Thanks. Thanks a lot. :)
-----Original Message-----
From: Chad Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:20 AM
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
Subject: RE: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
>>
>> What empirical tests have you performed to check if your
>belief is correct?
>
>Ambiguous question. It makes no sense to postulate one of an infinite
>number of undetectable explanations for something when no explanation
>is required. There is no need to explain what need not be explained. If
>you have a more specific question, then ask away. But before you ask,
>you should know that I do NOT believe there is no god, nor do I believe
>there is a god. I do not have any beliefs regarding the matter, because
>they are not necessary to explain the world I see. If I ever see a
>verifiable, repeatable experiment for god, then I will accept that
>there is a god and work on reorganizing my conception of science. Until
>then, there is no need.
Erik has the classic agnostic belief, which follow strict rules of
logic. I am by no means criticizing this. I believe that his assumptions
are very correct, and based in logic. I believe the same, and fully
support his position.
So why do not others (90% as quoted before) go through the same set of
tests to determine that it can't be 'determined'? Why is there such a
reliance upon faith? I do not believe that this is linked to a
fundamental fear or death, for if it was, most people would follow the
dictates of their belief (free of most sin - no one's perfect). There is
little in the way of dogma that leads people to believe in God. A belief
in God does not require a religion, but I would assert that it does
require personal validation ("feeling God"). For some it is a
fundamental belief, validated only through experience. Unfortunately
science cannot measure or validate this belief or feeling as being real.
Even some scientists, packed with the sharp sword of the scientific
method, can still find a place for God.
I have a theory (which of course would not meet Erik's stringent
standard for what is required to formulate a theory) that genetics plays
a strong role in experiencing "spirituality". Putting aside what
spirituality means, there are fundamental physiologic processes that
occur when people feel "rapture" or "feel God". All religions have this
one thing in common. All feelings of spirituality has a common element
of "feeling God" or "knowing their place in the Universe"(there are
thousands of ways to express this feeling, which explains the cornucopia
of religious dogma to pick and choose from). Most people feel this at
one time, some more than others. I can't help but to think that some
people (like myself) lack the necessary component to "feel God" in the
same degree and manner. Some people are raised religious, but never gain
conviction. Others never have exposure to religion, yet do claim to have
"felt God" and profess a belief and love of God.
Why is this? Taking the religious position, one could say that they have
not "let God in". I believe that for some people (perhaps that 10% of us
who are 'godless')they (I) lack something which provides this unshaken
belief in so many people.
I would assert that most people who do believe in God, know that it is
based upon faith, but do have personal validation, despite its
illogicalness. They understand the arguments, but can put them aside,
because they have personal validation that God exists, and is aware of
their existence. Being an objectivist, I have been taught to scoff at
the idea, with the clear and simple argument - "Where's the Beef!". I
struggled with this for many, many years. WHY DO THEY BELIEVE!
I personally would like proof, even if it was a personal conviction.
Life may have been easier for me as a strong church goer, having faith
in the Lord, doing the Lord's work. It did not come, but it did have an
interesting effect - It freed me to be critical of God, his believers,
and the dogma associated with God.
In talking to my parents about this, I came to realize that my freedom
from "feeling God" places me in a position to be unbiased, and by this,
I become an "intellectual guardian", able to question and challenge
those who use religion for evil, as a weapon or as an implement of
control. I pay a price in this, but it is _undenialable _that I
contribute to the health of religion, by being its intellectual guardian
- to question bad religion, bad beliefs, bad science, bad memes. Some
say that religion will die. I'm suggesting that religion will mature and
grow stronger as science progresses. Science has and will break down the
toxic memes of religion, and will influence the culture of religion to
enhance the survivialability of humanity.
Call it the God or Spirituality Gene. Some of us don't understand what
it means to believe in God. Evolution may have made us that way. But
Gaia may a role for Atheists and Agnostics - it's to make religion
better for the common man. I believe I was born to do the job. For all
of you who believe, I think you owe me your thanks for defending the
Lord's work.
Chad Cooper
>
>
>--
>"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
>_______________________________________________
>http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
>
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
