From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:48:35 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

SUMMARY: Who is a more consequent agnostic, Jarek or John? What is the
         source of Jarek's beliefs in God? Who uses more unchangeable
         assumptions, Jarek or John? Is Jarek's subjective proof of "I
         am" and "God exists" circular? 

In <18l0g8INNo9k@sam.ksu.ksu.edu> Jonathan W Newton writes:

-Jarek:
>>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.
-Jonathan W Newton:
>Of course. [And elsewhere:]
>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.  
>
I understand that the only support you provided for your opinion is that
theists must believe in God and that this is, according to your beliefs,
"too many things". I have your agreement that theists and atheists alike
have to take some statements effectively "on faith" and that these some
of these statements are necessarily not verifiable. Today, I'll try to
show that your main argument about "too many things" is not only purely
subjective but it also can be reverted. Let's begin with: 

-Jonathan W Newton:
>Now, how is my agnosticism superficial?
>
Because it is not consequent. It seems to be limited to certain aspects
of the world. You blame all theists for believing in God, yet you forget
that you have your own set of beliefs (call them assumptions, it doesn't
matter) and you forget that there's no way of knowing which set provides
a closer description of 'reality' (there's even no way of knowing if any
'reality' exists at all). So my first counter-argument is: Even if we
assume that a theist indeed has to believe in more things, it is an act
of faith to say that this larger number of beliefs is a fault. (To quote
Einstein: A theory should be as simple as possible, but not simpler).

BTW, I am agnostic myself. 

-Jonathan W Newton:
>I am always open to changing my beliefs; I am only utilizing my
>assumptions which I treat as temporary.
>
This makes sense only for VERIFIABLE assumptions. You are an agnostic so
you are supposed to know that you cannot provide a non-circular proof of
ALL your statements. You must always rely on a number of unverifiable
axioms. As these axioms are unverifiable, no evidence can be used in any
meaningfull way to support them. You can only say: "I like my axioms".
Now, I claim that I don't use more unsupportable (unchangable) axioms
than you do. See the discussion of "I am" in the following.

-Jarek:
>>First of all, scientists make INCREDIBLE number of assumptions. Second,
-Jonathan W Newton:
>Such as?  If so, they are still treated as assumptions.
>
Not the fundamental ones, like "experiment verifies theory" or "internal
contradictions must be avoided". Science is a logical shell WITHIN which 
some theories are built. These theories often contain tentative models,
partially verified observations, temporary interpretations and attempts
of generalizations. Any statement of these theories can be more or less
directly tested against agreement with the shell of science and rejected
if it does not fit into the shell. The shell is not changed: Experiment,
logic, and objectivity. Now, I will argue that my theology has the same
structure: Unchangable, unverifiable shell within which some changable
and verifiable theories are constructed. The number of unverifiable
assumptions is minimal.

-Jonathan W Newton:
>A christian's faith is supposed to be a solid as a mountain.
>
Because the answer to "does God exist?" is supposed to be a good test
for a human personality. 

-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.
-Jarek:
>>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.
-Jonathan W Newton:
>circular thinking. You assume you exist --->  assume therefore that god
>must exist ---> since god exists, I must exist.
>
No. I do not assume I exist. I state a fact: "An event of observation of
'I' took place". This statement may mean "I am, I observed myself", but
it may also mean "'I' is a deception, the observer is not 'I'", or "'I'
exists but is not equivalent to the observer", or "'I' and the observer
have no real existence", etc. The same concerns the second statement:
"During the observation of 'I', an event of observation of 'God' took
place". It says nothing about the existence of 'I' or 'God'. These two
facts correspond to experimental data in science; note however that they
appear BEFORE the relation between 'I' and any 'objective' experimental
data could be analysed. 

The next step is indeed an assumption: "'I' is sane, ie. the details
found in the observed 'I' can be used to build a meaningful theory".
This assumption, the vital and unchangable shell of my philosophy,
corresponds to the "scientific shell" - it is the reference frame for
all my statements and investigations. This assumed sanity allows me to
accept 'logic' and 'objectivity' as useful concepts and it also urges me
to accept 'subjectivity' as the most useful concept. After all, my whole
analysis began with subjective observations. If I rejected subjectivity,
I should doubt my sanity, ie. let Jarek be taken to the nearest clinic. 

Further steps are nothing but applications of the assumed rules to the
observed facts. There's no circularity nor further unchangable axioms.
But there is agnosticism: All my statements are based on my asserted and
unverifiable sanity. Nothing can provide any absolute test for them. The
very character of my  perception (the way 'I', 'God', or 'other events'
are observed) compells me to accept logic, denying the access to any
absolute knowledge. 

So my belief in God is based on my assumed sanity (unchangable but also
unverifiable assumptions) and on subjective observations (as changable
as any experimental data). There was only ONE unchangable assumption. 

CONCLUSION: The unchangable kernel of my philosophy is as small as
possible. Any smaller system would have to be constructed from NO
assumptions at all, which is impossible.


Best wishes,
             Jarek
======================================================
 .-----.            Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com       
 `-> <-'       I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET