From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:19:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.135632.23800@digibd.com>, merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
|> >>You are "creating" information with your assumptions.
|> 
|> >So?  That's what assumptions are for.
|> 
|> Baloney.

Good point.   You've convinced me.   :-}

Out of curiousity, what do _you_ think assumptions are for?

|> >When it is impossible to derive
|> >or observe to obtain information, you assume instead.  You have a
|> >problem with this?
|> 
|> Oh, yes, especially, when you draw unwarranted conclusions.

It is unwarranted that I can avoid a pit bull by avoiding the area that
the pit bull frequents?  Do you believe a more warranted conclusion would
be that pit bulls have the power to telepathically project viciousness to 
great distances?

|> >Here we go again!  Does anybody around here follow a thread before
|> >leaping into it?  The assumption is that Christian tradition tells us
|> >what there is to know about the Christian God.
|> 
|> But Pascal's Wager does not assume the Christian god, it is about god(s)
|> in general.

Here are the first two statements of Pascal's wager, as given in the FAQ:
  1. One does not know whether God exists.
  2. Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does exist.

Note the capital 'G', the use of "eternal soul", and the implication that
unbelievers are punished.  Note also Pascal's cultural background.  He was
obviously talking about the Judeo-Christian God.  Attempts to refute his
argument by redefining his terms are dishonest.

|> >One more time, for everybody still paying attention:  religious lore
|> >is our source of information about various gods.
|> 
|> It is *a* source; I can also toss off information about god(s).
|> Show that "religious lore" is more accurate than plain rambling.

Easy.  Note that God is capitalized, and is thus a proper noun, referring 
to not just any god, but a specific God.  Let me replace Him with Thor, just
for now.  I claim that Norse mythology is the only reliable source of 
knowledge about Thor, and it says that he is the god of thunder.  You claim 
that I am full of shit, Thor might be the Fijian goddess of meat pies.

Attempting to claim that Thor was the Figian goddess of meat pies will not
go over very well with scholars in comparative religions, archaeology, 
history, or various other fields, all of whom value accuracy.  At best you 
would be laughed at, at worst, dragged off by the men in white coats.

|> >The fact that lore X contradicts lore Y, and we have no means of
|> >deciding which is right is irrelevant.  All we have to know is that
|> >god X is described by lore X, and god Y by lore Y.  If god Y exists,
|> >then lore Y decribes him/her/it, and contradictory lores are
|> >evidently wrong.
|> 
|> This is more pure baloney.  Couldn't the lore be WRONG!?
|> Or *must* it be accurate!?

Yes it must.  If god Y is defined by lore Y, then the existence of 
god Y means lore Y is accurate.  If not, then it is not god Y after all, 
but some other god.  If there is a supreme deity, but it does not 
correspond to the description in the Bible (for example, if it doesn't
give a damn about human affairs), then it obviously is not the Christian 
God that we all know so well.

The only point is that specific gods are defined by their lore, and we
must be faithful to that lore when discussing them.

-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism