Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Logic based on different sets of assumptions (part 2 of 2)
Message-ID: <1080@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Mar-85 16:53:59 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.1080
Posted: Sat Mar  9 16:53:59 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 04:38:48 EST
References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP>, <4932@cbscc.UUCP> <4933@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 55

> 
>                                                        ...  You conlude
> that belief that there is a God to be an assumption.  There is another
> possibility: It is a proposition held to explain questions (often metaphyical)
> that we encounter about our own existence and that of the world we live in.
> In this sense I do not take God's existence to be axiomatic.  I offer it
> as a consistent explanation of the world as I encounter it.  It may not be
> the only one, but as far as *I* know it is the best for many things I consider.
> 

This is just a way of defining away things that you can't understand. The
problem with this approach is that it contributes nothing to your
understanding of the world around you. It fails to distinguish in quality
between explanations such as a) the pot boils because it is on the stove,
and, b) God made the water boil. The first is repeatable, the second
relies on God's whim.


> The conflict and repression does not go away when you remove the existence
> of God assumption.  It exists with or without it.  Anyone who is in a position
> of earthly authority will have the same temptations to repress (directly
> or inderectly) opposing views whether they believe in God or not.  The
> Soviet repression of challenges to Lamarckism and Trofim Lysenko's jealous
> guarding of his "vernalization" technique (claimed to boost the Soviet
> winter wheat crop) are good examples.  (See "Betrayers of the Truth" by
> Broad and Wade, Ch. 10).
> 
 
.
I agree with this. But when talking about repression of challanges,
let's include the crusades, the inquisition, and
let's not forget about the problems encountered when Geocentrism was
first challanged.


> In any case the conflict works both ways.  Atheists are just as likely
> to deny theistic claims in protest to the change in world view
> it would require.  Why should I go along with your assumption that your
> view of the universe is correct "based on the evidence".  As I said before,
> evidence may support more than one conclusion.  Conclusions are not
> inherent in evidence, they are subject to the interpretation of such
> evidence.
> 

Being an Athiest I must agree with you here also. My biases make
me say that the pot boils because it is on the stove, and that it will
probably do so to-morrow if I so desire. :-)

> I'll grant you your assertion that you don't assume that there is no God.
> But you made a lot of claims that that assumption was supported by 
> evidence.  Why was that necessary if you don't make the assumption?

It is not at all necessary, but why look a gift horse in the mouth?

Padraig Houlahan