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,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting)
Message-ID: <1182@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 16:20:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1182
Posted: Mon Jul  8 16:20:39 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 07:11:25 EDT
References: <2006@decwrl.UUCP> <749@rayssd.UUCP> <323@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 118
Xref: watmath net.religion:7215 net.religion.christian:840

>>   Who would paint such a picture of man as we find in scripture. Man's
>>   tendency is to either exalt himself above what he is or reduce himself
>>   below his true nature. [BOSKOVICH]

>As seen, in fact, in the Bible, which clearly does both at the same time!
>"Man (sic) was made in the image of god, the flower of his (sic) creation,
>destined to have dominion over the earth."  If that's not overexalting, what
>is?  The very basis of this sort of religious thinking is to impose upon
>oneself a feeling of self-importance:  in a natural world of natural events,
>it's nice to think that a god is controlling things and watching over YOU. 
>Ironically, at the same time, the image of a vengeful god telling humans what
>to do and punishing those who "disobey" is prevalent.  Such an image is
>clearly a self-imposed one involving a negative self-worth regarding one's
>species:  man is evil, he must be controlled and told what to do by an
>external judgin entity.  Who would paint such a picture?  People with a very
>cockeyed sense of what humanity and the universe are all about. [ROSEN]

* 			     Man: A Paradox
* 
*   Allow me to clarify the biblical position of the nature of man. Man is
*   a paradox, on one hand noble, on the other hand depraved.
*   This paradox has led to two contrasting but erroneous views of man.

Well, those words "noble" and "depraved" are sure laced with subjective
judgment there.  Who defines noble?  Depraved?  If you get right back to your
own bible (that which you're trying to prove), you haven't said anything.

*   The lower view of man presents him as being nothing more than material
*   substance and chemical processes. This is demonstrated through modern
*   psychology's "behaviorism", which regards man as another animal.
* 
*   The higher view holds that man has a divine spark which needs only to
*   be fanned into a flame of goodness, enabling him to master his own
*   nature and effect his own salvation. This view is popular among the
*   Eastern religions but not exclusively.

Now hold on!  The "lower" view is only "lower" when held up in comparison to
that "higher" view.  And what is that higher view?  Why, it's called
"anthropocentrism", that old standby of those who proclaim humanity as the
center of the universe, because they'd like to think of them (i.e., themselves)
that way.  (Motivations for that I'll leave to the psychological minded among
us.)  In other words, wishful thinking.  The so-called lower view is only
"low" with respect to this wishful thinking "higher" view.  "Nothing more than"
what makes up the rest of the universe.  This "higher" view is held by people
for whom that view is "not enough" for their tastes.  Is there any reason to
hold such a view other than anthropocentrism?  Is there any evidence to support
it?

*   The Christian view takes both into consideration. Lost in the vastness
*   of the universe, man is nothing, but, as the object of God's care
*   and concern, man is everything.

Another example of the wishful thinking school of justification.  Lost in the
vastness of the universe, humans might see themselves as "nothing" (depending
on their perspective---with respect to our immediate surroundings, none of us
is nothing, but in the universe as a whole we are less significant, yet somehow
still having an effect on our surroundings).  Does that mean that because
someone feels that way, there MUST be a deity who, through its "care and
concern" makes that person feel like "everything"?

*   This paradox is evident throughout man's history. Man builds up cities,
*   bombs them to bits, then proceeds to rebuild them out of the rubble.
*   Man makes undreamed-of scientific advances, then makes a science out of
*   destroying life.
*   The Biblical view is perfectly consistent with what we observe of man's
*   behavior. Created in the image of God, man is creative, intelligent,
*   noble, and has a sense of morality. As a fallen creature, man ignores
*   his sense of morality, uses his creativity and intelligence to exploit
*   himself and nature, and misdirects his nobility resulting in pride,
*   prejudice, and power struggle. When Galileo showed his telescope to the
*   senators of Florence, Italy, their immediate reaction was, "That glass
*   will be a great advantage to us in time of war!" In this respect man
*   has not changed much. A British periodical published this little verse
*   of the Hydrogen Bomb:
*   "A pretty toy?" The Devil shook his head.
*   "I still prefer the human heart!", he said.
* 
*   Here's a little test to see if man is inherently good or evil. Raise up
*   a child, give him no instruction as he grows, and observe his behavior.
*   You will see that no one ever had to teach a child to misbehave!

As someone else said, that is because there are many more "bad" things one
can do than "good", so statistically your conclusion might be valid.  But I
don't think so.  What makes a person act in a good fashion?  What makes
societies form rules based on "good"?  (i.e., actions not harmful to
others).  What does that mean "no instruction as he grows"?  Left alone,
without the interaction of others, a child might grow up solely seeking his/her
own best interests.  Put the child in an environment with others (not his/her
parents, who may choose to spoil and indulge him/her and thus truly "spoil"
the child's upbringing), and see how long the child takes to learn what it
takes to live with other people.  Perhaps, like a microcosm of human history,
the children will at first fight until the point where they realized (as some
elements of humanity have throughout history) what cooperation and respect for
other people mean.

Moreover, let's look at your definition of "misbehave".  No one had to teach
the child to do what felt good and what was in its best self-interests.  In a
world where the child was by himself/herself, what is "evil" about that?  Of
course, the child is not alone in the world.  It is in relation to behavior
towards others that behavior that HARMS other people can be considered evil. 
Every organism on the planet acts in its best interests.  Is a predator evil
for killing and eating its prey?  If anything could be said at all about
humanity's good and evil, the fact that humans can seek out a longer term good
for more people bespeaks our "good" side.

My thanks to all those who sent me a copy of Dan's article.  I'd still like
to hear what he has to say directly about all our comments on his "pamphlet".
Does he still intend to publish it after all we've said?  Can we thus assume
that its purpose is not to provide objective evidence but to "convince" those
who want to be convinced.  (Not exactly the hardest job in the world.)

By the way, I understand that Dan wrote another article (<339@scgvaxd.UUCP>??)
on other aspects of the objective evidence debate.  I would appreciate it
if someone (hopefully the author) would send me a copy of that.  Thanks in
advance.  (I have to wonder why people who yell at me and call me all sorts
of heinous things would WANT to send me an article knowing that I'm going to
respond to it more than likely in a way they're not likely to like.  I didn't
know masochism was so rampant. But thanks. :-)