From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: GOD.
Keywords: god
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:26:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan25.212250.24118@crash>, mdc@crash.cts.com (Milo D. Cooper) writes...
> 
>				I
>			      -----
>	The human mind is a passive system for the processing of
>information.  Intellect, personality, and ideas are formed through
>interaction with one's environment and no one can achieve active
>thought to allow perception beyond that dictated by experience.
>Anything that any of us ever does is a reaction to established
>elements of the outer environment (the space beyond our bodies) or
>the inner environment (bodily functions).  Everything we do, we do
>for a reason.  Everything we do, we are moved to do, because we
>are creatures of reaction, and not of action.

	Really?  I guess I had better throw away all those self-help
books that promote pro-activity.  :^)

	Frankly, I doubt what you are saying is true.  The human
mind is not passive.  As Ayn Rand would doubtless say, you may
choose to use your thinking abilities or not.  It is not automatic.
You may also choose to face reality or not.  That also is not
automatic.

	It seems clear to me that people can plan their lives in
such a way as to avoid unknown difficulties in the future.  In
other words, we don't simply react to problems when they come
our way (some people might), we may plan our way around problems
we are not immediately aware of in a pro-active fashion.

	I do this myself.


>Insight, the element common to all
>revered figures of history, is a chance defying of logical reasoning
>which reveals a novel and/or better method of information processing.

	I'm not so sure you are right about this.  I *do* like you
bringing up a point about insight.  I don't recall Ayn Rand covering
the subject very well and it should be addressed.  However, insight
can be dead wrong.  It is not a useful means of knowledge about the
universe.  It may provide new ideas which can be verified by logic
and research however, so it does have its uses.


>Logic itself can only proceed along mental pathways already defined
>by experience.

	Why is that?  Why can't one logically invent new logic?


>The best way to innovate is not by engaging in lo-
>gical thought; the best way to innovate is by making a mistake, be-
>cause logic is simply a process involving one reaction after another
>which deliberately avoids any seemingly irrelevant or contradictory
>information.

	Not necessarily.  Can't one try to shift one's paradigm by
applying logic to explaining anomalies in new ways?


>	One cannot conceive of God when one cannot conceive of a
>being which occurs beyond the limits of time.

	Fair enough.


>Because humans are
>unavoidably limited to existence within the confines of time, which
>happens to describe our terms of being, everything for many of
>us must have a beginning and, in most cases, an end.  Therefore,
>lots of us will be puzzled by the assertion that God was created by
>nothing and no one and "has always" existed and "always will" exist.

	With good reason!


>These same people will balk at the idea that a "good" God exists
>when exposed to incidences described as "evil," because they can
>see no benefit coming of this evil, in much the same way a logically-
>inclined person avoids haphazard insight.

	I still don't see why a logical person must of necessity
avoid "haphazard insight".  It may be that _some_ logical people
do avoid re-evaluating their logical beliefs when faced with new
evidence, ideas or perspectives.  Such people are fools.  However,
* haphazard insight can be wrong *!  Logic is a useful tool in helping
one separate the good insights from the bad insights.

	What if I had the "haphazard insight" that I could fly and
all I have to do is jump off of a building and I will soar like
a bird.  If I was logical, I would be skeptical of this "insight".
I may choose to test my insight scientifically in safe experiments,
and if I have success, I could go further and market my technique
and make a fortune.  $^)


>[...] the immorality of slavery has yielded
>an enrichment of America and, due to America's global influence, the
>rest of the civilized world. [...]  This immoral event led to a haphazard
>amalgamation of cultures which produced insight.  Natural and logical
>thought would never have as readily introduced such an incredibly popular
>and bonding art form.

	I'm not sure I get the point of all this.  I doubt that you
are suggesting that we should be immoral in order to get more insight.
Perhaps you are simply saying that insight lead to something good
which logic could not reach alone.  So then your point is: logic alone
is not the source of all that is good.  Tell me if I am correct.

Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism