From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CONTRADICTIONS About God
Keywords: innocence, blameless, hypocrisy, selfish
Date: 21 Nov 92 15:40:15 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov20.065236.21562@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus8.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>In article <11598@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>>>>In the Bible, what zillions of people "are deprived of
>>>>>life in a violent fashion" for *no fault* whatsoever?
>>>
>>>>[various examples of *seemingly* faultless people]  Shall I go on?
>>                        *********
>I can form my own list of examples.

I should hope so.  After all, you've read the book.

>>Seemingly faultless is the same as faultless.
>That is if you deny having a blurred view of the world.

No, that is if you try to keep as far as possible from having a
blurred view of the world.  That is if you try to assume as little as
possible without sound support.

>I hope that you strive to notice more and more as you experience the
>world.  I suspect that you will come across surprises all the time.

Surprises, no.  Things that I hadn't been aware of, yes.  I wouldn't
be surprised to learn that someone whom I had considered seemingly
faultless is actually guilty, and I wouldn't criticise myself for not
having approved of his punishment before being convinced that it was just.

On the other hand, in many of the cases I cited I would even dispute
the "seemingly".  There is a certain age below which you are not in
the position to commit a crime, for one.

Or take Uriah the Hittite.  I can't be sure that he had never
committed a crime in his life.  But even if he had, he wasn't punished
for that.  He was sent to his death for having an attractive wife.
That's why I say that he was a victim of murder.

>>Ever heard of presumption
>>of innocence?  It is one of the major principles of Roman law.
>But is the law flawless?  I mean does it *work*?  I think it fails
>often and miserably.

True.  Which is not in itself a reason to dismiss it, unless you can
suggest a better alternative.  Certainly presumption of guilt fails
even more often and more miserably.

I mean, that's how Hitler did it.  Or Stalin.  You thought that your
neighbour was a completely decent person, until one beautiful morning
he was arrested.  Whoops, he must have been only seemingly faultless.
Away with him.  Iosif Vissarionovich knows his job, doesn't he?

Or maybe I shouldn't be allowed to condemn the Holocaust, seeing that
I can't name even one of its victims and prove that he had never done
anything wrong?  Those were only seemingly faultless people, so it was
okay for them to be killed.

>In most places, the more affluent you are
>results in less fault charged upon you.  Innocent heh?

Equally, in the same places the less affluent you are, the more fault
is charged upon you.  Seemingly faultless?  String him up.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK