Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Justice, responsibility, and belief
Message-ID: <319@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Dec-84 12:01:36 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.319
Posted: Sat Dec  8 12:01:36 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Dec-84 17:25:19 EST
References: <516@watdcsu.UUCP>, <246@qantel.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 45

>From an article in net.flame:

> I have problems with theories which remove
> personal responsibility from the system, and this is precisely the effect
> of equating neurosis with "any physical disorder".  [WINGATE]

>From another article in net.religion:

>>Unfortunately, Larry's (and others') "understanding" of justice is nothing
>>more than wishful thinking that there IS a god who administers justice.  If
>>one wants the universe to be just, one has to work to make it so.  Instead
>>of just believing that there's something else that takes care of it for you.
>> [ROSEN]

> Rich, I think you completely missed the point - twice. This deals with
> *final* judgment, not the day-to-day justice which we administer here.
> [BICKFORD]

Do I need to re-enter my incldued paragraph again?  The same statements still
hold.  Wishful thinking that the universe has a deity which administers
day-to-day and/or "final" justice, and which enforces rules of personal
responsibility, SOLELY BECAUSE YOU *WANT* THE UNIVERSE TO BE THAT WAY
(apparently you have "problems" with it NOT being that way) *does*  *not*
*make*  *it*  *so*.

I just got a letter from someone thanking me for my articles on Lewis.
Apparently some others who have been better exposed to him feel the same
way I do:  that his theses/hypotheses are full of empty wishful thinking.
Assume his conclusions about the way the universe MUST be (it MUST have
meaning, life must have meaning, there must be universal justice and personal
responsibility and free will and ...), and, of course, his own "conclusions"
are obvious.  (The person who wrote the letter, who doesn't quite feel like
getting into the publication business in net.religion, called Lewis' notion
"Conservation of Meaning":  humans cannot spontaneously create meaning out of
a vacuum, there must be some ultimate meaning.  Given the diversity of meanings
that humans create and apply to everything, the number growing by the second,
I'd say that this notion of "Conservation of Meaning" is, as this person
suggests, meaningless.)

(A "P.S" to the letter-writer:  Thanks.  I'm not mentioning your name because
I know how you feel about "tons of hate mail".  Actually, there's very little
hate mail that results from such things, but there's plenty of mail to go
through nonetheless.)
-- 
"Be seeing you..."				Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr