From: yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 31 Aug 1992 08:42:26 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <dabrowsk.714872019@liveboard10>, dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>In <26AUG199217160410@chemvx.tamu.edu> Brett G. Lemoine wrote about
>faith and science:
>
>-Brett G. Lemoine:
>>There is a distinct difference in faith on a subject that has the
>>possibility of being tested and faith in God.
>>
>Right. But there are statements that CANNOT be tested without invoking
>circularity. Any world view and any theory must necessarily contain such
>statements. With this in mind, there's NO important difference between a
>logically valid theistic system and a logically valid atheistic system:
>both must be based on a kind of faith.


You're being to simplistic.  I'll try to show the difference.  I cannot prove
whether or not I exist (if you can, I'd LOVE to see the proof).  I can think of 3
possibilities:  "I" = nothing, "I" = an individual,  "I" = part of something. 
The only option I perceive is that "I" = an individual.  Since I do not percieve
"me" = part of something, I'd do a very poor job of functioning that way,
therefore I choose not to do it.  If I was nothing, "I" could go around killing
people and it wouldn't matter.  But, this "nothing" would be very unhappy in the
short and long term, so I choose not to live that way.

My point is, I assume (but am still open to new evidence) that I exist as an
individual, because it is the only thing that I can perceive and function as.  I
would argue that this is VERY different from christian faith.  Faith involves
absolutely believing in something that is impossible to be perceived, and can be
a dangerous and very anive way to live your life.

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"
Where do you get the idea that there is such a thing as a "atheistic system". 
All atheism is is a lack of beleif in god(s).  By definition, it cannot be faith.
I assume you are a christian, because you do have a very naive view of things you
have to think about on your own.


>
>-Brett G. Lemoine:
>>The former can be eventually shown to be valid or invalid while the
>>latter is forever untestable.
>>
>No. You can never test validity of basis assumptions, if only because
>these assumptions define your standards for the test. The same happens
>to my faith in God: This faith, with the assumption of the usefulness of
>objective and subjective experience and the usefulness of logic define
>my standards of validity. Hence all my ideas which I consider as valid
>must agree with my experience, with experience reported by other people,
>with the laws of logic, and with the existence of God. 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.


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?  I'm sure you'll start spouting how you've been been filled with
the holy spirit and have therefore met christ.  Please spare me.  I've heard it
too many times.


>
>Scientists usually believe that the 'objective' objects they study are
>real, but they will NEVER be able to prove that these objects are not
>imaginary. Theists believe that God (very often described as a being
>accessible via subjective channels only) is real but, like scientists,
>they will NEVER be able to prove that they are talking about reality. To
>prevent unnecessary comments: There's NO reason to believe that all real
>and observable objects must be observable in an objective way. One may
>adopt this belief as one of his axioms, but one does not have to do it.

The problem is, there is no way to observe "god".  Also, please stop trying to
compare theists to scientists.  Scientists make far fewer assumptions that
they're willing TO CHANGE THEIR MIND ABOUT <----  Yes, this is in caps for a
reason.


>
>-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?
>>
>You accept the claim which you prefer. This is a good personality test:
>Personality is the only factor that really counts. 


Typical narrow chrstian views.  There is also the 3rd possibility that you don't
draw a conclusion due to a lack of evidence.  Furthermore, there are more
arguements against a CHRISTIAN god than the total lack of proof of god.



>
>
>Best wishes,
>             Jarek
>------------------------------------------------------
> .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
> `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
>I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET




Jon Newton - Agnostic
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc