post the same thing.  If you are going to do so,
please tell me so I don't have to type the same responses twice.