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!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Sargent on reality vs. illusion
Message-ID: <1162@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Sep-84 12:12:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.1162
Posted: Tue Sep 25 12:12:44 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Sep-84 03:48:46 EDT
References: <4011@tekecs.UUCP>, <499@ames.UUCP> <1138@pucc-h>, <1123@pyuxn.UUCP> <1215@pucc-h>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 124

>> [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.  [ROSEN]

> 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.  [SARGENT]

Yup.  Absolutely.  You've actually hit the nail right on the head.  (OUCH!!  I
didn't mean *my* head! :-)  Given the unreliability, the faulty patterning,
the imposition of preconceptions as used by what you call subjective
experiences, I see *every* reason to totally discount ALL such "evidence"
that cannot be reproduced objectively (i.e., for all to see, witness, and
verify scientifically) as wishful thinking, illusion, etc.  It's not a leap of
faith to deny the veracity of the subjective.  Remember what the
original title described:  reality vs. illusion, illusion formed by
preconception and wishful thinking.  Subjective experience is not without
worth; it is the basis for artistic expression (though the best artists
probably try to either evoke images common in all of us or create a reality so
unique that it allows each perceiver to experience their own interpretation);
but art is the creation of a new imaginary reality by a human brain, and 
science is the objective study of a real reality that we all experience.

>>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 "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.

...and you'll notice I gave reason for doing so.  Do you?  If leaps of
faith are to be encouraged, than it's no wonder people elect demagogues.
("Trust me for another...")

> 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?

A very big and important difference.  I claim that the definition of the
physical universe encompasses all that there is.  Your definition of the
physical universe has a different, more limited, and arbitrary definition.
You draw a demarcation line between the "physical" and the "non-physical".
What is that line?  The line of the powers of human perception!!!  Hundreds
of years ago, you might have been of the school that proposed that mold
grew on food by some process of spontaneous generation/creation, because
there was nothing that HUMAN SENSES COULD PERCEIVE THAT SHOWED ANY OTHER
EXPLANATION.  Once the powers of perception were extended by microscopes
and other technological advances, we have been able to see how such things
really happen---a viable "physical" explanation.  Why was the process
magical and non-physical before the advent of the microscope, but an
accepted part of "physical reality" after it?  There is NO difference
between the so-called "physical" and the so-called "non-physical" reality.
The demarcation between the two is hopelessly arbitrary.  If a deity
exists, IT is a part of physical reality.

>>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. 

"Yup" and "Absolutely" once again.  See above.

> 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.

I've offered more rational explanations about the changes in people's
behaviors than you have; more rational because they don't assume quite as
much as yours do (unnecessarily, I might add).  Like a person feeling better
about him/herself being self-reinforcing, even if the root of their "feeling
better about themselves" is based on an illusion.  As John Nelson mentioned in
an earlier article, what you describe as evidence is simply the testimony of
people who wanted to believe what they believed, and of those who wanted to
advance and promote the belief.  How do YOU know that the accounts you
read were true?  What is your basis for having "no reason to distrust" the
authors?  Because they were "good men"?  Where did you get that opinion of them
if not from the accounts themselves?  From your subjectively perceived feelings
toward the accounts, and your preconceptions about them?

> 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.

On the contrary, I simply don't assume that there IS a god the way you
apparently have.  I also don't assume that the workings of the universe are
necessarily beyond our comprehension, though they may be for other reasons
than the presumptive ones you describe; e.g., because it may be impossible
for someone inside a closed system to describe an "external" view of that
closed system.  I know that you assume that there's a god who can; so?
That just makes our closed system an element in a larger closed system that
god is in.  Who created *that* closed system?  The point is:  your solution to
the question is not a solution at all.  As I said at the beginning of the
paragraph, I don't a priori assume that there is a god and work from there, as
you *must* to reach the conclusions you posit.  That's what unbiased
objectivity is supposed to be all about:  not assuming, not invoking
preconceptions of the way one expects/wishes the world to be, not basing one's
judgments on self-defined subjective patterns that may not match what's really
out there, attempting (as much as possible) to be unbiased.
-- 
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
			Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr