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
> >indoctrination.
>
> 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
> religion.

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.

Fair point.

> >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
> >bible.
>
> 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
bible.

> >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.                                           :
===============================================================================