From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: god exists, 2nd part
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 04:16:26 GMT


Mr. Wheeler,

   Do you believe it's valid to judge the science of the 19th century
by what's been learned in the 20th? Would you say that since so much
of what was considered "fact" in the last century was incorrect, that
the scientists of that age were premature in their conclusions? Since
the science of the last century was so pitifully mistaken in almost
every case, would you argue that science itself is a waste of time,
false, mere superstition?
   If you believe that it's legitimate and proper to judge the past by
what is the current state of our knowledge, and if you feel
comfortable condemning the practices of those who acted on what they
understood to be true, aren't you also saying that the current state
of OUR knowledge is complete? Aren't you claiming the THIS generation
has attained omniscience, WE possess the Truth; all who went before us
were somehow less than us, inferior?
   I am quite familiar with your objections to the authenticity of the
Bible, there's nothing original or even particularly interesting in
your diatribe, but for the sake of the credulous, whom you may have
confused, I'd like to reply.
   In order to critique the Bible, you should at least read it. Since
you seem to prefer abstracting only those fragments of the whole that
appear to support your biases, it seems that you're not really
interested in a discussion of any substance, preferring instead the
intellectual short-cut of hasty generalizations. Even so, I'd like to
respond to a couple of things.
   Even though you wouldn't condemn all of science, thinking it a futile
waste of time, simply because it has a less than stirling record, you
will condemn the Bible (and presumably those who trust in it) because
it contradicts what WE think right and proper. Rather than allude to
any errors in the text itself, you seem to prefer attacks based on our
present concept of Right and Wrong. Since we now believe (at least
officially) that racism, genocide, vengence and ethnic segregation is
wrong, we righteously condemn every earlier generation that held the
opposite beliefs.
   Would you condemn nature because of Earthquakes, monsoons,
tornadoes, hurricaines, disease, etc.? Are Enviromentalists evil
because they want us to protect this malevolent planet? If God acts in
a way you find offensive, where is your appeal, to whom do you
complain? By definition anything God does is Right. If God exists, you
can only accept what He does just as you have to accept whatever
nature does; not only is it futile to protest, it's foolish. If God
exists He makes the rules which means that He is Right, period.
   Whether you like it or not, you can't just discount God because you
are offended by His acts, or because you know better about how things
should operate; your opinions are worthless IF God exists. First you
have to demonstrate that there is no God, then you can comment on the
acts attributed to Him. I know the logic is subtle so I don't expect a
reply anytime soon ...

Bill
Xref: sparky alt.philosophy.objectivism:941 alt.politics.greens:602