From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:46:58 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

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.

-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)

-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...

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).

-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.

>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.

-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?

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"? 

>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. 

-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. 

First of all, scientists make INCREDIBLE number of assumptions. Second,
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
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
theologies. Third, science and religions work in orthogonal event spaces
and the comparison of the number of assumptions is meaningless. Fourth
(just for any case), science is as far from theism as from atheism. 

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

>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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc