Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site trwrba.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrba!jnelson From: jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Sargent on reality vs. illusion Message-ID: <970@trwrba.UUCP> Date: Sat, 22-Sep-84 16:33:06 EDT Article-I.D.: trwrba.970 Posted: Sat Sep 22 16:33:06 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 04:37:54 EDT References: <4011@tekecs.UUCP>, <499@ames.UUCP> <1138@pucc-h>, <1123@pyuxn.UUCP>, <1215@pucc-h> Organization: TRW EDS, Redondo Beach, CA Lines: 66 Subject: Re: Sargent on reality vs. illusion 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. If it can't be observed objectivly then it isn't evidence... it's testimony. All you have are very old testiments of what people say happened; not tangible evidence that we can see and touch and analyze. There's plenty of evidence that supports other explanations of the universe; you have merely limited yourself to an approach that shuts out the possibility of such evidence, since it doesn't support your beliefs. You cannot eliminate objectivity from evidence. That's why so many "proofs" for the existance of God fail miserably. Why is there such interest in finding the Ark of Noah, or proving that the Shroud of Turan was Jesus' burial cloth? Because people are desperatly trying to find hard evidence for even the existance of some Biblical events. Your method requires that all of the physical evidence supports your subjective proofs. By appealing to a higher plane of reason you simply discard physical evidence, claiming it to be invalid somehow in the face of more subjective reasoning. This is a mistake, I think. Physical reality is here to teach us, not to deceive us. It is a cruel god indeed, that creates a universe, only to discard all it has to say because he claims that the clues are invalid. 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. The changes in the lives of people who lived 2000 some years ago cannot be seen objectivly, since they are long dead... and the cause of the change is not something we can observe first hand. Besides, many people have experienced changes in their lives without some intervention by God. 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; I thought Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden because of their search for the knowledge of good and evil. If this is the root of man's sinfulness and fallen state, then surely the search for knowledge is not a good thing... but let's just let that one slide. ...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. If God meant us to seek knowledge then he must also recognize the fact that his creations will want to know more about him, and question his nature. The learning process does not mean just accepting what you see at face value, but QUESTIONING its nature. This is how the aquisition of knowledge works. It is neither rebellious nor sinful to question, or hypothesis about, the nature of God and the universe.