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: Re: Justice, responsibility, and belief
Message-ID: <328@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 10:13:45 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.328
Posted: Tue Dec 11 10:13:45 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 04:55:37 EST
References: <319@pyuxd.UUCP> <1756@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 48

>>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*.  [ROSEN]

> Wishful thinking is a two-edged sword, Rich; denying a God who is the
> embodiment of love and justice and resposibility, SOLELY BECAUSE YOU *WANT*
> THE UNIVERSE TO BE THAT WAY (and you clearly have problems with it NOT being
> that way) *does* *not* *make* *it* *so*.  [WINGATE]

Oh.  Since being unbiased means being effectively biased against propositions
that have no substantive merit in favor of those with unambiguous backing,
denying Wingate's belief in a god is tantamount to wishful thinking.  Thus,
not believing *anything* that *anyone* says/believes is WISHFUL THINKING.
"Denying a god"?  Or simply not believing one to exist based on the (lack of)
evidence, and not intending to until such evidence is presented?  Denying
something that someone else simply believes to exist is NOT wishful thinking
at all; in fact, it's very much wishful thinking to believe that it IS.

> For your information, Rich, I do not believe that the universe is just.  Both
> Judaism and Christianity agree: the world is not just.  Maybe you've lapsed
> into some sort of pantheism, but we do not equate God with the universe; 
> neither is God in the universe, any more than the programmer is in his
> program or the musician is in his music.  Frankly, Rich, this is getting very
> tiresome.  It would save us many megabytes of needless output if you would go
> and find something out about Christian and Jewish positions on these issues
> before you start making pronouncements about our beliefs.

I've asked before what Charlie's definition of "universe" and "natural" would
be, so that we can understand what "outside the universe" and "supernatural"
would mean.  He has consistently been silent.  With that in mind, I take his
statements about god being outside the universe to be poppycock:  if the
universe consists of al that exists, then if god is outside of the universe,
he doesn't exist.  If he exists, he's inside the universe by definition. 
However, if he defines universe to mean "that which is perceivable to humans",
he loses again, because such a demarcation is purely arbitrary, and changes
with human scientific endeavor (remember the microscope?).  The use of the
justice belief referred to both justice in "this world" ("See?  *He* got what
was coming to him!  It proves there is a god!") and "ultimate justice" (which
I assume Charlie has no problem with).  Other wishful thinking examples such
as universal unconditional love, absolute good/evil, externally derived
responsibility, are also included in the wishful thinking repertoire.

(Frankly, I find Charlie's sudden interest in saying "some of my best friends
hold Jewish positions on these issues" to be rather tasteless and obvious.)
-- 
"Oh, crumbs!"					     Rich Rosen  pyuxd!rlr