Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh
From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Logic based on different sets of assumptions
Message-ID: <106@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Feb-85 10:45:40 EST
Article-I.D.: cvl.106
Posted: Thu Feb 28 10:45:40 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 06:42:37 EST
Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 69


> "Wanting to believe", the desirability of holding certain beliefs as
> opposed to others owing to their intrinsic "aesthetic" value rather
> than their veracity, becomes a factor in forming belief systems for
> certain people.

For all people actually. In fact it has to be that way because
"veracity" is not really knowable. Remember that Ocams razor (which you
use quite a bit) is, in fact, an "aesthetic" principle. It really is
just a matter of taste.

> Thus my question is:  why DO you presume the existence of god as a
> given (obviously I and many others simply do not), if not because you
> have some vested interest in believing that it is so, what I have
> endlessly and perhaps monotonously labelled as WISHFUL THINKING?

Endlessly, monotonously, and incorrectly. You totally ignore an
important distinction between two lines of thought.

(1) I wish that A were true.	=> I believe A

(2) I wish to believe A		=> I believe A

Argument (1) is what is commonly meant by the phrase "wishful
thinking".  I have to admit that it is not a particularly good line of
reasoning.  (2) on the other hand is quite valid.  Rememember that
belief is an action and has consequences that may be completely
independent of the truth of the proposition believed in.  If someone
says "Believing in God (or whatever my religion believes in) makes my
life happyer" why do you insist on saying "[those beliefs] are
contradicted by rational inquisitive analysis and investigation of the
world itself". Maybe so, but so what?

> or by individual human needs (arbitrarily?)  denied/forbidden/not met
> by "god's word".

But what about "individual human needs ...not met" by "rational
inquisitive analysis and investigation of the world itself".
If you don't think there are such needs how do you explain religion?

Note that argument (2) cannot be used to convince other people; it does
not generalize to

(3) I wish to believe A		=> You should believe A

and

(4) I wish you to believe A     => You should believe A

is simple intrusiveness.

Note also that the consequences of believing something ARE important
even though they have no effect on the truth. This is why different
standards of proof are used when judgeing the toxicity of a chemical
(there must be a resonable basis for believing it is toxic) and the
guilt of a person accused of a crime (there must be no reasonable
dought that he is guilty). Another example: You are standing,
blind-folded somewhere in the Grand Canyon. You would be wize to
believe, until you have evidence to the contrary, that you are standing
on a peak with shear cliffs on all sides. Even though such peaks are
actualy quite rare.

Note that what I consider good reasoning differs form your definition.
Also note the the difference does NOT lie in my assuming anything about
this god character (I make no such assumptions).

			Ralph Hartley
			siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh
			rlh@cvl