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