Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq
From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Sargent on reality vs. illusion
Message-ID: <1215@pucc-h>
Date: Wed, 19-Sep-84 01:59:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.1215
Posted: Wed Sep 19 01:59:31 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 08:43:36 EDT
References: <4011@tekecs.UUCP>, <499@ames.UUCP> <1138@pucc-h>, <1123@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: Tucumcari Divinity School
Lines: 78

From Rich Rosen (pyuxn!rlr):

> When you assume (as you seem to) that physical reality is
> not an illusion, you make a "very significant leap of faith", don't you?
> (At least, that's what so many religionists tell me that *I'm* doing when *I*
> believe in physical reality.)

Perhaps there is some faith involved in accepting the axiom that the physical
world is real.  However, that is not the "leap of faith" I and others claim
that you make.  Your real leap of faith is that which causes you to believe
that there is no reality BUT the physical.  (I'll address this more later in
this article.)

> [Believing that physical reality is real is] the only leap of faith
> [rationalists] make, whereas religionists/paranormalists/etc. seem to take
> additional leaps on top of that, which in fact, are based in part on the
> initial leap regarding the nature of physical reality and their sensory
> perception of it.

Both camps make leaps of faith.  Both rationalists and religionists believe
the physical existence of Bibles.  Rationalists, however, seem to have as an
article of faith the idea that there is no validity to the subjective, unique,
individual experiences which stand in a mutually reinforcing relationship to
the words in those Bibles.

> But given that you seem to agree that leaps of faith are indefensible, isn't
> it best to make as few of them as possible?

We don't at all "agree that leaps of faith are indefensible".  On the contrary,
they are encouraged.  We merely point out that you, who claim to dislike faith
so much, exercise it yourself.

> One might respond by saying:  "But you make an additional leap of faith
> yourself when you assume that there's nothing else."  I agree that that
> assumption is an additional leap of faith.  But it's an assumption I don't
> make.  In fact, my definitions of physical reality are broad enough to
> encompass all possibilities; e.g., if god exists, it is a part of physical
> reality (although possibly manifesting itself in elements of that reality
> not yet understood by us).

What's the difference between assuming that there's nothing but physical
reality and claiming that physical reality is broad enough to encompass
everything?  What's the difference between definitions and assumptions
in this case?

> But given the current circumstances and evidence,
> there's no reason for making the additional leap of faith that implies the
> existence of a deity, other than wishful thinking (i.e., assume there is a
> god because you believe it's the only way to impose order on perceptions of
> the universe, even though the real workings of the universe may be beyond
> comprehension and nothing like what you wish them to be).

There's plenty of evidence and plenty of reason; you have merely limited
yourself to an approach that shuts out the possibility of such evidence, since
it isn't all objective.  Some of it -- the most important piece of it -- is
indeed objective; eyewitnesses whom I see no reason to distrust recorded that
Jesus died and was entombed, but His tomb was later found empty, and He
appeared alive numerous times, once to 500 people.  Much of the rest of the
evidence (the beneficial changes wrought by the work of the Holy Spirit in
people's lives) is partially subjective, partially objective; though you may
disagree with their explanation, the changes in people's external behavior
can be objectively seen.

You assume there is no God because you believe that's the only way to impose
order on perceptions of the universe.  I disagree.  I do not believe God has
any opposition to science and to the growth of man's knowledge; knowledge is
a good thing; as you pointed out, this means of communication would be
impossible if it were not for scientific and engineering advances; so, God
keeps the physical, tangible universe running according to set patterns,
since otherwise science could never get off the ground.  The real workings
of the universe, particularly the real workings of God's mind, are indeed
beyond our comprehension, however; and they may not be what either you or I
wish them to be, for lo, I am also a rebellious sinner.

-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK (it couldn't stand it there any longer).