From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:30:32 GMT

In <julian.716069227@sfu.ca> julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:

>>> 
>>> How can you write something that cannot be interpreted many ways?
>>> Look at textbooks on quantum mechanics? Does the existence of alternative
>>> interpretations invalidate the theory?

>>	Wrong analogy.  Every different version or statement of quantum
>>mechanics  predicts exactly the same phenomena.  Not the plethora of 
>>recomended behaviors above.


>Au contraire, I have read interpretations of QM that claim it is connected
>to mysticism and eastern religions. I think you are referring to the
>standard scientific interpretations of QM. My point is that given a book
>there is no stopping people ffrom making up interpretations until the
>cows come home. That does not prevent the book having a valid message.

	No, I am not talking about interpretations of QM at all.  I am talking
about observable phenomena predicted by whatever version of the theory that
you please to use -- they are all the same.

>>> The centre of the message that God put in the Bible is that Jesus Christ
>>> died for all people. So the following guide to religions will quickly
>>> sort out which ones are contenders for an intelligent person.

>>	No, this is your assertion that this is the main message of the bible.

>Awww, come on. read the Bible, every part of it records GOd's interaction
>with mankind. The OT leads up to the expectation of a Messiah the NT records
>the coming of said Messiah.
>Regardless of whether you believe in God, the book itself makes it clear
>that Jesus Christ is the central Word of God sent to mankind.
>(ie that is what the book says whether it is true or not).

>>> Start with two facts: 1 The world exists.
>>>                       2 There is a lot of suffering in the world.
>>> 
>>> What do religions say about suffering?
>>> What can be our response?
>>> Either we ignore it and go on our merry way or we try to reduce it and 
>>> eliminate it. If the latter there are basically two choices: the
>>existentialist view
>>> (see A Camus in The Plague, J P Sartre etc); or a religious view (ie invoking
>>> a Deity).

>>	Personally, I mistrust ANY arguement that begins with a dichotomy.
>>While I am unfamiliar with the existentialist writings, I assume that any 
>>other expressed motivations will be shoehorned into them?

>Hmm, either an argument starts with a dichotomy or it does not?
>What do you mistrust about it?

	You have failed to demonstrate that the two choices are mutually
exclusive AND inclusive of all possiblities.

>The existentialist view is that there is no god of any kind and that all
>philosophising about our place in the world should start from our existence
>rather than abstract ideals. (existence precedes essence). SO I use it
>to sum up all a-theistic philosophies: 

	And you will not acknowledge that there are any a-theistic options
to this view.

>                                         the alternative is a philosophy that
>invokes some kind of deity (I cannot say theistic because it has
>connotations).
>>> The existentialist view is that suffering is real and has to be eliminated,
>>> there is nothing worth while in it and mankind should spend its time
>>> removing evil. However, this is a sisyphean task and will never be achieved,
>>> so all attempts to remove evil will fail. But we must try.

>>	This is also one of many versions of existentialism, I bet.  Sounds
>>like a depressing philosophy; no wonder I am unfamiliar with it.

>What is with this "there are so many different views that I can ignore 
>all of them" rejoinder? 

	It ties in with my distrust of the initial dichotomy that you
presented above.  THERE ARE OTHER VIEWS, SO YOUR DICHOTOMY IS NOT EXCLUSIVE.
THEREFORE YOUR CONCLUSIONS ARE WRONG.

>                         Does the fact that there are millions of species
>of beetle stop me from saying things about beetles. 

	It depends on what you define as a beetle and what you want to say
about beetles in general.

>                                                      It is IRRELEVANT
>whether there are different interpretations of existentialism as long
>as they share what I say above in not invoking a deity.

	You are claiming that they share MORE than just not invoking a
deity; you claim that 1) all existentialist theories are EXPLICITY self-
defeating in their outlook, and 2) all non-theistic theories are 
existentialist.

>>	Why monotheistic religions?  Why can't all of the evil in the world
>>be caused by the machinations of Loki, who Thor strives to suppress?

>Survival of the fittest I am afraid. If a religion dies out then presumably
>its "deity" is not interested in the world anymore. If christianity
>ends up with no adherents, I will take that as evidence that God has given up
>and gone home.

	So the best religion is determined by which one has the loudest voice?
I believe it was Stalin who asked 'how many divisions does the Pope have'?

>(The converse is not true, of course, just because a religion has adherents
>does not mean it is true).
>>>                                         if you think that the evil in
>>> the world demands a God-size sacrifice then you are left with 
>>> christianity.

>>	What if I don't think this, but I do believe that man can, by his own
>>efforts, lift himself up and eliminate suffering?  
 
>No problem, that is Dr Rieux's position in the Plague that I cited above.
>Also, btw, Ivan Karamazov's in Dostoyevsky's book. Both of which are
>very depressing depictions of human life. If you dwell on the real
>meaning of that position 

	Personally, I couldn't care less what Rieux or Dostoyevsky wrote.
You are insisting on putting my words into the format that someone else wrote,
and I find it annoying.

>                           (as opposed to simply ignoring it for most of
>one's life) I would probably agree with Camus and commit suicide.

	Please quit trying to tell me what my position is.

>julian

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Newsgroups: talk.origins