Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: a really good thought
Message-ID: <520@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Mar-84 16:15:13 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.520
Posted: Thu Mar 22 16:15:13 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Mar-84 21:30:28 EST
References: <593@pucc-h>, <786@ihuxq.UUCP> <603@pucc-h>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 47

>> The atheist is restrained from following the siren call of immortality
>> by the bonds of rationalism.  [LEW MAMMEL]

> "Bonds" is the correct word.  One is indeed bound if one restrains himself
> to rationalism only.  And "rationalism" (as distinct from "rationality"),
> meaning a deification of the mind (particularly one's own), is certainly
> going to oppose something which considers the mind important but not
> primary.  [JEFF SARGENT]

Yes, bonds is indeed the correct word.  By choosing to "bond" oneself to
rationalism, one attempts to ensure that one will not be ensnared by that
which is tempting but clearly not rational.  Often, because of years of
conditioning about the mystical and supernatural, one needs to actively
"bond" oneself to reality and to rationalism.  (When you distinguish between
rationality and rationalism, what is it about 'rationalism' that you
dislike as opposed to rationality?)
  
>> Or perhaps we could say that the atheist stands his ground against
>> the spectre of death, rather than leaping into the abyss of the irrational.

> I think it's almost the other way around.  The Christian is the one who knows
> that he need not fear mere physical death, and thus has a supply of courage
> and strength (which the atheist denies himself) wherewith to face death.
> And I repeat what I've said before:  Christianity is not irrational--the
> correct word(s) might be supra-rational or trans-rational.  A relationship
> with Christ is an excellent way to cure actual irrationality.

Knows?  Denies?  Has?  These words make large scale assumptions about the
nature of reality which you clearly have not shown evidence for.  Can one
"deny" something that is only believed to exist?  Can one "have" a supply
of anything for which one "has" no evidence of, or that may be explained
by internal rather than external explanations?  Can one "know" the truth
about life after death without evidence?  The fact that you do not require
such evidence sheds light on what the notions of supra-rational and
trans-rational really mean-------non-rational.  Care to rebut rationally??
Logically??

Just a side comment:  We've often heard of religionists who claim to be
questioning, and to whom god has given strength through prayer, etc.  Is
the nature of that strength "God, give me the strength to not ask myself
these questions so that I can have a closer relationship to you without
having to answer them...."?  I.e., when forced to confront such questions,
is the desired help sought from god supposed to be the strength to still
believe unswervingly despite those questions?
-- 
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
				Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr