Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!orion!houca!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!unc!tim From: tim@unc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Rational discussion Message-ID: <5473@unc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 29-Jun-83 16:24:29 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.5473 Posted: Wed Jun 29 16:24:29 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 30-Jun-83 23:47:29 EDT Lines: 135 I'm not really sure whether I should continue to respond to Silvio's attacks; this interchange probably bores the rest of you. However, it's very difficult for me to ignore a public insult. Here goes. Your response vividly displays the two points I made in my article: 1) Your definition of rationality is what agrees with your opinions; 2) Your way to attack other people's arguments is not always rational. 1) "If the flimsy and pathetic arguments in "Mere Christianity" REALLY converted C.S.Lewis, then I ... [say] Lewis's mind worked worse than mine." Translation: "I find C.S.L.'s arguments flimsy and pathetic; he originated (or voiced) them; ergo, he is an oaf." Fine way to be rational... Oh, come on now. What you are saying is that if I disagree with someone strongly, that is an insult, and therefore not rational. Presumably then the only way to be rational is to agree with everyone, and to say that everyone is rational? Clearly not. I never called Lewis an oaf. What I said was that anyone who was CONVERTED by his arguments must have something wrong with his reason. I would have seen the holes in them before I had even reached puberty, if I had read the book then. My implication is not that Lewis is a fool, but that his conversion did not in fact come from those silly arguments. Or, turning Bertrand Russell's arguments around (observe I don't necessarily agree with the next paragraph; I just want to make clear B.R.'s arguments *can* be used the other way around): "Of course I know that the sort of intellectual argument that are presented against Christianity is not what really moves people. The reason why people do not believe in God is because that would mean they have to serve him, and change their lives, and moreover they have been taught from infancy not to do it, stemming from godless homes." Even if it were true that most people believe in God because they have been taught to (B.R. certainly does not *prove* this fact), how do you account for the exceptions? And how does this disprove the existence of God? Silvio, EVERYONE in this culture is taught from youth to be a Christian or Jew. In the schools, in discussions with peers, in the media, etc., the Judeo-Christian viewpoint is touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Even given the counter-training in some cases, this is not a factor which we can ignore. If people are taught to be atheists and then find themselves having religious experiences, as often happens (involuntarily) to teenagers and troubled adults, they are given no other other context to place them into than the Judeo-Christian model. Fortunately, this is changing, and a wider range of options is opening for many. This does not disprove the existence of God in any way, nor did Bertrand Russell present it in order to provide such disproof. In a positive assertion, the burden of proof (stop me if you've heard this one) rests squarely and unalterably on the claimant. Russell is saying that the reason most people believe in God is not sufficient for a person as devoted to reason as he. "I find it hard to believe that [such arguments] could convert anyone who didn't WANT to be converted." So do I. If someone doesn't want to be converted, no amount of argumentation will do the trick. The point is, some people do approach the matter with an open mind. I'm a very literal person, Silvio. I didn't say "want to not be converted", I said "not want to be converted". See the difference? Such arguments could only convert someone who already (from some other source) had decided that he or she wanted to be converted. They would not convince someone who had an open but inquiring mind. 2) So now being polite and considerate about other people's feelings is something peculiar to Judeo- Christian morals! If so, the more reason to keep these morals. C'mon, Tim, are you *really* saying you like to be nasty and if someone tells you not to they automatically become your enemies? What the Hell are you talking about? Does this have to do with sarcasm? If so, you don't understand its purpose. Sarcasm exists, not to be rude or nasty, but to explicitly point out a contradiction or absurdity which is only not seen as such because of the convoluted verbal web surrounding it. Sarcasm is a tool which cuts through nonsense like a sword, striking directly to its heart. Nothing can ever replace it. ... the use of "sic" also bothers me.... [I]f you want to prove your opponent is ignorant, there are less hostile ways of doing so. When I use "sic", it isn't to insult the "sicee", but to show that I am not the one responsible for the mistake. I don't feel comfortable correcting the spelling and grammar of net articles without the poster's consent, so I am left with no other option. Since it offends you so strongly, though, I'll not do it to your articles. Everyone should assume that any mistakes are yours. Now I'd really like to know about your religion, and what are the un-rational reasons why you adopted it. I was raised a Christian, became an atheist against my emotional desires because of my rationality, which balked at the insufficiency of evidence, loosened this to agnosticism when my reason matured to that point, and finally adopted a non-dogmatic religion to deal with my religious experiences when they happened. I may at some future date give details of my religion, but since we're non-dogmatic and not overly concerned about making converts, my motivation to do so is not very strong. However, I posted Liber OZ a few days back, which is a simple statement of our moral views; this may help to shed some light if you're curious. Finally, Silvio, I have tried to avoid insulting you, and therefore I see no reason that you should feel obliged to carry this any further publicly. I find this sort of explicitly combative discussion rather degrading, but if you continue to publicly insult me, I will continue to publicly defend myself. ====================================== The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney duke!unc!tim (USENET) tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA) The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill