Subject: Re: My supposed prejudice. In article <16684@mimsy.UUCP>, mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Char
From: jcmmaint@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Dene Bebbington)
Subject: Re: My supposed prejudice.
In article <16684@mimsy.UUCP>, mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
> Dene Bebbington writes:
> >I wasn't using this as an argument against faith, I was just pointing out
> >that peoples views are not always (from a religion aspect) formed without
> But again, the point is that indoctrination is irrelevant to content.
I agree, but it is the indoctrination I am not happy with.
> Science as it is taught in the younger grades is largely by
> "indoctrination"-- paleontology completely so, others perhaps less. That's
> why I find your skepticism about religion a problem; I sincerely doubt that
> you'ld apply the same skepticism to someone who had visited a distant
> country and told you about it.
You can't equate someone telling me he has been to a distant country and
tales of a person walking on water, rising from death etc. After all, I may
have been to this country myself that I am being told of.
> I think that in fact you do have a great deal of faith. You certainly show
> that you have faith in your own competency to evaluate the claims of
I think this debate about whether or not I have faith is getting a bit
repetitive, if you want to continue it I think we'd better move from the
net to mail.
However, just to answer your point all I can say is that my sceptism leads
me to not be convinced that there is a God. Whether we want to call this
"faith" is probably irrelevant now as we are probably just arguing about
the meaning of this word.
> >Not necessarily. There are many people who are not cynical about religion,
> >and many countries actively indoctrinate children with their beliefs.
> But there are also huge tracts of effective unbelief too.
> >I really don't see why you keep calling me prejudiced. I have just stated that
> >as a sceptical person I can't believe in God on just the word of the bible.
> >Also, I find the things such as the resurrection, walking on water etc. hard
> >to believe as they are events that go against nature.
> But that's just the point. You wouldn't accept them as evidence of God if
> they WEREN'T against "nature" (nature, after all, isn't a real thing here;
> it's a mental construct) because then you wouldn't notice them or would
> rationalize them away.
I must object to your arrogance at assuming that I would "rationalise them
away". Actually I would assess them as best I could and come to a decision
as to whether I thought it was convincing evidence.
> >> Let me ask you this question: if the resurrection were a fact, what evidence
> >would you expect to find?
> >There probably is no evidence of the resurrection now except the word of the
> THat's not what I asked. I asked you what evidence would you expect to find.
As I said I don't think there is any tangible evidence, only the word of the
> >Charley, perhaps you could tell us all exactly what you are trying to say,
> >when people like me ask for evidence we get back arguments which try to
> >knock down our call by making it look like their is no acceptable evidence
> >for God.
> This sentence is a bit garbled, but I'll try to answer it in spirit. The
> reason I don't just trot out and say, "here's the evidence", is that the
> Forces of Skepticism generally reject it out of hand because it isn't the
> kind of evidence that they like.
This is probably because this "evidence" isn't considered good enough by
the sceptic. What would you prefer? Credulity perhaps?
> Over several years of arguing on the net
> it has become apparent to me that the reasons behind this skepticism are
> weak in the extreme, and often are simply retained or learned prejudice
> against religion. I am no longer willing to argue for Jesus to people who
> aren't willing to give Him a fair chance.
Sounds to me like you will only present the "evidence" if the person will
believe it, thats really a good way to go about things! Also, perhaps you
could explain what you mean by the reasons for sceptism being weak.
> You yourself have repeated the anthropocentric call for the Right Kind of
> evidence, as if it were not God (if he exists) who establishes what is
> Right. I'm sorry, but God simply hasn't made it that easy for us.
What sort of an explanation is "if God exists he hasn't made it easy for us"?
I would explain it as perhaps being due to their being no God.
> C. Wingate
: Dene Bebbington. "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but :
: AT&T Network Systems UK Ltd. certainty is absurd" - Voltaire. :
: Mail to: att!ihlpa!hvmpa!dbebbing :
: DISCLAIMER: The views given here belong only to me and anyone who :
: wishes to share them. :
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank