From: yho@bmerh806.bnr.ca (Yue-shun Ho)
Subject: Re: Quantum (and untutored Zen) and Beliefs (was Re: Absolutes)
Reply-To: yho@utcs.utoronto.ca
Organization: Somewhere around Toronto, Ontario
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 03:10:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.174825.8224@data-io.com> li@Data-IO.COM (Phyllis Rostykus) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.191717.8940@bmerh85.bnr.ca> yho@utcs.utoronto.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.071934.10716@midway.uchicago.edu> mss2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec10.223721.4614@data-io.com> li@Data-IO.COM (Phyllis Rostykus) writes:
>>
>>I fully agree.  It is valid that one can believe that God exists, and someone
>>  else can believe that God does not exist.  However, God cannot exist and
>>  not exist at the same time.  So, either God exists and God does not exist.
>>  One and only one can be true.
>
>The big but is that no one *can* know.
>So, for all practical purposes, the *belief* in either, wheither it is true
>or false is as good or as bad as the other.  Validity has no basis when
>there is nothing to prove it.
>
>God can exist for one person and not exist for another.

I can accept this last sentence.  But even though one may not be able to 
  prove it, either God exists or God does not exist in reality.  Unless,
  you claim that it is acceptable that in objective reality, God can both
  exist and not exist at the same time.  This, however is not physically
  possible. 

>>>monotheism and traditional Judaism.  Religions are not only
>>>lifestyles-- they include assertions about the nature of reality which
>>>must be either true or false.
>>
>>Exactly.  And a statement is true if and only if it corresponds to the fact
>>  it asserts.  For this reason, I do not support the claim the morality issues
>>  can be regarded as true or false, since morality deals with good and bad,
>>  which are entirely subjective.
>
>I don't agree with either of you.  That those assertions *must* be true and
>only true for a single religion and invalidating all others if they are
>true.  I think that is why I brought up the original argument.  
>
>To say that one must be true and all the others false is the basis of all
>misunderstanding, closemindedness and intolerance of 'new' ideas becuase
>the ones that one was taught to begin with MUST be true or the whole thing
>falls down.  The whole thing does *not* fall down.  Us vrs. Them doesn't
>*have* to be, except for people that believe it *must* be one way or the
>other.

Seeking the absolute truth is not misunderstanding, closemindedness, and
  intolerance of new ideas.  In fact, it is the purpose of science to
  seek absolute truth, even though it is always on the road towards
  the goal, since science is dominated by the idea of successive 
  approximations.  Anyone with an inquiring mind should be open to new
  ideas, and understand that what he or she was taught first can be
  falsified.  But this does not mean that two diametrically opposed
  views which assert certain objective reality can be true at the same time.
  Through research and debates, inquiring minds attempt to distinguish
  which one is true and which one is false.  If they are all intellectually
  honest, they should all attempt to find out the one that is true, and
  not seek a mid-way compromise which does not an oita of good to any
  sincere seeker after truth.

Liralen argues that the existence of God is unapprovable, and, hence,
  it is valid that God exists for some people while God does not exist
  for other people.  Rather than repeating what Michael has already said
  about the validity of the unapprovability of God, let me, for now,
  assume that it is indeed unapprovable.  But that only says that one
  can believe that God exists and other can believe that God does not exist.
  The one who believe in the existence of God obviously do not think
  that "God does not exist" is equally true.  Otherwise, what is the point
  of believing that God exists if one also believe that God does not exist?
  If you are not certain whether God exists or not, then you really can
  not claim to be a believer or non-believer of God.  To believe in 
  something means that you think that something is true, rather than not
  not knowing what to believe in.

>Religion is based in belief.  Belief and the working of actions in
>accordance to those beliefs.  Unprovable, they only come to life given that
>someone believes in them and works for them.  I disagree that a
>disagreement of beliefs ever means that one person *has* to be wrong and
>the other person *has* to be right.
>
>Which is, in and of itself a belief.  Grin.
>
>Thing is that I'd rather work with the belief that everyone's right than
>the belief that, most likely, everyone's wrong.

For beliefs such as what is good and what is bad, I agree with you entirely.
  But for beliefs that deals with truth (that is, statements which corresponds
  to the fact it asserts), I cannot agree at all.  Things like "God exists"
  and "God does not exists" are mutually exclusive, because it is physically
  impossible for both to be true.  In this regard, one of them has to be
  false.  You may think it's sad, but just like any kid who discovers that
  the Santa Claus who distributes gifts from the North Pole through his/her
  chimney does not exist, I can't help you. 


With this, I must say happy holidays to all of you, for I am leaving tomorrow
  for a three-week vacation.  I hope Liralen and Michael and StM and all 
  those who are interested will continue the friendly discussion this way.
  Bloody email debates just turn everyone off.  If anyone would like to
  save any future articles on this subject for me to read, I promise I will
  read them thoroughly many times.  Indeed, I would love to read them, except 
  I hate to ask for such a tedious thing.  So, farewell for now.

yue-shun, toronto, ontario