On Monday 10 December 2001 01:02 pm, you wrote:
> Christopher M. Jones wrote:
> > Nope. Right/left margins are set equal, geometry enabled. Without twoside
> > everything is normal, but as soon as twoside is enabled everything shifts
> > off the page. Maybe I have something else, some other package maybe, that
> > is doing this? Example file?
>
> send a minimal one.
>
>
> Herbert
newfile.ps
Description: PostScript document
#LyX 1.1 created this file. For more info see http://www.lyx.org/
\lyxformat 218
\textclass report
\begin_preamble
\fancyhead{}
\rhead{doin'?}
\lhead{whatsit}
\end_preamble
\language english
\inputencoding latin1
\fontscheme default
\graphics default
\paperfontsize 10
\spacing single
\papersize letterpaper
\paperpackage a4
\use_geometry 1
\use_amsmath 0
\paperorientation portrait
\leftmargin 0.25in
\topmargin 1in
\rightmargin 0.25in
\bottommargin 1in
\headheight 0in
\headsep 0.5in
\footskip 0.5in
\secnumdepth 3
\tocdepth 3
\paragraph_separation indent
\defskip bigskip
\quotes_language english
\quotes_times 2
\papercolumns 1
\papersides 2
\paperpagestyle fancy
\layout Standard
You have noticed, haven't you, that in recent times certain scientists like
Dr.
James Jeans and Sir Arthur Eddington, as well as some outstanding philosophers
like Dr.
C.E.M.
Joad, have had a good deal to say about religion and God? Scientists Jeans
and Eddington are ready to admit that there may be something to the claims
of men who say they have had an experience of God, while Philosopher Joad
says that the "obtrusiveness of evil" has virtually compelled him to look
into the argument for God's existence afresh.
Much like modernist theologian Dr.
Reinhold Niebuhr who talks about original sin, Philosopher Joad speaks
about evil as being ineradicable from the human mind.
\layout Standard
Then, too, you have on occasion asked yourself whether death ends all.
You have recalled, perhaps, how Socrates the great Greek philosopher, struggled
with that problem the day before he drank the hemlock cup.
Is there anything at all, you ask yourself, to the idea of a judgement
after death? Am I quite sure, you say, that there is not? How do I know
that there is no God?
\layout Standard
In short, as a person of intelligence, having a sense of responsibility,
you have from time to time asked yourself some questions about the foundation
of your thought and action.
You have looked into, or at least been concerned about, what the philosophers
call your theory of reality .
So when I suggest that you spend a Sunday afternoon with me discussing
my reasons for believing in God, I have the feeling that you are basically
interested in what I am proposing for discussion.
\layout Standard
To make our conversation more interesting, let's start by comparing notes
on our past.
That will fit in well with our plan, for the debate concerning heredity
and environment is prominent in our day.
Perhaps you think that the only real reason I have for believing in God
is the fact that I was taught to do so in my early days.
Of course I don't think that is really so.
I don't deny that I was taught to believe in God when I was a child, but
I do affirm that since I have grown up I have heard a pretty full statement
of the argument against belief in God.
And it is after having heard that argument that I am more than ever ready
to believe in God.
Now, in fact, I feel that the whole of history and civilization would be
unintelligible to me if it were not for my belief in God.
So true is this, that I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything,
you cannot find meaning in anything.
I cannot even argue for belief in Him, without already having taken Him
for granted.
And similarly I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless
you also first take Him for granted.
Arguing about God's existence, I hold, is like arguing about air.
You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not.
But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time.
Or to use another illustration, God is like the emplacement on which must
stand the very guns that are supposed to shoot Him out of existence.
However if, after hearing my story briefly, you still think it is all a
matter of heredity and environment, I shall not disagree too violently.
My whole point will be that there is perfect harmony between my belief
as a child and my belief as a man, simply because God is Himself the environmen
t by which my early life was directed and my later life made intelligible
to myself.
\layout Subsection*
The "Accident of Birth"
\layout Standard
We are frequently told that much in our life depends on "the accident of
birth".
In ancient time some men were said to spring full-grown from the foreheads
of the gods.
That, at any rate, is not true today.
Yet I understand the next best thing happened to you.
You were born, I am told, in Washington, D.C., under the shadow of the White
House.
Well, I was born in a little thatched roof house with a cow barn attached,
in Holland.
You wore "silver slippers" and I wore wooden shoes.
\layout Standard
Is this really important for our purpose? Not particularly, but it is important
that neither of us was born in Guadalcanal or Timbuktu.
Both of us, I mean, were born in the midst and under the influence of "Christia
n civilization." We shall limit our discussion, then, to the "God of Christianity.
" I believe, while you do not believe or are not sure that you do believe,
in this particular kind of God.
That will give point to our discussion.
For surely there is no sense in talking about the existence of God, without
knowing what kind of God it is who may or may not exist.
\layout Standard
So much then we have gained.
We at least know in general what sort of God we are going to make the subject
for our conversation.
If now we can come to a similar preliminary agreement as to the standard
or test by which to prove or disprove God's existence, we can proceed.
You, of course, do not expect me to bring God into the room here so that
you may see Him.
If I were able to do that, He would not be the God of Christianity.
All that you expect me to do is to make it reasonable for you to believe
in God.
And I should like to respond quickly by saying that that is just what I
am trying to do.
But a moment's thought makes me hesitate.
If you really do not believe in God, then you naturally do not believe
that you are his creature.
I, on the other hand, who do believe in God also believe, naturally, that
it is reasonable for God's creature to believe in God.
So I can only undertake to show that, even if it does not appear reasonable
to you, it is reasonable for you, to believe in God.
\layout Standard
-----
\layout Standard
You have noticed, haven't you, that in recent times certain scientists like
Dr.
James Jeans and Sir Arthur Eddington, as well as some outstanding philosophers
like Dr.
C.E.M.
Joad, have had a good deal to say about religion and God? Scientists Jeans
and Eddington are ready to admit that there may be something to the claims
of men who say they have had an experience of God, while Philosopher Joad
says that the "obtrusiveness of evil" has virtually compelled him to look
into the argument for God's existence afresh.
Much like modernist theologian Dr.
Reinhold Niebuhr who talks about original sin, Philosopher Joad speaks
about evil as being ineradicable from the human mind.
\layout Standard
Then, too, you have on occasion asked yourself whether death ends all.
You have recalled, perhaps, how Socrates the great Greek philosopher, struggled
with that problem the day before he drank the hemlock cup.
Is there anything at all, you ask yourself, to the idea of a judgement
after death? Am I quite sure, you say, that there is not? How do I know
that there is no God?
\layout Standard
In short, as a person of intelligence, having a sense of responsibility,
you have from time to time asked yourself some questions about the foundation
of your thought and action.
You have looked into, or at least been concerned about, what the philosophers
call your theory of reality .
So when I suggest that you spend a Sunday afternoon with me discussing
my reasons for believing in God, I have the feeling that you are basically
interested in what I am proposing for discussion.
\layout Standard
To make our conversation more interesting, let's start by comparing notes
on our past.
That will fit in well with our plan, for the debate concerning heredity
and environment is prominent in our day.
Perhaps you think that the only real reason I have for believing in God
is the fact that I was taught to do so in my early days.
Of course I don't think that is really so.
I don't deny that I was taught to believe in God when I was a child, but
I do affirm that since I have grown up I have heard a pretty full statement
of the argument against belief in God.
And it is after having heard that argument that I am more than ever ready
to believe in God.
Now, in fact, I feel that the whole of history and civilization would be
unintelligible to me if it were not for my belief in God.
So true is this, that I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything,
you cannot find meaning in anything.
I cannot even argue for belief in Him, without already having taken Him
for granted.
And similarly I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless
you also first take Him for granted.
Arguing about God's existence, I hold, is like arguing about air.
You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not.
But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time.
Or to use another illustration, God is like the emplacement on which must
stand the very guns that are supposed to shoot Him out of existence.
However if, after hearing my story briefly, you still think it is all a
matter of heredity and environment, I shall not disagree too violently.
My whole point will be that there is perfect harmony between my belief
as a child and my belief as a man, simply because God is Himself the environmen
t by which my early life was directed and my later life made intelligible
to myself.
\layout Subsection*
The "Accident of Birth"
\layout Standard
We are frequently told that much in our life depends on "the accident of
birth".
In ancient time some men were said to spring full-grown from the foreheads
of the gods.
That, at any rate, is not true today.
Yet I understand the next best thing happened to you.
You were born, I am told, in Washington, D.C., under the shadow of the White
House.
Well, I was born in a little thatched roof house with a cow barn attached,
in Holland.
You wore "silver slippers" and I wore wooden shoes.
\layout Standard
Is this really important for our purpose? Not particularly, but it is important
that neither of us was born in Guadalcanal or Timbuktu.
Both of us, I mean, were born in the midst and under the influence of "Christia
n civilization." We shall limit our discussion, then, to the "God of Christianity.
" I believe, while you do not believe or are not sure that you do believe,
in this particular kind of God.
That will give point to our discussion.
For surely there is no sense in talking about the existence of God, without
knowing what kind of God it is who may or may not exist.
\layout Standard
So much then we have gained.
We at least know in general what sort of God we are going to make the subject
for our conversation.
If now we can come to a similar preliminary agreement as to the standard
or test by which to prove or disprove God's existence, we can proceed.
You, of course, do not expect me to bring God into the room here so that
you may see Him.
If I were able to do that, He would not be the God of Christianity.
All that you expect me to do is to make it reasonable for you to believe
in God.
And I should like to respond quickly by saying that that is just what I
am trying to do.
But a moment's thought makes me hesitate.
If you really do not believe in God, then you naturally do not believe
that you are his creature.
I, on the other hand, who do believe in God also believe, naturally, that
it is reasonable for God's creature to believe in God.
So I can only undertake to show that, even if it does not appear reasonable
to you, it is reasonable for you, to believe in God.
\the_end
