From: prembone@excitebitespam.com (Prembone) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:17:13 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Sun Sep 12 22:25:08 1999 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: The Rescue Frodo SWAT Team X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Lines: 34 NNTP-Posting-Host: sdn-ar-001mnminnp002.dialsprint.net X-ELN-Date: 13 Sep 1999 05:21:59 GMT Message-ID: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!netnews.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 01:00:47 -0400 (EDT), orius@webtv.net (David Sulger) wrote: >These were entertaining articles. i enjoyed the orc one, it was a lot >of fun, but your discussion of death and deathlesslness in ME really >changes many of my perceptions of the story. I had never really looked >at the theme of LotR, rather having enjoyed reading the books for the >love of the story. But your discussion of this theme enhanced my >persception of what was really going on in the story. Reading this ng >has helped me truly understand the differences between the Children of >Il=FAvatar. I suppose that a Man, who possess an undying fe=E4, is in >reality truly immortal when compared to an Elf whose life can only last >as long as the world lasts. You know, in a way I tend to feel that JRRT copped out on the "coming to terms with mortality" theme. Supposedly that's what his whole work was all about, how immortality isn't all it's cracked up to be, and Elves envy Men the "gift of death," etc., even as Men envy Elvish immortality. Yet if Men go on to an afterlife, and don't really die, then it's more like a woman accepting that she must go through labor pains in order to birth the baby than it is like truly accepting that one must really and truly die, cease to exist, be finite. Suppose mortality meant (means) just that: a short life, then the end. How, then, would mortals find meaning and consolation in being made mortal rather than immortal? Especially if there were a race of immortal beings in the world as well? "For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -- Carl Sagan The Secular Paganist http://www.stormloader.com/secularpagan (new URL) ###### From: orius@webtv.net (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 01:45:33 -0400 (EDT) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 34 Message-ID: <22201-37DC8F7D-127@newsd-252.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhUAiWQiEFzhxlIotusikUlcEL2srukCFGIbkVsQypsr7WykqKZUEgucYr5d Content-Disposition: Inline Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!netnews.globalip.ch!news-raspail.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed2.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail Prembone wrote: >You know, in a way I tend to feel that >JRRT copped out on the "coming to >terms with mortality" theme. Supposedly >that's what his whole work was all about, >how immortality isn't all it's cracked up to >be, and Elves envy Men the "gift of >death," etc., even as Men envy Elvish >immortality. Yet if Men go on to an >afterlife, and don't really die, then it's >more like a woman accepting that she >must go through labor pains in order to >birth the baby than it is like truly >accepting that one must really and truly >die, cease to exist, be finite. >Suppose mortality meant (means) just >that: a short life, then the end. How, >then, would mortals find meaning and >consolation in being made mortal rather >than immortal? Especially if there were a >race of immortal beings in the world as >well? I think you're missing the point. For those mortals who live in Arda, there is an afterlife granted to them by Il=FAvatar, who did exist in Tolkien's imagination, and therefore exists for all those in Arda. Whether or not there is an afterlife or God in reality is not the point, and is really beyond the scope of this ng. Yes, I know that ME represented part of our own world, but that was in an imaginary past, with imaginary elements. ###### From: mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Organization: PC-InTOUCH Linux Conspiracy Message-ID: <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1-40.dialup.pc-intouch.com Lines: 47 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:37:32 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.212.198.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: typhoon-la.pbi.net 937215259 207.212.198.18 (Mon, 13 Sep 1999 02:34:19 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 02:34:19 PDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!intermedia!cyclone.swbell.net!typhoon-la.pbi.net.POSTED!not-for-mail On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:17:13 GMT, prembone@excitebitespam.com (Prembone) wrote: >You know, in a way I tend to feel that JRRT copped out on the "coming >to terms with mortality" theme. Supposedly that's what his whole work >was all about, how immortality isn't all it's cracked up to be, and >Elves envy Men the "gift of death," etc., even as Men envy Elvish >immortality. Yet if Men go on to an afterlife, and don't really die, >then it's more like a woman accepting that she must go through labor >pains in order to birth the baby than it is like truly accepting that >one must really and truly die, cease to exist, be finite. There's at least one other factor here. Men aren't sure what happens to them when they die. They *suspect* that there *might* be an afterlife, but (unlike the Elves) can't be certain. When they're facing death, they eventually have to realize (they *have* to realize, in the sense that realization is forced on them) that it's really just speculation. One of the few things more terrifying than certain death is uncertain death. In addition, Tolkien doesn't show a lot of people who have learned to deal with mortality. What we do see are people who *haven't* learned to deal with it, who feel death approaching and desperately search for some way to prolong their lives. This is, of course, the tragedy of Númenor, and in some sense also the tragedy of the Rings. The other side of this is that mortality isn't all it's cracked up to be either. Look at Arwen: she knew what immortality was like, she had to learn to deal with the pain of deathlessness, she envied the Gift of Men. She thought the Númenoreans were fools for throwing away this gift, until she had to experience mortality herself. Only then, when she had to face an uncertain future, did she understand what would drive someone to seek immortality. >Suppose mortality meant (means) just that: a short life, then the >end. How, then, would mortals find meaning and consolation in being >made mortal rather than immortal? Especially if there were a race of >immortal beings in the world as well? The problem with presenting this idea is that the human mind can't deal with the idea that it will cease to exist. "I think, therefore I am." What happens when "I think not"? This isn't meant to be a proof that the human mind *won't* cease to exist. What I'm saying is that it can't grasp the idea that it will permanently stop thinking. ###### From: coren@spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: 13 Sep 1999 16:20:24 GMT Organization: Pigs in Blankets Lines: 22 Message-ID: <7rj888$18uk$1@newsie2.cent.net> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <22201-37DC8F7D-127@newsd-252.iap.bryant.webtv.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ursolaris.spdcc.com X-Trace: newsie2.cent.net 937239624 41940 140.186.80.8 (13 Sep 1999 16:20:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@newsie2.cent.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Sep 1999 16:20:24 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!newsie2.cent.net!not-for-mail In article <22201-37DC8F7D-127@newsd-252.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, David Sulger wrote: >Prembone wrote: > ... >>Suppose mortality meant (means) just >>that: a short life, then the end. How, >>then, would mortals find meaning and >>consolation in being made mortal rather >>than immortal? Especially if there were a >>race of immortal beings in the world as >>well? > >I think you're missing the point. For those mortals who live in Arda, >there is an afterlife granted to them by Il=FAvatar, who did exist in >Tolkien's imagination, and therefore exists for all those in Arda. >Whether or not there is an afterlife or God in reality is not the point, >and is really beyond the scope of this ng. But the fact that Tolkien believed that there was is not entirely irrelevant, perhaps? -- "You ain't seen from animus." --Ken Rudolph ###### From: orius@webtv.net (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 02:47:44 -0400 (EDT) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 48 Message-ID: <23309-37DDEF90-119@newsd-251.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: <7rj888$18uk$1@newsie2.cent.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAsAhR07tQZhPXE7L7l0ZkcneWiXCY/TQIUIuiZek0/Cf7KYjpi6whKUVHLSzE= Content-Disposition: Inline Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail Robert S. Coren was so kind as to point out that: >David Sulger wrote: >>Prembone wrote: >>>... >>>Suppose mortality meant (means) just >>>that: a short life, then the end. How, >>>then, would mortals find meaning and >>>consolation in being made mortal >>>rather than immortal? Especially if >>>there were a race of immortal beings >>>in the world as well? >>I think you're missing the point. For >>those mortals who live in Arda, there is >>an afterlife granted to them by Il=FAvatar, >>who did exist in Tolkien's imagination, >>and therefore exists for all those in >>Arda. Whether or not there is an >>afterlife or God in reality is not the >>point, and is really beyond the scope of >>this ng. >But the fact that Tolkien believed that >there was is not entirely irrelevant, >perhaps? No it was not. An author's beliefs, predjudices and preconceptions are often reflected to some degree in his work. Tolkien was a fairly religious man from what I've read. Much of Tolkien's writings were inspired by the mytholgies of northern Europe. However, the Ainulindale, with the concept of Il=FAvatar, his creation of the Ainur, and the fall of Melkor into evil seems much more inspired by Judeo-Christian beliefs to me. I don't take this essay as some kind of proof that God and angels exist, rather, it forms the creation story of Tolkien's world. Similarly, death is the Gift of the One to men, because that is exacly how Tolkien wrote it, regardless of our beliefs. Remember also the forward the Christopher tolkien wrote to the Silmarillion: that his later writings he used to explore his own beliefs, and thus became more religious and philosophical in nature. Unfortunately , he died before he could fully figure out his vision of ME, and so I think that may be part of the reason we are having this discussion in the first place -- Tolkien didn't really "cop-out", rather, he never truly figured out what the real fate of men was after death in his world. ###### From: Jereeza Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 04:41:23 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Lines: 19 Message-ID: <7rkjli$rkd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.29.232.63 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Sep 14 04:41:23 1999 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.08 [en] (Win16; I ;Nav) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x24.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 195.29.232.63 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjereeza Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail > Suppose mortality meant (means) just that: a short life, then the > end. How, then, would mortals find meaning and consolation in being > made mortal rather than immortal? Especially if there were a race of > immortal beings in the world as well? Well, the Elves weren't really immortal, but the first question can be easily answered - common sense tells one 90 years is better than *eternity*. -- ~ Jereeza the Witch-Pearl of the East ~ [T-U: aka Trinidad] Nazgul, bellydancer, sculptress and ICQ (#10227671) addict: have ruby, will use. puvpx cbjre! Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:22:23 -0400 Lines: 32 Message-ID: <37DF10D6.46897465@erols.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: USuvW5b2EzGom1q7/p+pMYLKrbpu5xIjxPKihQExiV0= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Sep 1999 03:24:54 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Prembone wrote: > You know, in a way I tend to feel that JRRT copped out on the "coming > to terms with mortality" theme. Supposedly that's what his whole work > was all about, how immortality isn't all it's cracked up to be, and > Elves envy Men the "gift of death," etc., even as Men envy Elvish > immortality. Yet if Men go on to an afterlife, and don't really die, > then it's more like a woman accepting that she must go through labor > pains in order to birth the baby than it is like truly accepting that > one must really and truly die, cease to exist, be finite. Why is that a cop-out? Even those who believe in an afterlife must come to terms with their own mortality. I thought that Tolkien did a good job (in the Akallabêth) of having Men explain how they feared death, even though they knew they had a destiny beyond the circles of the world. If mortals in Middle-Earth were annihilated at death, there couldn't have been an interesting counterpoint to Elvish immortality. The Elves could not have been realistically portrayed as envious of complete annihilation. The Doom of Men would not have been also Eru's Gift to Men. The mortality-immortality theme would have been void of content and meaning, not to mention interest. And of course, it would have totally messed up the business of the Númenorians (and Aragorn) "giving back the Gift." -- FotW "My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." ###### From: "Max Moroz" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Lines: 38 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 22:10:44 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.185.42.14 X-Trace: client 937458617 38.185.42.14 (Thu, 16 Sep 1999 01:10:17 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 01:10:17 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!psinr!client!not-for-mail Prembone, just for a moment bored with her paid job, writes as follows: > Suppose mortality meant (means) just that: a short life, then the > end. How, then, would mortals find meaning and consolation in being > made mortal rather than immortal? Especially if there were a race of > immortal beings in the world as well? Well, suppose the immortals' quality of life deteriorates with time, to the point where they'd rather commit suicide if they only could. That doesn't have to be something as simple as physical aging. Rather, it could be a complex psychological problem that grows with years, such as boredom, or weariness of mind, or depression. (Of course, given plenty of time, one would expect to learn enough to repair one's psychology and physiology as needed. Certainly worth a try.) But this is all theory. Practically, I think intellectually honest mortals should accept that they are losers, second-class beings, so to speak. And live their meager years as best they can. Oh, and I don't suppose you meant true immortality; I was really talking about "a very long lifespan" (e.g., a few billion years; or, perhaps, as long as one likes). For genuinely infinite lifespan (quite unrealistic, in my opinion), a whole host of new problems emerges. For instance, unless the true immortal grows physically with time, he eventually forgets most of his past life except for a small (and shrinking) fraction: his mind is fixed in size, and hence in capacity. Thus, he would not be able to develop in any sense past a certain limit, which sounds to me rather gloomy. If he does grow in size, then he would need a growing Universe to support him. And he would eventually be unable to enjoy planets, since they would be too small. Etc, etc. I bet strategic consulting for true immortals is a huge business. Max ###### From: jblanks@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 23:21:08 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.35.78 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server-Date: 16 Sep 1999 03:18:05 GMT X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b13 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!jblanks mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) wrote: > The...human mind can't > deal with the idea that it will cease to exist. "I think, therefore I > am." What happens when "I think not"? We "think not" every night when we're in deep sleep--or do we?? Still, we do get up every morning after going through hours not knowing that we're thinking or existing (!), so maybe _not-thinking_ isn't necessarily the same as _not-being_. OTOH, you couldn't present not-being as anything other than not-thinking. But if the physical body (specifically the brain) is totally destroyed, what is doing the not-thinking??? -- "Americans never solve their problems; they just amiably bid them good-bye." --George Santayana ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Organization: Xneite.Org: Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7rrdt3$1j0_032@Org.xenite.org> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 18 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 18:45:55 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.181.118.159 X-Trace: news.uswest.net 937507668 209.181.118.159 (Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:47:48 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:47:48 CDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!netnews.globalip.ch!news-raspail.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!grolier!freenix!news-feed.riddles.org.uk!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news-out.uswest.net!news.uswest.net!Xenite In article , jblanks@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) wrote: >mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) wrote: > >> The...human mind can't >> deal with the idea that it will cease to exist. "I think, therefore I >> am." What happens when "I think not"? > >We "think not" every night when we're in deep sleep--or do we?? "I think, therefore I am" does mean that we exist because we think. It means because we think we have proof that we exist. -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// FREE! Watch Internet TV shows at Xenite.Org! //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### From: Johnathan George Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:59:09 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 75 Message-ID: <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.3d.5c Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 17 Sep 1999 18:00:55 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news.mindspring.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Prembone wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:37:32 GMT, mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) > wrote: > > [snipping some interesting musings to get to the point I want to > address] > > >On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:17:13 GMT, prembone@excitebitespam.com > >(Prembone) wrote: > > >>Suppose mortality meant (means) just that: a short life, then the > >>end. How, then, would mortals find meaning and consolation in being > >>made mortal rather than immortal? Especially if there were a race of > >>immortal beings in the world as well? > > > >The problem with presenting this idea is that the human mind can't > >deal with the idea that it will cease to exist. "I think, therefore I > >am." What happens when "I think not"? > > > >This isn't meant to be a proof that the human mind *won't* cease to > >exist. What I'm saying is that it can't grasp the idea that it will > >permanently stop thinking. > > So you're saying that I've presented a question that ought not to be > presented or contemplated. ;-) Taboo, if you will. Looked to me more like he was saying it's a concept that's dificult or impossible to think about, and therefore hard to come to any definite conclusion about. I don't think he meant there was anything *wrong* with raising the question. > But...neither my musings nor yours address, let alone answer, the > question I originally raised: Beyond simply accepting mortality as > "the inevitable," as something that can't be changed and so must be > accepted, I am wondering if it might be possible that, even if > immortality were possible (and I think I've read things to the effect > that it's logically impossible...if anyone out there can provide > references, I'd appreciate it) could one construct a plausible > argument in defense of mortality **over** immortality? Or is the > acceptance of mortality but a case of sour grapes? I think it would be possible to construct an argument in favor of mortality over imortality if you assume that there could be no outside intervention (by God or whatever) that would change the essential nature of our existence. I think that actually LOTR has some bearing on this. It seems that Tolkien thought that for beings living in a physical world like Middle Earth, mortality was definitely preferable. I think this would hold regardless of whether there was an afterlife or not. I think that given the options of immortality or mortality in the present world, with no hope of any afterlife, I'd probably choose mortality. That said, if there was a third option which included the possibility of an afterlife in which immortality was possible (and pleasant), I'd choose that option. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if this world is all we've got then mortality probably is the best way to go, but I hope for a better deal than that. As far as acceptance of mortality helping us to try to do the best with what we've got, I suppose it could be helpful, but most of the people I know who believe in an afterlife don't simply sit back and say "well I don't like it here, but that's OK... I'll just wait for heaven". They believe that they should work to make this world a better place for all of us, even while they look for a better place. Johnathan George ###### From: prembone@excitebitespam.com (Prembone) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 15:11:16 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Fri Sep 17 08:25:05 1999 References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <22201-37DC8F7D-127@newsd-252.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <7rj888$18uk$1@newsie2.cent.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: The Rescue Frodo SWAT Team X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Lines: 67 NNTP-Posting-Host: sdn-ar-003mnminnp063.dialsprint.net X-ELN-Date: 17 Sep 1999 15:16:14 GMT Message-ID: <37e25710.91186826@news.earthlink.net> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail I was waiting for David Sulger's original article to come through on my newsreader, but I'm sick of waiting. ;-) I'll reply to both David and Robert in this post. On 13 Sep 1999 16:20:24 GMT, coren@spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote: >In article <22201-37DC8F7D-127@newsd-252.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, >David Sulger wrote: >>Prembone wrote: >> ... >>>Suppose mortality meant (means) just >>>that: a short life, then the end. How, >>>then, would mortals find meaning and >>>consolation in being made mortal rather >>>than immortal? Especially if there were a >>>race of immortal beings in the world as >>>well? >> >>I think you're missing the point. No, I think **you're** missing **my** point. Which is also my way of saying: add "you're missing the point" to the list of annoying posting practices. ;-) >> For those mortals who live in Arda, >>there is an afterlife granted to them by Iluvatar, who did exist in >>Tolkien's imagination, and therefore exists for all those in Arda. >>Whether or not there is an afterlife or God in reality is not the point, >>and is really beyond the scope of this ng. > >But the fact that Tolkien believed that there was is not entirely >irrelevant, perhaps? Gentlemen: It is entirely irrelevant to the point that **I** was raising, which was to use "what Tolkien believed" as the beginning, not the end, of thought and discussion. The issue I was raising was whether Tolkien's story/scenario adequately addresses the question of mortality vs. immortality. My question quoted above was meant to invite further reflection and analysis, not to provide another excuse to say, "That's not what Tolkien thought." I **know** that's not what Tolkien thought. That's not the point. The point is: If we're going to address the matter of "immortality ain't all it's cracked up to be," does a pseudo-mortality which is actually just a variation on immortality really help us come to terms with genuine mortality? Or is Tolkien's message NOT one of coming to terms with mortality but, rather, that mortality is an illusion concealing a far better "immortality" -- if only we will have faith to see it -- than that which the Elves have? If the latter, then I suggest that Tolkien's message fails to adequately address death as true death, and mortality as true mortality, true finitude. And so I invited people to engage in the radical act of thinking. ;-) IF in fact (or, just supposing for the sake of argument) human life is truly finite, and death is the end of the line, THEN could one construct a plausible argument for preferring mortality to immortality? That, not establishing "what Tolkien believed," is my point. "For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -- Carl Sagan The Secular Paganist http://www.stormloader.com/secularpagan (new URL) ###### From: prembone@excitebitespam.com (Prembone) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 15:20:54 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Fri Sep 17 08:35:05 1999 References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: The Rescue Frodo SWAT Team X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Lines: 50 NNTP-Posting-Host: sdn-ar-003mnminnp063.dialsprint.net X-ELN-Date: 17 Sep 1999 15:25:52 GMT Message-ID: <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news.algonet.se!algonet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news.idt.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:37:32 GMT, mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) wrote: [snipping some interesting musings to get to the point I want to address] >On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:17:13 GMT, prembone@excitebitespam.com >(Prembone) wrote: >>Suppose mortality meant (means) just that: a short life, then the >>end. How, then, would mortals find meaning and consolation in being >>made mortal rather than immortal? Especially if there were a race of >>immortal beings in the world as well? > >The problem with presenting this idea is that the human mind can't >deal with the idea that it will cease to exist. "I think, therefore I >am." What happens when "I think not"? > >This isn't meant to be a proof that the human mind *won't* cease to >exist. What I'm saying is that it can't grasp the idea that it will >permanently stop thinking. So you're saying that I've presented a question that ought not to be presented or contemplated. ;-) Taboo, if you will. Myself, I believe that coming to terms with our own finitude is an essential task of human growth. Perhaps we can spend our whole lives in denial of the fact that we will someday cease to be, but whether this is the **best** way to live...? OTOH, a clear-headed acceptance of our mortality, rather than being incentive to despair and madness and meaninglessness, can pave the way to serenity and sanity and a life meaningfully lived. We know this is all we have, so we determine to live it fully and well and not waste the opportunity to **live**. But...neither my musings nor yours address, let alone answer, the question I originally raised: Beyond simply accepting mortality as "the inevitable," as something that can't be changed and so must be accepted, I am wondering if it might be possible that, even if immortality were possible (and I think I've read things to the effect that it's logically impossible...if anyone out there can provide references, I'd appreciate it) could one construct a plausible argument in defense of mortality **over** immortality? Or is the acceptance of mortality but a case of sour grapes? "For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -- Carl Sagan The Secular Paganist http://www.stormloader.com/secularpagan (new URL) ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:10:45 -0400 Lines: 43 Message-ID: <37E2BC57.F96AE643@erols.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <22201-37DC8F7D-127@newsd-252.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <7rj888$18uk$1@newsie2.cent.net> <37e25710.91186826@news.earthlink.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: U4kzgJ+hOs+yndreqf/yZ5qgO55qa2DzsFydUynWWkU= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Sep 1999 23:19:07 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!netnews.globalip.ch!news-raspail.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!grolier!209.249.97.47.MISMATCH!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!netnews.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Prembone wrote: > If we're going to address the matter of > "immortality ain't all it's cracked up to be," does a pseudo-mortality > which is actually just a variation on immortality really help us come > to terms with genuine mortality? Or is Tolkien's message NOT one of > coming to terms with mortality but, rather, that mortality is an > illusion concealing a far better "immortality" -- if only we will have > faith to see it -- than that which the Elves have? If the latter, > then I suggest that Tolkien's message fails to adequately address > death as true death, and mortality as true mortality, true finitude. Well, I suppose that's true: JRRT failed to address *your* question adequately. But he wasn't trying to! Most of us don't define "true mortality" as total annihilation and utterly ceasing to exist. Believing in an afterlife does not remove the primal fear of death, which is hard-wired into us. A death leading to an afterlife is nevertheless a true death. It is a leaving behind of all the things we would like to have done, leaving behind people who will have to carry on without us (at least for a while). As Aragorn points out in my new .sig file, the prospect of an afterlife removes the despair, but not the sadness, of facing death. > IF in fact (or, just supposing for the sake of argument) human life > is truly finite, and death is the end of the line, THEN could one > construct a plausible argument for preferring mortality to immortality? No, because being is superior to non-being. That should be obvious. It's Philosophy 101. If death is annihilation, then the rational response is to prefer immortality to death. -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### Message-ID: <37E2DCB4.DEE05580@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <22201-37DC8F7D-127@newsd-252.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <7rj888$18uk$1@newsie2.cent.net> <37e25710.91186826@news.earthlink.net> <37E2BC57.F96AE643@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 14 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.22 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 937614019 209.8.153.22 (Fri, 17 Sep 1999 20:20:19 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 20:20:19 EDT Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 20:28:36 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!netnews.globalip.ch!news-raspail.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed.cwix.com!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: ... > No, because being is superior to non-being. That should be obvious. > It's Philosophy 101. It may seem obvious to you; it's not to me. That would seem to depend greatly upon circumstances, and literature going back to the myths of the ancient Greeks is filled with descriptions of types of immortality that seem to be far inferior to non-existence. What was the name of the guy who made the mistake of asking for eternal life, rather than eternal youth? > If death is annihilation, then the rational response is to prefer > immortality to death. ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 00:17:37 -0400 Lines: 44 Message-ID: <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: 1sSixE0QshzBTzZjAtqeQlzFYJD/T3Grk5Y7ZNej/vI= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Sep 1999 04:23:38 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!outgoing.news.rcn.net.MISMATCH!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Johnathan George wrote: > I think that actually LOTR has some bearing on this. It seems that > Tolkien thought that for beings living in a physical world like Middle > Earth, mortality was definitely preferable. I think this would hold > regardless of whether there was an afterlife or not. I think that given > the options of immortality or mortality in the present world, with no > hope of any afterlife, I'd probably choose mortality. That said, if > there was a third option which included the possibility of an afterlife > in which immortality was possible (and pleasant), I'd choose that > option. Which perhaps was one reason why there had to be Undying Lands for the immortals? > I guess what I'm trying to say is that if this world is all we've got > then mortality probably is the best way to go, but I hope for a better > deal than that. Just don't wait until you're witless and unmanned to give back the gift! ;-) > As far as acceptance of mortality helping us to try to do the best with > what we've got, I suppose it could be helpful, but most of the people I > know who believe in an afterlife don't simply sit back and say "well I > don't like it here, but that's OK... I'll just wait for heaven". They > believe that they should work to make this world a better place for all > of us, even while they look for a better place. Yeah, I've always marveled at how the Carl Sagan types make such a big deal about living their lives well, as if they had come up with the idea. I wonder if the secular-humanists really think that believers in God just sit around waiting to die and go to Heaven. -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 00:22:29 -0400 Lines: 14 Message-ID: <37E31369.8CD123E2@erols.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: 1sSixE0QshwV/Q+T0DhVaNYCrD+aTeXTfFwjgXMiHj4= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Sep 1999 04:23:39 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail > "For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is > than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -- Carl Sagan Was Carl Sagan arrogant and condescending or what? -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: orius@webtv.net (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 01:27:39 -0400 (EDT) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 23 Message-ID: <28082-37E322CB-43@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: <37e25710.91186826@news.earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAsAhQrF8Yi00WpBPaxhSY3Ykuub+WlsQIUSJ58iEaULLFXPCbFbAMFQOQ6E9g= Content-Disposition: Inline Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!remarQ-uK!remarQ.com!supernews.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail Prembone wrote: Part of the reason that I replied the way I did is that I don't see Tolkien's world as the same one that I live in. Not necessarily another planet, mind you, I know that Aman is the Earth, but yet an imaginary Earth, a mythical Earth. I feel that Tolkien answers those questions adequately, but only for Middle-Earth. It is for those of us that live in the real world to find our own answers, to believe in life after death, or reincarnation, or nothing, or one God, or many or none (or Elton John :^). I just don't read literature to find philosophical answers. While I like the books, I don't see it as a religious text of some sort, nor do I feel any inclinations to worship Manw=EB, Eru or even Morgoth. It isn't real to me. So I'm not going to look for answers to questions like "Is there a God?" or "What happens when I die?" in the late professor's works. It's escapism, plain and simple. Some people watch TV, others go to nightclubs, I like to read. It's all just a way to escape the problems and stresses of the real world, if only for just a little while. If I want to look for those answers I'll go discuss philosophy or religion. ###### From: mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Organization: PC-InTOUCH Linux Conspiracy Message-ID: <37e34361.270929039@news.pc-intouch.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1-34.dialup.pc-intouch.com Lines: 56 Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 07:59:12 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.212.198.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: typhoon-la.pbi.net 937641390 207.212.198.18 (Sat, 18 Sep 1999 00:56:30 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 00:56:30 PDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!cyclone.swbell.net!typhoon-la.pbi.net.POSTED!not-for-mail On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 15:20:54 GMT, prembone@excitebitespam.com (Prembone) wrote: >>This isn't meant to be a proof that the human mind *won't* cease to >>exist. What I'm saying is that it can't grasp the idea that it will >>permanently stop thinking. > >So you're saying that I've presented a question that ought not to be >presented or contemplated. ;-) Taboo, if you will. Not exactly. I'm saying that you've presented a question that *can't* be contemplated. >Myself, I believe that coming to terms with our own finitude is an >essential task of human growth. Perhaps we can spend our whole lives >in denial of the fact that we will someday cease to be, but whether >this is the **best** way to live...? OTOH, a clear-headed acceptance >of our mortality, rather than being incentive to despair and madness >and meaninglessness, can pave the way to serenity and sanity and a >life meaningfully lived. We know this is all we have, so we determine >to live it fully and well and not waste the opportunity to **live**. In a literal sense, we can't waste the opportunity to live except by killing ourselves, or doing things that shorten our lives. So 'living well' means making sure we live as long as possible. I don't think that's exactly what you meant, though; you think it's important to live a meaningful life. At this point, as someone else said around here once, we hit bedrock and find we're on different tectonic plates. >But...neither my musings nor yours address, let alone answer, the >question I originally raised: Beyond simply accepting mortality as >"the inevitable," as something that can't be changed and so must be >accepted, I am wondering if it might be possible that, even if >immortality were possible (and I think I've read things to the effect >that it's logically impossible...if anyone out there can provide >references, I'd appreciate it) could one construct a plausible >argument in defense of mortality **over** immortality? Or is the >acceptance of mortality but a case of sour grapes? I had an interesting thought about this. What if we consider the issue not in terms of death and deathlessness, but in terms of permanence and change? Immortality is permanent. If you're immortal, you remain in your current state of existence forever. That's it. Death, in the sense of 'ceasing to exist' as you describe it, is also permanent. Once you die, you remain in that state of nonexistence forever. That's it. So is there any way to reach a result that's not permanent? Just a new approach to the problem. ###### From: Jereeza Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 13:10:29 -0700 Organization: freelancer Lines: 12 Message-ID: <37E3F1B5.3B9A@mia.net> References: <37e25710.91186826@news.earthlink.net> <28082-37E322CB-43@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ar2-p54-ri.tel.hr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: as102.tel.hr 937652597 24775 195.29.232.182 (18 Sep 1999 11:03:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tel.hr NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Sep 1999 11:03:17 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news.algonet.se!algonet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!argos.tel.hr!not-for-mail David Sulger wrote: > It's escapism, plain and simple. Amen, brother. -- Jereeza the Witch-Pearl of the East [In the immortal words of Ash: "I ain't *that* good"] e-mail: reverse to reply ###### Message-ID: <37E389D8.D50BD31@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 25 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.16 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 937658339 209.8.153.16 (Sat, 18 Sep 1999 08:38:59 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 08:38:59 EDT Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 08:47:20 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!blackbush.xlink.net!howland.erols.net!gate.bcandid.com.MISMATCH!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: ... > Yeah, I've always marveled at how the Carl Sagan types make such a > big deal about living their lives well, as if they had come up with the > idea. I wonder if the secular-humanists really think that believers in > God just sit around waiting to die and go to Heaven. I don't consider myself a secular-humanist - that term describes a very specific set of beliefs, not all of which I share. However, I assume you're using the term in it's typical broader Christian sense, to include all non-religious people. Therefore I'll respond. No, we don't think that you just sit around waiting to die. However, many of you do spend at least some of your time in ways that don't make sense except in terms of your belief in the afterlife. This is a distinct issue from your belief in a particular moral system, and your belief in a Creator - there's no inherent reason why you couldn't believe in both of those, but not in an afterlife. It's not unusual for strongly religious people to neglect their Earthly existence, in favor of attending to their anticipated Heavenly existence. That's entirely reasonable behavior, if you will in fact be spending only a few decades here, and an eternity there. However, you'll have to forgive those of us who don't believe in Heaven for considering it a bad choice. ###### Message-ID: <37E38AC8.F47995F@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E31369.8CD123E2@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 14 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.16 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 937658578 209.8.153.16 (Sat, 18 Sep 1999 08:42:58 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 08:42:58 EDT Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 08:51:20 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!blackbush.xlink.net!howland.erols.net!gate.bcandid.com.MISMATCH!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > > "For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is > > than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -- Carl Sagan > > Was Carl Sagan arrogant and condescending or what? I'll have to go with "what", since the others don't apply. In case you didn't get the message - he was referring to people who defend religious belief on the grounds that it makes them feel good, even if it doesn't happen to be true. There's nothing condescending about saying negative things about such intellectually bankrupt arguments. ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 09:57:53 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Lines: 12 Message-ID: <7s069h$ngt$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <22201-37DC8F7D-127@newsd-252.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <7rj888$18uk$1@newsie2.cent.net> <37e25710.91186826@news.earthlink.net> <37E2BC57.F96AE643@erols.com> <37E2DCB4.DEE05580@wizard.net> Reply-To: "Conrad Dunkerson" NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.75.59.69 X-Trace: bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net 937663601 24093 12.75.59.69 (18 Sep 1999 14:06:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Sep 1999 14:06:41 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newspump.sol.net!news.execpc.com!newspeer.sol.net!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!wnmaster2!not-for-mail James Kuyper Jr. wrote in message news:37E2DCB4.DEE05580@wizard.net... > What was the name of the guy who made the mistake of > asking for eternal life, rather than eternal youth? You are probably thinking of Tithonus, though it was the goddess Aurora (or Eos) who asked that her lover be given immortality rather than Tithonus himself. ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 12:38:53 -0400 Lines: 28 Message-ID: <37E3C01A.705B417A@erols.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E31369.8CD123E2@erols.com> <37E38AC8.F47995F@wizard.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: VB2pfDeD16q7RsZEJoKdZUyMgIIYBbe/dI41pMRjNA0= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Sep 1999 17:28:52 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!howland.erols.net!outgoing.news.rcn.net.MISMATCH!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Carl Sagan wrote: > "For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is > than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > In case you didn't get the message - he was referring to people who > defend religious belief on the grounds that it makes them feel good, > even if it doesn't happen to be true. There's nothing condescending > about saying negative things about such intellectually bankrupt > arguments. No, I hadn't gotten that message. OTOH, it sounds like a straw man to me - I've never met, or even heard of, someone who said, in effect, "I believe in God, not because I really think it's true, but because it makes me feel good." That's why I took Sagan to mean that *all* believers in God were persisting in delusion. I'm happy to learn that I was misinterpreting him. -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 12:56:14 -0400 Lines: 59 Message-ID: <37E3C42B.CD8A652C@erols.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <37E389D8.D50BD31@wizard.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: VB2pfDeD16pVe/+K/8HC1wyh8JI0fWLp8GY+5AU/48w= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Sep 1999 17:28:54 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!howland.erols.net!outgoing.news.rcn.net.MISMATCH!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > Flame of the West wrote: > ... > > Yeah, I've always marveled at how the Carl Sagan types make such a > > big deal about living their lives well, as if they had come up with the > > idea. I wonder if the secular-humanists really think that believers in > > God just sit around waiting to die and go to Heaven. > > I don't consider myself a secular-humanist - that term describes a very > specific set of beliefs, not all of which I share. However, I assume > you're using the term in it's typical broader Christian sense, to > include all non-religious people. Therefore I'll respond. I'm happy to get your input, but I wasn't referring to you or to nonbelievers in general. When I said "Carl Sagan types," I meant the folks who sign on to the Humanist Manifesto and so forth. I find their general tone offensive. They aren't content to "think and let think;" they seem to have a chip on their shoulder toward believers, and feel the need to portray themselves as intellectually superior to them. I am aware that not all nonbelivers are like that. > No, we don't think that you just sit around waiting to die. However, > many of you do spend at least some of your time in ways that > don't make sense except in terms of your belief in the afterlife. Well, I guess if I weren't a believer, I'd sleep in on Sunday mornings and read the paper over coffee, instead of going to church. Is that what you mean? > This is a distinct issue from your belief in a particular moral system, > and your belief in a Creator - there's no inherent reason why > you couldn't believe in both of those, but not in an afterlife. Interesting point. But offhand, I can't think of a religious belief of any kind that doesn't believe in an afterlife. > It's not unusual for strongly religious people to neglect their Earthly > existence, in favor of attending to their anticipated Heavenly > existence. Hm, could you elaborate a bit. I'm not sure what you mean. > That's entirely reasonable behavior, if you will in fact be > spending only a few decades here, and an eternity there. However, you'll > have to forgive those of us who don't believe in Heaven for considering > it a bad choice. OK, as long as you don't go around like Carl Sagan with a "smarter-than-thou" attitude. ;-) -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### Message-ID: <37E3E190.FC51ED9@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <37E389D8.D50BD31@wizard.net> <37E3C42B.CD8A652C@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 63 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.161.15.56 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 937680795 206.161.15.56 (Sat, 18 Sep 1999 14:53:15 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 14:53:15 EDT Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 15:01:36 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!howland.erols.net!gate.bcandid.com.MISMATCH!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: ... > > No, we don't think that you just sit around waiting to die. However, > > many of you do spend at least some of your time in ways that > > don't make sense except in terms of your belief in the afterlife. > > Well, I guess if I weren't a believer, I'd sleep in on Sunday mornings > and read the paper over coffee, instead of going to church. > Is that what you mean? Not exactly. Church attendance is at least as much as social event as a religious one in many communities. I've know one guy who kept attending church despite his unbelief, solely to have more opportunities to meet girls. The types of things I was thinking about include prayers for the souls of the dead, which would be pretty much a waste of time if they don't have any. I also mean any behavior which is performed because you expect to get rewarded for it in heaven, rather than because of the Earthly rewards. > > This is a distinct issue from your belief in a particular moral system, > > and your belief in a Creator - there's no inherent reason why > > you couldn't believe in both of those, but not in an afterlife. > > Interesting point. But offhand, I can't think of a religious belief > of any kind that doesn't believe in an afterlife. Jews don't all believe in an afterlife, and that was even more true before Christianity became dominant. Growing up in a Christian-dominated culture, it's easy to end up assimilating some features of their beliefs without even noticing it. Jews have been living as a minority in Christian-dominated places for a couple of thousand years. It's a miracle :-) that they've retained any seperate identity at all. > > It's not unusual for strongly religious people to neglect their Earthly > > existence, in favor of attending to their anticipated Heavenly > > existence. > > Hm, could you elaborate a bit. I'm not sure what you mean. My favorite example involves a Catholic priest who's also a doctor, who meets a man who's in very bad health. The priest has two options: immediately apply first aid, which will significantly reduce but not eliminate the chance of the man dying, or immediately perform the Last Rites. The patient has a significant chance of dying so quickly (even if the first aid is applied) that there might not be time to do both. Which should the priest do first? A doctor who did not believe in an afterlife would have no dilemma; the priest does. Obviously, if you're not a Catholic, you don't necessarily have this particular problem, but any non-trivial belief in an afterlife implies the possibility for similar dilemmas. However, asceticism is the main thing I'm thinking of. Nuns and Monks, and holy hermits of all kinds are the most extreme examples. They often go so far that they ruin their own health. There are even some people who believe that "every law we keep on Earth, is one we'll be free to break in Heaven". That logic sickens me - it implies that they actually want to sin. I know that it isn't mainstream Christian belief, but it is certainly preached by some sects which call themselves Christian, and can cite scriptural support for their beliefs. ###### Message-ID: <37E3E7AF.717B1502@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E31369.8CD123E2@erols.com> <37E38AC8.F47995F@wizard.net> <37E3C01A.705B417A@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 51 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.161.15.56 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 937682365 206.161.15.56 (Sat, 18 Sep 1999 15:19:25 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 15:19:25 EDT Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 15:27:43 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!nntp.abs.net!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > Carl Sagan wrote: > > > "For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is > > than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > > In case you didn't get the message - he was referring to people who > > defend religious belief on the grounds that it makes them feel good, > > even if it doesn't happen to be true. There's nothing condescending > > about saying negative things about such intellectually bankrupt > > arguments. > > No, I hadn't gotten that message. OTOH, it sounds like a straw > man to me - I've never met, or even heard of, someone who said, > in effect, "I believe in God, not because I really think it's true, but > because it makes me feel good." ... That's not quite what I meant. These people think it's true, they just don't care the objective truth of the statement, as much as they care about the spiritual comfort they get from believing in it. I hear it all the time, usually after a discussion in which I've found fault with most of their supposedly "logical" arguments for belief. My own father gave one variation on this theme - he believes, because the prospect of a universe without a God who made it is too frightening for him to contemplate. An interesting parallel - I find the prospect that this particular universe was the result of intelligent design extremely frightening. I much prefer to believe that all the evil it contains is due to random chance - it's possible to win out over random chance. I've no chance of victory against an omnipotent Creator who sees value in allowing evil. However, if He does exist, I want to know about Him, and in that regard my position is different from my father's. > ... That's why I took Sagan to mean > that *all* believers in God were persisting in delusion. I'm happy > to learn that I was misinterpreting him. If I truly believe that God does not exist, it necessarily follows that believers in God are probably deluded, or at least decieved or mistaken, take your choice of wording. This is no different from any other kind of disagreement - believing in one side of an issue necessarily implies that those who believe otherwise are likely to be mistaken. It's not arrogant to believe that others are probably mistaken when they disagree with you. It would be arrogant to believe that they were necessarily mistaken, but that's a more extreme attitude, and not one implied by Sagan's quote. ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 19:41:05 -0400 Lines: 33 Message-ID: <37E4230E.D7E4470@erols.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <37E389D8.D50BD31@wizard.net> <37E3C42B.CD8A652C@erols.com> <37E3E190.FC51ED9@wizard.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: iE2irtOuggjRiT5rkNEemz50QeWhjgQjJ+pvX84Vw70= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Sep 1999 01:03:44 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > Not exactly. Church attendance is at least as much as social event as a > religious one in many communities. I've know one guy who kept attending > church despite his unbelief, solely to have more opportunities to meet > girls. That's a good way to wind up with a Christian girlfriend, which this guy presumably didn't mind. Or did he find a nice girl who didn't believe but went to church to meet guys? :-) > Jews don't all believe in an afterlife, and that was even more true > before Christianity became dominant. What then do believing Jews think happens at death? They don't believe that we cease to exist, do they? > There are even some people who believe that "every law > we keep on Earth, is one we'll be free to break in Heaven". > That logic sickens me - it implies that they actually want to sin. That's weird all right - shows very little understanding of Heaven. -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 20:09:24 -0400 Lines: 54 Message-ID: <37E429B1.385307CA@erols.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E31369.8CD123E2@erols.com> <37E38AC8.F47995F@wizard.net> <37E3C01A.705B417A@erols.com> <37E3E7AF.717B1502@wizard.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: iE2irtOuggiWGQHrMBpZpuXiEVe3KeBEEWmAtRt4sG4= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Sep 1999 01:03:46 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > > In case you didn't get the message - he was referring to > > > people who defend religious belief on the grounds that it > > > makes them feel good, even if it doesn't happen to be true. > These people think it's true, they just don't care > the objective truth of the statement, as much as they care > about the spiritual comfort they get from believing in it. > > I hear it all the time, usually after a discussion in which I've found > fault with most of their supposedly "logical" arguments for belief. Ah, I see your point. I agree it's not much of an answer to a logical objection to belief in God, but let me try to explain on their behalf. One's faith is *never* purely a result of rational analysis. (It wouldn't be faith if it were!) There *are* solid logical reasons for believing in God, but the Christian is not required to be aware of those reasons, only to believe. There are many Christians who believe without having logically analyzed why they should. (There are also many non-believers who haven't logically analyzed why they shouldn't.) Such people are not likely to be swayed by logical argument. I think their common reply to atheistic claims - "I could never believe that, it's too gloomy" - doesn't represent their reason for belief in God, but rather an emotional statement which represents a retreat from controversy over the subject. > I've no chance of victory against an > omnipotent Creator who sees value in allowing evil. God doesn't *approve* of evil, but some evil is inevitable since he made creatures with free will rather than unthinking robots. > If I truly believe that God does not exist, it necessarily follows that > believers in God are probably deluded, or at least decieved or mistaken, > take your choice of wording. This is no different from any other kind of > disagreement - believing in one side of an issue necessarily implies > that those who believe otherwise are likely to be mistaken. But I thought he went further than stating a tautology. He said that believers "persisted in delusion." What do you think he meant by that phrase? Did he just mean that they "continue to disagree with me," or something more? -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: "John Chivers" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 20:40:13 -0700 References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E31369.8CD123E2@erols.com> <37E38AC8.F47995F@wizard.net> <37E3C01A.705B417A@erols.com> <37E3E7AF.717B1502@wizard.net> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-ELN-Date: 19 Sep 1999 03:35:24 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Sat Sep 18 20:45:03 1999 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Lines: 20 NNTP-Posting-Host: pool0567.cvx20-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net Message-ID: <7s1lls$9rf$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail James Kuyper Jr. wrote in message <37E3E7AF.717B1502@wizard.net>... >Flame of the West wrote: >> >> Carl Sagan wrote: >> >> > "For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is >> > than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." >> >It's not arrogant to believe that others are probably mistaken when they >disagree with you. It would be arrogant to believe that they were >necessarily mistaken, but that's a more extreme attitude, and not one >implied by Sagan's quote. But Sagan does say fairly directly that _he_ grasps the universe as it _really_ is. Not striving to grasp--he grasps. Which is pretty arrogant, right there. ###### Message-ID: <37E43CA1.B2530D84@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <37E389D8.D50BD31@wizard.net> <37E3C42B.CD8A652C@erols.com> <37E3E190.FC51ED9@wizard.net> <37E4230E.D7E4470@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 26 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.1 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 937704105 209.8.153.1 (Sat, 18 Sep 1999 21:21:45 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 21:21:45 EDT Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 21:30:09 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > > Not exactly. Church attendance is at least as much as social event as a > > religious one in many communities. I've know one guy who kept attending > > church despite his unbelief, solely to have more opportunities to meet > > girls. > > That's a good way to wind up with a Christian girlfriend, which this guy > presumably didn't mind. Or did he find a nice girl who didn't believe but > went to church to meet guys? :-) I pointed out the problem for him, but he had to figure it out for himself - it took several failed relationships for him to do so. He ended up marrying an atheist he met through a dating club. > > Jews don't all believe in an afterlife, and that was even more true > > before Christianity became dominant. > > What then do believing Jews think happens at death? They don't > believe that we cease to exist, do they? I believe that some of them believe exactly that. However, if you ask two Jews, you'll get three opinions. If you ask two Rabbis, you'll get three dozen. :-) ###### Message-ID: <37E44407.EAE73986@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E31369.8CD123E2@erols.com> <37E38AC8.F47995F@wizard.net> <37E3C01A.705B417A@erols.com> <37E3E7AF.717B1502@wizard.net> <37E429B1.385307CA@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 48 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.1 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 937705999 209.8.153.1 (Sat, 18 Sep 1999 21:53:19 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 21:53:19 EDT Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 22:01:43 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.maxwell.syr.edu!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: ... > logical argument. I think their common reply to atheistic claims - nitpick: atheists tend to make arguments, not claims. As a group, we're defined by what we don't believe in, rather than by what we do. We have positive beliefs as well, of course, but those aren't what define us as atheists. ... > "I could never believe that, it's too gloomy" - doesn't represent > their reason for belief in God, but rather an emotional statement > which represents a retreat from controversy over the subject. In general, yes, I'd agree with that assessment. However, in my father's case that was certainly not the case. He never tried to proselytize me, so I never argued the issue with him. He was simply describing his own reasons for belief. > God doesn't *approve* of evil, but some evil is inevitable since > he made creatures with free will rather than unthinking robots. I know the standard Christian answer to the "problem of evil", and have pointed out the flaws I see in it. I've done so in this very same newsgroup, despite it being off-topic, but I don't think I should rehash it again. I'd recommend using deja-news to review my previous posts on the subject. A search using "free will" should catch the relevant threads. You'll even find a smidgen of on-topic discussion mixed in - I happen to like Tolkien's answer to the problem marginally better than the the standard Christian one. ... > But I thought he went further than stating a tautology. He said that > believers "persisted in delusion." What do you think he meant by that > phrase? Did he just mean that they "continue to disagree with me," > or something more? I believe that his use of the word "persistence" was meant to invoke a one of the key differences between believers and scientists. Believers are defined as such by reason of their belief in some source of received wisdom. If that "wisdom" contains an error, they're likely to persist in it indefinitely, because it's considered inappropriate, perhaps even blasphemous, to challenge the accuracy of those beliefs. In science, on the other hand, challenging existing theories is not merely tolerated, but actively encouraged. A successful challenge can make a scientist's career. ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:14:56 -0400 Lines: 23 Message-ID: <37E46336.BB9FBC36@erols.com> References: <37e25710.91186826@news.earthlink.net> <28082-37E322CB-43@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <37e447de.19667626@news.earthlink.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: f+okzFd0NwI7JwEgy//wdWR88MBY7UT3WrMRyullx1g= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Sep 1999 05:09:22 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Prembone wrote: > Ah. We approach literature differently, then. I don't read for > "escapism." I read to engage "deep truths" about life, the universe, > and everything. Fiction for me is just another way of exploring the > philosophical questions. Ditto, BTW, for poetry. Of course, some fiction is better for that than others. And JRRT's work is among the very best for bringing up interesting philosophical questions. Not only does his world have a serious moral framework, but his world can be thought of as *our* world more easily than most fictional worlds. -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:23:48 -0400 Lines: 47 Message-ID: <37E4654A.A9EA1037@erols.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E31369.8CD123E2@erols.com> <37E38AC8.F47995F@wizard.net> <37E3C01A.705B417A@erols.com> <37E3E7AF.717B1502@wizard.net> <37E429B1.385307CA@erols.com> <37E44407.EAE73986@wizard.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: f+okzFd0NwJpyJu2cFGAawgmhAODQotTGShOfnpAQlw= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Sep 1999 05:09:29 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > I know the standard Christian answer to the "problem of evil", and have > pointed out the flaws I see in it. I've done so in this very same > newsgroup, despite it being off-topic, but I don't think I should rehash > it again. I'd recommend using deja-news to review my previous posts on > the subject. A search using "free will" should catch the relevant > threads. You'll even find a smidgen of on-topic discussion mixed in - I > happen to like Tolkien's answer to the problem marginally better than > the the standard Christian one. OK, I'll look it up. But I got the impression that 99% of what we talk about here is stuff that has been fully discussed before! :-) > > But I thought he went further than stating a tautology. He said that > > believers "persisted in delusion." What do you think he meant by that > > phrase? Did he just mean that they "continue to disagree with me," > > or something more? > > I believe that his use of the word "persistence" was meant to invoke a > one of the key differences between believers and scientists. Believers > are defined as such by reason of their belief in some source of received > wisdom. If that "wisdom" contains an error, they're likely to persist in > it indefinitely, because it's considered inappropriate, perhaps even > blasphemous, to challenge the accuracy of those beliefs. In science, on > the other hand, challenging existing theories is not merely tolerated, > but actively encouraged. A successful challenge can make a scientist's > career. That's one of my most fundamental disagreements with Sagan: I don't think of the scientific method as something universal that can be applied to all areas. It's an indispensible tool for discovering facts about physical science, but philosophy and theology are outside its scope, IMHO. (For example, it's hard to conduct repeated experiments to determine whether there's an afterlife, since each of us can only die once!) -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: orius@webtv.net (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:30:29 -0400 (EDT) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 13 Message-ID: <279-37E466E5-138@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: <37E3F1B5.3B9A@mia.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhQF4GvoHfw76baFquSDpk9W5f6j4AIVALn8w5OpLOaSEOWfGd5He6RT9Ao9 Content-Disposition: Inline Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!uni-erlangen.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!do.de.uu.net!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail Jereeza the Witch-Pearl of the East wrote: >David Sulger wrote: >>It's escapism, plain and simple. >Amen, brother. I'm glad SOMEONE agrees with me and can see my side of the argument. Why can't these people take this discussion to alt.philosophy where it belongs? ###### From: orius@webtv.net (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:53:30 -0400 (EDT) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 31 Message-ID: <281-37E46C4A-31@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: <37e447de.19667626@news.earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhUAlnHn63nd+MxqaRIX3dSgu1uEuPcCFCJ7mPpxzEVhH41tgrLp/3+LLGQz Content-Disposition: Inline Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail Prembone wrote: >Ah. We approach literature differently, >then. I don't read for "escapism." I read >to engage "deep truths" about life, the >universe, and everything. Fiction for me >is just another way of exploring the >philosophical questions. Ditto, BTW, for >poetry. This was exactly the point I made in the article you quoted at the beginning of the thread. I said that I read the books for the love of the story. Though to be perfectly honest, I first read the books when I was eleven, and still somewhat impressionable, I suppose, so some of the content probably helped to shape my beliefs and values. Being somewhat quixotic in nature, I enjoy reading a good adventure (though I've never felt any urges to tilt with a windmill.....). So it would seem that we had a misunderstanding of each other's POV. We apparently don't look for philosophy in the same section of the library or bookstore. >Tolkien fans are weird. Interesting statement in light of the following: >All Homage To The Elton!!! Oh well, to each his own I suppose. --Dave ###### From: prembone@excitebitespam.com (Prembone) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 02:21:20 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Sat Sep 18 19:35:02 1999 References: <37e25710.91186826@news.earthlink.net> <28082-37E322CB-43@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: The Rescue Frodo SWAT Team X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Lines: 45 NNTP-Posting-Host: sdn-ar-003mnminnp257.dialsprint.net X-ELN-Date: 19 Sep 1999 02:26:11 GMT Message-ID: <37e447de.19667626@news.earthlink.net> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!netnews.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 01:27:39 -0400 (EDT), orius@webtv.net (David Sulger) wrote: >Prembone wrote: > > > >Part of the reason that I replied the way I did is that I don't see >Tolkien's world as the same one that I live in. Not necessarily another >planet, mind you, I know that Aman is the Earth, but yet an imaginary >Earth, a mythical Earth. I feel that Tolkien answers those questions >adequately, but only for Middle-Earth. It is for those of us that live >in the real world to find our own answers, to believe in life after >death, or reincarnation, or nothing, or one God, or many or none (or >Elton John :^). I just don't read literature to find philosophical >answers. > While I like the books, I don't see it as a religious text of some >sort, nor do I feel any inclinations to worship Manw=EB, Eru or even >Morgoth. It isn't real to me. So I'm not going to look for answers to >questions like "Is there a God?" or "What happens when I die?" in the >late professor's works. >It's escapism, plain and simple. Some people watch TV, others go to >nightclubs, I like to read. It's all just a way to escape the problems >and stresses of the real world, if only for just a little while. If I >want to look for those answers I'll go discuss philosophy or religion. Ah. We approach literature differently, then. I don't read for "escapism." I read to engage "deep truths" about life, the universe, and everything. Fiction for me is just another way of exploring the philosophical questions. Ditto, BTW, for poetry. Obviously we can't apply Tolkien's books on a literal level of "worshiping Manwe" (unless someone out there really believes he exists), but if we look beyond the literal surface details to the general views and principles that guided Tolkien, we can find plenty of matter for philosophical engagement and discussion, not to mention dispute. ;-) Tolkien fans are weird. All Homage To The Elton!!! The Elton John Worship Page - NEW URL http://eltonworship.virtualave.net ###### From: prembone@excitebitespam.com (Prembone) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:57:04 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Sun Sep 19 14:05:04 1999 References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37DF10D6.46897465@erols.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: The Rescue Frodo SWAT Team X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Lines: 82 NNTP-Posting-Host: sdn-ar-001mnminnp056.dialsprint.net X-ELN-Date: 19 Sep 1999 21:01:55 GMT Message-ID: <37e5487c.17410225@news.earthlink.net> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!nntp.abs.net!netnews.com!news.idt.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail Considering that my beloved Vikings just lost (shall we say threw the game away?) this post is remarkably calm.... On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:22:23 -0400, Flame of the West wrote: >Why is that a cop-out? Even those who believe in an afterlife must >come to terms with their own mortality. Because it's not really dealing with the fact that your life will truly end, but saying that the apparent death is actually just a transition from one form of life to another. > I thought that Tolkien did a >good job (in the Akallabêth) of having Men explain how they feared >death, even though they knew they had a destiny beyond the >circles of the world. > >If mortals in Middle-Earth were annihilated at death, there couldn't >have been an interesting counterpoint to Elvish immortality. But if the point (according to Tolkien) is that endless life is wearying, then how is an endless afterlife any better than an endless life without death? And if your supposed mortality is actually just a different variety of immortality, then it's not really "mortality vs. immortality" but "immortality 1.0 vs. immortality 2.3"...or something like that. ;-) The Elves were beta. > The >Elves could not have been realistically portrayed as envious of >complete annihilation. Well...considering how weary of life they tended to grow, I think that on the contrary it would have been very realistic to do so. > The Doom of Men would not have been >also Eru's Gift to Men. It depends on how you construe that "gift." It could be that the gift lies in providing boundaries within which life is to be played out to its fullest, a gift of "quality" rather than "quantity." And the gift of death is one of "release" which the Elves might indeed envy, even if there were no destiny "beyond the circles of the world." And, too, if we look at life beyond the individual level, then we see a constant cycle of renewal: waning and death, yes, but also waxing and birth. Old life dies, but new life is born. So the Great Life goes on in a continual process of change and growth. Perhaps this was (or could be seen as) the Gift of the One to mortals: to be part of a Greater Life characterized by continual renewal, rather than by an unending individual life characterized by stasis and stagnation and decline. > The mortality-immortality theme would >have been void of content and meaning, not to mention interest. On the contrary, if a compelling case could be made for mortality as good in and of itself, not merely because we can't do anything to change it, it would be not only "interesting" but utterly fascinating, going as it does against our instinctive sense that immortality is "obviously" better than mortality. Can we find reason to honestly say that life is no less blessed for the fact that it must someday end? >And of course, it would have totally messed up the business >of the Númenorians (and Aragorn) "giving back the Gift." How so? Wouldn't it take far greater courage to face/accept death knowing it's truly the end of the line, than if one sees it as but a very unpleasant transition to a more blissful state? Anyway, interesting discussing this stuff with ya, Flame, even if you're not always right... ;-) Avalon's Reject: from escaping the world to embracing the world.....a poetic journey http://www.stormloader.com/secularpagan/avalons ###### From: Flame of the West Coast Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 23:14:36 -0400 Lines: 153 Message-ID: <37E5A697.329B700B@erols.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37DF10D6.46897465@erols.com> <37e5487c.17410225@news.earthlink.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: YCHpmwFtbHjsiDR/RLbleWOfqfj6RdcJUpGlPR6FGOE= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Sep 1999 03:19:25 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!howland.erols.net!outgoing.news.rcn.net.MISMATCH!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Prembone wrote: > Considering that my beloved Vikings just lost (shall we say threw the > game away?) this post is remarkably calm.... I'm a former resident of Oakland and a die-hard Raiders fan! My goodness, Prembone, can't we agree on *anything*? ;-) > On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:22:23 -0400, Flame of the West > wrote: > > >Why is that a cop-out? Even those who believe in an afterlife must > >come to terms with their own mortality. > > Because it's not really dealing with the fact that your life will > truly end, but saying that the apparent death is actually just a > transition from one form of life to another. But that presupposes that one believes that one will truly end. Since Tolkien didn't believe that, he can't be accused of a cop-out. If *you* had written LotR in the same way, I could (and would!) have accused you of copping out. > But if the point (according to Tolkien) is that endless life is > wearying, then how is an endless afterlife any better than an > endless life without death? One big difference between Elvish immortality and the afterlife is that the latter is experienced outside of time. (Remember that time is a property of the physical universe, one of the coordinates of space-time, and that Heaven and Hell are not part of the physical universe.) So one doesn't experience the "ever-mounting burden of the years." > The Elves were beta. That makes *us* the finished product! Way cool! > >The Elves could not have been realistically portrayed > >as envious of complete annihilation. > > Well...considering how weary of life they tended to grow, I think > that on the contrary it would have been very realistic to do so. I got the impression that they wearied of life in Middle-Earth but not in the Undying Lands. In ME, their immortality is much more "in their face" as the Men and other creatures they've known die off, one generation after another, while they live on. I took that to be one of JRRT's points about mortality and immortality: mortals and immortals just aren't meant to live together for any length of time. That's why the Valar were so insistent that all of the Elves should come to the Undying Lands. Now I'm aware of the scene in the Akallabêth in which the Messengers of Manwë refer to themselves as "we who bear the ever-mounting burden of the years." This could be taken as evidence that even in the Undying Lands there is weariness of life. But I prefer to think that the Messengers were themselves Elves from Tol Eressëa who had had frequent contacts with Númenor. It would be logical for Manwë to choose them to talk to the Númenoreans. These Elves were recently come from Beleriand, so that the wearying of years had not yet fully worn off them. Moreover, since they were hanging out with the Númenoreans, they had the same problem of watching beloved mortals die all the time. > > The Doom of Men would not have been also Eru's Gift to Men. > > It depends on how you construe that "gift." It could be that the gift > lies in providing boundaries within which life is to be played out to > its fullest, a gift of "quality" rather than "quantity." And the gift > of death is one of "release" which the Elves might indeed envy, even > if there were no destiny "beyond the circles of the world." You know, the Elves don't know what will happen to them at the end of Arda. I've heard speculation that they will join the mortals beyond the circles of the world. I find that a pleasing thought in that it implies a reunion between Elves and Men (e.g. Elrond and Arwen). Of course it also takes away from the epic tragedy that follows from Arwen's choice. > And, too, if we look at life beyond the individual level, then we see > a constant cycle of renewal: waning and death, yes, but also waxing > and birth. Old life dies, but new life is born. So the Great Life > goes on in a continual process of change and growth. > > Perhaps this was (or could be seen as) the Gift of the One to mortals: > to be part of a Greater Life characterized by continual renewal, > rather than by an unending individual life characterized by stasis and > stagnation and decline. But then why do we have an ingrained fear of death? Seems to me that the One meant our lives to be individual ones, or we'd not fear death, only extinction as a species. BTW, the notion of "Gift of the One" was a little confused at the end of JRRT's life. Reading the Debate of Finrod and Andreth in Morgoth's Ring, one finds that Eru originally created Men as not subject to death, before what JRRT calls the Marring of Men (which corresponds to the Biblical Fall of Adam and Eve). This means that death is not the Gift of the One at all, but rather a result of the Fall of our race. It only *appeared* to be a gift to the world-weary Elves. I suspect, however, that JRRT intended eventually to alter the Silmarillion to take out the "Gift" part. This would have been part of his project to make his mythology more explicitly Christian. > On the contrary, if a compelling case could be made for mortality as > good in and of itself, not merely because we can't do anything to > change it, it would be not only "interesting" but utterly fascinating, > going as it does against our instinctive sense that immortality is > "obviously" better than mortality. Can we find reason to honestly say > that life is no less blessed for the fact that it must someday end? As I've said, any such argument would imply that, for us, ultimate nonexistence is as good as existence. This contradicts one of the fundamental tenets of traditional Western philosophy, that being is superior to non-being. Indeed, the Name for God in the Old Testament (I won't name it or translate it in deference to the Jewish members of this NG) implies that necessary existence is the leading, almost defining, attribute of God. Since God is the measure of all goodness, one is forced to conclude that existence is a good thing and superior to nonexistence. Now this is the traditional Christian understanding, which I subscribe to. To accept a case for mortality as good in and of itself, I'd have to reject this Christian teaching, which I warn you I'm not likely to do. So it's hard to imagine my accepting any such argument as compelling. It's probably the same with most Christians (and I'm sure we'll hear from any who disagree!). > >And of course, it would have totally messed up the business > >of the Númenorians (and Aragorn) "giving back the Gift." > > How so? Wouldn't it take far greater courage to face/accept death > knowing it's truly the end of the line, than if one sees it as but a > very unpleasant transition to a more blissful state? Perhaps, but the sadness of separation is painful enough, and the courage required to face it is great enough, as shown in the story of Aragorn and Arwen. > Anyway, interesting discussing this stuff with ya, Flame, even if > you're not always right... ;-) My pleasure. It sure beats Balrog wings and movie castings, IMHO. -- FotWC "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### Message-ID: <37E5B7A3.1F0AB24E@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37DF10D6.46897465@erols.com> <37e5487c.17410225@news.earthlink.net> <37E5A697.329B700B@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 10 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.38 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 937801126 209.8.153.38 (Mon, 20 Sep 1999 00:18:46 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 00:18:46 EDT Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 00:27:15 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West Coast wrote: > > Prembone wrote: ... > > The Elves were beta. > > That makes *us* the finished product! Way cool! No - we're just version 1.0 - and you know what ".0" versions are like! ;-) ###### From: jblanks@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks Jeff Blanks Jeff Blanks) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 02:15:50 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E31369.8CD123E2@erols.com> <37E38AC8.F47995F@wizard.net> <37E3C01A.705B417A@erols.com> <37E3E7AF.717B1502@wizard.net> <7s1lls$9rf$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.86.49 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server-Date: 20 Sep 1999 06:11:39 GMT X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b13 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news.mindspring.net!firehose.mindspring.com!jblanks "John Chivers" wrote: > James Kuyper Jr. wrote... > >> Carl Sagan wrote: > >> > "For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is > >> > than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." > >It's not arrogant to believe that others are probably mistaken when they > >disagree with you. It would be arrogant to believe that they were > >necessarily mistaken, but that's a more extreme attitude, and not one > >implied by Sagan's quote. > > But Sagan does say fairly directly that _he_ grasps the universe as it > _really_ is. Not at all. Tell you what--for "for me," substitute "I think", or "IMHO." Better yet, take out "for me" completely. He makes no statement at all about whether he "grasps it as it really is" or not--he simply states that that's his goal, and that it's a better one than "persisting in delusion." -- _KEYBOARD_ MAGAZINE INTERVIEWER: Are you optimistic about the healing power of Bach's music in the modern world? KEITH JARRETT: This may sound funny, but I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic. I am simply doing what I know I must be doing now. ###### From: "db" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:25:56 +0200 Organization: A2000 Kabeltelevisie en Telecommunicatie Lines: 23 Message-ID: <7s5fug$s62$1@weber.a2000.nl> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <37E389D8.D50BD31@wizard.net> <37E3C42B.CD8A652C@erols.com> <37E3E190.FC51ED9@wizard.net> <37E4230E.D7E4470@erols.com> <37E43CA1.B2530D84@wizard.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: node11aae.a2000.nl X-Trace: weber.a2000.nl 937837328 28866 24.132.26.174 (20 Sep 1999 14:22:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@a2000.nl NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Sep 1999 14:22:08 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!bignews.mediaways.net!skynet.be!pascal.a2000.nl!newsfeed.a2000.nl!not-for-mail They believe what's written in the bible... :) When you're dead, you're dead. Like a deep sleep, you are unaware of what's going on. And you stay that way till judgment day. What happens then is a question of how you lived your life. BTW, officially this is what Christians _should_ believe also, as Heaven and/or Hell are nowhere in the bible described in the fashion that people nowadays imagine them, AFAIK. db James Kuyper Jr. wrote in message <37E43CA1.B2530D84@wizard.net>... >> What then do believing Jews think happens at death? They don't >> believe that we cease to exist, do they? > >I believe that some of them believe exactly that. However, if you ask >two Jews, you'll get three opinions. If you ask two Rabbis, you'll get >three dozen. :-) ###### From: colinr@toliman.uio.no (Colin Rosenthal) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: 21 Sep 1999 08:34:35 GMT Organization: University of Oslo, Norway Lines: 25 Message-ID: <7s7fur$9cs$1@readme.uio.no> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <37E389D8.D50BD31@wizard.net> <37E3C42B.CD8A652C@erols.com> <37E3E190.FC51ED9@wizard.net> <37E4230E.D7E4470@erols.com> <37E43CA1.B2530D84@wizard.net> <7s5fug$s62$1@weber.a2000.nl> Reply-To: colin.rosenthal@astro.uio.no NNTP-Posting-Host: toliman.uio.no User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.3 (UNIX) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!newspeer.ebone.net!newsfeed1.online.no!newsfeed.online.no!uio.no!nntp.uio.no!colinr On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:25:56 +0200, db wrote: >They believe what's written in the bible... :) >When you're dead, you're dead. Like a deep sleep, you are unaware of what's >going on. And you stay that way till judgment day. What happens then is a >question of how you lived your life. Where did you get this from? If it is meant to be a description of Jewish beliefs then it is entirely new to me. Although Jews have no single prescribed set of beliefs, I have never heard of any Jewish belief in a "judgement day". Orthodox Jews generally believe in some eventual form of Resurrection, but the "deep sleep" concept is not part of normative Jewish belief. Belief in various forms of reincarnation is also common, especially among chassidic groups. >>> What then do believing Jews think happens at death? They don't >>> believe that we cease to exist, do they? Incidentally, the misplaced follow-ups are making this thread difficult to follow. Please post new material below previous material. -- Colin Rosenthal Astrophysics Institute University of Oslo ###### From: james_pauwels@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:13:39 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Lines: 78 Message-ID: <7s8ar6$htu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.124.150.253 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Sep 21 16:13:39 1999 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 207.124.150.253 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjames_pauwels Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!newsfeed.fast.net!nntp.abs.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail In article <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net>, prembone@excitebitespam.com (Prembone) wrote: > On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 01:00:47 -0400 (EDT), orius@webtv.net (David > Sulger) wrote: > > >These were entertaining articles. i enjoyed the orc one, it was a lot > >of fun, but your discussion of death and deathlesslness in ME really > >changes many of my perceptions of the story. I had never really looked > >at the theme of LotR, rather having enjoyed reading the books for the > >love of the story. But your discussion of this theme enhanced my > >persception of what was really going on in the story. Reading this ng > >has helped me truly understand the differences between the Children of > >Il=FAvatar. I suppose that a Man, who possess an undying fe=E4, is in > >reality truly immortal when compared to an Elf whose life can only last > >as long as the world lasts. > > You know, in a way I tend to feel that JRRT copped out on the "coming > to terms with mortality" theme. Supposedly that's what his whole work > was all about, how immortality isn't all it's cracked up to be, and > Elves envy Men the "gift of death," etc., even as Men envy Elvish > immortality. Yet if Men go on to an afterlife, and don't really die, > then it's more like a woman accepting that she must go through labor > pains in order to birth the baby than it is like truly accepting that > one must really and truly die, cease to exist, be finite. > > Suppose mortality meant (means) just that: a short life, then the > end. How, then, would mortals find meaning and consolation in being > made mortal rather than immortal? Especially if there were a race of > immortal beings in the world as well? Having had the advantage of reading through the entire thread, I'd like to offer one or two additional points to this discussion. Tolkien, I think we all would agree, was ambiguous about the fate of Men, even in his omniscient narrator voice. And at least some of his characters seemed to be less than ambiguous - they seemed positively clueless about their ultimate fate. :-). The discussion so far in this thread has juxtaposed Judeo-Christian and atheist/agnostic points of view on human existence. I'd like to suggest LotR presents a third viewpoint: a pagan one. Istm that Eomer (for example) behaves very much as a pre-Christianity Norseman might have behaved (at least, based on my very limited understanding of their beliefs; undoubtedly people in this ng are much more knowledgeable about it). Eomer strikes me as a guy who wants to achieve immortality via being remembered in song. That is why the Eorlingas cry "Death!" on the Pelennor field - brave death is better than prudent-but-passive life. Their values - courage, honor, aptitude in battle - are chosen with this end in mind, I think. Likewise, Theoden, when dying, hardly seems to yearn for more life - he seems to embrace death, because he has thrown down the Southron champion and rectified the deficiencies of his life-story. What about the Numenorean/Gondorians? Do they have a different point of view? Apparently, Elessar at least has more insight into the fate of Men than Eomer or Theoden. Is that ultimately what separates the Men of the West from the Men of Anduin Vale? Finally, what about Bilbo? During much of LotR, he seems (at least to me) to be sustained, at least in part, by his ensnarement by the Ring. He doesn't strike me as being particularly "at peace" or accepting of his fate (which presumably would be the same as Men, yes?). Like many old folks I know in real life, he mostly seems to continue on, doing his best with failing faculties. Whether he accepts what will happen to him, or just lacks the strength to resist death, is difficult for me to discern. Jim Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. ###### From: james_pauwels@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:46:24 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Lines: 31 Message-ID: <7s8qqt$uiv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <37E389D8.D50BD31@wizard.net> <37E3C42B.CD8A652C@erols.com> <37E3E190.FC51ED9@wizard.net> <37E4230E.D7E4470@erols.com> <37E43CA1.B2530D84@wizard.net> <7s5fug$s62$1@weber.a2000.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.124.150.253 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Sep 21 20:46:24 1999 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x22.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 207.124.150.253 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjames_pauwels Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!bignews.mediaways.net!blackbush.xlink.net!newsfeed.germany.net!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail In article <7s5fug$s62$1@weber.a2000.nl>, "db" wrote: > They believe what's written in the bible... :) Jews believe what's in the Bible? As you've framed it here, that's certainly not correct. > When you're dead, you're dead. Like a deep sleep, you are unaware of what's > going on. And you stay that way till judgment day. What happens then is a > question of how you lived your life. I don't believe there has been any unanimity among Jews regarding the concept of resurrection. As for "Judgment Day" - that is, I think, an entirely Christian concept. > BTW, officially this is what Christians _should_ believe also, as Heaven > and/or Hell are nowhere in the bible described in the fashion that people > nowadays imagine them, AFAIK. > db Who appointed you Christianity's "official" spokesman, db? Jim Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. ###### From: "Alatar" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 22:56:23 +0100 Organization: Customer of Planet Online Lines: 13 Message-ID: <7s8utc$1l5$2@news4.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <37E389D8.D50BD31@wizard.net> <37E3C42B.CD8A652C@erols.com> <37E3E190.FC51ED9@wizard.net> <37E4230E.D7E4470@erols.com> <37E43CA1.B2530D84@wizard.net> <7s5fug$s62$1@weber.a2000.nl> <7s8qqt$uiv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-123.lidocaine.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news4.svr.pol.co.uk 937950956 1701 62.136.60.123 (21 Sep 1999 21:55:56 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Sep 1999 21:55:56 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!skynet.be!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail james_pauwels@my-deja.com wrote: >In article <7s5fug$s62$1@weber.a2000.nl>, > "db" wrote: >> They believe what's written in the bible... :) > >Jews believe what's in the Bible? As you've framed it here, that's >certainly not correct. I believe she meant just the Old Testament of the Bible. ###### From: prembone@excitebitespam.com (Prembone) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 04:00:48 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Tue Sep 21 21:15:05 1999 References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <37E389D8.D50BD31@wizard.net> <37E3C42B.CD8A652C@erols.com> <37E3E190.FC51ED9@wizard.net> <37E4230E.D7E4470@erols.com> <37E43CA1.B2530D84@wizard.net> <7s5fug$s62$1@weber.a2000.nl> <7s8qqt$uiv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7s8utc$1l5$2@news4.svr.pol.co.uk> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: The Rescue Frodo SWAT Team X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Lines: 29 NNTP-Posting-Host: sdn-ar-005mnminnp242.dialsprint.net X-ELN-Date: 22 Sep 1999 04:05:53 GMT Message-ID: <37e853c5.23255338@news.earthlink.net> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 22:56:23 +0100, "Alatar" wrote: > >james_pauwels@my-deja.com wrote: >>In article <7s5fug$s62$1@weber.a2000.nl>, >> "db" wrote: >>> They believe what's written in the bible... :) >> >>Jews believe what's in the Bible? As you've framed it here, that's >>certainly not correct. > > >I believe she meant just the Old Testament of the Bible. Which, of course **is** "the" Bible as far as Jewish people are concerned. ;-) "Old Testament" is a decidedly Christian spin on the Hebrew scriptures. I'm not a religious scholar, but I **believe** that scholars (nonsectarian ones, at least) now tend to refer to these collections of scriptures as "the Hebrew scriptures" and "the Christian scriptures," rather than "Old Testament" and "New Testament." All Homage To The Elton!!! The Elton John Worship Page - NEW URL http://eltonworship.virtualave.net ###### From: "Alatar" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 17:50:10 +0100 Organization: Customer of Planet Online Lines: 42 Message-ID: <7sb3rd$cnr$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <37E389D8.D50BD31@wizard.net> <37E3C42B.CD8A652C@erols.com> <37E3E190.FC51ED9@wizard.net> <37E4230E.D7E4470@erols.com> <37E43CA1.B2530D84@wizard.net> <7s5fug$s62$1@weber.a2000.nl> <7s8qqt$uiv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7s8utc$1l5$2@news4.svr.pol.co.uk> <37e853c5.23255338@news.earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-100.doctor.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news7.svr.pol.co.uk 938021549 13051 62.136.111.228 (22 Sep 1999 17:32:29 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Sep 1999 17:32:29 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Prembone wrote: >On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 22:56:23 +0100, "Alatar" > wrote: > >> >>james_pauwels@my-deja.com wrote: >>>In article <7s5fug$s62$1@weber.a2000.nl>, >>> "db" wrote: >>>> They believe what's written in the bible... :) >>> >>>Jews believe what's in the Bible? As you've framed it here, that's >>>certainly not correct. >> >> >>I believe she meant just the Old Testament of the Bible. > >Which, of course **is** "the" Bible as far as Jewish people are >concerned. ;-) "Old Testament" is a decidedly Christian spin on the >Hebrew scriptures. Very true, I wasn't sure whether to mention that myself. >I'm not a religious scholar, but I **believe** that scholars >(nonsectarian ones, at least) now tend to refer to these collections >of scriptures as "the Hebrew scriptures" and "the Christian >scriptures," rather than "Old Testament" and "New Testament." This may be true in some areas, but the Welsh Examining Board still officially uses the terms "New Testament" and "Old Testament". -- Alatar Protector of the secret glen of Morangie, where the drink of gold be made. Technically I am a religion scholar (& philosophy), but not nessicerily a well informed one. Find that Tolkien site in The Cave of Lost Scrolls: http://www.invoke.freeserve.co.uk/alatar/lostscrolls.htm ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37dcc16d.3839390@news.pc-intouch.com> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <37E389D8.D50BD31@wizard.net> <37E3C42B.CD8A652C@erols.com> <37E3E190.FC51ED9@wizard.net> <37E4230E.D7E4470@erols.com> <37E43CA1.B2530D84@wizard.net> <7s5fug$s62$1@weber.a2000.nl> <7s8qqt$uiv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7s8utc$1l5$2@news4.svr.pol.co.uk> <37e853c5.23255338@news.earthlink.net> <7sb3rd$cnr$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality (was: New Tolkien Articles Posted) Lines: 26 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.151.56.3 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 938023209 212.151.56.3 (Wed, 22 Sep 1999 20:00:09 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 20:00:09 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 X-Sender: s-774765@d212-151-56-3.swipnet.se Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 20:00:19 +0200 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.bme.hu!news.iif.hu!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Alatar hath written: >Prembone wrote: [snip] > >>I'm not a religious scholar, but I **believe** that scholars >>(nonsectarian ones, at least) now tend to refer to these collections >>of scriptures as "the Hebrew scriptures" and "the Christian >>scriptures," rather than "Old Testament" and "New Testament." > > >This may be true in some areas, but the Welsh Examining Board still >officially uses the terms "New Testament" and "Old Testament". I believe that some practising Jews complain that the term "New" in the "New Testament" implies that it is supersedes the "Old". Of course, Christians think so, but by itself "new" is by no means automatically better than "old"; it may be worse. So I think everybody should stay cool and accept the traditional names, which simply imform everybody that one Testament is older (more "original") than the other. -- Öjevind ###### From: mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> Reply-To: mark@pc-intouch.com Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.7 (UNIX) X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: colpanic.office.pc-intouch.com Lines: 27 Date: 22 Sep 1999 15:17:54 -0800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.212.198.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: typhoon-la.pbi.net 938038679 207.212.198.18 (Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:17:59 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:17:59 PDT Organization: SBC Internet Services Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!cyclone.swbell.net!typhoon-la.pbi.net.POSTED!not-for-mail On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:45:23 -0400, Flame of the West wrote: >The only rational position in the absence of evidence is agnosticism. >It would be illogical to assume either a created or uncreated universe. >Logically, one would proclaim one's rejection of either side until some >proof is given. But Sagan only took theists to task, never atheists. >In this he was fundamenatlly irrational and prejudiced toward atheism. Just a minor but interesting nitpick: Theists *can* have certainty; atheists can only have speculation. The reason is that the theist can claim to have received evidence by divine revelation, which is unquestionable. (Whether the theist really received divine revelation can be disputed, but if divine revelation exists it is guaranteed to be perfectly accurate.) So a theist can make a claim of complete certainty--"I know that God exists because he told me that he exists"--and it can be logically consistent. An atheist, though, doesn't believe in divine revelation, and therefore has no perfectly accurate source of truth even in a theoretical sense (except "I think, therefore I am") and can't make a similar claim of total certainty. "I know that God doesn't exist because he told me that he doesn't exist" is absurd. "I know that God doesn't exist because he didn't tell me anything" is nowhere near complete certainty. ###### Message-ID: <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <7s6732$48d$1@diana.bcn.ttd.net> <37E7A3D9.BE43A6CF@mindspring.com> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 54 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.161.15.150 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938047220 206.161.15.150 (Wed, 22 Sep 1999 20:40:20 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 20:40:20 EDT Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 20:49:08 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > Prembone wrote: ... > I said that Sagan was "arrogant and condescending." You've addressed > the arrogant part, but to me the more offensive thing about him was his > condescending attitude toward religious believers. He seemed to have > this idea that *he* was dealing rationally with the fundamental questions > of reality, while believers were persisting in delusion. That's > ridiculous, > of course. The scientific method is inherently incapable of answering > metaphysical questions. ... Some people believe otherwise. I'm referring both to the "that's ridiculous, of course", and "inherently incapable" parts of the preceeding statement. I won't even try to cover the "ridiculous" issue; that's a matter of judgment inherently incapable of objective assessment. As a student of advanced physics, I can assure you that even many true statements are ridiculous. The question of God's existence is metaphysical only because religious people choose to define it so. There's nothing intrinsic in the idea itself that makes the scientific method unusable. It's unfortunate that most of the best relevant evidence (if it's true) can only be collected after you're dead, which is a little late :-) However, there's nothing unusual about that - the universe provides no "advance notice" guarantees. > ... It's not rational to take a metaphysical position > ("God does not exist") and demand that physical science disprove it > before you'll question it. That's not an open-minded search for truth. > But it's exactly what Sagan did in the following quote: > > "I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some > thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much > as I want to believe that, I know of nothing to > suggest that it is more than wishful thinking." > > Notice how he puts the burden of proof on the theistic side. The > atheistic side needs prove nothing, and will have his allegience > automatically until and unless the other side wins him over. The atheistic side, properly stated, is that there's insufficient relevant evidence to justify belief in any God. This is no different from saying that there's insufficient evidence to justify belief in a place named Globfrang Andeclatom. Ask me to prove that there's no such place as Globfrang Andeclatom; I'll have just as much trouble. It makes much more sense to say that anyone who wants me to believe in Globfrang Andeclatom should provide sufficient evidence for believing in it's existence. Similarly, those who want me to believe in the Christian God (or any other) should provide sufficient evidence for believing in His existence. This may strike you as unfair, but it seems quite reasonable to me. ###### Message-ID: <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 47 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.161.15.150 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938049198 206.161.15.150 (Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:13:18 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:13:18 EDT Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:22:07 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: ... > True, but no one claims that religious knowledge is testable in the > scientific sense. That doesn't make it any less true; it's just truth I do. > of a different kind. Not all truth is scientific, because not all of reality > is material. The scientific method contains no restriction to matter. It's defined entirely in terms of theories and evidence; evidence can be spiritual as easily as sensory. > Nor does science. If I say there's a God and you say there isn't, what > *scientific* evidence can either of us produce to support our positions? > Or if I say God is three Persons and a Jewish person disagrees, > how will you settle that scientifically? Take the two ideas, make predictions based upon them, search for a case where the predictions are different. Then try to create or search for that case and see which one matches predictions. It really doesn't matter whether the ideas are about the material world or the spiritual one. ... > Logically, he should also put an uncreated universe in the same > category as a perpetual motion machine, in the absense of proof > of the nonexistence of a Creator. I recognise plenty of evidence for a universe, and none sufficient to justify belief in a creator. That puts the concept of an uncreated universe is a priveleged relationship compared with the concept of an omnipotent benevolent Deity. ... > It belongs on *both* sides. Or are you saying that the proponents > of an uncreated universe get a free pass while those who believe > in a created universe don't? No free pass - it's been paid for by centuries of very productive scientific research. ... > The only rational position in the absence of evidence is agnosticism. True. Luckily, there's no shortage of relevant evidence. ###### From: orius@webtv.net (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 01:40:00 -0400 (EDT) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 12 Message-ID: <15066-37E9BD30-100@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: <37E8E2AD.EEA4B955@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhQuIkFVQhXC6PrRSeCa9QsOcGpAiAIVAJwVZsxvB6WNCEqWz6oWpjMiFsOI Content-Disposition: Inline Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.new-york.net!newspeer1.nac.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: >Perhaps you'd rather discuss Balrog >wings, which has been discussed about >a hundred times as long and is far more >trivial? Hell no! I'm vehemently opposed to seeing that debate revive (yet) again. Besides, I made that horse crack just to be a smart ass. ###### From: jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 76 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 23 Sep 1999 04:53:28 GMT References: <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990923005328.21292.00000997@ng-ci1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail --True, but no one claims that religious knowledge is testable in the scientific sense. --- I do. It definitely is in principle. --That doesn't make it any less true; it's just truth of a different kind. Not all truth is scientific, because not all of reality is material--- How do you KNOW that any of reality isn't material? Speculating again? ---Logically, he should also put an uncreated universe in the same category as a perpetual motion machine, in the absense of proof of the nonexistence of a Creator.--- Logically, YOU should be intellectually honest by saying "I don't know" when asked where the universe came from, instead of claiming that a "god" made it. Do you do that? > Sagan was technically an agnostic, and admitted as > much several times. I doubt he ever called himself an atheist. --I think he regarded himself as an athiest. --- He didn't. Find me the quotes that say otherwise, and I'll back down on this point. --- He certainly leaned in that direction, by putting the burden of proof on one side and not on the other.--- The burden BELONGS on the claimant, not the skeptic. It ALWAYS works that way, no matter what's being debated. That's part of the scientific method. the fact that you - as a theist - don't like that arrangement isn't my fault. --It belongs on *both* sides. Or are you saying that the proponents of an uncreated universe get a free pass while those who believe in a created universe don't?--- Oh? Now people who don't find sufficient evidence for god are proponents of an uncreated universe? People are being completely intellectually honest when they say that they don't know the cause of the universe (if there is one),but the answer called "god' is unsatisfying in its explanatory power. The theory of a created universe doesn't merit adherence any more than an uncreated one. You either have a universe which is uncreated and eternal, or a god which is uncreated and eternal. Why add the "god" (which we aren't sure exists) on top of the universe (which we are sure exists). Saying "god created the universe" doesn't EXPLAIN anything. It immediately results in the next question which is "where did God come from?" or "who created god?". Theists are completely willing to believe in a very powerful and advanced entity called "god" who exists uncreated, yet they scoff at the idea that something else (the universe itself) might also exist uncreated. Since "god" is presumed to be more complicated and advanced than the universe (his creation), it's the theists who are making the larger unwarranted intellectual leap, not the god-skeptics. --The only rational position in the absence of evidence is agnosticism. It would be illogical to assume either a created or uncreated universe.--- Yet you assume a created universe, don't you? --Logically, one would proclaim one's rejection of either side until some proof is given. But Sagan only took theists to task, never atheists. In this he was fundamenatlly irrational and prejudiced toward atheism.--- I challenge you to straddle the fence on the existence of leprechauns, and refuse to have an opinion on the subject until either the leprechaun-believers give you rock-solid proof in favor, or the leprechaun-skeptics give you rock-solid DISproof. How long would you stay on that fence? Leaning a bit, are we? Does this scenario sound reasonable to you? Replace the word "god" in your arguments with any other unproven concept, and see if your arguments still make sense. -King " I know what fakery looks like" -James Randi ###### From: mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Organization: PC-InTOUCH Linux Conspiracy Message-ID: <37e9d6f6.74246763@news.pc-intouch.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <7s6732$48d$1@diana.bcn.ttd.net> <37E7A3D9.BE43A6CF@mindspring.com> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> <37E8DA96.44A00287@wizard.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1-44.dialup.pc-intouch.com Lines: 15 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 07:31:01 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.212.198.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: typhoon-la.pbi.net 938071672 207.212.198.18 (Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:27:52 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:27:52 PDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!cyclone.swbell.net!typhoon-la.pbi.net.POSTED!not-for-mail On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 09:33:10 -0400, "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: >You're misunderstanding him - knowing "the universe as it really is" is >his objective, not a claimed achievement. I think he's closer to that >objective than the average person, and he's honestly self-aware of that >fact, but he didn't claim perfect knowledge. What he's saying is that he >has a preference for beliefs that are consistent with available >evidence, even if they don't provide as much spiritual comfort as other >beliefs that are inconsistent with the available evidence. ITYM "beliefs that are *unsupported* by the available evidence". If Sagan thought there was actual observable evidence *against* the existence of God, he was a complete fool. ###### Message-ID: <37EA2D2E.45FE1BD6@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <7s6732$48d$1@diana.bcn.ttd.net> <37E7A3D9.BE43A6CF@mindspring.com> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> <37E8DA96.44A00287@wizard.net> <37e9d6f6.74246763@news.pc-intouch.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 24 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.14 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938093338 209.8.153.14 (Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:28:58 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:28:58 EDT Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:37:50 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Mark Wells wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 09:33:10 -0400, "James Kuyper Jr." > wrote: > > >You're misunderstanding him - knowing "the universe as it really is" is > >his objective, not a claimed achievement. I think he's closer to that > >objective than the average person, and he's honestly self-aware of that > >fact, but he didn't claim perfect knowledge. What he's saying is that he > >has a preference for beliefs that are consistent with available > >evidence, even if they don't provide as much spiritual comfort as other > >beliefs that are inconsistent with the available evidence. > > ITYM "beliefs that are *unsupported* by the available evidence". If > Sagan thought there was actual observable evidence *against* the > existence of God, he was a complete fool. You're right; it's impossible to disprove the existence of an undefined God. It's quite possible to disprove the existence of sufficiently well-defined God, however. In particular, the existence of evil disproves the existence of any absolutely omnipotent and omniscient being who's deserving of unconditional allegiance. It allows, however, for the existence of a being who's less than completely omnipotent or omniscient, or who's worthy of only conditional allegiance. ###### Message-ID: <37EA308E.7BCCA8F@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net> <7sd4n8$imc$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 38 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.14 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938094202 209.8.153.14 (Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:43:22 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:43:22 EDT Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:52:14 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Isaac Kuo wrote: > > In article <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net>, > James Kuyper Jr. wrote: > > >The atheistic side, properly stated, is that there's insufficient > >relevant evidence to justify belief in any God. [...] > > To be perfectly fair, I think this is the "agnostic" position. > An atheist would go further and belive there definitely isn't > a God. By this definition, "atheism" actually doesn't enter > into this discussion, because Sagan was no atheist nor were > any arguments or counterarguments discussed in this thread > based on atheism. An atheist is someone who believes that there's no God. I am an atheist, because I believe that, in exactly the same sense that I believe that there is a Sun. In either case, there's room for doubt. In either case, I'm open in principle to relevant evidence. In either case, there's a wealth of supporting evidence for my current belief which justifies my skepticism while listening to the supposed evidence for the contrary belief. An agnostic is someone who's actually significantly in doubt about whether or not God exists. A purely technical doubt doesn't qualify, because any sane intelligent person has some technical degree of doubt about just about everything. > Anyway, is there any term for the belief that even if God exists, > that one shouldn't simply follow its commands or worship it just > because it is God? This belief is actually independent of one's > belief in the existence/nonexistence of God. I don't know of such a term. I'd like to know if there is, because it would describe my own beliefs. There are three separate assumptions made by the typical believer: "God exists", "God's will should be obeyed", and "This particular source reliably describes God's will". I disagree with each of those assumptions separately. ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 23 Sep 1999 11:59:36 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 22 Message-ID: <7sd4n8$imc$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!gatech!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net>, James Kuyper Jr. wrote: >The atheistic side, properly stated, is that there's insufficient >relevant evidence to justify belief in any God. [...] To be perfectly fair, I think this is the "agnostic" position. An atheist would go further and belive there definitely isn't a God. By this definition, "atheism" actually doesn't enter into this discussion, because Sagan was no atheist nor were any arguments or counterarguments discussed in this thread based on atheism. Anyway, is there any term for the belief that even if God exists, that one shouldn't simply follow its commands or worship it just because it is God? This belief is actually independent of one's belief in the existence/nonexistence of God. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### From: Johnathan George Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:30:13 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 84 Message-ID: <37EA7FC5.50CA53D9@mindspring.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.3e.3d Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 23 Sep 1999 19:32:09 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news.mindspring.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > Flame of the West wrote: > ... > > True, but no one claims that religious knowledge is testable in the > > scientific sense. That doesn't make it any less true; it's just truth > > I do. > > > of a different kind. Not all truth is scientific, because not all of reality > > is material. > > The scientific method contains no restriction to matter. It's defined > entirely in terms of theories and evidence; evidence can be spiritual as > easily as sensory. > > > Nor does science. If I say there's a God and you say there isn't, what > > *scientific* evidence can either of us produce to support our positions? > > Or if I say God is three Persons and a Jewish person disagrees, > > how will you settle that scientifically? > > Take the two ideas, make predictions based upon them, search for a case > where the predictions are different. Then try to create or search for > that case and see which one matches predictions. It really doesn't > matter whether the ideas are about the material world or the spiritual > one. I think it does matter. How do you predict what God will do in a certain situation? How do you tell if he actually did what you predicted? How do others independently verify the experiment? How do you make it repeatable? Doesn't mean that scietific evidence never has any bearing on what we believe about the spiritual world, but there are limits on what we can learn about the spiritual world through science. > ... > > Logically, he should also put an uncreated universe in the same > > category as a perpetual motion machine, in the absense of proof > > of the nonexistence of a Creator. > > I recognise plenty of evidence for a universe, and none sufficient to > justify belief in a creator. And I think the evidence is strong enough to justify belief in a creator... > That puts the concept of an uncreated > universe is a priveleged relationship compared with the concept of an > omnipotent benevolent Deity. Which came first the chicken or the egg? The evidence we have now suggests that the universe had a beginning, and will have an end (yes, I know there are theories that say otherwise, but they aren't very widely accepted). This in turn suggests that *something* outside the universe created it. > > ... > > It belongs on *both* sides. Or are you saying that the proponents > > of an uncreated universe get a free pass while those who believe > > in a created universe don't? > > No free pass - it's been paid for by centuries of very productive > scientific research. Well, actually science has produced no evidence that would disprove the existence of God, and has actually produced some evidence for God. (yes I know it depends on how you interpret the evidence) > > ... > > The only rational position in the absence of evidence is agnosticism. > > True. Luckily, there's no shortage of relevant evidence. True, but there is a great shortage of proof, and the evidence is scarce enough that it can be interpreted in many different ways that lead to very different conlusions. I may be wrong about the conclusion I've come to, but I really don't think I'm just clinging to my opinions because they're so comforting to me. Johnathan George ###### From: james_pauwels@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:34:02 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Lines: 47 Message-ID: <7sdh99$adm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <7s6732$48d$1@diana.bcn.ttd.net> <37E7A3D9.BE43A6CF@mindspring.com> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.124.150.253 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Sep 23 15:34:02 1999 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x23.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 207.124.150.253 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjames_pauwels Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!newsfeed.enteract.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail In article , mark@pc-intouch.com wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 04:08:51 GMT, Prembone wrote: > > >Here is one area where theists and nontheists of good will can find > >agreement: humanistic ideals. To do good out of a desire to make the > >world a better place for all people, to genuinely care about the well > >being of ourselves and our fellow humans, not to mention our planet, > >is something that transcends all our metaphysical speculations. And > > Amen. Let's never forget that, especially those of us who follow the one > who said "Love your neighbor as yourself...this sums up the Law and the > Prophets." At the risk of being the voice of dissent here: while I also heartily applaud the common ground achieved here, I do think that, to a large extent, it is sort of superficial. For example, I don't know that a Christian would agree that Prembone's list of good stuff quoted above (respect for others, respect for the environment, etc.) "transcends" metaphysical issues. To a Christian, the metaphysical stuff (does God exist, does He love us, etc.) is *more* important than concern for the environment; the environmental stuff is subsidiary (because it derives from) God's goodness. (I'm sorry if this sounds "preachy"; I'm not trying to proselyze, just trying to use a specific example to illustrate a point). The uncomfortable implication, of course, is that if believers somehow discern that God thinks it is *bad* to be respectful of other humans, then believers might behave accordingly. (In that case, perhaps other people would be saved from destruction only by humans'notable inability to faithfully follow the tenets of any major religion :-)). I guess the point is, we all try to respect others, but for entirely different reasons, and we shouldn't take too much comfort in this seeming agreement, because it could easily become an area of disagreement and conflict (as indeed we see in real life all the time). Jim Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. ###### From: Johnathan George Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:43:47 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 23 Message-ID: <37EA82F2.B6419ECE@mindspring.com> References: <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <19990923005328.21292.00000997@ng-ci1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.3e.3d Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 23 Sep 1999 19:45:37 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Kingasaurus wrote: > > Oh? Now people who don't find sufficient evidence for god are proponents of an > uncreated universe? People are being completely intellectually honest when they > say that they don't know the cause of the universe (if there is one),but the > answer called "god' is unsatisfying in its explanatory power. It seems to me that (at least part of) the problem is that it is actually possible to be completely intellectually honest and to come to either conclusion. I think the weight of the evidence supports my belief in God. You obviously don't think it does. That doesn't mean either of us is dishonest in our approach to this question. The theists felt that Sagan was in essence calling them intellectualy dishonest for clinging to delusions because they were comforting. Now maybe that's not what he meant, but that's how it felt reading the quote. Now it looks like some of the athiests feel like they've been called intellectually dishonest. Johnathan George ###### From: james_pauwels@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:06:35 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Lines: 57 Message-ID: <7sdj60$c47$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.124.150.253 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Sep 23 16:06:35 1999 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 207.124.150.253 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjames_pauwels Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!news0.de.colt.net!blackbush.xlink.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.enteract.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail In article <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com>, jsolinas@erols.com wrote: > Kingasaurus wrote: > > > At least the scientific > > way of "knowing" is subject to scrutiny, and if the evidence doesn't support > > something it is discarded. The religious approach to "knowing" doesn't look > > anything like that, and there is absolutely no way of testing whether the > > religious method of discovery is reliable or not. > > True, but no one claims that religious knowledge is testable in the > scientific sense. That doesn't make it any less true; it's just truth > of a different kind. Not all truth is scientific, because not all of reality > is material. I agree with your intuition here that the realm of religion and the realm of scientific inquiry don't completely overlap. I don't think the border between those realms is fixed. I would nuance your statement a bit: I think we can say that there are some religious beliefs that the scientific method hasn't been able to test *so far*. Science (as well as related disciplines such as textual and historical criticism) have addressed questions that nobody would have dreamed, in previous generations, could ever be proven or disproven in a scientific sense. > > ---Notice how he puts the burden of proof on the theistic side.--- > > > > I'm sorry, but it belongs there. > It belongs on *both* sides. Or are you saying that the proponents > of an uncreated universe get a free pass while those who believe > in a created universe don't? Perhaps talk of "sides" and "burden of proof" brings us out of the study and into the courtroom, which I am not sure is the most fruitful venue for discussions like this. Let me suggest this: my reading of the Sagan quotes suggests he held an underlying assumption that only scientifically-verifiable truth claims need be accepted. Religious believers don't place themselves under that constraint, at least when trying to address metaphysical questions. I don't know how to resolve the question of which methodology is superior for discerning metaphysical truth. As I've stated already, I believe Tolkien was quite comfortable with subjective, cultural-tradition truth claims. That comes through ringingly in LotR. I think that is an important part of the tale's appeal. Jim Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. ###### From: james_pauwels@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 19:17:40 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Lines: 60 Message-ID: <7sduc6$l3l$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <19990923005328.21292.00000997@ng-ci1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.124.150.253 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Sep 23 19:17:40 1999 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 207.124.150.253 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjames_pauwels Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!newsfeed.icl.net!iol.ie!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail In article <19990923005328.21292.00000997@ng-ci1.aol.com>, jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) wrote: > --True, but no one claims that religious knowledge is testable in the > scientific sense. --- > > I do. It definitely is in principle. I agree. > Logically, YOU should be intellectually honest by saying "I don't know" when > asked where the universe came from, instead of claiming that a "god" made it. > Do you do that? The question wasn't addressed to me, but I'll answer - No, I don't do that. I know God created the universe. Do I know that through the scientific method? No. Are you (or is anyone) able to replicate my discovery process? Very possibly, but not definitely, because it involves an element of subjectivity that is greater than the scientific method permits. > --The only rational position in the absence of evidence is agnosticism. > It would be illogical to assume either a created or uncreated universe.--- > > Yet you assume a created universe, don't you? "Assume" is the key word here. Believing that the universe is created is not the same as assuming it is created. It is possible to doubt that the universe is created, and then through investigation reach the conclusion that it is. > I challenge you to straddle the fence on the existence of leprechauns, and > refuse to have an opinion on the subject until either the leprechaun- believers > give you rock-solid proof in favor, or the leprechaun-skeptics give you > rock-solid DISproof. How long would you stay on that fence? Leaning a bit, are > we? > > Does this scenario sound reasonable to you? Replace the word "god" in your > arguments with any other unproven concept, and see if your arguments still make > sense. Why not substitute "inter-species evolution" for "leprechaun"? (For the record: I am not a "creationist", and I think "creation science" is neither good religion nor good science). Jim Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 20:46:08 -0400 Message-ID: <37EAC9C8.58042B37@erols.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <7s6732$48d$1@diana.bcn.ttd.net> <37E7A3D9.BE43A6CF@mindspring.com> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: 261lOvRwqIwXvfFGD9d+RcmdaO9eDfyyhIlY+X3psDU= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Sep 1999 01:44:07 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Lines: 18 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!newsfeed.icl.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!europa.netcrusader.net!207.172.3.37!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > The atheistic side, properly stated, is that there's insufficient > relevant evidence to justify belief in any God. That sounds like agnosticism to me. If that's how you define atheism, how do you define agnosticism? -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 21:06:48 -0400 Lines: 53 Message-ID: <37EACE9E.234A341C@erols.com> References: <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <19990923005328.21292.00000997@ng-ci1.aol.com> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: 261lOvRwqIx7MSJt5D0v3u6kkqpiW1z/gQ2VYPv0SKI= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Sep 1999 01:44:09 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed.enteract.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Kingasaurus wrote: > > Logically, he should also put an uncreated universe in the same > > category as a perpetual motion machine, in the absense of proof > > of the nonexistence of a Creator. > > Logically, YOU should be intellectually honest by saying "I don't know" > when asked where the universe came from, instead of claiming that > a "god" made it. Do you do that? No, because I *do* know where it came from. God has revealed His existence to me. I may not be able to convince you of that, but I sincerely believe it and so I am not guilty of intellectual dishonesty. > The burden BELONGS on the claimant, not the skeptic. It ALWAYS works that > way, no matter what's being debated. That's part of the scientific method. Certainly, whether the claim is of a Creator or of an uncreated universe. > Oh? Now people who don't find sufficient evidence for god are proponents of an > uncreated universe? People are being completely intellectually honest when they > say that they don't know the cause of the universe (if there is one),but the > answer called "god' is unsatisfying in its explanatory power. This is agnosticism, which I can respect intellectually. To embrace atheism is to believe that the universe is uncreated. > > The only rational position in the absence of evidence is agnosticism. > > It would be illogical to assume either a created or uncreated universe.--- > > Yet you assume a created universe, don't you? Yes, but I never claimed that there was no evidence. > I challenge you to straddle the fence on the existence of leprechauns, and > refuse to have an opinion on the subject until either the leprechaun-believers > give you rock-solid proof in favor, or the leprechaun-skeptics give you > rock-solid DISproof. How long would you stay on that fence? Leaning a bit, are > we? Do you feel the same way toward perpetual-motion machines? -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 21:11:26 -0400 Lines: 21 Message-ID: <37EACFB4.F1B9F1EB@erols.com> References: <37E8E2AD.EEA4B955@erols.com> <15066-37E9BD30-100@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: 261lOvRwqIyfeKdNNZOlhFbgqjLctYv918dWcZKKznE= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Sep 1999 01:44:13 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!unlisys!news.snafu.de!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed.enteract.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail David Sulger wrote: > > Perhaps you'd rather discuss Balrog wings ? > > Hell no! I'm vehemently opposed to seeing that debate revive (yet) > again. I will never for the life of me understand how people can waste so much time on such a boring and trivial subject. -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 21:13:35 -0400 Lines: 18 Message-ID: <37EAD035.97C46CE6@erols.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net> <7sd4n8$imc$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: 261lOvRwqIwB9FSyUx39sWW9imcWh4tn5LXdwvHQTto= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Sep 1999 01:44:14 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!isdnet!netnews.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Isaac Kuo wrote: > Anyway, is there any term for the belief that even if God exists, > that one shouldn't simply follow its commands or worship it just > because it is God? Yeah, it's called suicidal stupidity. -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 21:25:06 -0400 Lines: 31 Message-ID: <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: 261lOvRwqIzG2Gs1Dx9YXE5j/h2dOef1I2uleiK5t64= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Sep 1999 01:44:18 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!isdnet!netnews.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > are you saying that the proponents > > of an uncreated universe get a free pass while those who believe > > in a created universe don't? > > No free pass - it's been paid for by centuries of very productive > scientific research. One of the major modern advances in cosmology is the discovery of the Big Bang, which implies that the universe had a temporal beginning. This points more in the direction of a created universe than an eternal uncreated one. > > The only rational position in the absence of evidence is agnosticism. > > True. Luckily, there's no shortage of relevant evidence. In which direction? Could you mention some evidence that you consider valid? -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 23 Sep 1999 22:23:45 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 72 Message-ID: <7se99h$tus$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net> <7sd4n8$imc$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EA308E.7BCCA8F@wizard.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!gatech!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <37EA308E.7BCCA8F@wizard.net>, James Kuyper Jr. wrote: >Isaac Kuo wrote: >> >The atheistic side, properly stated, is that there's insufficient >> >relevant evidence to justify belief in any God. [...] >> To be perfectly fair, I think this is the "agnostic" position. >> An atheist would go further and belive there definitely isn't >> a God. By this definition, "atheism" actually doesn't enter >> into this discussion, because Sagan was no atheist nor were >> any arguments or counterarguments discussed in this thread >> based on atheism. >An atheist is someone who believes that there's no God. I am an atheist, >because I believe that, in exactly the same sense that I believe that >there is a Sun. In either case, there's room for doubt. In either case, >I'm open in principle to relevant evidence. In either case, there's a >wealth of supporting evidence for my current belief which justifies my >skepticism while listening to the supposed evidence for the contrary >belief. >An agnostic is someone who's actually significantly in doubt about >whether or not God exists. A purely technical doubt doesn't qualify, >because any sane intelligent person has some technical degree of doubt >about just about everything. I suppose by your definition I'm an athiest, but I don't agree with that definition. I see where you're coming from, but I prefer the harsher definition. In my part of the world, most theists are Christians who believe that the most important thing that makes their faith valid is that it is faith beyond doubt--absolute unquestionning faith. The less questionning the better! If the truth conflicts with your faith, then the truth is wrong! In other words, I'm used to theists being sure there is a God beyond even a purely technical doubt--and that furthermore those theists think that someone who has even that doubt isn't really a believer. I thus define a theist as one who is SURE that God exists. Therefore, for symmetry's sake, I define an atheist as one who is SURE that God does not exist. Furthermore, it is IMO possible for a sane intelligent person to be sure that God does not exist beyond even a technical degree of doubt. Most importantly, a sane intelligent person might not be familiar with the basics of scientific principles (most people aren't). Also, for whatever reasons people around here are just so indoctrinated in the local varieties of Christianity that they can't fathom the possibility of a God _unlike_ the one they've been taught about since birth. Thus, in their minds either there's a "good" God or none at all. A sane intelligent person in this environment who has sufferred incredible tragedies might thus come to the conclusion that there definitely is no God. Is it his fault that he's never been taught even the basics of scientific principles or the subtleties of logic? (I won't get into the quality of education here.) Does it make him less sane or rational? In a lame attempt to make this post vaguely on-topic, I note that Turin could have come to such a conclusion. Okay, okay, that was really lame. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 23 Sep 1999 22:44:03 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 48 Message-ID: <7seafj$1hg6$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <19990923005328.21292.00000997@ng-ci1.aol.com> <37EA82F2.B6419ECE@mindspring.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!gatech!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <37EA82F2.B6419ECE@mindspring.com>, Johnathan George wrote: >It seems to me that (at least part of) the problem is that it is >actually possible to be completely intellectually honest and to come to >either conclusion. I think the weight of the evidence supports my >belief in God. You obviously don't think it does. That doesn't mean >either of us is dishonest in our approach to this question. >The theists felt that Sagan was in essence calling them intellectualy >dishonest for clinging to delusions because they were comforting. Now >maybe that's not what he meant, but that's how it felt reading the >quote. Now it looks like some of the athiests feel like they've been >called intellectually dishonest. I assume you're referring to the "wishful thinking" quote? I'm not sure how this topic got into whether or not the Universe was created or if there is a God, but the so called condescending quote basically said that while Sagan would like to believe in an afterlife, he saw nothing at all to suggest that it was anything more than his own wishful thinking. Here's the quote again: "I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking." Now, at least one theist in this thread took this quote to be condescending to theists, but I still don't see it. First off, he's only talking about what HE knows and he is talking about HIS OWN wishful thinking. He is NOT calling anyone else's belief in an afterlife "wishful thinking". Secondly, belief in an afterlife is what's being addressed, NOT belief in God. You can believe in an afterlife without believing in God and vice versa. If Sagan's quote is an attack in any way, it's an attack on the existence of an afterlife, not the existence of God. I suggest everyone brush up on their Balrog wing honed skills at reading minute word details... (...rather than getting involved in an intellectual discussion, of course!) -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 23 Sep 1999 23:09:22 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 63 Message-ID: <7sebv2$1lpm$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> <7sdh99$adm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!gatech!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <7sdh99$adm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, wrote: >At the risk of being the voice of dissent here: while I also heartily >applaud the common ground achieved here, I do think that, to a large >extent, it is sort of superficial. >For example, I don't know that a Christian would agree that Prembone's >list of good stuff quoted above (respect for others, respect for the >environment, etc.) "transcends" metaphysical issues. To a Christian, >the metaphysical stuff (does God exist, does He love us, etc.) is >*more* important than concern for the environment; the environmental >stuff is subsidiary (because it derives from) God's goodness. (I'm >sorry if this sounds "preachy"; I'm not trying to proselyze, just >trying to use a specific example to illustrate a point). Yes, this is true. It's sort of a strange double-think, to me. The Christians around here believe you should do what God tells you because God is absolutely good. But what is their definition of "good"? Supposedly, it's just obvious. In practice, "good" is really defined by what God says is "good". According to these beliefs, it obviously isn't defined by what mere humans think is "good", no matter how many agree about it (this is one basic humanistic concept, of course). But at the same time, they'll argue vehemently that they are NOT doing what God tells them just _because_ it's God that tells them. But if he's the only possible arbiter of "good" and "evil" that they accept--not even themselves--then what point is there in saying that God is to be obeyed because God is GOOD? >The uncomfortable implication, of course, is that if believers somehow >discern that God thinks it is *bad* to be respectful of other humans, >then believers might behave accordingly. (In that case, perhaps other >people would be saved from destruction only by humans'notable inability >to faithfully follow the tenets of any major religion :-)). Well, things might be a little more clear cut if God actually told us what to do in person. In practice, no matter how much Christians claim to be obeying God, a lot of them accept mere people as bringing them the word of God. >I guess the point is, we all try to respect others, but for entirely >different reasons, and we shouldn't take too much comfort in this >seeming agreement, because it could easily become an area of >disagreement and conflict (as indeed we see in real life all the time). As we all know, there have been plenty of times in history when religion has at the very least been used as an excuse to be very nasty to others. As far as the "we all try to respect others" assertion goes--I don't agree with it. I know plenty of people who don't try, and this certainly includes Christians (actually, all the athiests/agnostics I know try, but I don't know very many). Some of them are downright nasty to other factions of Christians, to the point of assuring their congregations that every last one of those others are going straight to hell. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### Message-ID: <37EB049D.85CD3CC6@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EA7FC5.50CA53D9@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 76 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.38 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938148488 209.8.153.38 (Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:48:08 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:48:08 EDT Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:57:01 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!newsfeed00.btx.dtag.de!newsfeed01.btx.dtag.de!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed.enteract.com!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Johnathan George wrote: > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: ... > > Take the two ideas, make predictions based upon them, search for a case > > where the predictions are different. Then try to create or search for > > that case and see which one matches predictions. It really doesn't > > matter whether the ideas are about the material world or the spiritual > > one. > > I think it does matter. How do you predict what God will do in a > certain situation? How do you tell if he actually did what you > predicted? How do others independently verify the experiment? How do > you make it repeatable? In order: the same way you predict what any other thinking being will do - you make a model of his thinking process and his motivations, and apply it. It will necessarily be an imperfect one, even more so that current models of human thought, but that doesn't make it pointless. If you can't tell what God did, why would you care whether He did it? If He has no effects, there's not much point in believing in Him. If He does have effects, you can learn about Him by studying them, the same way you can learn about me through my effects on the world. What special problems does the spiritual world place on independent verification of experiments? It's hard enough in the material world, where the very existence of anyone capable of verifying your experiments is itself just another unprovable theory (with a lot of supporting evidence). Does the spiritual world somehow prevent communication with other souls? Lots of things are not perfectly repeatable; just try to repeat the eruption of Mount Saint Helens! The best you can do is wait for or force a new eruption, with different characteristics from the first one. There's no particular reason why individual experiments in divine science couldn't be fairly repeatable. For instance, if you make a prediction about the healing power of prayer, repeating the prayer is no particular problem. > Doesn't mean that scietific evidence never has any bearing on what we > believe about the spiritual world, but there are limits on what we can > learn about the spiritual world through science. State them, please. > > That puts the concept of an uncreated > > universe is a priveleged relationship compared with the concept of an > > omnipotent benevolent Deity. > > Which came first the chicken or the egg? The evidence we have now > suggests that the universe had a beginning, and will have an end (yes, I > know there are theories that say otherwise, but they aren't very widely > accepted). This in turn suggests that *something* outside the universe > created it. Not necessarily. Religious people have no trouble with the idea of a Creator who is an "uncaused cause", why can't the universe as a whole be the "uncaused cause" instead? Modern quantum mechanics converts causality into something that's nearly unrecognizable. The early universe depicted by modern cosmology is much simpler and much smaller than the God of Christianity; that makes it a lot more attractive to me as the "uncaused cause". God supposedly has a personality, will, intelligence, etc.; by every model I understand, such complicated behavior implies a complicated entity made up of many smaller interacting parts - not a good candidate for an "uncaused cause". Cosmology derives the high complexity of the later universe from the simplicity of the early universe, as a simple, natural consequence of the principles of thermodynamics. > > ... > > > The only rational position in the absence of evidence is agnosticism. > > > > True. Luckily, there's no shortage of relevant evidence. > > True, but there is a great shortage of proof, and the evidence is scarce Proof's not possible for any useful statement about reality, so I stopped treating it's absence as a defect a long time ago. ###### Message-ID: <37EB0776.622B9906@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 20 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.38 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938149215 209.8.153.38 (Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:00:15 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:00:15 EDT Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:09:10 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeed.direct.ca!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: ... > > > The only rational position in the absence of evidence is agnosticism. > > > > True. Luckily, there's no shortage of relevant evidence. > > In which direction? Could you mention some evidence that you consider > valid? Every theory that fits the available data with an explanation in terms of purely local mechanistic or random processes. All such theories reduce the need to postulate a being who's active intevention on behalf of a divine plan is needed to make the universe work, and as such are evidence against such an explanation. I count all of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and most of the other sciences as such evidence. Biology, in particular, is rapidly removing the main remaining areas of supposedly divine intervention, creation "science" arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. ###### Message-ID: <37EB09F1.A98B28D3@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net> <7sd4n8$imc$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EA308E.7BCCA8F@wizard.net> <7se99h$tus$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.38 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938149853 209.8.153.38 (Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:10:53 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:10:53 EDT Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:19:45 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!outfeed1.news.cais.net!nntp.abs.net!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Isaac Kuo wrote: ... > In my part of the world, most theists are Christians who believe > that the most important thing that makes their faith valid is > that it is faith beyond doubt--absolute unquestionning faith. > The less questionning the better! If the truth conflicts with > your faith, then the truth is wrong! I guess I've met a better class of believers than you have. Many of those I've talked with have significant doubts, and freely admit it. I think the facade of absolute certainty is adopted by precisely those people who find their own inner uncertainty too frightening to admit, even to themselves. Their belief is rigid but brittle. The ones I'm talking about are much nicer people, and their belief is more durable, precisely because it's more adaptable. ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 24 Sep 1999 04:59:55 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 27 Message-ID: <7sf0gb$1jla$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net> <7sd4n8$imc$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EAD035.97C46CE6@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!HSNX.callatg.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!gatech!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <37EAD035.97C46CE6@erols.com>, Flame of the West wrote: >Isaac Kuo wrote: >> Anyway, is there any term for the belief that even if God exists, >> that one shouldn't simply follow its commands or worship it just >> because it is God? >Yeah, it's called suicidal stupidity. No, that might be an accurate assessment for the situation, but it is not a term for the belief in question. As an analogy--it may be accurate to call an Iraqi who openly defies Saddam Hussein suicidally stupid. However, this is not a term for his political view that Saddam Hussein shouldn't be dictator (e.g. because he beleives in Western style democracy). Note that just because this hypothetical Iraqi political activist is certainly essentially suicidal, that doesn't necessarily make his actions stupid. He may consider his almost certain sacrifice a reasonable price for the chance to affect others. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 24 Sep 1999 05:11:42 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 42 Message-ID: <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!newsfeed.tli.de!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!gatech!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com>, Flame of the West wrote: >"James Kuyper Jr." wrote: >> > are you saying that the proponents >> > of an uncreated universe get a free pass while those who believe >> > in a created universe don't? >> No free pass - it's been paid for by centuries of very productive >> scientific research. >One of the major modern advances in cosmology is the discovery of >the Big Bang, which implies that the universe had a temporal beginning. >This points more in the direction of a created universe than an >eternal uncreated one. And an even more major modern advance in cosmology is that the Big Bang didn't even have a defineable beginning--that instead asking for the place or time of the "beginning" is like asking where the first point of a sphere is. (The question is basically meaningless.) Either way, it doesn't really say much about whether or not the universe was created. An all powerful being could just as easily create an eternal universe as a limitted universe. Conversely, the existence of an uncreated eternal universe would be equally mysterious as the existence of an uncreated limitted universe. (In my own view neither possibility is mysterious at all. If you come from the perspective of looking at all the things in the world which we know could happen by chance or without an external agent, it doesn't look so mysterious. If you come from the perspective of just looking at the things which other people have made purposefully--which just isn't a whole lot compared to all the other stuff in the universe--then it's pretty mysterious either way.) -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### From: jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 101 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 24 Sep 1999 05:26:36 GMT References: <37EACE9E.234A341C@erols.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990924012636.22862.00001253@ng-cf1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!newsfeed.icl.net!oleane!portc04.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail > Logically, YOU should be intellectually honest by saying "I don't know" > when asked where the universe came from, instead of claiming that > a "god" made it. Do you do that? --No, because I *do* know where it came from. God has revealed His existence to me. I may not be able to convince you of that, but I sincerely believe it and so I am not guilty of intellectual dishonesty.--- I see. So what exactly do we do when two different people have "sincere" metaphysical beliefs (usually through some kind of experience where they claim to have had some kind of "contact" with the supernatural) which are mutually contradictory? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's you and your next-door neighbor. Do we simply shrug our shoulders and say "to each his own"? Or do we force ourselves to come to the eminently rational conclusion that at least one of you (and perhaps both of you) must be mistaken? > The burden BELONGS on the claimant, not the skeptic. It ALWAYS works that > way, no matter what's being debated. That's part of the scientific method. --Certainly, whether the claim is of a Creator or of an uncreated universe.--- Show me one instance where Sagan claimed the universe was definitely uncreated. I guarantee you that his position resembled the following: "The origin of the universe is currently unknown, but the answer called "god" is a lousy answer for a multitude of reasons." If you wish to believe something on faith alone, that's certainly your right and your business. But there isn't a single "pro-god" logical argument which isn't flawed in some manner. > Oh? Now people who don't find sufficient evidence for god are proponents of an > uncreated universe? People are being completely intellectually honest when they > say that they don't know the cause of the universe (if there is one),but the > answer called "god' is unsatisfying in its explanatory power. --This is agnosticism, which I can respect intellectually. To embrace atheism is to believe that the universe is uncreated.--- Again, Sagan described himself as agnostic. I am of the opinion that practically everybody that calls themselves an "atheist" is, in a technical sense, an agnostic. There are exceptions, of course, but another lengthy discussion about the differences and similarities of atheism and agnosticism would be another long exercise. We'll just have to agree to disagree about it, because I don't think we're starting from the same definitions. > Yet you assume a created universe, don't you? --Yes, but I never claimed that there was no evidence.--- No evidence for what? > I challenge you to straddle the fence on the existence of leprechauns, and > refuse to have an opinion on the subject until either the leprechaun-believers > give you rock-solid proof in favor, or the leprechaun-skeptics give you > rock-solid DISproof. How long would you stay on that fence? Leaning a bit, are > we? ---Do you feel the same way toward perpetual-motion machines?--- Of course I do. Perpetual-motion machines violate everything we know about how the laws of physics operate inside the universe. Therefore if someone claimed to have invented one, I would be VERY skeptical indeed. However, this statement says nothing about what the laws or conditions might be outside or beyond our universe, if indeed these words have any meaning in this context. I won't belabor the point, but i'll leave it this way: The Law of Nature which we call "cause-and-effect" is a definite property of our universe which we observe every day. But that is no guarantee that the universe, as a whole, requires some kind of "cause" outside of itself. We have no right to assume that what we call "cause-and-effect" automatically operates outside or beyond the confines of the known universe. It's sort of like saying that because gravity exists everywhere inside our universe, that gravity must also exist beyond the universe. That's unnecessarily jumping the gun. Therefore, the universe as a whole may or may not have a "cause" outside of itself. But there is absolutely no reason to presume that the universe MUST have a cause outside of itself. That's one of the flaws with the "First Cause" argument you've been trying to prop up for a couple of days. It's also why your "created universe vs. uncreated universe" is a false dichotomy. Just because the universe apparently had a "beginning" in time does not mean that the universe was planned and constructed by some advanced creative entity with far-reaching powers and abilities. That's an intellectual leap which is totally unwarranted based on what we know. -King " I know what fakery looks like" -James Randi ###### From: spamblock@see.sig (Mark Myers) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:25:22 +0100 Organization: INSnet Customer Posting Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: e0.gateway-1.route.netforce.net X-Trace: starburst.uk.insnet.net 938175922 23719 195.58.64.67 (24 Sep 1999 12:25:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@starburst.uk.insnet.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Sep 1999 12:25:22 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!easynet-tele!easynet.net!insnet.net!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote ... > Kingasaurus wrote: > > > ---Notice how he puts the burden of proof on the theistic side.--- > > > > I'm sorry, but it belongs there. > > It belongs on *both* sides. Or are you saying that the proponents > of an uncreated universe get a free pass while those who believe > in a created universe don't? > Appologies for butting in, but my servers been dead for a few days. May I say it's a pleasure to read such an enlightened and civil discussion. I think that the burden of proof resides with creationists. The reason for this is that I believe that the simplest possible solution is most likely, and is the one I will go with every time until I have reason to believe otherwise. When I perceive the universe, it seems most likely to me that it **just is**, and no further explanation seems necessary. This is of course in part a subjective response, but perhaps I can illustrate why it appears to me as a completely simple and obvious explanation with an analogy: Consider an apple lying on the ground under an apple tree (the apple is the universe). It could have been put there by someone, or it could be there by chance, simply because it happened to fall off of the tree. The mechanism by which an apple falls from a tree is understood, and my natural assumption, upon seeing the apple on the ground, is that it fell. It is possible that I am wrong, but I make a value judgement of probability, to the extent that I am completely comfortable with the belief. If someone were to say to me that Farmer Giles had deliberately placed the apple on the ground, I would feel completely justified in asking them to prove it (especially if this information held great metaphysical significance). -- Regards Mark Myers jahdzia at iname dot com ###### From: Johnathan George Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:45:18 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 30 Message-ID: <37EBB8AD.87FD5CD9@mindspring.com> References: <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <19990923005328.21292.00000997@ng-ci1.aol.com> <37EA82F2.B6419ECE@mindspring.com> <7seafj$1hg6$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.3e.05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 24 Sep 1999 17:46:48 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newshub.northeast.verio.net!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news.mindspring.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Isaac Kuo wrote: > > In article <37EA82F2.B6419ECE@mindspring.com>, > Johnathan George wrote: > > >It seems to me that (at least part of) the problem is that it is > >actually possible to be completely intellectually honest and to come to > >either conclusion. I think the weight of the evidence supports my > >belief in God. You obviously don't think it does. That doesn't mean > >either of us is dishonest in our approach to this question. > > >The theists felt that Sagan was in essence calling them intellectualy > >dishonest for clinging to delusions because they were comforting. Now > >maybe that's not what he meant, but that's how it felt reading the > >quote. Now it looks like some of the athiests feel like they've been > >called intellectually dishonest. > > I assume you're referring to the "wishful thinking" quote? Actually no, I was refering to the other Sagan quote that's been floating around throughout this thread. I admitted that he may not have been calling theists dishonest, but I said it felt like he was. I really wasn't trying to argue about whether Sagan was being condescending or not. I was mainly trying to point out that it's pretty easy to end up feeling like you're being called dishonest for your conclusions, when in fact you're being as honest as you can. Johnathan George ###### From: Johnathan George Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:09:47 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 74 Message-ID: <37EBBE6A.9EB8AC57@mindspring.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EA7FC5.50CA53D9@mindspring.com> <37EB049D.85CD3CC6@wizard.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.3e.05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 24 Sep 1999 18:11:27 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!bignews.mediaways.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > Johnathan George wrote: > > > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > Doesn't mean that scietific evidence never has any bearing on what we > > believe about the spiritual world, but there are limits on what we can > > learn about the spiritual world through science. > > State them, please. > Well, it seems to me that when science discovers an anomaly.. something that doesn't fit with what we currently know about the universe, it immediately starts searching for a new natural law or principle to explain it. It doesn't just say "well a miracle must have just occurred". In fact science can't really say that and actually learn anything. Even if a miracle did occur and was observed by science, it would be assumed to be a fluke or a mistake by the scientist because it would be unrepeatable. (Unless you can devise an experiment that forces God to act in the same precise manner every time you repeat it.) I think it is possible to learn about God through personal experience. Since that isn't verifiable, you or anyone else are free to say that what I believe to be an experience with God is just an interesting psychological phenomenon, but that doesn't mean you're right. I just means that (unlike scientific knowledge) you can't verify it. Maybe part of the disagreement here comes from our concepts of what the supernatural is. I believe it to be a higher reality that can reveal itself or hide itself from us at will. If that's the case I don't see how we can learn anything about it scientifically except for what it chooses to let us learn. Johnathan George > > > That puts the concept of an uncreated > > > universe is a priveleged relationship compared with the concept of an > > > omnipotent benevolent Deity. > > > > Which came first the chicken or the egg? The evidence we have now > > suggests that the universe had a beginning, and will have an end (yes, I > > know there are theories that say otherwise, but they aren't very widely > > accepted). This in turn suggests that *something* outside the universe > > created it. > > Not necessarily. Religious people have no trouble with the idea of a > Creator who is an "uncaused cause", why can't the universe as a whole be > the "uncaused cause" instead? Modern quantum mechanics converts > causality into something that's nearly unrecognizable. The early > universe depicted by modern cosmology is much simpler and much smaller > than the God of Christianity; that makes it a lot more attractive to me > as the "uncaused cause". God supposedly has a personality, will, > intelligence, etc.; by every model I understand, such complicated > behavior implies a complicated entity made up of many smaller > interacting parts - not a good candidate for an "uncaused cause". > Cosmology derives the high complexity of the later universe from the > simplicity of the early universe, as a simple, natural consequence of > the principles of thermodynamics. > > > > ... > > > > The only rational position in the absence of evidence is agnosticism. > > > > > > True. Luckily, there's no shortage of relevant evidence. > > > > True, but there is a great shortage of proof, and the evidence is scarce > > Proof's not possible for any useful statement about reality, so I > stopped treating it's absence as a defect a long time ago. ###### From: Johnathan George Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:29:44 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 45 Message-ID: <37EBC318.CA7D93B@mindspring.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> <7sdh99$adm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7sebv2$1lpm$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.3e.05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 24 Sep 1999 18:31:24 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!isdnet!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news.mindspring.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Isaac Kuo wrote: > > In article <7sdh99$adm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, wrote: > > >At the risk of being the voice of dissent here: while I also heartily > >applaud the common ground achieved here, I do think that, to a large > >extent, it is sort of superficial. > > >For example, I don't know that a Christian would agree that Prembone's > >list of good stuff quoted above (respect for others, respect for the > >environment, etc.) "transcends" metaphysical issues. To a Christian, > >the metaphysical stuff (does God exist, does He love us, etc.) is > >*more* important than concern for the environment; the environmental > >stuff is subsidiary (because it derives from) God's goodness. (I'm > >sorry if this sounds "preachy"; I'm not trying to proselyze, just > >trying to use a specific example to illustrate a point). > > Yes, this is true. It's sort of a strange double-think, to me. > The Christians around here believe you should do what God tells > you because God is absolutely good. But what is their > definition of "good"? Supposedly, it's just obvious. In > practice, "good" is really defined by what God says is "good". > According to these beliefs, it obviously isn't defined by > what mere humans think is "good", no matter how many agree > about it (this is one basic humanistic concept, of course). > > But at the same time, they'll argue vehemently that they are > NOT doing what God tells them just _because_ it's God that > tells them. But if he's the only possible arbiter of "good" > and "evil" that they accept--not even themselves--then what > point is there in saying that God is to be obeyed because > God is GOOD? Well, not all Christians believe that God is who defines what is good. Tolkien's friend C.S. Lewis said that God could not be God unless he was completely good. I personally think that good is an absolute principle to which God conforms. Christians may believe that there are things that aren't obviously bad, but that we shouldn't do since God said we shouldn't. We trust His knowledge and wisdom on the subject. Johnathan George ###### From: jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 52 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 24 Sep 1999 14:41:46 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990924104146.16240.00001567@ng-fw1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.axxsys.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.compuserve.com!news-master.compuserve.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail << Consider an apple lying on the ground under an apple tree (the apple is the universe). It could have been put there by someone, or it could be there by chance, simply because it happened to fall off of the tree. The mechanism by which an apple falls from a tree is understood, and my natural assumption, upon seeing the apple on the ground, is that it fell. It is possible that I am wrong, but I make a value judgement of probability, to the extent that I am completely comfortable with the belief. >> Not to mention the fact that even if we were totally ignorant of the mechanism for falling apples, we still wouldn't be justified in assuming that the apple had been deliberately placed there by an intelligent being. Again, it's a completely unwarranted intellectual leap which raises more questions than it answers. <> Not to mention the fact that they would then have to come up with an explanation for the existence of Farmer Giles. Look at these two statements: 1. "The universe exists, and it is either eternal or it's origin is unknown." 2. "The universe exists, and it was created by some 'god' (who we don't have verifiable evidence for) who is either eternal or his origin is unknown." Statement 1 is totally logically defensible based on what we know today. Statement 2 adds an unnecessary unproven element which complicates the equation without good reason. An uncreated universe is no deeper a mystery than an uncreated god. People who claim they've solved the mystery of the origin of the universe by saying "god did it" haven't solved anything. They're right in the same boat where they started. What kind of rubs me the wrong way is that some theists claim to have "knowledge" that god exists based on some kind of subjective "religious experience", which convinces them but which they cannot share with others in a convincing fashion. Instead of being open to the possibility that their senses might have deceived them, or that their brain misinterpreted the origin of the experience, or the fact that others with the same kind of experience come to totally different religious conclusions, they would rather think that because of this incredibly personal, SUBJECTIVE experience (whose "correct" interpretation is highly questionable), they now know more about the origin of the universe than every physicist who ever lived. Pardon me if that seems a little much. -King " I know what fakery looks like" -James Randi ###### From: james_pauwels@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:49:41 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 119 Message-ID: <7sg6if$8it$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> <7sdh99$adm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7sebv2$1lpm$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.124.150.253 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Sep 24 15:49:41 1999 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 207.124.150.253 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjames_pauwels Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!news.ndh.net!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed.enteract.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail In article <7sebv2$1lpm$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu>, kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) wrote: > In article <7sdh99$adm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, wrote: > It's sort of a strange double-think, to me. > The Christians around here believe you should do what God tells > you because God is absolutely good. But what is their > definition of "good"? Supposedly, it's just obvious. In > practice, "good" is really defined by what God says is "good". > According to these beliefs, it obviously isn't defined by > what mere humans think is "good", no matter how many agree > about it (this is one basic humanistic concept, of course). > > But at the same time, they'll argue vehemently that they are > NOT doing what God tells them just _because_ it's God that > tells them. But if he's the only possible arbiter of "good" > and "evil" that they accept--not even themselves--then what > point is there in saying that God is to be obeyed because > God is GOOD? Hmm, I guess you're saying, How can we know that God is good unless we have an objective measure (outside of God) to determine what is good and what is bad? And a Christian would say, "God = good - he *is* that objective measure". It's sort of like saying "Hard is hard" I don't think I'm following your line of thought here (but, of course, this seems to lead us even further afield from things Tolkien, so if you don't wish to discuss it further, I completely understand). Are you saying that, as a practical matter, most believers obey God out of fear (a rather weighty religious word, that), rather than because He has persuaded them of His goodness? I think that, to a large measure, that's true (although not optimal). The concept of God as arbitrary hurler of thunderbolts seems to make a deep imprint on people's religious imagination. > > >The uncomfortable implication, of course, is that if believers somehow > >discern that God thinks it is *bad* to be respectful of other humans, > >then believers might behave accordingly. (In that case, perhaps other > >people would be saved from destruction only by humans'notable inability > >to faithfully follow the tenets of any major religion :-)). > > Well, things might be a little more clear cut if God actually > told us what to do in person. In practice, no matter how much > Christians claim to be obeying God, a lot of them accept > mere people as bringing them the word of God. I think that is true, for the vast majority of Christians. (As an aside, I would note that, while personal testimony does not meet a standard for rigorous scientific proof, it is considered acceptable in keeping the world running, for example in the law, in education, etc.). Most Christians don't claim to have had visions of God in a literal sense, but nearly all believe that he continues to be present in some ways (e.g. in the person of the Holy Spirit). So a Christian might state, with perfect sincerity, that God *does* tell her what to do. Again, though, I don't think the voice of the Holy Spirit has ever been captured with sound-recording equipment. It's all very subjective, and so unsatisfying and frustrating. > >I guess the point is, we all try to respect others, but for entirely > >different reasons, and we shouldn't take too much comfort in this > >seeming agreement, because it could easily become an area of > >disagreement and conflict (as indeed we see in real life all the time). > > As we all know, there have been plenty of times in history when > religion has at the very least been used as an excuse to be very > nasty to others. Absolutely. I for one have no desire to travel to Kosovo or East Timor to view it first-hand. > > As far as the "we all try to respect others" assertion goes--I > don't agree with it. I know plenty of people who don't try, > and this certainly includes Christians (actually, all the > athiests/agnostics I know try, but I don't know very many). > Some of them are downright nasty to other factions of Christians, > to the point of assuring their congregations that every last > one of those others are going straight to hell. You're right. By "we all", I was thinking of the folks in this thread (which, considering the tinderbox nature of the topics, has been remarkably civilized). . One of the striking things about the world of Middle-Earth is that the 2nd-born seem to be free of religious consideration in living their lives. I am using the word "religious" rather freely. I am suggesting that the First-born, who indeed *have* benefitted from direct intervention by the Valar, have a religious relationship to the Valar (and, by extension, with Illuvatar). In support of this, I would note that the cult of Elbereth is pretty overtly religious. Istm that one "job" of the Elves is to "get the word out" about the Valar and Illuvatar - i.e. to evangelize. I don't accuse the Elves of failing to evangelize; it seems clear that they tried to "awaken" creation in Middle-Earth. But apparently their evangelical efforts among the 2nd-born waned the further East one travelled in Middle- Earth. The Hobbit society seems to be sort of "post-Valar", in the sense that Western European and American society often seems to be "post-Christian": the old religion isn't overtly practiced much, if at all, but its moral teachings remain deeply embedded in the culture, even when Hobbits and Men aren't aware of it. Jim Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 16:52:32 -0400 Lines: 55 Message-ID: <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: bVzjvEVjURPO0XHX9qrr62KFiMElB2w0sVWR2Td6n6A= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Sep 1999 22:11:44 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Isaac Kuo wrote: > I>One of the major modern advances in cosmology is the discovery of > >the Big Bang, which implies that the universe had a temporal beginning. > >This points more in the direction of a created universe than an > >eternal uncreated one. > > And an even more major modern advance in cosmology is that > the Big Bang didn't even have a defineable beginning--that > instead asking for the place or time of the "beginning" is > like asking where the first point of a sphere is. (The > question is basically meaningless.) I'd phrase it differently. There's no specific place where the Big Bang happened, except to say that it happened *everywhere*. It did happen at a specific time; otherwise, the age of the universe would be infinite. > Either way, it doesn't really say much about whether or not > the universe was created. An all powerful being could just > as easily create an eternal universe as a limitted universe. > Conversely, the existence of an uncreated eternal universe > would be equally mysterious as the existence of an uncreated > limitted universe. One can picture God creating an eternal universe, but it's harder to imagine the Big Bang "just happening" without some cause. > (In my own view neither possibility is mysterious at all. > If you come from the perspective of looking at all the things > in the world which we know could happen by chance or without > an external agent, it doesn't look so mysterious. If you > come from the perspective of just looking at the things which > other people have made purposefully--which just isn't a whole > lot compared to all the other stuff in the universe--then > it's pretty mysterious either way.) It's misleading to extrapolate, as you do, from experiences inside the universe to questions of the existence and creation of the universe itself. As long as you discuss things in the universe, you always have the laws of science to point to (including quantum physics, which introduces an element of random chance). But those laws are part of the structure of the universe, so they can't cause the universe to happen. -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 16:56:51 -0400 Lines: 21 Message-ID: <37EBE58F.5F1CBDC4@erols.com> References: <19990924104146.16240.00001567@ng-fw1.aol.com> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: bVzjvEVjURNICdTjitjYZrs7xQliouEDpflLbKaGzxk= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Sep 1999 22:11:46 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Kingasaurus wrote: > What kind of rubs me the wrong way is that some theists claim to have > "knowledge" that god exists based on some kind of subjective "religious > experience", which convinces them but which they cannot share with others in a > convincing fashion. That's analogous to someone who is color-blind losing patience with people who love the color blue but who can't describe it to him. It's just the way it is. Some things are just beyond our ability to describe in words. -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 17 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 24 Sep 1999 17:32:03 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990924133203.24824.00001101@ng-ft1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail << What I don't understand is how this intensely personal religious experience (usually) leads to joining the *local* religious grouping, rather than to an investigation of all available religions. >> Because it's obvious that a person's culture influences how they interpret any religious experience they might have. "God spoke to me". or "I felt God's presence" usually means that the word "God" is well-definmed in the person's mind (because of the culture) before the experience ever takes place. That's why these experiences are inherently unreliable as a guide to the nature of reality. It's not automatically wrong, just unreliable because of the "spin" people put on them immediately, without even thinking about it. I guarantee that Tibetan Buddhists don't credit Jesus as the mover and shaker of any personal religious experience they might have. Hmmm.... -King " I know what fakery looks like" -James Randi ###### From: "Alatar" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:44:38 +0100 Organization: Customer of Planet Online Lines: 40 Message-ID: <7sgaju$s0s$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net> <7sd4n8$imc$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EAD035.97C46CE6@erols.com> <7sf0gb$1jla$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-105.slamdunk.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news5.svr.pol.co.uk 938192318 28700 62.136.207.105 (24 Sep 1999 16:58:38 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Sep 1999 16:58:38 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Isaac Kuo wrote in message <7sf0gb$1jla$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu>... >In article <37EAD035.97C46CE6@erols.com>, >Flame of the West wrote: >>Isaac Kuo wrote: > >>> Anyway, is there any term for the belief that even if God exists, >>> that one shouldn't simply follow its commands or worship it just >>> because it is God? > >>Yeah, it's called suicidal stupidity. > >No, that might be an accurate assessment for the situation, but it >is not a term for the belief in question. > >As an analogy--it may be accurate to call an Iraqi who openly defies >Saddam Hussein suicidally stupid. However, this is not a term >for his political view that Saddam Hussein shouldn't be dictator >(e.g. because he beleives in Western style democracy). > >Note that just because this hypothetical Iraqi political activist >is certainly essentially suicidal, that doesn't necessarily make >his actions stupid. He may consider his almost certain sacrifice >a reasonable price for the chance to affect others. Wow. I'm gonna have to try and get the idea of "religous activists trying to work against god" brought up in one of my religon lessons. That'll use up a good few hours. -- Alatar Protector of the secret glen of Morangie, where the drink of gold be made. Warning: Trying to read the Old Tesament and The Silmarrilion at the same time can cause confusion. (Trust me on this) Find that Tolkien site in The Cave of Lost Scrolls: http://www.invoke.freeserve.co.uk/alatar/lostscrolls.htm ###### From: spamblock@see.sig (Mark Myers) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:04:04 +0100 Organization: INSnet Customer Posting Message-ID: References: <19990924104146.16240.00001567@ng-fw1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: e0.gateway-1.route.netforce.net X-Trace: starburst.uk.insnet.net 938192644 12449 195.58.64.67 (24 Sep 1999 17:04:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@starburst.uk.insnet.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Sep 1999 17:04:04 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Lines: 25 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.bme.hu!news.iif.hu!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.tli.de!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!insnet.net!not-for-mail Kingasaurus wrote ... > ..snip.. > What kind of rubs me the wrong way is that some theists claim to have > "knowledge" that god exists based on some kind of subjective "religious > experience", which convinces them but which they cannot share with others in a > convincing fashion. > > Instead of being open to the possibility that their senses might have deceived > them, or that their brain misinterpreted the origin of the experience, or the > fact that others with the same kind of experience come to totally different > religious conclusions, they would rather think that because of this incredibly > personal, SUBJECTIVE experience (whose "correct" interpretation is highly > questionable), they now know more about the origin of the universe than every > physicist who ever lived. Pardon me if that seems a little much. > What I don't understand is how this intensely personal religious experience (usually) leads to joining the *local* religious grouping, rather than to an investigation of all available religions. -- Regards Mark Myers jahdzia at iname dot com ###### From: james_pauwels@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 20:33:08 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 38 Message-ID: <7sgn64$lpe$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.124.150.253 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Sep 24 20:33:08 1999 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 207.124.150.253 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjames_pauwels Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail In article , spamblock@see.sig (Mark Myers) wrote: > Flame of the West wrote ... > > Kingasaurus wrote: > > > > > ---Notice how he puts the burden of proof on the theistic side.--- > > > > > > I'm sorry, but it belongs there. > > > > It belongs on *both* sides. Or are you saying that the proponents > > of an uncreated universe get a free pass while those who believe > > in a created universe don't? > > > > Appologies for butting in, but my servers been dead for a few days. May I > say it's a pleasure to read such an enlightened and civil discussion. Indeed :-). > I think that the burden of proof resides with creationists. The question then immediately arises: what standards of admitting evidence are to be applied to the discussion. If the only evidence to be admitted is that which is scientifically verifiable, then most likely a "theist" will not be able to meet the standards of evidence. If more subjective standards (such as testimony) are acceptable, then the "theist" will gladly submit reams and reams of evidence. As a side note: I usually think of "creationists" in the context of a discussion of evolution. There are many believers in a God who do not subscribe to the "creationist" view of the creation of a species. Jim Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: james_pauwels@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 20:37:11 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 38 Message-ID: <7sgndm$lsa$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.124.150.253 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Sep 24 20:37:11 1999 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 207.124.150.253 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjames_pauwels Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newscore.ipf.de!newsfeed00.btx.dtag.de!newsfeed01.btx.dtag.de!newsfeed.tli.de!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail In article , spamblock@see.sig (Mark Myers) wrote: > Flame of the West wrote ... > > Kingasaurus wrote: > > > > > ---Notice how he puts the burden of proof on the theistic side.--- > > > > > > I'm sorry, but it belongs there. > > > > It belongs on *both* sides. Or are you saying that the proponents > > of an uncreated universe get a free pass while those who believe > > in a created universe don't? > > > > Appologies for butting in, but my servers been dead for a few days. May I > say it's a pleasure to read such an enlightened and civil discussion. Indeed :-). > I think that the burden of proof resides with creationists. The question then immediately arises: what standards of admitting evidence are to be applied to the discussion. If the only evidence to be admitted is that which is scientifically verifiable, then most likely a "theist" will not be able to meet the standards of evidence. If more subjective standards (such as testimony) are acceptable, then the "theist" will gladly submit reams and reams of evidence. As a side note: I usually think of "creationists" in the context of a discussion of evolution. There are many believers in a God who do not subscribe to the "creationist" view of the creation of a species. Jim Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### Message-ID: <37EC1FCB.6B592F5E@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EA7FC5.50CA53D9@mindspring.com> <37EB049D.85CD3CC6@wizard.net> <37EBBE6A.9EB8AC57@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 57 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.29 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938220973 209.8.153.29 (Fri, 24 Sep 1999 20:56:13 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 20:56:13 EDT Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:05:15 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Johnathan George wrote: > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > > > Johnathan George wrote: > > > > > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > > > Doesn't mean that scietific evidence never has any bearing on what we > > > believe about the spiritual world, but there are limits on what we can > > > learn about the spiritual world through science. > > > > State them, please. > > > > Well, it seems to me that when science discovers an anomaly.. something > that doesn't fit with what we currently know about the universe, it > immediately starts searching for a new natural law or principle to Actually, no - what immediately starts is usually an effort to figure out where the mistake was made in applying our current knowledge. The search for a new explanation usually doesn't start until much later, and tends to run in parallel with the first effort. Not that this goes against your argument, of course. > explain it. It doesn't just say "well a miracle must have just > occurred". In fact science can't really say that and actually learn > anything. Even if a miracle did occur and was observed by science, it > would be assumed to be a fluke or a mistake by the scientist because it > would be unrepeatable. (Unless you can devise an experiment that forces > God to act in the same precise manner every time you repeat it.) If nothing else, quantum mechanics has forced science to accept detailed unpredictability. If God is in the habit of making miracles, a sufficiently large collection of examples can be subject to scientific analysis. ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <37EB0776.622B9906@wizard.net> Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 34 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.59.72 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 938199957 130.244.59.72 (Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:05:57 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:05:57 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 X-Sender: s-774765@dialup59-2-8.swipnet.se Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:06:07 +0200 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail James Kuyper Jr. hath written: >Flame of the West wrote: [snip] >> In which direction? Could you mention some evidence that you consider >> valid? > >Every theory that fits the available data with an explanation in terms >of purely local mechanistic or random processes. All such theories >reduce the need to postulate a being who's active intevention on behalf >of a divine plan is needed to make the universe work, and as such are >evidence against such an explanation. I count all of Physics, Chemistry, >Biology, and most of the other sciences as such evidence. Biology, in >particular, is rapidly removing the main remaining areas of supposedly >divine intervention, creation "science" arguments to the contrary >notwithstanding. There is a very interesting book by Robert Shapiro called "Origins", which I recommend all of you to read. It deals with the mystery how life came into being. Shapiro definitely does not believe in any orthodox religious creation myth, but at the same time he points out how awkward and far-fetched all the scientific explanations so far proposed are: the prebiotic soup, the bacteria arriving from other worlds on meteors, the mud that organizes itself into cells and so on. The problem seems to be, and I quote Shapiro, that "the simplest known organisms are far too complex to form spontaneously:" At the same time, declaring that a God simply turned up and let them be is even more far-fetched. Öjevind -- ###### Message-ID: <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 56 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.30 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938224028 209.8.153.30 (Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:47:08 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:47:08 EDT Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:54:54 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.direct.ca!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > Isaac Kuo wrote: ... > > And an even more major modern advance in cosmology is that > > the Big Bang didn't even have a defineable beginning--that > > instead asking for the place or time of the "beginning" is > > like asking where the first point of a sphere is. (The > > question is basically meaningless.) > > I'd phrase it differently. There's no specific place where the Big Bang > happened, except to say that it happened *everywhere*. It did > happen at a specific time; otherwise, the age of the universe would > be infinite. You've misunderstood what he was saying. Time and space are interchangeable. When cosmologists speak of points in space-time, the mean both a specific location in space, at a particular time. To make this clear, we sometimes talk of event-points. There's an event-point representing the start of the universe, and another event point representing the tip of your nose at the precise moment you first see this asterisk: *. When they say that there's no particular place or time of the beginning, they mean just exactly that. Here's a model: think of the universe as the surface of a sphere. The beginning of the universe is the bottom of the sphere. Time runs outward and upward from the bottom, along the surface of the sphere, to the top of the sphere. (this simple model implies that there's an end to the universe; the full model doesn't require that feature). Now, imagine rotating that sphere, so that there's a different point that's at the bottom. Let's say that this point is the one I just mentioned; the tip of your nose a few seconds ago. What cosmologists are saying is that there is a point of view from which that event point looks just like the start of the universe. From your point of view, it's a very ordinary point, at room temperature, with nothing in particular moving very fast. From this other point of view, it's a point of extremely high density, at enormous temperatures, with everything (including spacetime itself) expanding rapidly away from it. From that point of view, everything event in the universe is in the future, even events that are in the past from your point of view. This other point of view is mathematically just as valid as yours. When you can change where and when the beginning of the universe is, just by changing your point of view, it's hard to attach theological significance to that event-point. ... > One can picture God creating an eternal universe, but it's harder > to imagine the Big Bang "just happening" without some cause. It's even harder to imagine God "just happening" without some cause, because the believer's idea of God describes a much more complicated entity than that described by the cosmologist's idea of the early universe. ###### Message-ID: <37EC2E01.4AC55DDE@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <19990924104146.16240.00001567@ng-fw1.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 12 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.30 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938224610 209.8.153.30 (Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:56:50 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:56:50 EDT Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 22:05:53 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Mark Myers wrote: ... > What I don't understand is how this intensely personal religious > experience (usually) leads to joining the *local* religious grouping, > rather than to an investigation of all available religions. Sometimes it does. One of my favorite people in the world (she was in love with someone else, unfortunately), started out joining Wicca, moved on to Christianity, and at the time I knew her was moving toward Judaism. Not a large sample of religions, but she was also well-acquainted with many others, particularly Islam. My point was that her religious experience was only the start of her journey. ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 24 Sep 1999 22:09:40 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 67 Message-ID: <7sgsr4$mee$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EA7FC5.50CA53D9@mindspring.com> <37EB049D.85CD3CC6@wizard.net> <37EBBE6A.9EB8AC57@mindspring.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer1.nac.net!news.lightning.net!netra-news.ntrnet.net!washdc3-snf1!news.gtei.net!utk.edu!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <37EBBE6A.9EB8AC57@mindspring.com>, Johnathan George wrote: >Well, it seems to me that when science discovers an anomaly.. something >that doesn't fit with what we currently know about the universe, it >immediately starts searching for a new natural law or principle to >explain it. It doesn't just say "well a miracle must have just >occurred". In fact science can't really say that and actually learn >anything. Even if a miracle did occur and was observed by science, it >would be assumed to be a fluke or a mistake by the scientist because it >would be unrepeatable. (Unless you can devise an experiment that forces >God to act in the same precise manner every time you repeat it.) Just because something is unrepeatable doesn't mean it can't be scientifically studied. A lot of science in cosmology has to do with things that happenned a whole long time ago that pretty obviously can't be repeated. It's perfectly normal to use science to try and study events in the past. After all, forensic science asks the question of if defendant X _did_ crime Y, not if he might do it again under similar circumstances. :) If we experience a phenomenon that just can't be explained with what we know about the universe, that doesn't just mean "it's a fluke" or "we need a new theory" to a scientist. Upon being convinced that current theories can't explain the phenomenon, a scientist's first instinct would be "we need a new theory", but that's just because it's well known how little we know. I mean, if I saw Aragorn parading around with an army of the dead following him, I wouldn't be thinking, "Yeah whatever--I bet he can't do it again." >I think it is possible to learn about God through personal experience. >Since that isn't verifiable, you or anyone else are free to say that >what I believe to be an experience with God is just an interesting >psychological phenomenon, but that doesn't mean you're right. I just >means that (unlike scientific knowledge) you can't verify it. >Maybe part of the disagreement here comes from our concepts of what the >supernatural is. I believe it to be a higher reality that can reveal >itself or hide itself from us at will. If that's the case I don't see >how we can learn anything about it scientifically except for what it >chooses to let us learn. We can hope to learn something about it scientifically through what it chooses to let us learn. If nothing else, consistent null results would be a strong indication that it chooses not to let us confirm its existence (if it exists, of course). Maybe that's not a big result, but I think it's a profound one. For example, consider the much more mundane question of SETI--the search for extraterrestrial technological intelligent life. We've been cupping our radio telescope ears for years now listenning for messages from aliens, even though they can reveal or hide themselves in the radio spectrum at will. We'd only hear from them if they really made an effort to speak to us! So far, we've been getting consistent null results. That doesn't mean we've learned nothing at all--we've learned more than if we never bothered listenning. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### Message-ID: <37EC2F63.412582F5@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net> <7sd4n8$imc$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EAD035.97C46CE6@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 13 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.30 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938224963 209.8.153.30 (Fri, 24 Sep 1999 22:02:43 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 22:02:43 EDT Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 22:11:47 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > Isaac Kuo wrote: > > > Anyway, is there any term for the belief that even if God exists, > > that one shouldn't simply follow its commands or worship it just > > because it is God? > > Yeah, it's called suicidal stupidity. Might make right? Infinite might makes infinite right? I don't see it. It might be futile to oppose God's will; that doesn't mean it couldn't our moral duty to do so. ###### Message-ID: <37EC30AE.B47C5D87@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e25a39.91996259@news.earthlink.net> <37E2816D.6E39D24E@mindspring.com> <37E31245.2DE465A0@erols.com> <7s6732$48d$1@diana.bcn.ttd.net> <37E7A3D9.BE43A6CF@mindspring.com> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net> <37EAC9C8.58042B37@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.30 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938225295 209.8.153.30 (Fri, 24 Sep 1999 22:08:15 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 22:08:15 EDT Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 22:17:18 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > > The atheistic side, properly stated, is that there's insufficient > > relevant evidence to justify belief in any God. > > That sounds like agnosticism to me. If that's how you define > atheism, how do you define agnosticism? To, me agnosticism is the believing that there's sufficient evidence to justify some practical (as opposed to purely technical) level of doubt about whether or not God exists. In principle, I have some purely technical level of doubt about the existence of the keyboard that I think I'm typing on; in practice, I have no real doubt about the matter. I feel the same way about the God's nonexistence. An agnostic thinks that the chance that God might exist is actually measurable, say a millionth of a percent, maybe even larger. ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 24 Sep 1999 22:21:16 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 36 Message-ID: <7sgtgs$st6$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37EA82F2.B6419ECE@mindspring.com> <7seafj$1hg6$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBB8AD.87FD5CD9@mindspring.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!newspeer1.nac.net!news.lightning.net!netra-news.ntrnet.net!washdc3-snf1!news.gtei.net!utk.edu!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <37EBB8AD.87FD5CD9@mindspring.com>, Johnathan George wrote: >Isaac Kuo wrote: >> I assume you're referring to the "wishful thinking" quote? >Actually no, I was refering to the other Sagan quote that's been >floating around throughout this thread. I admitted that he may not have >been calling theists dishonest, but I said it felt like he was. I >really wasn't trying to argue about whether Sagan was being >condescending or not. Okay, because there was someone else in the thread who was offended by that quote because it came of as condescending to him. Are you refering to this quote? "For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." This is really just a recap of the "wishful thinking" part, which in the proper context is clearly refering to his own possible delusion, not someone else's. There's danger in taking quotes out of context! >I was mainly trying to point out that it's pretty >easy to end up feeling like you're being called dishonest for your >conclusions, when in fact you're being as honest as you can. Okay, I see. Please correct me if it's another quote you're referring to. I've been trying to use deja.com to figure it out. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 24 Sep 1999 22:31:23 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 33 Message-ID: <7sgu3r$v6s$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37EA308E.7BCCA8F@wizard.net> <7se99h$tus$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EB09F1.A98B28D3@wizard.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.lightning.net!netra-news.ntrnet.net!washdc3-snf1!news.gtei.net!utk.edu!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <37EB09F1.A98B28D3@wizard.net>, James Kuyper Jr. wrote: >Isaac Kuo wrote: >... >> In my part of the world, most theists are Christians who believe >> that the most important thing that makes their faith valid is >> that it is faith beyond doubt--absolute unquestionning faith. >> The less questionning the better! If the truth conflicts with >> your faith, then the truth is wrong! >I guess I've met a better class of believers than you have. Many of >those I've talked with have significant doubts, and freely admit it. I >think the facade of absolute certainty is adopted by precisely those >people who find their own inner uncertainty too frightening to admit, >even to themselves. Their belief is rigid but brittle. The ones I'm >talking about are much nicer people, and their belief is more durable, >precisely because it's more adaptable. I've met more casual believers too, but I don't entirely feel they're being completely true to their proclaimed religion. I guess I'm affected by my environment ("the South", in USA). Even though I'm not a Christian, I kind of take to the standards of the mainstream Christian varieties in my area. I wouldn't call the belief in Christianity that the people around me have brittle--it's incredibly resilient. Unbelievably resilient when it comes to sticking by their dirty rotten Televangelist. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### From: prembone@excitebitespam.com (Prembone) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 23:40:16 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Fri Sep 24 16:55:01 1999 References: <19990924104146.16240.00001567@ng-fw1.aol.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: The Rescue Frodo SWAT Team X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Lines: 49 NNTP-Posting-Host: sdn-ar-005mnminnp202.dialsprint.net X-ELN-Date: 24 Sep 1999 23:45:19 GMT Message-ID: <37ec0a4a.128080223@news.earthlink.net> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed.enteract.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail On 24 Sep 1999 14:41:46 GMT, jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) wrote: > People who claim they've solved the mystery of the origin of the >universe by saying "god did it" haven't solved anything. They're right in the >same boat where they started. For the interested, I refer you to my own humble piece entitled "The Evidence for Meta-God!!!" http://www.stormloader.com/secularpagan/prose/metagod.html >What kind of rubs me the wrong way is that some theists claim to have >"knowledge" that god exists based on some kind of subjective "religious >experience", which convinces them but which they cannot share with others in a >convincing fashion. > >Instead of being open to the possibility that their senses might have deceived >them, or that their brain misinterpreted the origin of the experience, or the >fact that others with the same kind of experience come to totally different >religious conclusions, they would rather think that because of this incredibly >personal, SUBJECTIVE experience (whose "correct" interpretation is highly >questionable), they now know more about the origin of the universe than every >physicist who ever lived. Pardon me if that seems a little much. Not at all. ;-) If we look at the history of belief in god(s), it becomes plain that the most plausible explanation is that human beings created gods in their own image, or in the image of what they wished to be true, for two fundamental reasons: 1. In an attempt to explain the world around them. 2. Out of the desire to believe that this life is not all there is. The bottom line is what someone expressed early in this thread: The human mind resists the knowledge that it will someday cease to exist. And so we invent comforting delusions: "Paradise lost, paradise gained, Paradise the child of a wishful-thinking brain. Where is that blessed land far, far away Where sickness and sorrow no longer hold sway?" [(c) 1999 Prembone.] "The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means." -- Oscar Wilde The Prembone Pages http://prembone.tsx.org ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 25 Sep 1999 05:40:56 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 148 Message-ID: <7shn98$17m2$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <7sdh99$adm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7sebv2$1lpm$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <7sg6if$8it$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!carrier1.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.lightning.net!netra-news.ntrnet.net!washdc3-snf1!news.gtei.net!utk.edu!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <7sg6if$8it$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, wrote: >In article <7sebv2$1lpm$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu>, > kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) wrote: >> It's sort of a strange double-think, to me. >> The Christians around here believe you should do what God tells >> you because God is absolutely good. But what is their >> definition of "good"? Supposedly, it's just obvious. In >> practice, "good" is really defined by what God says is "good". >> According to these beliefs, it obviously isn't defined by >> what mere humans think is "good", no matter how many agree >> about it (this is one basic humanistic concept, of course). >> But at the same time, they'll argue vehemently that they are >> NOT doing what God tells them just _because_ it's God that >> tells them. But if he's the only possible arbiter of "good" >> and "evil" that they accept--not even themselves--then what >> point is there in saying that God is to be obeyed because >> God is GOOD? >Hmm, I guess you're saying, How can we know that God is good unless we >have an objective measure (outside of God) to determine what is good >and what is bad? And a Christian would say, "God = good - he *is* that >objective measure". It's sort of like saying "Hard is hard" I get confused by it sometimes. In Jonathan's responce, he states his personal belief that good is an absolute to which God conforms. This, I think, is basically the concept I'm talking about--the idea that "good" is some sort of absolute; an objective ideal. I'm all for the notions of absolute objective ideals--I'm a mathematician and we study all sorts of things which are ideal concepts that don't physically exist (and we don't expect them to). However, in my second paragraph I point out the problem--"good" isn't just some neat little definition, like a mathematical concept. It's a description of whether any actions are "good" or "bad", and that's more complicated! So do I think it's just silly to believe in an absolute objective concept of good? No--in fact I personally believe such an ideal exists (although it IMHO doesn't cover all situations). However, I don't find it satisfying just to say there is such an absolute. My own definitions of "good" and "bad" stem from human thoughts and actions and feelings. I won't go into detail here, but suffice it to say that I know where my own definitions of "good" and "bad" come from. What about the typical Christian? I think for the typical Christian it's enough simply to trust that an ideal notion of "good" exists, and that God is absolutely good. Therefore, it doesn't really matter whether or not you know anything about what that ideal notion means as long as you just go along with God. It's not the same as just saying "good" is whatever God says. But is it really any different in any meaningful way? I mean, what use is the concept of "good" if you don't or CAN'T investigate what it means (other than just taking God's word for it)? >I don't think I'm following your line of thought here (but, of course, >this seems to lead us even further afield from things Tolkien, so if >you don't wish to discuss it further, I completely understand). Are >you saying that, as a practical matter, most believers obey God out of >fear (a rather weighty religious word, that), rather than because He >has persuaded them of His goodness? I think that, to a large measure, >that's true (although not optimal). The concept of God as arbitrary >hurler of thunderbolts seems to make a deep imprint on people's >religious imagination. No, I'm just talking about the people who believe in God primarily out of faith. In Christianity, the fear element is there, but supposedly your faith is not valid if you only believe out of fear. [... about "we all try to respect each other" ...] >You're right. By "we all", I was thinking of the folks in this thread >(which, considering the tinderbox nature of the topics, has been >remarkably civilized). Ah, I see. The only reason I'm participating in this discussion which is clearly quite off-topic is that in the newsgroups where this discussion is ON-topic, there would be no sliver of hope of civilized discourse. I find it extremely refreshing. >. One of the striking things >about the world of Middle-Earth is that the 2nd-born seem to be free of >religious consideration in living their lives. I am using the >word "religious" rather freely. I am suggesting that the First-born, >who indeed *have* benefitted from direct intervention by the Valar, >have a religious relationship to the Valar (and, by extension, with >Illuvatar). In support of this, I would note that the cult of Elbereth >is pretty overtly religious. >Istm that one "job" of the Elves is to "get the word out" about the >Valar and Illuvatar - i.e. to evangelize. I don't accuse the Elves of >failing to evangelize; it seems clear that they tried to "awaken" >creation in Middle-Earth. But apparently their evangelical efforts >among the 2nd-born waned the further East one travelled in Middle- >Earth. The Hobbit society seems to be sort of "post-Valar", in the >sense that Western European and American society often seems to >be "post-Christian": the old religion isn't overtly practiced much, if >at all, but its moral teachings remain deeply embedded in the culture, >even when Hobbits and Men aren't aware of it. Well, the actions of Feanor and his sons ended for a long time the close relationship between the Valar and Middle Earth (except for Morgoth, of course). Men were pretty easily swayed by Morgoth, and in the struggles between the Elves and Morgoth, Elves got estranged with Men. I don't think this was really an issue of 1st born vs 2nd born. It was more just a matter of circumstances and bad blood that estranged the Valar and Elves and Men. I haven't seen much at all in Tolkien's writings which suggest any sort of moral mandates by any Illuvatar-based religion at all, with the exception of the Ban of the Valar and specific mandates and requests by Mandos. Implicitely, it's obvious that the faithful are supposed to obey Mandos, and that Elves aren't supposed to war against other Elves. Maybe the latter was specifically decreed by Mandos, but I doubt it. The Silmarillion strongly implies that the very concepts of lying and murdering wouldn't have even occurred to Elves were it not for Melkor. Why would Mandos decree against something that wouldn't even cross the minds of the Elves? I rather get the impression of the early relationship between the Elves and the Valar as being more of a subject-ruler relationship than a religious one. Mandos is a beneficial king, and a pretty laid back one, considering. Was there any implication that the Elves were supposed to evangelize Middle Earth? I don't see it. It seems like they were supposed to just come to Valinor and live as one big happy family with the Valar. The ones which refused to go west from the start were disobeying a request, as were the ones which returned east. That sounds like a silly purpose for the Elves, but maybe that was the best plan Mandos felt he could come up with after Melkor started messing with Middle Earth. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 25 Sep 1999 06:58:38 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 94 Message-ID: <7shrqu$13v8$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!skynet.be!news.ro.com!netra-news.ntrnet.net!washdc3-snf1!news.gtei.net!utk.edu!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com>, Flame of the West wrote: >Isaac Kuo wrote: >> And an even more major modern advance in cosmology is that >> the Big Bang didn't even have a defineable beginning--that >> instead asking for the place or time of the "beginning" is >> like asking where the first point of a sphere is. (The >> question is basically meaningless.) >I'd phrase it differently. There's no specific place where the Big Bang >happened, except to say that it happened *everywhere*. It did >happen at a specific time; otherwise, the age of the universe would >be infinite. No, it didn't have a specific time according to our current understanding. Another poster made an attempt to illustrate the basic reason. It actually is hard to understand the concepts without first being basically familiar with some concepts of relativity. Suffice it to say that depending on your frame of reference, you will come up with a different point in space-time as being the earliest (and a different age, as well, but this isn't really the main issue). In our current understanding, no frame of reference is more or less "special" than any other. >> Either way, it doesn't really say much about whether or not >> the universe was created. An all powerful being could just >> as easily create an eternal universe as a limitted universe. >> Conversely, the existence of an uncreated eternal universe >> would be equally mysterious as the existence of an uncreated >> limitted universe. >One can picture God creating an eternal universe, but it's harder >to imagine the Big Bang "just happening" without some cause. Not to me. First off, it is easier for me to imagine the Big Bang "just happenning" than for God to "just happen" and cause the Big Bang. Secondly, it is easier for me to imagine a Big Bang "just happenning" than for an infinitely old universe "just happenning". Infinite bounds in space or time has a lot of ugly consequences on differential equations. >> (In my own view neither possibility is mysterious at all. >> If you come from the perspective of looking at all the things >> in the world which we know could happen by chance or without >> an external agent, it doesn't look so mysterious. If you >> come from the perspective of just looking at the things which >> other people have made purposefully--which just isn't a whole >> lot compared to all the other stuff in the universe--then >> it's pretty mysterious either way.) >It's misleading to extrapolate, as you do, from experiences inside >the universe to questions of the existence and creation of the >universe itself. As long as you discuss things in the universe, >you always have the laws of science to point to (including quantum >physics, which introduces an element of random chance). But >those laws are part of the structure of the universe, so they >can't cause the universe to happen. Misleading to extrapolate from experiences inside the universe? How can we experience something outside the universe? The only things I can imagine we can talk about which are "outside" the universe are things which don't exist--like fictional stories or mathematical ideals. But these are all things which NEVER cause anything to happen in the universe. Why? Because they don't exist! If they had a tangeble effect on the universe, then they'd be things which exist and by any reasonable definition of "the universe" they would exist. A fictional story or mathematical concept, being something which doesn't exist, just can't ever have any effect on the universe. (This is not to be confused with a physical manifestation of a fictional story or mathematical concept in a book or in a human's brain.) If it's strange to use the laws of physics to talk about the origin of the universe, it's much stranger to use things which don't exist to talk about the origin of the universe. And if you're refering to things which DO exist, in what sense are they not part of "the universe"? -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### From: jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 22 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 25 Sep 1999 13:26:14 GMT References: <37EBE58F.5F1CBDC4@erols.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990925092614.20850.00001905@ng-fh1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.enteract.com!news.compuserve.com!news-master.compuserve.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail << > What kind of rubs me the wrong way is that some theists claim to have > "knowledge" that god exists based on some kind of subjective "religious > experience", which convinces them but which they cannot share with others in a > convincing fashion. That's analogous to someone who is color-blind losing patience with people who love the color blue but who can't describe it to him. It's just the way it is. Some things are just beyond our ability to describe in words. >> Then I'll ask the same question I've asked twice already without an answer: What do you do when confronted with other people who have also "seen color", yet seen a completely different color than you? How do you explain people who have had a similar religious exoerience that you've had, yet claim that it comes from a different god than yours? See what I'm getting at? This sort of throws a wrench in the works of this supposedly religious way of "knowing", and the reliability thereof. -King " I know what fakery looks like" -James Randi ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 25 Sep 1999 17:12:24 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 55 Message-ID: <7sivpo$eq6$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37EAD035.97C46CE6@erols.com> <7sf0gb$1jla$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <7sgaju$s0s$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!bignews.mediaways.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer1.nac.net!news.lightning.net!netra-news.ntrnet.net!washdc3-snf1!news.gtei.net!utk.edu!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <7sgaju$s0s$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, Alatar wrote: >Isaac Kuo wrote in message <7sf0gb$1jla$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu>... >>In article <37EAD035.97C46CE6@erols.com>, >>Flame of the West wrote: >>>Isaac Kuo wrote: >>>> Anyway, is there any term for the belief that even if God exists, >>>> that one shouldn't simply follow its commands or worship it just >>>> because it is God? >>>Yeah, it's called suicidal stupidity. >>No, that might be an accurate assessment for the situation, but it >>is not a term for the belief in question. >>As an analogy--it may be accurate to call an Iraqi who openly defies >>Saddam Hussein suicidally stupid. However, this is not a term >>for his political view that Saddam Hussein shouldn't be dictator >>(e.g. because he beleives in Western style democracy). >>Note that just because this hypothetical Iraqi political activist >>is certainly essentially suicidal, that doesn't necessarily make >>his actions stupid. He may consider his almost certain sacrifice >>a reasonable price for the chance to affect others. >Wow. I'm gonna have to try and get the idea of "religous activists trying to >work against god" brought up in one of my religon lessons. That'll use up a >good few hours. That is a rather humorous way of taking the analogy the other way, although I myself wouldn't be a good example of such a hypothetical "religious activist". Being agnostic, I'd be more analagous to an Iraqi who wasn't sure Saddam Hussein even exists (which is really stretching things in several ways). But let's suppose I were somehow convinced that God exists, and furthermore that He is more or less as described by mainstream Christian religions. I'd still hold the belief that He shouldn't be obeyed or worshipped simply because He is God. (This belief lacks a standard term, I suppose.) This is because my ideas of "good" and "bad" are rather humanistic, and I care more about what humans think of as "good" and "bad" than any alien entity. However, this doesn't necessarily mean I would think God shouldn't be obeyed--I might feel there is some other reason for obeying and worshipping God. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EB049D.85CD3CC6@wizard.net> <37EBBE6A.9EB8AC57@mindspring.com> <7sgsr4$mee$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 8 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 17:18:47 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: uchinews 938279927 128.135.12.7 (Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:18:47 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:18:47 CDT Organization: The University of Chicago Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!uchinews!not-for-mail Quoth kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo): > I mean, if I saw Aragorn parading around with an army of the > dead following him, I wouldn't be thinking, "Yeah whatever--I > bet he can't do it again." I just have to say that this is one of the funniest things I've seen in quite some time. Thanks! Steuard Jensen ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <7sdh99$adm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7sebv2$1lpm$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <7sg6if$8it$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7shn98$17m2$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 18 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.151.89.72 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 938275350 212.151.89.72 (Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:02:30 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:02:30 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 X-Sender: s-774765@d212-151-89-72.swipnet.se Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:02:39 +0200 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Isaac Kuo hath written: [snip] > >Ah, I see. The only reason I'm participating in this discussion >which is clearly quite off-topic is that in the newsgroups where >this discussion is ON-topic, there would be no sliver of hope >of civilized discourse. I find it extremely refreshing. I don't think it's so clear. Tolkien was a believing Christian and often discussed religion, both when with his friends and in letters. Öjevind -- ###### From: Ermanna Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 22:00:43 -0400 Lines: 101 Message-ID: <37ED7E32.BB75610B@erols.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> <7sdh99$adm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7sebv2$1lpm$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <7sg6if$8it$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: 9tG3XUyQrj6xmShx3YbEYM7XI58aG/D2dvvUd6r7GCk= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Sep 1999 02:14:18 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail james_pauwels@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <7sebv2$1lpm$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu>, > kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) wrote: > > In article <7sdh99$adm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, deja.com> wrote: > > I don't think I'm following your line of thought here (but, of course, > this seems to lead us even further afield from things Tolkien, so if > you don't wish to discuss it further, I completely understand). Are > you saying that, as a practical matter, most believers obey God out of > fear (a rather weighty religious word, that), Fear means Respect. > rather than because He > has persuaded them of His goodness? We ARE persuaded of His goodness. > I think that, to a large measure, > that's true (although not optimal). The concept of God as arbitrary > hurler of thunderbolts seems to make a deep imprint on people's > religious imagination. THAT is NOT God. <'sssssshhaahh,' Ermanna hisses> > > >The uncomfortable implication, of course, is that if believers > somehow > > >discern that God thinks it is *bad* to be respectful of other humans, > > >then believers might behave accordingly. (In that case, perhaps > other > > >people would be saved from destruction only by humans'notable > inability > > >to faithfully follow the tenets of any major religion :-)). > > > > Well, things might be a little more clear cut if God actually > > told us what to do in person. In practice, no matter how much > > Christians claim to be obeying God, a lot of them accept > > mere people as bringing them the word of God. > > I think that is true, for the vast majority of Christians. What is? > (As an > aside, I would note that, while personal testimony does not meet a > standard for rigorous scientific proof, it is considered acceptable in > keeping the world running, for example in the law, in education, > etc.). > > Most Christians don't claim to have had visions of God in a literal > sense, but nearly all believe that he continues to be present in some > ways (e.g. in the person of the Holy Spirit). So a Christian might > state, with perfect sincerity, that God *does* tell her what to do. > Again, though, I don't think the voice of the Holy Spirit has ever been > captured with sound-recording equipment. It's all very subjective, and > so unsatisfying and frustrating. He CAN'T be caught on anything! Only chosen people are allowed to see Him. > > As far as the "we all try to respect others" assertion goes--I > > don't agree with it. I know plenty of people who don't try, > > and this certainly includes Christians (actually, all the > > athiests/agnostics I know try, but I don't know very many). > > > Some of them are downright nasty to other factions of Christians, > > to the point of assuring their congregations that every last > > one of those others are going straight to hell. > > You're right. By "we all", I was thinking of the folks in this thread > (which, considering the tinderbox nature of the topics, has been > remarkably civilized). > > . One of the striking things > about the world of Middle-Earth is that the 2nd-born seem to be free of > religious consideration in living their lives. I am using the > word "religious" rather freely. I am suggesting that the First-born, > who indeed *have* benefitted from direct intervention by the Valar, > have a religious relationship to the Valar (and, by extension, with > Illuvatar). In support of this, I would note that the cult of Elbereth > is pretty overtly religious. Are thinking about the Dunedain? > Jim Lúthien Tinúviel/Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight See, I know where I am, and where I want to go, I've got angels to show me the way! ###### From: Ermanna Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 22:12:03 -0400 Lines: 23 Message-ID: <37ED80DA.93CBF37B@erols.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EA7FC5.50CA53D9@mindspring.com> <37EB049D.85CD3CC6@wizard.net> <37EBBE6A.9EB8AC57@mindspring.com> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: 9tG3XUyQrj6BYQbzinHN3at3E7NjsbkIXSO7f2I2AUs= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Sep 1999 02:14:21 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Johnathan George wrote: > (Unless you can devise an experiment that forces > God to act in the same precise manner every time you repeat it.) 'Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'"' > Johnathan George Lúthien Tinúviel/Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight See, I know where I am, and where I want to go, I've got angels to show me the way! ###### From: jimpauwels@aol.comantispam (JimPauwels) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 101 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 26 Sep 1999 05:10:32 GMT References: <7shn98$17m2$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990926011032.03268.00001147@ng-co1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newsmaster-01.vbs.at!newsrouter.chello.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!logbridge.uoregon.edu!howland.erols.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail >Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality >From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) >Date: Sat, 25 September 1999 01:40 AM EDT >Message-id: <7shn98$17m2$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> > >In article <7sg6if$8it$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, wrote: >My own definitions of "good" and "bad" stem from human thoughts >and actions and feelings. I won't go into detail here, but >suffice it to say that I know where my own definitions of "good" >and "bad" come from. > >What about the typical Christian? I think for the typical >Christian it's enough simply to trust that an ideal notion >of "good" exists, and that God is absolutely good. Therefore, >it doesn't really matter whether or not you know anything about >what that ideal notion means as long as you just go along >with God. It's not the same as just saying "good" is whatever >God says. > >But is it really any different in any meaningful way? I mean, >what use is the concept of "good" if you don't or CAN'T >investigate what it means (other than just taking God's word >for it)? The Christian reply would be, that is what the conscience is for. You're not supposed to just check your mind at the door and give up your free will and your own ability to discern right from wrong. You are supposed to make your own moral decisions (and be held accountable for them, of course). >>. One of the striking things >>about the world of Middle-Earth is that the 2nd-born seem to be free of >>religious consideration in living their lives. I am using the >>word "religious" rather freely. I am suggesting that the First-born, >>who indeed *have* benefitted from direct intervention by the Valar, >>have a religious relationship to the Valar (and, by extension, with >>Illuvatar). In support of this, I would note that the cult of Elbereth >>is pretty overtly religious. > >>Istm that one "job" of the Elves is to "get the word out" about the >>Valar and Illuvatar - i.e. to evangelize. I don't accuse the Elves of >>failing to evangelize; it seems clear that they tried to "awaken" >>creation in Middle-Earth. But apparently their evangelical efforts >>among the 2nd-born waned the further East one travelled in Middle- >>Earth. The Hobbit society seems to be sort of "post-Valar", in the >>sense that Western European and American society often seems to >>be "post-Christian": the old religion isn't overtly practiced much, if >>at all, but its moral teachings remain deeply embedded in the culture, >>even when Hobbits and Men aren't aware of it. > >Well, the actions of Feanor and his sons ended for a long time the >close relationship between the Valar and Middle Earth (except for >Morgoth, of course). I suppose that would be true for the Noldor, but not for all of the First-born (iirc). >I don't think this was really an issue of 1st born vs 2nd born. >It was more just a matter of circumstances and bad blood that >estranged the Valar and Elves and Men. >I haven't seen much at all in Tolkien's writings which suggest >any sort of moral mandates by any Illuvatar-based religion at >all, with the exception of the Ban of the Valar and specific >mandates and requests by Mandos. It's true that there seems to be no explicit moral code. Would that be a requirement for a religion? I suppose so, although istm that it's possible to acknowledge one's relationship to a god (like Manwe) without feeling any compunction to obey him. >I rather get the impression of the early relationship between >the Elves and the Valar as being more of a subject-ruler >relationship than a religious one. I'm thinking of things like Ah Elbereth! Gilthoniel!, which seems like a devotional hymn (devotional in a religious sense). And the scene with Gildor in the woods, when they break into song when the stars come out - that seems to me to be almost liturgical. I guess it tastes cultic to me. >Was there any implication that the Elves were supposed to >evangelize Middle Earth? I don't see it. It seems like >they were supposed to just come to Valinor and live as one >big happy family with the Valar. The ones which refused to >go west from the start were disobeying a request, as were >the ones which returned east. That sounds like a silly >purpose for the Elves, but maybe that was the best plan >Mandos felt he could come up with after Melkor started >messing with Middle Earth. You may be right, I may be reading into the story. I was thinking of some of the things that Fangorn said about the Elves waking things up, but that could be attributed to their own innate curiosity, rather than some sort of moral imperative. Jim Cantate Domino canticum novum ###### From: jimpauwels@aol.comantispam (JimPauwels) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 103 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 26 Sep 1999 05:17:59 GMT References: <37ED7E32.BB75610B@erols.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990926011759.03268.00001148@ng-co1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!solomon.io.com!newsrouter.icnc.com!portc04.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail >Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality >From: Ermanna >Date: Sat, 25 September 1999 10:00 PM EDT >Message-id: <37ED7E32.BB75610B@erols.com> > > > >james_pauwels@my-deja.com wrote: > >> In article <7sebv2$1lpm$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu>, >> kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) wrote: >> > In article <7sdh99$adm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > deja.com> wrote: >> >> I don't think I'm following your line of thought here (but, of course, >> this seems to lead us even further afield from things Tolkien, so if >> you don't wish to discuss it further, I completely understand). Are >> you saying that, as a practical matter, most believers obey God out of >> fear (a rather weighty religious word, that), > > Fear means Respect. That is a religious definition. I was using the word in its more commonplace meaning of terror/fright. Those qualities do not exclude respectm, but neither do they presuppose it. > >> rather than because He >> has persuaded them of His goodness? > > We ARE persuaded of His goodness. Of course. And that may be what motivates you, but having been around the block more than once, I can say pretty safely that it is not what motivates every Christian. > >> I think that, to a large measure, >> that's true (although not optimal). The concept of God as arbitrary >> hurler of thunderbolts seems to make a deep imprint on people's >> religious imagination. > > THAT is NOT God. <'sssssshhaahh,' Ermanna hisses> Quite so, but as I say, that image certainly thrives in the popular imagination. >> > >The uncomfortable implication, of course, is that if believers >> somehow >> > >discern that God thinks it is *bad* to be respectful of other humans, >> > >then believers might behave accordingly. (In that case, perhaps >> other >> > >people would be saved from destruction only by humans'notable >> inability >> > >to faithfully follow the tenets of any major religion :-)). >> > >> > Well, things might be a little more clear cut if God actually >> > told us what to do in person. In practice, no matter how much >> > Christians claim to be obeying God, a lot of them accept >> > mere people as bringing them the word of God. >> >> I think that is true, for the vast majority of Christians. > > What is? That most people learn of God through other people, rather than through a personal appearance by God Himself. >> (As an >> aside, I would note that, while personal testimony does not meet a >> standard for rigorous scientific proof, it is considered acceptable in >> keeping the world running, for example in the law, in education, >> etc.). >> >> Most Christians don't claim to have had visions of God in a literal >> sense, but nearly all believe that he continues to be present in some >> ways (e.g. in the person of the Holy Spirit). So a Christian might >> state, with perfect sincerity, that God *does* tell her what to do. >> Again, though, I don't think the voice of the Holy Spirit has ever been >> captured with sound-recording equipment. It's all very subjective, and >> so unsatisfying and frustrating. > > He CAN'T be caught on anything! Only chosen people are > allowed to see Him. No comment. >> One of the striking things >> about the world of Middle-Earth is that the 2nd-born seem to be free of >> religious consideration in living their lives. I am using the >> word "religious" rather freely. I am suggesting that the First-born, >> who indeed *have* benefitted from direct intervention by the Valar, >> have a religious relationship to the Valar (and, by extension, with >> Illuvatar). In support of this, I would note that the cult of Elbereth >> is pretty overtly religious. > > Are thinking about the Dunedain? I was thinking mostly of the Elves. Jim Cantate Domino canticum novum ###### From: jimpauwels@aol.comantispam (JimPauwels) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 29 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 26 Sep 1999 05:23:02 GMT References: <19990925092614.20850.00001905@ng-fh1.aol.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990926012302.03268.00001151@ng-co1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!news.compuserve.com!news-master.compuserve.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail >Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality >From: jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) >Date: Sat, 25 September 1999 09:26 AM EDT >Message-id: <19990925092614.20850.00001905@ng-fh1.aol.com> > >Then I'll ask the same question I've asked twice already without an answer: >What do you do when confronted with other people who have also "seen color", >yet seen a completely different color than you? How do you explain people who >have had a similar religious exoerience that you've had, yet claim that it >comes from a different god than yours? See what I'm getting at? This sort of >throws a wrench in the works of this supposedly religious way of "knowing", >and >the reliability thereof. Maybe nobody has responded because nobody disagrees with you. It is very subjective, and unverifiable in any scientific way. As sort of a side comment, istm that it is a rather small minority who really trust science and the scientific method; if it were universally respected, OJ would be in jail right now. Not saying that anyone is right or wrong, just pointing out that seemingly most of the human race makes decisions on other bases than scientific knowledge. Jim Cantate Domino canticum novum ###### From: jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 13 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 26 Sep 1999 13:38:30 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990926093830.28510.00001542@ng-ca1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!howland.erols.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!spamz.news.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail ---C. S. Lewis always regarded it as an important point that "things as we see them are not things as they are". Perhaps that could also be true in some way of religious experience: every religious believer is a sort of prism that fractures the light so that it looks different - but the same source of light may be behind all their visions.-- Maybe. So when someone says "god revealed himself to me", should we presume the prism is making them interpret the experience incorrectly? Maybe it wasn't "god", but something else? I doubt many religious people (who have had such an experience) would feel comfortable with that kind of conclusion. -king " I know what fakery looks like" -James Randi ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <19990925092614.20850.00001905@ng-fh1.aol.com> <19990926012302.03268.00001151@ng-co1.aol.com> Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 36 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.151.33.172 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 938347251 212.151.33.172 (Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:00:51 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:00:51 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 X-Sender: s-774765@d212-151-33-172.swipnet.se Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:01:00 +0200 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news.tele2.nl!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail JimPauwels hath written: >>From: jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) >> > >>Then I'll ask the same question I've asked twice already without an answer: >>What do you do when confronted with other people who have also "seen color", >>yet seen a completely different color than you? How do you explain people who >>have had a similar religious exoerience that you've had, yet claim that it >>comes from a different god than yours? See what I'm getting at? This sort of >>throws a wrench in the works of this supposedly religious way of "knowing", >>and >>the reliability thereof. > > >Maybe nobody has responded because nobody disagrees with you. It is very >subjective, and unverifiable in any scientific way. C. S. Lewis always regarded it as an important point that "things as we see them are not things as they are". Perhaps that could also be true in some way of religious experience: every religious believer is a sort of prism that fractures the light so that it looks different - but the same source of light may be behind all their visions. Öjevind -- ###### From: Solinas Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 15:59:38 -0400 Lines: 76 Message-ID: <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ZD9TdZH1x2izE6DnlImG1gEBwrOsLPYMuVo0phelFV4= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Sep 1999 22:56:11 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!howland.erols.net!outgoing.news.rcn.net.MISMATCH!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > Flame of the West wrote: > > > > Isaac Kuo wrote: > ... > > > And an even more major modern advance in cosmology is that > > > the Big Bang didn't even have a defineable beginning--that > > > instead asking for the place or time of the "beginning" is > > > like asking where the first point of a sphere is. (The > > > question is basically meaningless.) > > > > I'd phrase it differently. There's no specific place where the Big Bang > > happened, except to say that it happened *everywhere*. It did > > happen at a specific time; otherwise, the age of the universe would > > be infinite. > > You've misunderstood what he was saying. Are you sure YOU didn't misunderstand my dad? > Here's a model: think of the universe as > the surface of a sphere. The beginning of the universe is the bottom of > the sphere. Time runs outward and upward from the bottom, along the > surface of the sphere, to the top of the sphere. (this simple model > implies that there's an end to the universe; the full model doesn't > require that feature). I still don't get it. > Now, imagine rotating that sphere, so that there's a different point > that's at the bottom. Let's say that this point is the one I just > mentioned; the tip of your nose a few seconds ago. What cosmologists are > saying is that there is a point of view from which that event point > looks just like the start of the universe. From your point of view, it's > a very ordinary point, at room temperature, with nothing in particular > moving very fast. From this other point of view, it's a point of > extremely high density, at enormous temperatures, with everything > (including spacetime itself) expanding rapidly away from it. From that > point of view, everything event in the universe is in the future, even > events that are in the past from your point of view. This other point of > view is mathematically just as valid as yours. Uh? And how? > When you can change where and when the beginning of the universe is, > just by changing your point of view, it's hard to attach theological > significance to that event-point. I don't follow. > ... > > One can picture God creating an eternal universe, but it's harder > > to imagine the Big Bang "just happening" without some cause. > > It's even harder to imagine God "just happening" without some cause, > because the believer's idea of God describes a much more complicated > entity than that described by the cosmologist's idea of the early > universe. God didn't "just happen"! He exists! He doesn't need a cause! He is the cause of everything else! Lúthien Tinúviel/Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight See, I know where I am, and where I want to go, I've got angels to show me the waay! I've got rhythm and rhyme, And I ain't your tyype! ###### Message-ID: <37EED9B1.F15F125@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 48 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.26 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938399622 209.8.153.26 (Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:33:42 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:33:42 EDT Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:42:57 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Solinas wrote: > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: ... > > You've misunderstood what he was saying. > > Are you sure YOU didn't misunderstand my dad? Fairly sure, since I don't remember anything attributed to your dad being part of this line of discussion. What are you referring to? I suppose you may be referring to your "heavenly father", but if so you'll have to make it clearer what you mean by that. ... > I still don't get it. There's not much I can do with that. Have you the slightest hint as to what it is that you don't get? I'm simplifying the universe from 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension, down to 1 space and 1 time dimension, in order to make a model that can actually be visualized. I'm comparing time to latitude, and space to longitude. ... > > events that are in the past from your point of view. This other point of > > view is mathematically just as valid as yours. > > Uh? And how? The laws governing the universe look the same from that point of view as from yours, and the overall structure and history of the universe look the same as well. ... > I don't follow. Again, I need a hint as to why you don't follow, before I can choose an alternative way of describing it. I'm not asking you to take my word as someone trained in advanced physics; I'm trying my best to describe something fairly complicated in terms that will be meaningful to someone without that training. Just give me a hint as to where my explanation needs improvement. ... > God didn't "just happen"! He exists! He doesn't need a cause! > He is the cause of everything else! And why exactly is it considered appropriate to make that claim, but inappropriate to make similar claims about an uncreated universe? ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 23:56:47 -0400 Lines: 37 Message-ID: <37EEEAC7.A8FD1B4E@erols.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <37EED9B1.F15F125@wizard.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: cKHHIpVqc2dJp72m6DvxKrB5P+3rBd88FsjwIF99XMs= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Sep 1999 04:01:55 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!howland.erols.net!outgoing.news.rcn.net.MISMATCH!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > Fairly sure, since I don't remember anything attributed to your dad > being part of this line of discussion. What are you referring to? She means me, although I don't know specifically what she's referring to. > > God didn't "just happen"! He exists! He doesn't need a cause! > > He is the cause of everything else! > > And why exactly is it considered appropriate to make that claim, but > inappropriate to make similar claims about an uncreated universe? I'd say that gets into the realm of philosophy. Let me make a clumsy attempt here. Since existence is superior to nonexistence, it follows that necessary existence is better than contingent existence. If there is an Uncaused Cause, it would have to be perfect and to exist necessarily. Neither of these attributes is possessed by the physical universe. Put another way, the universe is way too messed up to be the ultimate existence. I'm sure this didn't make much sense: it something a Catholic feels in his bones (such as my daughter does), but it takes a professional to state it coherently. At any rate, it's my attempt to explain why it seems wrong to attribute ultimate existence to the physical universe. -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 04:12:23 -0400 Message-ID: <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: 9JBvfS/AM8GH9nOTvgxIEkAJw68KznGoylZeIo4UNig= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Sep 1999 08:28:16 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Lines: 33 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Alatar wrote: > He's saying that according to current cosmology theories you can't say the > universe started at time A in place B. This makes it hard to fit a god into > the creation of the universe because there is no specific place of time when > God did his creating. I disagree with the last sentence. Since God is creating the universe from outside of time, He in some sense creates the whole thing at once. So it really doesn't matter if we can't pinpoint a beginning from inside time. > We don't > know what happened before the big bang, but there are many thoeries that > suggest the universe has always exsited (eg, expending and contracting > universe or universe starting infinatly small). If any of these theories are > right then everything you said about God can also be said about the > universe. Those theories about contracting and expanding are wishful thinking by those uncomfortable with a created universe. There's no scientific reason for them and they violate Occam's Razor. We have no logical reason to believe there was a universe on the other side of the Big Bang. -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 04:12:23 -0400 Message-ID: <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: 9JBvfS/AM8GH9nOTvgxIEkAJw68KznGoylZeIo4UNig= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Sep 1999 08:28:16 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Lines: 33 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Alatar wrote: > He's saying that according to current cosmology theories you can't say the > universe started at time A in place B. This makes it hard to fit a god into > the creation of the universe because there is no specific place of time when > God did his creating. I disagree with the last sentence. Since God is creating the universe from outside of time, He in some sense creates the whole thing at once. So it really doesn't matter if we can't pinpoint a beginning from inside time. > We don't > know what happened before the big bang, but there are many thoeries that > suggest the universe has always exsited (eg, expending and contracting > universe or universe starting infinatly small). If any of these theories are > right then everything you said about God can also be said about the > universe. Those theories about contracting and expanding are wishful thinking by those uncomfortable with a created universe. There's no scientific reason for them and they violate Occam's Razor. We have no logical reason to believe there was a universe on the other side of the Big Bang. -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 04:22:00 -0400 Lines: 44 Message-ID: <37EF2923.27FA7E23@erols.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <37EED9B1.F15F125@wizard.net> <37EEEAC7.A8FD1B4E@erols.com> <7sn7h5$83o$3@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: 9JBvfS/AM8F+1FJpl7JnWAJY4+waxqicWl/75M8w6uI= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Sep 1999 08:28:18 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!blackbush.xlink.net!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Alatar wrote: > Flame of the West wrote: > > You are describing what's called the Onotological Arguement, which has been > around since the 11th century. It relies on a belief that god is perfect and > is unlikly to (and was not original intended to) convince atheists that God > exsists or created the universe. > > Anyone who believes one of the following... > a) God is imperfect > b) the universe is perfect > c) perfection is totally subjective, so nothing is and nothing needs to > be perfect > > ...will be able to accept an the idea of an uncreated universe just as > easily as you accept the idea of God creating the universe. Yeah, those arguments don't really seem to change anyone's mind. But: (a) doesn't get you out of having to deal with the argument. You could ascribe the universe to Valar or something, but the argument would still imply an Eru to create the Valar. (b) is hard to defend in the presence of so much evil in the world. (c) is probably the most common objection to the argument. The notions of perfection and omnipotence are easily criticized ("if God can do anything, can He make a rock so big that He can't move it?") and I'm not really equipped to deal with them. But the reason I gave the argument is that James Kuyper Jr. asked a question and I was answering it. -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: "Alatar" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:27:52 +0100 Organization: Customer of Planet Online Lines: 68 Message-ID: <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-5.ytterbium.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news6.svr.pol.co.uk 938418532 8312 62.136.34.133 (27 Sep 1999 07:48:52 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Sep 1999 07:48:52 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Solinas wrote in message <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com>... > > >"James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > >> Flame of the West wrote: >> > >> > Isaac Kuo wrote: > I still don't get it. > Uh? And how? All that sphere/time stuff can be very confusing if you are not used treating time as a dimension in the same way as space dimensions. If you want to understand it better I suggest you read "A Brief History of Time" by Steven Hawkins 2 or 3 times. >> When you can change where and when the beginning of the universe is, >> just by changing your point of view, it's hard to attach theological >> significance to that event-point. > > I don't follow. He's saying that according to current cosmology theories you can't say the universe started at time A in place B. This makes it hard to fit a god into the creation of the universe because there is no specific place of time when God did his creating. >> ... >> > One can picture God creating an eternal universe, but it's harder >> > to imagine the Big Bang "just happening" without some cause. >> >> It's even harder to imagine God "just happening" without some cause, >> because the believer's idea of God describes a much more complicated >> entity than that described by the cosmologist's idea of the early >> universe. > > God didn't "just happen"! He exists! He doesn't need a cause! > He is the cause of everything else! The Universe didn't "just happen"! It exists! It doesn't need a cause! It is the cause of everything else! I'm not trying to mock you here, I'm just trying to make a point. We don't know what happened before the big bang, but there are many thoeries that suggest the universe has always exsited (eg, expending and contracting universe or universe starting infinatly small). If any of these theories are right then everything you said about God can also be said about the universe. -- Alatar Protector of the secret glen of Morangie, where the drink of gold be made. I just got lost in thought, it was unfamiliar territory. Find that Tolkien site in The Cave of Lost Scrolls: http://www.invoke.freeserve.co.uk/alatar/lostscrolls.htm ###### From: "Alatar" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:43:06 +0100 Organization: Customer of Planet Online Lines: 55 Message-ID: <7sn7h5$83o$3@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <37EED9B1.F15F125@wizard.net> <37EEEAC7.A8FD1B4E@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-5.ytterbium.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news6.svr.pol.co.uk 938418533 8312 62.136.34.133 (27 Sep 1999 07:48:53 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Sep 1999 07:48:53 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!carrier1.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed.icl.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: >"James Kuyper Jr." wrote: >> > God didn't "just happen"! He exists! He doesn't need a cause! >> > He is the cause of everything else! >> >> And why exactly is it considered appropriate to make that claim, but >> inappropriate to make similar claims about an uncreated universe? > >I'd say that gets into the realm of philosophy. Let me make a clumsy >attempt here. Since existence is superior to nonexistence, it follows >that necessary existence is better than contingent existence. If >there is an Uncaused Cause, it would have to be perfect and to >exist necessarily. Neither of these attributes is possessed by the >physical universe. > >Put another way, the universe is way too messed up to be the >ultimate existence. > >I'm sure this didn't make much sense: it something a Catholic feels >in his bones (such as my daughter does), but it takes a professional >to state it coherently. At any rate, it's my attempt to explain why >it seems wrong to attribute ultimate existence to the physical universe. > You are describing what's called the Onotological Arguement, which has been around since the 11th century. It relies on a belief that god is perfect and is unlikly to (and was not original intended to) convince atheists that God exsists or created the universe. Anyone who believes one of the following... a) God is imperfect b) the universe is perfect c) perfection is totally subjective, so nothing is and nothing needs to be perfect ...will be able to accept an the idea of an uncreated universe just as easily as you accept the idea of God creating the universe. (Note: I said they can accept the 'idea', but some may chose not to beleive it for other reasons). -- Alatar Protector of the secret glen of Morangie, where the drink of gold be made. How did Anslem get into a Tolkien NG?? Find that Tolkien site in The Cave of Lost Scrolls: http://www.invoke.freeserve.co.uk/alatar/lostscrolls.htm ###### Message-ID: <37EF73E1.7154B119@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <37EED9B1.F15F125@wizard.net> <37EEEAC7.A8FD1B4E@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 46 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.37 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938439096 209.8.153.37 (Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:31:36 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:31:36 EDT Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:40:49 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > > Fairly sure, since I don't remember anything attributed to your dad > > being part of this line of discussion. What are you referring to? > > She means me, although I don't know specifically what she's referring to. I hadn't realized you were related. I now see that you use the same e-mail address, but I'd been paying attention to your tags instead. > > > God didn't "just happen"! He exists! He doesn't need a cause! > > > He is the cause of everything else! > > > > And why exactly is it considered appropriate to make that claim, but > > inappropriate to make similar claims about an uncreated universe? > > I'd say that gets into the realm of philosophy. Let me make a clumsy > attempt here. Since existence is superior to nonexistence, it follows > that necessary existence is better than contingent existence. If > there is an Uncaused Cause, it would have to be perfect and to > exist necessarily. Neither of these attributes is possessed by the > physical universe. > > Put another way, the universe is way too messed up to be the > ultimate existence. > > I'm sure this didn't make much sense: it something a Catholic feels Agreed. The early universe as postulated by modern cosmology is way too simple to be messed up, and is very necessary, within the context of our modern understanding of physics. Basically, the laws we know of can be used to describe a state that contains no space-time, and no matter-energy; and those laws imply that such a state is likely to be connected to an infinitesimal region of space-time, which may or may not expand rapidly. It's hard to describe this process correctly, because neither space nor time exist outside of that region, and hence "process" and "connected" aren't truly applicable. English really isn't built to handle such concepts. If it does expand rapidly, the process necessarily releases large quantities of energy, some of which will take the form of matter. On the flip side, there's nothing particularly necessary (as far as I can see) about God's existence. ###### Message-ID: <37EF75F7.31D53B96@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 35 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.37 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938439625 209.8.153.37 (Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:40:25 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:40:25 EDT Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:49:43 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > Alatar wrote: > > > He's saying that according to current cosmology theories you can't say the > > universe started at time A in place B. This makes it hard to fit a god into > > the creation of the universe because there is no specific place of time when > > God did his creating. > > I disagree with the last sentence. Since God is creating the universe from > outside of time, He in some sense creates the whole thing at once. So it > really doesn't matter if we can't pinpoint a beginning from inside time. That answer removes the supposed connection between the big bang cosmology and theology. I can go with that. > > We don't > > know what happened before the big bang, but there are many thoeries that > > suggest the universe has always exsited (eg, expending and contracting > > universe or universe starting infinatly small). If any of these theories are > > right then everything you said about God can also be said about the > > universe. > > Those theories about contracting and expanding are wishful thinking by > those uncomfortable with a created universe. There's no scientific reason > for them and they violate Occam's Razor. We have no logical reason to > believe there was a universe on the other side of the Big Bang. Those theories come quite naturally out of applying Einstein's Laws of relativity. They have a very strong scientific reason. They don't violate Occam's Razor - we need Einstein's Laws to explain gravity anyway (Newton's laws were sufficient, though they came close). From they right point of view, they're extremely elegant and simple: "R = G". The definition of R gets a little complicated :-), but from the right point of view, it's very nearly the only possible definition. ###### From: azazoth@access2.mountain.net (Marie Barnett) Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.mountain.net Message-ID: <37ef8d2e@News> Date: 27 Sep 1999 11:28:46 -0400 X-Trace: 27 Sep 1999 11:28:46 -0400, access2.mountain.net Lines: 27 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!blackbush.xlink.net!howland.erols.net!news-feed1.tiac.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snf1!news.gtei.net!News!access2.mountain.net!azazoth Flame of the West (jsolinas@erols.com) wrote: : Alatar wrote: : > We don't : > know what happened before the big bang, but there are many thoeries that : > suggest the universe has always exsited (eg, expending and contracting : > universe or universe starting infinatly small). If any of these theories are : > right then everything you said about God can also be said about the : > universe. : Those theories about contracting and expanding are wishful thinking by : those uncomfortable with a created universe. There's no scientific reason : for them and they violate Occam's Razor. We have no logical reason to : believe there was a universe on the other side of the Big Bang. No scientific reason? I doubt that serious scientists would propose such a theory if they had no 'reason'. The reason for the 'expanding, contracting' universe is very simple(at a glance, at least). You have a 1-time(for each cycle) 'blast' of energy which sends the contents of the universe flying apart. You have a continuous force(gravity) slowing the movement. If there was not enough energy involved in the initial blast to overcome gravity's effect for the mass of the universe, then there can be no avoiding the 'big crash'. ###### From: Solinas Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 19:40:48 -0400 Lines: 123 Message-ID: <37F0007D.D46B4D19@erols.com> References: <37ED7E32.BB75610B@erols.com> <19990926011759.03268.00001148@ng-co1.aol.com> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: UIfYXUhNFDh7zqLR92F/pLN7BZPzpP12X9y1iNtUSAE= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Sep 1999 03:29:45 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail JimPauwels wrote: > >Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality > >From: Ermanna > >Date: Sat, 25 September 1999 10:00 PM EDT > >Message-id: <37ED7E32.BB75610B@erols.com> > > > > > > > >james_pauwels@my-deja.com wrote: > > > >> In article <7sebv2$1lpm$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu>, > >> kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) wrote: > >> > In article <7sdh99$adm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, >> deja.com> wrote: > >> > >> I don't think I'm following your line of thought here (but, of course, > >> this seems to lead us even further afield from things Tolkien, so if > >> you don't wish to discuss it further, I completely understand). Are > >> you saying that, as a practical matter, most believers obey God out of > >> fear (a rather weighty religious word, that), > > > > Fear means Respect. > > That is a religious definition. I was using the word in its more commonplace > meaning of terror/fright. Those qualities do not exclude respectm, but neither > do they presuppose it. Nobody gets very scared of God anymore. > >> rather than because He > >> has persuaded them of His goodness? > > > > We ARE persuaded of His goodness. > > Of course. And that may be what motivates you, but having been around the > block more than once, I can say pretty safely that it is not what motivates > every Christian. True. > >> I think that, to a large measure, > >> that's true (although not optimal). The concept of God as arbitrary > >> hurler of thunderbolts seems to make a deep imprint on people's > >> religious imagination. > > > > THAT is NOT God. <'sssssshhaahh,' Ermanna hisses> > > Quite so, but as I say, that image certainly thrives in the popular > imagination. They know nothing. > >> > >The uncomfortable implication, of course, is that if believers > >> somehow > >> > >discern that God thinks it is *bad* to be respectful of other humans, > >> > >then believers might behave accordingly. (In that case, perhaps > >> other > >> > >people would be saved from destruction only by humans'notable > >> inability > >> > >to faithfully follow the tenets of any major religion :-)). > >> > > >> > Well, things might be a little more clear cut if God actually > >> > told us what to do in person. In practice, no matter how much > >> > Christians claim to be obeying God, a lot of them accept > >> > mere people as bringing them the word of God. > >> > >> I think that is true, for the vast majority of Christians. > > > > What is? > > That most people learn of God through other people, rather than through a > personal appearance by God Himself. F-A-I-T-H. Faith. > >> (As an > >> aside, I would note that, while personal testimony does not meet a > >> standard for rigorous scientific proof, it is considered acceptable in > >> keeping the world running, for example in the law, in education, > >> etc.). > >> > >> Most Christians don't claim to have had visions of God in a literal > >> sense, but nearly all believe that he continues to be present in some > >> ways (e.g. in the person of the Holy Spirit). So a Christian might > >> state, with perfect sincerity, that God *does* tell her what to do. > >> Again, though, I don't think the voice of the Holy Spirit has ever been > >> captured with sound-recording equipment. It's all very subjective, and > >> so unsatisfying and frustrating. > > > > He CAN'T be caught on anything! Only chosen people are > > allowed to see Him. > > No comment. > > >> One of the striking things > >> about the world of Middle-Earth is that the 2nd-born seem to be free of > >> religious consideration in living their lives. I am using the > >> word "religious" rather freely. I am suggesting that the First-born, > >> who indeed *have* benefitted from direct intervention by the Valar, > >> have a religious relationship to the Valar (and, by extension, with > >> Illuvatar). In support of this, I would note that the cult of Elbereth > >> is pretty overtly religious. > > > > Are thinking about the Dunedain? > > I was thinking mostly of the Elves. Whatever. > Jim > > Cantate Domino canticum novum Lúthien Tinúviel/Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight See, I know where I am, and where I want to go, I've got angels to show me the way! ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <19990926093830.28510.00001542@ng-ca1.aol.com> Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 21 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.151.32.90 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 938463446 212.151.32.90 (Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:17:26 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:17:26 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 X-Sender: s-774765@d212-151-32-90.swipnet.se Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:17:35 +0200 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!bignews.mediaways.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Kingasaurus hath written: [snip] > >Maybe. So when someone says "god revealed himself to me", should we presume the >prism is making them interpret the experience incorrectly? Maybe it wasn't >"god", but something else? I doubt many religious people (who have had such an >experience) would feel comfortable with that kind of conclusion. Most religious experiences have not been messages about how to dress, eat or marry, but simply an experience of something that was believed to be a divine presence. The phenomenon is very well described in William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience". Öjevind -- ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:28:32 -0400 Lines: 25 Message-ID: <37F027CC.715D9992@erols.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <37EED9B1.F15F125@wizard.net> <37EEEAC7.A8FD1B4E@erols.com> <37EF73E1.7154B119@wizard.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UIfYXUhNFDhsnoshXVpp3h/lWCYGlTSfGHdAjixjrvI= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Sep 1999 03:29:52 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!netnews.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > On the flip side, there's nothing particularly necessary (as far as I > can see) about God's existence. As I understand it, the philosophical approach is to deduce from the existence of the world a Being of necessary existence. God is *defined* to be that Being. From that definition one can deduce such attributes as perfection, changelessness, etc. as well as the fact that all contingent existence comes from God. To move much beyond that to the truths of Christian teaching, one must then turn to Revelation. One is then doing theology rather than philosophy. -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:31:03 -0400 Lines: 25 Message-ID: <37F02863.C86BD9EC@erols.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> <37EF75F7.31D53B96@wizard.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UIfYXUhNFDgFA3tZnrUmGA1iJqUSRd8JOd25ec1O9Jw= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Sep 1999 03:29:55 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > Flame of the West wrote: > > > > I disagree with the last sentence. Since God is creating the universe from > > outside of time, He in some sense creates the whole thing at once. So it > > really doesn't matter if we can't pinpoint a beginning from inside time. > > That answer removes the supposed connection between the big bang > cosmology and theology. I can go with that. The point I was making by referring to the Big Bang was that the universe is finite, both in space and time. It disproves the idea of an uncreated, eternal universe which had been so popular among scientists. -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:43:21 -0400 Lines: 47 Message-ID: <37F02B44.5BD63C24@erols.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> <37ef8d2e@News> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UIfYXUhNFDi5MgoJvyOubGlFu3d9vWdk3GHjxdhWdv4= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Sep 1999 03:29:59 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!netnews.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Marie Barnett wrote: > Flame of the West (jsolinas@erols.com) wrote: > : Those theories about contracting and expanding are wishful thinking by > : those uncomfortable with a created universe. There's no scientific reason > : for them and they violate Occam's Razor. We have no logical reason to > : believe there was a universe on the other side of the Big Bang. > > No scientific reason? I doubt that serious scientists would propose such > a theory if they had no 'reason'. On the contrary, they do it all the time. Their (probably unconscious) motive is to validate their own religious opinions. The clearest example is that of macroevolution, for which there is *no* evidence whatsoever. In the U.S., evolution has the status of revealed dogma: no one may question it and be taken seriously by the scientific community. No one may even point out the lack of evidence. Instead we must extrapolate from the existence of microevolution to conclude that we are all descended from amoebae. Perhaps there is more intellectual honesty in Europe? > The reason for the 'expanding, > contracting' universe is very simple(at a glance, at least). You have a > 1-time(for each cycle) 'blast' of energy which sends the contents of the > universe flying apart. You have a continuous force(gravity) slowing the > movement. If there was not enough energy involved in the initial blast to > overcome gravity's effect for the mass of the universe, then there can be > no avoiding the 'big crash'. At the singularity, time and space fail to exist. We don't get to speak of the universe "before" this one. Indeed, there's no reason to think that the previous universe is anything but our own. Don't some Eastern religions think of time as cyclic? I guess in that case one could think of time as unbounded but not infinite. (Pardon my rambling, but I've been motivated to take out my old copy of Hawking's book and it's got me thinking.) -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:48:42 -0400 Lines: 35 Message-ID: <37F02C85.CC17F2B9@erols.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> <37EF75F7.31D53B96@wizard.net> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UIfYXUhNFDgR1ZPKQDOr3lO+9qaIyPwwchh+4AVUUi0= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Sep 1999 03:30:02 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > Those theories about contracting and expanding are wishful thinking by > > those uncomfortable with a created universe. There's no scientific reason > > for them and they violate Occam's Razor. We have no logical reason to > > believe there was a universe on the other side of the Big Bang. > > Those theories come quite naturally out of applying Einstein's Laws of > relativity. They have a very strong scientific reason. They don't > violate Occam's Razor - we need Einstein's Laws to explain gravity > anyway (Newton's laws were sufficient, though they came close). From > they right point of view, they're extremely elegant and simple: "R = G". > The definition of R gets a little complicated :-), but from the right > point of view, it's very nearly the only possible definition. Newton's laws only failed because they were applied in regions far beyond where they had been observed and formulated, namely in the presence of high gravity or high speeds. Einstein's laws do not replace Newton's laws, they only refine them so that they apply more broadly. Now Einstein's laws, and the laws of quantum physics, most likely fail for the same reason in the region of the Big Bang. Thus we really don't know what happened; we only know what extrapolating our rules would predict. (The same thing, BTW, for what goes on inside of a black hole. It's all guesswork.) -- -- FotW "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." ###### Message-ID: <37F0502E.54BE8638@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <37EED9B1.F15F125@wizard.net> <37EEEAC7.A8FD1B4E@erols.com> <37EF73E1.7154B119@wizard.net> <37F027CC.715D9992@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 13 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.34 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938495481 209.8.153.34 (Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:11:21 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:11:21 EDT Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:20:46 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > > On the flip side, there's nothing particularly necessary (as far as I > > can see) about God's existence. > > As I understand it, the philosophical approach is to deduce from > the existence of the world a Being of necessary existence. God Yes, and it's a pretty thoroughly flawed deduction. In it's most common forms, the argument either assumes it's conclusion, or assumes the opposite of it's conclusion (sic!). ###### Message-ID: <37F05526.59745C21@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> <37EF75F7.31D53B96@wizard.net> <37F02863.C86BD9EC@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 31 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.34 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938496755 209.8.153.34 (Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:32:35 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:32:35 EDT Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:41:58 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!blackbush.xlink.net!howland.erols.net!gate.bcandid.com.MISMATCH!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > > Flame of the West wrote: > > > > > > I disagree with the last sentence. Since God is creating the universe from > > > outside of time, He in some sense creates the whole thing at once. So it > > > really doesn't matter if we can't pinpoint a beginning from inside time. > > > > That answer removes the supposed connection between the big bang > > cosmology and theology. I can go with that. > > The point I was making by referring to the Big Bang was that the universe > is finite, both in space and time. It disproves the idea of an uncreated, > eternal universe which had been so popular among scientists. There are scientists who believe in a universe with no beginning, but they've been in the minority for my entire lifetime, and I don't believe I've ever met any. Many of them do believe in a universe that will last forever, and based upon the latest set of evidence, I agree. The universe does not appear to contain sufficient matter to pull it back into the Big Crunch. However, a fair number of scientists prefer the Big Crunch cosmology; it's more symmetrical. The mounting evidence for a low-density universe is driving people away from that position, however. "No beginning" is, of course, independent of "uncreated". You've just said that God created the whole thing at once. Therefore, it would have been just as easy for Him to create it infinitely long, so "created" doesn't have to imply "had a beginning". Similarly, "had a beginning" doesn't have to imply "was created". ###### Message-ID: <37F05971.9733D98E@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> <37EF75F7.31D53B96@wizard.net> <37F02C85.CC17F2B9@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 49 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.34 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938497854 209.8.153.34 (Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:50:54 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:50:54 EDT Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 02:00:17 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > > > Those theories about contracting and expanding are wishful thinking by > > > those uncomfortable with a created universe. There's no scientific reason > > > for them and they violate Occam's Razor. We have no logical reason to > > > believe there was a universe on the other side of the Big Bang. > > > > Those theories come quite naturally out of applying Einstein's Laws of > > relativity. They have a very strong scientific reason. They don't > > violate Occam's Razor - we need Einstein's Laws to explain gravity > > anyway (Newton's laws were sufficient, though they came close). From That was a typo; I meant to say "weren't". > > they right point of view, they're extremely elegant and simple: "R = G". > > The definition of R gets a little complicated :-), but from the right > > point of view, it's very nearly the only possible definition. > > Newton's laws only failed because they were applied in regions far > beyond where they had been observed and formulated, namely in > the presence of high gravity or high speeds. Einstein's laws do not > replace Newton's laws, they only refine them so that they apply more That's just a matter of terminology. It's just as accurate a description of the same facts, to say that Newton's laws were an approximation that was only good for weak gravity and low speeds. That approximation must be abandoned for the more exact formulation when the gravity is strong enough or the speeds are high enough. > broadly. Now Einstein's laws, and the laws of quantum physics, most > likely fail for the same reason in the region of the Big Bang. Thus we > really don't know what happened; we only know what extrapolating > our rules would predict. (The same thing, BTW, for what goes on > inside of a black hole. It's all guesswork.) Oddly enough, those laws are quite adequate to handle the expansion and contraction of the univers, or the inside of a black hole's event horizon. They don't start to break down until you get incredibly close to the singularity at the very center of the black hole, or the one at the beginning of the universe. It's not surprising that we've still got a lot to learn - what's amazing is how far we've gone with just a few centuries of scientific exploration. Based upon our current rate of scientific progress, I wouldn't recommend betting on any specific mystery remaining unsolved after a few more centuries of effort. In any event, these guesses are much better informed and more precise guesswork than anything derived from theology. ###### Message-ID: <37F05D92.8DE59AED@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> <37ef8d2e@News> <37F02B44.5BD63C24@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 53 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.34 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938498913 209.8.153.34 (Tue, 28 Sep 1999 02:08:33 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 02:08:33 EDT Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 02:17:54 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Flame of the West wrote: > > Marie Barnett wrote: > > > Flame of the West (jsolinas@erols.com) wrote: > > : Those theories about contracting and expanding are wishful thinking by > > : those uncomfortable with a created universe. There's no scientific reason > > : for them and they violate Occam's Razor. We have no logical reason to > > : believe there was a universe on the other side of the Big Bang. > > > > No scientific reason? I doubt that serious scientists would propose such > > a theory if they had no 'reason'. > > On the contrary, they do it all the time. Their (probably unconscious) > motive is to validate their own religious opinions. The clearest example > is that of macroevolution, for which there is *no* evidence whatsoever. Just a few million fossils and other types of evidence. Plus the fact that evolution makes sense of biology, in innumerable ways that creationist theories don't even attempt to match. You can use evolutionary theory to explain detailed relationships between different behavior patterns and ecological niches; the predictions are a lot more complicated than simply saying that there's a good fit between the two, and they hold up when compared with the evidence. In fact, evolution correctly explains when and how you should expect there to be a bad fit; something that no divine-creation theory can cover. > In the U.S., evolution has the status of revealed dogma: no one may Not in Kansas. They recently voted to prepare their students for the next century, but apparently were struck by the Y2K bug. They century they're preparing them for is the one starting after 1900. > question it and be taken seriously by the scientific community. No one > may even point out the lack of evidence. Instead we must extrapolate Since the lack doesn't exist, pointing it out is difficult, and the scientific objectivity of those who look at the evidence and say "it isn't there" is justifiably questionable. ... > > The reason for the 'expanding, > > contracting' universe is very simple(at a glance, at least). You have a > > 1-time(for each cycle) 'blast' of energy which sends the contents of the > > universe flying apart. You have a continuous force(gravity) slowing the > > movement. If there was not enough energy involved in the initial blast to > > overcome gravity's effect for the mass of the universe, then there can be > > no avoiding the 'big crash'. > > At the singularity, time and space fail to exist. We don't get to speak The cyclical universe models which you refer to (even though neither I nor Isaac Kuo were talking about them) don't involve a singularity. ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Mortality and Immortality Supersedes: <7spb2v$n44$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> Date: 28 Sep 1999 03:28:19 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 73 Message-ID: <7spckj$1ao2$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EEEAC7.A8FD1B4E@erols.com> <7sn7h5$83o$3@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF2923.27FA7E23@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!firehose.mindspring.net!finch!nntp.msstate.edu!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <37EF2923.27FA7E23@erols.com>, Flame of the West wrote: >Alatar wrote: >> Anyone who believes one of the following... >> a) God is imperfect >> b) the universe is perfect >> c) perfection is totally subjective, so nothing is and nothing needs to >> be perfect >> ...will be able to accept an the idea of an uncreated universe just as >>easily as you accept the idea of God creating the universe. >Yeah, those arguments don't really seem to change anyone's mind. But: >(a) doesn't get you out of having to deal with the argument. >You could ascribe the universe to Valar or something, but the >argument would still imply an Eru to create the Valar. I once took a class on "The Philosophy of Religion", in which the obviously theistic professor tried to present proofs of the necessary existence of an absolutely perfect being. It was quite sad, really because the syllabus consisted of various topics, and then near the end was the lecture on the onotological argument. Then the next lecture was on what was wrong with that argument. Then the next lecture was on an "improved" proof of the existence of and "APB". Then the next lecture was on what was wrong with _that_ argument. And so on. Until the last lecture was his latest improved argument for the existence of an APB. It was sad, because obviously every semester this class expanded by two more lectures... >(b) is hard to defend in the presence of so much evil in the world. The presence of so much evil in the world also makes it hard to defend that God is absolutely perfect (since an APB must necessarily be perfectly good, perfectly powerful, and have perfect knoledge). >(c) is probably the most common objection to the argument. The notions >of perfection and omnipotence are easily criticized ("if God can do >anything, can He make a rock so big that He can't move it?") and I'm not >really equipped to deal with them. >But the reason I gave the argument is that James Kuyper Jr. asked a >question and I was answering it. I, for one, am glad you did. It brought back some amusing college memories of one of the classes which really made me realize what "philosophers" were really like! Still, that class did make me think quite a bit. For one thing, the whole notion of "perfection" is pretty weird. As a mathematician, I'm used to all sorts of concepts of perfect mathematical ideals. I don't expect any of them to exist. Indeed, we're used to the everyday sayings that "we live in an imperfect world" and "there's no such thing as perfection". The whole notion that something "perfect" actually _exists_ is pretty counterintuitive and goes against everyday common sense, doesn't it? Everyday common sense says that "perfection" doesn't exist. We see plenty of things every day that exist, and t'ain't one of 'em "perfect". I'd be more likely to expect the state of necessarily NOT existing to be more "perfect" than necessarily existing or possibly existing. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### From: jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 30 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 28 Sep 1999 04:15:09 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990928001509.20842.00003423@ng-fh1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!pascal.a2000.nl!newsfeed.a2000.nl!skynet.be!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail << Kingasaurus hath written: [snip] > >Maybe. So when someone says "god revealed himself to me", should we presume the >prism is making them interpret the experience incorrectly? Maybe it wasn't >"god", but something else? I doubt many religious people (who have had such an >experience) would feel comfortable with that kind of conclusion. --Most religious experiences have not been messages about how to dress, eat or marry, --- I never said they were. What gave you that idea? ---but simply an experience of something that was believed to be a divine presence. The phenomenon is very well described in William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience".--- I'm aware of that. Some hallucinogenic drugs can cause a similar "feeling". It doesn't change my basic point. -King " I know what fakery looks like" -James Randi ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 28 Sep 1999 06:36:27 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 45 Message-ID: <7spnlb$1cbo$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> <37ef8d2e@News> <37F02B44.5BD63C24@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-kar1.dfn.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!gatech!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <37F02B44.5BD63C24@erols.com>, Flame of the West wrote: >Marie Barnett wrote: >> No scientific reason? I doubt that serious scientists would propose such >> a theory if they had no 'reason'. >On the contrary, they do it all the time. Their (probably unconscious) >motive is to validate their own religious opinions. If you believe this, then either you don't really understand scientists at all or you believe so-called "Creation Scientists" are scientists. >The clearest example >is that of macroevolution, for which there is *no* evidence whatsoever. This is simply untrue. Unfortunately, there is almost no way to have a non-inflamitory discussion about this topic because of the severe religion-motivated disinformation that creationists have put into U.S. society. >In the U.S., evolution has the status of revealed dogma: no one may >question it and be taken seriously by the scientific community. No one >may even point out the lack of evidence. Instead we must extrapolate >from the existence of microevolution to conclude that we are all >descended from amoebae. Perhaps there is more intellectual honesty >in Europe? There is more intellectual honesty elsewhere in the world. This anti-evolution movement is mostly a USA based phenomenon. The reason no one may question evolution and be taken seriously by the scientific community is because the scientific evidence for it is overwhelming by now. If you _really_ want to know more and see some honest discussion about the "Creation/Evolution Controversy", I highly recommend the Talk.Origins Archive-- Click on "The FAQ". -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### From: chuckb@aztec.asu.edu (CHUCK BRAMLET) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 28 Sep 1999 07:00:57 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ (USA) Lines: 39 Message-ID: <7spp39$e7j$1@news.asu.edu> References: <37F05D92.8DE59AED@wizard.net> <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.n Reply-To: chuckb@aztec.asu.edu (CHUCK BRAMLET) NNTP-Posting-Host: aztec2.asu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!CS.Arizona.EDU!math.arizona.edu!noao!ennfs.eas.asu.edu!news.asu.edu!aztec.asu.edu!chuckb Seeing as how this silly debate is still going on (silly because the theistics cannot prove the existence of God to the atiest's satisfaction, no matter what proof is offered), I will post this little piece of humor. > One day a 6 year old girl was sitting in the classroom. > The teacher was going to explain evolution to the children. > The teacher asked a little boy: > > Teacher: Tommy do you see the tree out side? > Tommy: Yes. > Teacher: Tommy, do you see the grass out side? > Tommy: Yes. > Teacher: Go out side and look up and see if you can see The sky. > Tommy: OK. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw > the sky. > Teacher: Did you see God? > Tommy: No. > Teacher: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. > A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions. > Teacher agreed and she asked the boy: > Little Girl: Tommy, do you see the tree outside? > Tommy: Yes. > Little girl: Tommy do you see the grass outside? > Tommy: Yessssss (getting tired of the questions by this > time) > Little girl Did you see the sky? > Tommy: Yessssss > Little Girl: Tommy, do you see the teacher? > Tommy: Yes > Little Girl Do you see her brain? > Tommy: No > Little Girl: Does that mean she doesn't have one? > Now, can we get back to ME? -- ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> <37ef8d2e@News> <37F02B44.5BD63C24@erols.com> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 88 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 07:21:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: uchinews 938503314 128.135.12.7 (Tue, 28 Sep 1999 02:21:54 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 02:21:54 CDT Organization: The University of Chicago Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uchinews!not-for-mail Quoth jsolinas@erols.com: > On the contrary, they do it all the time. Their (probably unconscious) > motive is to validate their own religious opinions. I'm doing what I can to avoid taking that as an insult of surprising magnitude. Are you saying that everything that I'm striving for in my career, that I'm seriously planning to devote my life to, that I love, is a self-serving lie? Or merely that the vast majority of the students of my chosen dicipline are so blind and foolish that they can't even apply their own scientific method right (and that includes me, by the way)? I'm pretty sure that you weren't aiming for either of those implications, but they're hard to avoid... > The clearest example is that of macroevolution, for which there is > *no* evidence whatsoever. There is just as much evidence for what creationists call "macroevolution" as there is for, say, the Big Bang. More, in fact, because we've got evidence for many instances of macroevolution, while there's only measurable evidence for one Big Bang. Similarly, there's just as much evidence for macroevolution as there is for black holes: we've never actually _seen_ a black hole, but we've found awfully convincing circumstantial evidence for them, and they arise naturally from our understanding of the interactions of stellar objects. I would go so far as to say that there is a great deal more evidence for macroevolution than there is for the existence of the top quark, which was found not too long ago at Fermilab by observing a mere handful of events, many of which were certainly just experimental noise. When it comes down to it, most of the arguments that creationists use to argue that evolution shouldn't be taught in school (or that it be taught alongside their personally preferred creation stories) could apply equally well to most of astrophysics. I always wonder why they aren't pushing that front, too... For lots of mainstream scientific discussion of the evolution/creationism controversy, I recommend visiting http://www.talkorigins.org/ Very good discussions there, and responses to quite a few of the most common misunderstandings about evolution (including the common "there isn't any evidence" fallacy). Oh, and for those who claim that evolution makes no predictions and is therefore not good science, I would point out that careful studies of genetic differences between species (particularly in unused segments of DNA that are therefore not directly involved with natural selection) have almost invariably resulted in good agreement with the predictions made by the theory of evolution. That is, based on fossil evidence, we conclude that species A and species B diverged N million years ago. The theory of evolution then predicts that the genetic differences between those species will be greater than those observed between A and C (which diverged just N/2 million years ago) but less than those between A and D (which diverged 2*N million years ago). Not only that, but when they are calibrated to one of those events, those measurements will generally even be able to reproduce the dates of divergence as predicted from the fossil record (to within error). This is just one of many examples of evidence in favor of "macroevolution". See that talk.origins website for more information. Incidentally, I've never really understood what creationists mean when they say "macroevolution" as opposed to "microevolution". They generally talk about "macroevolution" as dealing with transitions between "forms", but "forms" doesn't seem to mean "species". As far as I can tell, "forms" generally means "groups of things that we haven't seen evolve into other things". Ah well. I should stop. Can anyone tell that evolution is one of my pet issues? :) [Referring to the repeating Bang-Crunch models of the Universe] > At the singularity, time and space fail to exist. I'm certainly not a specialist in early universe cosmology, but I never got the impression that the universes in cyclic universe theories actually passed through a singularity in each cycle, just that they came close enough that the "force" preventing the singularity pushed them out again, causing a new "Big Bang". Steuard Jensen ###### From: "Alatar" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 08:48:41 +0100 Organization: Customer of Planet Online Lines: 23 Message-ID: <7spvd1$vmg$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> <37EF75F7.31D53B96@wizard.net> <37F02863.C86BD9EC@erols.com> <37F05526.59745C21@wizard.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-208.slamdunk.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news6.svr.pol.co.uk 938508513 32464 62.136.207.208 (28 Sep 1999 08:48:33 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Sep 1999 08:48:33 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!nyc-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!easynet-tele!easynet.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail James Kuyper Jr. wrote: >However, a fair number of scientists prefer the Big >Crunch cosmology; it's more symmetrical. The mounting evidence for a >low-density universe is driving people away from that position, however. There is still the mystery of "dark matter" which could potentially double the density of the universe. Also, unless my memory is failing me yet again, there is evidence that the expantion of the universe is still slowing down, which would support a Big Crunch theory. -- Alatar Protector of the secret glen of Morangie, where the drink of gold be made. Where's Einstien when you need him? Find that Tolkien site in The Cave of Lost Scrolls: http://www.invoke.freeserve.co.uk/alatar/lostscrolls.htm ###### Message-ID: <37F0C7AB.D63B6E49@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> <37EF75F7.31D53B96@wizard.net> <37F02863.C86BD9EC@erols.com> <37F05526.59745C21@wizard.net> <7spvd1$vmg$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 36 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.7 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938526071 209.8.153.7 (Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:41:11 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:41:11 EDT Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:50:35 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Alatar wrote: > > James Kuyper Jr. wrote: > > >However, a fair number of scientists prefer the Big > >Crunch cosmology; it's more symmetrical. The mounting evidence for a > >low-density universe is driving people away from that position, however. > > There is still the mystery of "dark matter" which could potentially double > the density of the universe. Also, unless my memory is failing me yet again, > there is evidence that the expantion of the universe is still slowing down, > which would support a Big Crunch theory. Last things first: the expansion of the universe may be slowing down, but it's not slowing down fast enough to ever come to a halt (if the latest evidence is accurate). It's also possible that we are about to enter, or have even just now entered, a second inflationary era - this is "wierd science", but the math holds up - it depends upon whether there exists a currently unknown particle with the right properties to be this era's "inflaton". If there is, we'll enter a new phase of exponential growth, which won't be quite as impressive as the first one, because the new inflaton field will necessarily initially represent a much smaller fraction of the universe's total energy density. Finally, one of the best reasons for believing that there is "dark matter", was the theoretical arguments in favor of the universe being poised just at the limit between eventual collapse and eternal expansion. In order for that to be true, there'd have to be a lot more matter in the universe decelerating the expansion than is currently visible from it's own emitted light - hence, dark matter. That was a plausible belief when the deceleration was less accurately known. The latest evidence seems to preclude a deceleration large enough to bring the expansion to a halt. There still needs to be more matter than we can see, but not nearly as much more as used to be thought. ###### From: Michael Guenther Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:24:20 -0500 Organization: Purdue University Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> <37ef8d2e@News> <37F02B44.5BD63C24@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: london.physics.purdue.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: mozo.cc.purdue.edu 938535861 21133 128.210.67.35 (28 Sep 1999 16:24:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@mozo.cc.purdue.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Sep 1999 16:24:21 GMT In-Reply-To: Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.direct.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu!mozo.cc.purdue.edu!london.physics.purdue.edu!mbguenth On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Steuard Jensen wrote: > I would go so far as to say that there is a great deal more evidence > for macroevolution than there is for the existence of the top quark, > which was found not too long ago at Fermilab by observing a mere > handful of events, many of which were certainly just experimental > noise. Them's fightin' words! In a paper in 1994 the CDF collaboration found evidence for the top with a significance of 2.8 sigma. The paper which announced the discovery in 1995 stated a significance of well over 5 sigma (due to more data collected), and it's so high now that people don't bother stating the significance. So, no, it's not true that many of the events "were certainly just experimental noise." -- Michael Guenther mbguenth@physics.purdue.edu CDF Collaboration ###### From: spamblock@see.sig (Mark Myers) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:02:52 +0100 Organization: INSnet Customer Posting Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <7sgndm$lsa$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: e0.gateway-1.route.netforce.net X-Trace: starburst.uk.insnet.net 938534572 29490 195.58.64.67 (28 Sep 1999 16:02:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@starburst.uk.insnet.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Sep 1999 16:02:52 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!insnet.net!not-for-mail james_pauwels@my-deja.com wrote ... > In article , > spamblock@see.sig (Mark Myers) wrote: > > > > I think that the burden of proof resides with creationists. > > The question then immediately arises: what standards of admitting > evidence are to be applied to the discussion. If the only evidence to > be admitted is that which is scientifically verifiable, then most > likely a "theist" will not be able to meet the standards of evidence. > If more subjective standards (such as testimony) are acceptable, then > the "theist" will gladly submit reams and reams of evidence. > I have heard much varying testimony, from many different people, much of it *mutually exclusive*. Whether it be from religious sorts or not. As such, I find testimony to be unreliable in the *extreme*. > As a side note: I usually think of "creationists" in the context of a > discussion of evolution. There are many believers in a God who do not > subscribe to the "creationist" view of the creation of a species. > Fair comment. The term just slipped in from the context of the thread as a discussion of a created or not created universe. -- Regards Mark Myers jahdzia at iname dot com ###### From: spamblock@see.sig (Mark Myers) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:02:54 +0100 Organization: INSnet Customer Posting Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> <37ef8d2e@News> <37F02B44.5BD63C24@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: e0.gateway-1.route.netforce.net X-Trace: starburst.uk.insnet.net 938534574 29490 195.58.64.67 (28 Sep 1999 16:02:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@starburst.uk.insnet.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Sep 1999 16:02:54 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!insnet.net!not-for-mail Steuard Jensen wrote ... > Quoth jsolinas@erols.com: > > On the contrary, they do it all the time. Their (probably unconscious) > > motive is to validate their own religious opinions. > > I'm doing what I can to avoid taking that as an insult of surprising > magnitude. Are you saying that everything that I'm striving for in my > career, that I'm seriously planning to devote my life to, that I love, > is a self-serving lie? Or merely that the vast majority of the > students of my chosen dicipline are so blind and foolish that they > can't even apply their own scientific method right (and that includes > me, by the way)? I'm pretty sure that you weren't aiming for either > of those implications, but they're hard to avoid... > Surprising magnitude is an understatement, but I'm sure you're right Steuard; perhaps it would be timely (bearing in mind where this started) to remind the theists that Sagan didn't intend any offence either. -- Regards Mark Myers jahdzia at iname dot com ###### From: Johnathan George Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:26:51 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 31 Message-ID: <37F1086B.4F5F51D0@mindspring.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EA7FC5.50CA53D9@mindspring.com> <37EB049D.85CD3CC6@wizard.net> <37EBBE6A.9EB8AC57@mindspring.com> <7sgsr4$mee$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.3e.55 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 28 Sep 1999 18:30:15 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Isaac Kuo wrote: > > If nothing else, consistent null results would be a strong indication > that it chooses not to let us confirm its existence (if it exists, > of course). Maybe that's not a big result, but I think it's a > profound one. Well, yes. I said earlier that things can be learned about the the supernatural through science, but that there is a limit. I was trying to offer an explanation of what some of those limits might be. > > For example, consider the much more mundane question of SETI--the > search for extraterrestrial technological intelligent life. We've > been cupping our radio telescope ears for years now listenning for > messages from aliens, even though they can reveal or hide themselves > in the radio spectrum at will. We'd only hear from them if they > really made an effort to speak to us! So far, we've been getting > consistent null results. That doesn't mean we've learned nothing > at all--we've learned more than if we never bothered listenning. The comparison of the search for God with SETI was drawn in a movie a few years ago I don't remeber the name... was it Contact?) Interesting subject, although I thought they presented the theists point of view pretty weakly. Either wacko religious nuts, or a sort of feel good religion proponent. Johnathan George ###### From: Johnathan George Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:33:49 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 14 Message-ID: <37F10A0D.75578F1A@mindspring.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EB049D.85CD3CC6@wizard.net> <37EBBE6A.9EB8AC57@mindspring.com> <7sgsr4$mee$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.3e.55 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 28 Sep 1999 18:37:20 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!uunet!chi.uu.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail > Quoth kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo): > > I mean, if I saw Aragorn parading around with an army of the > > dead following him, I wouldn't be thinking, "Yeah whatever--I > > bet he can't do it again." Certainly, but if you went and told your scientist friend what you'd seen he probably wouldn't start to construct a theory about how souls hung around on earth when they had a debt to repay.... he'd be more likely to pack you off to the funny farm! Johnathan ###### From: Johnathan George Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:42:27 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 34 Message-ID: <37F10C13.815C9A09@mindspring.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EA7FC5.50CA53D9@mindspring.com> <37EB049D.85CD3CC6@wizard.net> <37EBBE6A.9EB8AC57@mindspring.com> <37EC1FCB.6B592F5E@wizard.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.3e.55 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 28 Sep 1999 18:46:05 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > Johnathan George wrote: > > Well, it seems to me that when science discovers an anomaly.. something > > that doesn't fit with what we currently know about the universe, it > > immediately starts searching for a new natural law or principle to > > Actually, no - what immediately starts is usually an effort to figure > out where the mistake was made in applying our current knowledge. The > search for a new explanation usually doesn't start until much later, and > tends to run in parallel with the first effort. Not that this goes > against your argument, of course. True. I was oversimplifying a bit... > > Consider the possibility that what you think is God, is really just a > being who is almost, but not quite, powerful enough to make it > impossible for you from find out that he isn't God. How would you expect > to uncover that deception, if you work from faith rather than > skepticism? Actually, at one time I believed something quite like this. I believed that if God did exist, He didn't like me very much, and was lying about who he was. Obviously I've changed my mind. I could be wrong, but I guess I'm willing to take that risk. I've followed the evidence I have to the conclusion I believe to be correct. I guess I don't have the resources or inclination to go on a search to uncover a divine conspiracy! Johnathan George ###### From: Johnathan George Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:02:36 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 30 Message-ID: <37F110CC.CE7FA5DD@mindspring.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <7sdh99$adm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7sebv2$1lpm$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <7sg6if$8it$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7shn98$17m2$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.3e.55 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 28 Sep 1999 19:02:42 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-fra.pop.de!newsfeed.direct.ca!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Isaac Kuo wrote: > > What about the typical Christian? I think for the typical > Christian it's enough simply to trust that an ideal notion > of "good" exists, and that God is absolutely good. Therefore, > it doesn't really matter whether or not you know anything about > what that ideal notion means as long as you just go along > with God. It's not the same as just saying "good" is whatever > God says. I think that it's true that a lot of Christians do take this attitude, and to me it's one of the easiest, and most serious mistakes a Christian can make. It seems to me that a lot of the things Jesus said while on earth were condemnations of the "rule book" type of religion. When He was asked what was the greatest commandment, he basically said "love God, and love your fellow human beings". Even the times when he seemed to be making commands (like when he said that it was adultery to even look at a woman with lust) it was mainly to point out the utter uselessness of trying to be righteous by keeping all the rules perfectly. That said, I think there are some things which God has specifically said are good or bad that aren't particularly obvious from first principles. Christians generally think that they should trust Him in these cases and follow His guidance. Johnathan George ###### From: Johnathan George Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:21:42 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 62 Message-ID: <37F11546.A9AD1C54@mindspring.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EEEAC7.A8FD1B4E@erols.com> <7sn7h5$83o$3@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF2923.27FA7E23@erols.com> <7spckj$1ao2$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.3e.55 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 28 Sep 1999 19:26:01 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Isaac Kuo wrote: > > >(b) is hard to defend in the presence of so much evil in the world. > > The presence of so much evil in the world also makes it hard to > defend that God is absolutely perfect (since an APB must > necessarily be perfectly good, perfectly powerful, and have > perfect knoledge). Saying a being is all powerful doesn't mean it can do something which is really nonsense. The question about God making a rock so heavy he can't lift it isn't really a deep question... it's simply nonsense. It's like asking an APB to make 2+2= orange. Complete nonsense. The standard answer to the APB who allows evil in the universe is that it's logically impossible to create creatures with free will without allowing the possibility of evil. Just like the rock too heavy to carry, it's complete nonsense. Now I know there are people who think this argument doesn't hold water, and I suppose it has to do with how you define free will. I personally think it's a good argument, but just like most arguments on this subject, it certainly won't convince everyone! Johnathan > > >(c) is probably the most common objection to the argument. The notions > >of perfection and omnipotence are easily criticized ("if God can do > >anything, can He make a rock so big that He can't move it?") and I'm not > >really equipped to deal with them. > > >But the reason I gave the argument is that James Kuyper Jr. asked a > >question and I was answering it. > > I, for one, am glad you did. It brought back some amusing college > memories of one of the classes which really made me realize what > "philosophers" were really like! > > Still, that class did make me think quite a bit. For one thing, > the whole notion of "perfection" is pretty weird. As a mathematician, > I'm used to all sorts of concepts of perfect mathematical ideals. > I don't expect any of them to exist. Indeed, we're used to the > everyday sayings that "we live in an imperfect world" and "there's > no such thing as perfection". > > The whole notion that something "perfect" actually _exists_ is > pretty counterintuitive and goes against everyday common sense, > doesn't it? Everyday common sense says that "perfection" doesn't > exist. We see plenty of things every day that exist, and t'ain't > one of 'em "perfect". > > I'd be more likely to expect the state of necessarily NOT existing > to be more "perfect" than necessarily existing or possibly > existing. > -- > _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo > __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 > /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... > \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### From: Johnathan George Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:57:47 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 61 Message-ID: <37F11DBB.86DF475F@mindspring.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net> <7sd4n8$imc$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EA308E.7BCCA8F@wizard.net> <7se99h$tus$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.3e.55 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 28 Sep 1999 20:02:43 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!news.belnet.be!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!carrier1.net!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Isaac Kuo wrote: > > > In my part of the world, most theists are Christians who believe > that the most important thing that makes their faith valid is > that it is faith beyond doubt--absolute unquestionning faith. > The less questionning the better! If the truth conflicts with > your faith, then the truth is wrong! > > In other words, I'm used to theists being sure there is a God > beyond even a purely technical doubt--and that furthermore > those theists think that someone who has even that doubt isn't > really a believer. I thus define a theist as one who is SURE > that God exists. > I've argued this point at my church. Several people were trying to say that we shouldn't look at other beliefs because they might shake our faith. They pointed to some people they knew who had tried to share their faith, and had their own faith shaken by questions that they were asked. I tried to point out that maybe the questions wouldn't have been so difficult for them if they hadn't stuck thier heads in the sand up to that point, but had learned what the arguments for and against the existence of God etc. were. I'm not sure if anyone was convinced, but at least I tried! Johnathan George > Therefore, for symmetry's sake, I define an atheist as one who > is SURE that God does not exist. > > Furthermore, it is IMO possible for a sane intelligent person to > be sure that God does not exist beyond even a technical degree > of doubt. Most importantly, a sane intelligent person might not > be familiar with the basics of scientific principles (most > people aren't). Also, for whatever reasons people around here > are just so indoctrinated in the local varieties of Christianity > that they can't fathom the possibility of a God _unlike_ the > one they've been taught about since birth. Thus, in their > minds either there's a "good" God or none at all. A sane > intelligent person in this environment who has sufferred > incredible tragedies might thus come to the conclusion that > there definitely is no God. > > Is it his fault that he's never been taught even the basics of > scientific principles or the subtleties of logic? (I won't > get into the quality of education here.) Does it make him > less sane or rational? > > In a lame attempt to make this post vaguely on-topic, I note > that Turin could have come to such a conclusion. Okay, okay, > that was really lame. > -- > _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo > __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 > /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... > \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### From: Johnathan George Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:08:24 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 26 Message-ID: <37F12035.CA96D047@mindspring.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37EA308E.7BCCA8F@wizard.net> <7se99h$tus$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EB09F1.A98B28D3@wizard.net> <7sgu3r$v6s$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.3e.55 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 28 Sep 1999 20:13:52 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!netnews.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Isaac Kuo wrote: > > I wouldn't call the belief in Christianity that the people around > me have brittle--it's incredibly resilient. Unbelievably > resilient when it comes to sticking by their dirty rotten > Televangelist. It's brittle, if they ever really start to ask themselves the hard questions. Somewhere inside they probably know that, and that's why they're so reluctant to really think about things like this. I think that Christianity is defensible, but some Christians apparently aren't so sure. OTOH... In defense of people who stick by their faith in this way, I think sometimes it's because they know they're up against someone who is better at this type of argument, and they can't reasonably be asked to defend it well. They know that who wins an argument isn't always the one who is right... often it has a lot more to do with who is most adept at arguing. Johnathan George ###### From: Johnathan George Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:11:25 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 19 Message-ID: <37F120ED.6048E52F@mindspring.com> References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net> <7sd4n8$imc$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EAD035.97C46CE6@erols.com> <37EC2F63.412582F5@wizard.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.3e.55 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 28 Sep 1999 20:16:35 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!newspeer.ebone.net!news.net.uni-c.dk!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > Flame of the West wrote: > > > > Isaac Kuo wrote: > > > > > Anyway, is there any term for the belief that even if God exists, > > > that one shouldn't simply follow its commands or worship it just > > > because it is God? > > > > Yeah, it's called suicidal stupidity. > > Might make right? Infinite might makes infinite right? I don't see it. > It might be futile to oppose God's will; that doesn't mean it couldn't > our moral duty to do so. Sort of the Ragnarok spirit? ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:05:19 -0400 From: Huan the hound Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality In-Reply-To: <37F11DBB.86DF475F@mindspring.com> Message-ID: References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net> <7sd4n8$imc$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EA308E.7BCCA8F@wizard.net> <7se99h$tus$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37F11DBB.86DF475F@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NNTP-Posting-Host: river.it.gvsu.edu X-Trace: 28 Sep 1999 17:05:20 -0500, river.it.gvsu.edu Lines: 48 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!iol.ie!newsfeed.icl.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!msunews!news.it.gvsu.edu!river.it.gvsu.edu!dyera On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Johnathan George wrote: >Message-ID: <37F11DBB.86DF475F@mindspring.com> >Isaac Kuo wrote: >> > >> >> In my part of the world, most theists are Christians who believe >> that the most important thing that makes their faith valid is >> that it is faith beyond doubt--absolute unquestionning faith. >> The less questionning the better! If the truth conflicts with >> your faith, then the truth is wrong! >> >> In other words, I'm used to theists being sure there is a God >> beyond even a purely technical doubt--and that furthermore >> those theists think that someone who has even that doubt isn't >> really a believer. I thus define a theist as one who is SURE >> that God exists. >> > >I've argued this point at my church. Several people were trying to say >that we shouldn't look at other beliefs because they might shake our >faith. They pointed to some people they knew who had tried to share >their faith, and had their own faith shaken by questions that they were >asked. I tried to point out that maybe the questions wouldn't have been >so difficult for them if they hadn't stuck thier heads in the sand up to >that point, but had learned what the arguments for and against the >existence of God etc. were. I'm not sure if anyone was convinced, but >at least I tried! > A friend of mine said something like this to me last Thursday. He said that we should be careful not to get our heads too filled up with anti-Christian philosophies because we may stop believing. I responded with 1 John 4:1-2: Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. This makes it clear that it is ok to be open-minded and listen to what other people believe. -- Huan, the hound of Valinor Nuclear Power: When American energy consumption is increasing so rapidly, how can we ignore a source with such environmental friendliness and abundance? ###### Message-ID: <37F1538E.B7D4E898@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EA7FC5.50CA53D9@mindspring.com> <37EB049D.85CD3CC6@wizard.net> <37EBBE6A.9EB8AC57@mindspring.com> <7sgsr4$mee$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37F1086B.4F5F51D0@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.17 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938561881 209.8.153.17 (Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:38:01 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:38:01 EDT Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:47:26 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-kar1.dfn.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!feeder.qis.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Johnathan George wrote: ... > The comparison of the search for God with SETI was drawn in a movie a > few years ago I don't remeber the name... was it Contact?) Interesting > subject, although I thought they presented the theists point of view > pretty weakly. Either wacko religious nuts, or a sort of feel good > religion proponent. Interesting; I didn't like the way the atheist was portrayed. She was emotionally unstable, making a "hallucination" explanation more plausible than it should have been. Furthermore, when asked why people should believe her unsupported word about what happened, I thought her answer completely out of sync with her scientific background. What she should have said was "Don't take my word for it; try sending someone else and see what he reports." ###### Message-ID: <37F15470.DA6996CC@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <19990922112406.16236.00000804@ng-fw1.aol.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EA7FC5.50CA53D9@mindspring.com> <37EB049D.85CD3CC6@wizard.net> <37EBBE6A.9EB8AC57@mindspring.com> <37EC1FCB.6B592F5E@wizard.net> <37F10C13.815C9A09@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 23 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.17 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938562109 209.8.153.17 (Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:41:49 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:41:49 EDT Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:51:12 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Johnathan George wrote: > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: ... > > Consider the possibility that what you think is God, is really just a > > being who is almost, but not quite, powerful enough to make it > > impossible for you from find out that he isn't God. How would you expect > > to uncover that deception, if you work from faith rather than > > skepticism? > > Actually, at one time I believed something quite like this. I believed > that if God did exist, He didn't like me very much, and was lying about > who he was. Obviously I've changed my mind. I could be wrong, but I > guess I'm willing to take that risk. I've followed the evidence I have > to the conclusion I believe to be correct. I guess I don't have the > resources or inclination to go on a search to uncover a divine > conspiracy! My point is, that it might be the case that you do have the resources. Remember, I'm not postulating a deciever who is actually divine, merely powerful enough to discourage people from investigating whether he is divine. Because you don't have that inclination, you might never find out whether that's true. ###### Message-ID: <37F1554E.EC03C22F@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> <37EF75F7.31D53B96@wizard.net> <37F02C85.CC17F2B9@erols.com> <37F05971.9733D98E@wizard.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 23 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.17 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938562325 209.8.153.17 (Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:45:25 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:45:25 EDT Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:54:54 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!news.compuserve.com!news-master.compuserve.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail "Öjevind Lång" wrote: > > James Kuyper Jr. hath written: > > [snip] > > > >Oddly enough, those laws are quite adequate to handle the expansion and > >contraction of the univers, or the inside of a black hole's event > >horizon. They don't start to break down until you get incredibly close > >to the singularity at the very center of the black hole, or the one at > >the beginning of the universe. It's not surprising that we've still got > >a lot to learn - what's amazing is how far we've gone with just a few > >centuries of scientific exploration. Based upon our current rate of > >scientific progress, I wouldn't recommend betting on any specific > >mystery remaining unsolved after a few more centuries of effort. > > Wasn't that what the scientists were saying before Einstein? That basically, > all that remained to be done was fill in a few holes, and then everything > would be known. Then it turned out they were most drastically wrong. I was very careful in constructing my statement. I said "any specific mystery". I fully expect that future progress in science will uncover far more mysteries than it resolves. ###### Message-ID: <37F15675.162CC922@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37dc88ad.45496833@news.earthlink.net> <37e85495.23463890@news.earthlink.net> <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E97904.F102AAE0@wizard.net> <7sd4n8$imc$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EAD035.97C46CE6@erols.com> <37EC2F63.412582F5@wizard.net> <37F120ED.6048E52F@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 22 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.8.153.17 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 938562620 209.8.153.17 (Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:50:20 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:50:20 EDT Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:59:49 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed.direct.ca!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Johnathan George wrote: > > "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > > > Flame of the West wrote: > > > > > > Isaac Kuo wrote: > > > > > > > Anyway, is there any term for the belief that even if God exists, > > > > that one shouldn't simply follow its commands or worship it just > > > > because it is God? > > > > > > Yeah, it's called suicidal stupidity. > > > > Might make right? Infinite might makes infinite right? I don't see it. > > It might be futile to oppose God's will; that doesn't mean it couldn't > > our moral duty to do so. > > Sort of the Ragnarok spirit? Exactly. And so we return to some vague measure of appropriateness for the newsgroup ;-) ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> <37EF75F7.31D53B96@wizard.net> <37F02C85.CC17F2B9@erols.com> <37F05971.9733D98E@wizard.net> Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 23 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.151.60.200 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 938545356 212.151.60.200 (Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:02:36 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:02:36 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 X-Sender: s-774765@d212-151-60-200.swipnet.se Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:02:47 +0200 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!blackbush.xlink.net!newsfeed.tli.de!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail James Kuyper Jr. hath written: [snip] > >Oddly enough, those laws are quite adequate to handle the expansion and >contraction of the univers, or the inside of a black hole's event >horizon. They don't start to break down until you get incredibly close >to the singularity at the very center of the black hole, or the one at >the beginning of the universe. It's not surprising that we've still got >a lot to learn - what's amazing is how far we've gone with just a few >centuries of scientific exploration. Based upon our current rate of >scientific progress, I wouldn't recommend betting on any specific >mystery remaining unsolved after a few more centuries of effort. Wasn't that what the scientists were saying before Einstein? That basically, all that remained to be done was fill in a few holes, and then everything would be known. Then it turned out they were most drastically wrong. Öjevind -- ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <19990928001509.20842.00003423@ng-fh1.aol.com> Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 41 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.151.60.200 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 938546200 212.151.60.200 (Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:16:40 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:16:40 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 X-Sender: s-774765@d212-151-60-200.swipnet.se Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:16:49 +0200 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Kingasaurus hath written: ><< Kingasaurus hath written: > >[snip] >> >>Maybe. So when someone says "god revealed himself to me", should we presume >the >>prism is making them interpret the experience incorrectly? Maybe it wasn't >>"god", but something else? I doubt many religious people (who have had such >an >>experience) would feel comfortable with that kind of conclusion. > > >--Most religious experiences have not been messages about how to dress, eat or >marry, --- > >I never said they were. What gave you that idea? > >---but simply an experience of something that was believed to be a >divine presence. The phenomenon is very well described in William James' >"Varieties of Religious Experience".--- > >I'm aware of that. Some hallucinogenic drugs can cause a similar "feeling". It >doesn't change my basic point. I was simply trying to explain how different religious experiences *can* be perceived as equally true, as long as you stay away from dogmatic statements about the nature of God, his opinions about what people should eat and so on. If you have got that point, fine. Öjevind -- ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37F02B44.5BD63C24@erols.com> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 57 Message-ID: <1WaI3.109$F3.1371@uchinews> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:02:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: uchinews 938556157 128.135.12.7 (Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:02:37 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:02:37 CDT Organization: The University of Chicago Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!uchinews!not-for-mail Quoth Michael Guenther : > On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Steuard Jensen wrote: > > I would go so far as to say that there is a great deal more evidence > > for macroevolution than there is for the existence of the top quark, > > which was found not too long ago at Fermilab by observing a mere > > handful of events, many of which were certainly just experimental > > noise. > Them's fightin' words! > ...The paper which announced the discovery in 1995 stated a > significance of well over 5 sigma... So, no, it's not true that > many of the events "were certainly just experimental noise." ... > Michael Guenther > CDF Collaboration Aha! Your righteous wrath is suddenly clariried. :) Yes, I know that the data (once published) was well into the "pretty much certain" range, and that the existence of the top quark is as firmly established as the rest of particle physics. (I'm considering a career in string theory, remember. :) I've got to know at least a _bit_ of this stuff.) I wasn't trying to indicate that the existence of the top quark isn't well established! After all, my wording above is even more hesitant than my wording in comparing the evidence for evolution to that for black holes or the Big Bang. As I understand it, at least, the 5 sigma statistics you mention above are a measurement of how unlikely it would be for background "noise" to produce the observed number of top-like events. It's the events that _can_ be explained by background processes that I was referring to in my comments above. No greater suggestion of uncertainty or untrustworthiness was intended. In fact, my point was simply that while you folks have very good evidence for the top quark (enough to preclude reasonable doubt), evolution ("macroevolution", as the creationists call it) has even more. Evolution provides almost as much of a unifying principle to biology as relativity or quantum field theory do to physics. Virtually the entire field makes more sense when considered with evolution in mind. Not only that, but evolutionary connections between species have provided important data in other areas as well: for example, plate tectonics was in some sense predicted by the theory of evolution, given the available data on the locations of related species. The point is, CDF has shown conclusively that the top quark exists, but _dozens_ of reasonably independent observations in many areas of study provide equally strong evidence for "macroevolution". No, we haven't _seen_ any macroevolution happening around us recently, but we haven't _seen_ any black holes, Big Bangs, or top quarks, either. It's just indirect evidence in every case, but awfully convincing for all of them. How was that for an excessive response to a post that didn't even complain about my main points? :) Steuard Jensen ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 29 Sep 1999 04:57:29 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 57 Message-ID: <7ss67p$1cag$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EF2923.27FA7E23@erols.com> <7spckj$1ao2$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37F11546.A9AD1C54@mindspring.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!news.uah.edu!SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <37F11546.A9AD1C54@mindspring.com>, Johnathan George wrote: >Isaac Kuo wrote: >> >(b) is hard to defend in the presence of so much evil in the world. >> The presence of so much evil in the world also makes it hard to >> defend that God is absolutely perfect (since an APB must >> necessarily be perfectly good, perfectly powerful, and have >> perfect knoledge). >Saying a being is all powerful doesn't mean it can do something which is >really nonsense. The question about God making a rock so heavy he can't >lift it isn't really a deep question... it's simply nonsense. It's like >asking an APB to make 2+2= orange. Complete nonsense. It does point out that just because you can form a string of words together doesn't make it a sensible notion. This, really, is the biggest problem for trying to prove the existence of an APB. Just because you can string words together into the phrase, "an APB has necessary existence" doesn't mean that phrase is a sensible notion. I consider it a deep question because it severely limits what you can say an APB can do. The naive person might think that the APB can do ANYTHING, so if you ask him if an APB can do X, he can confidently answer, "Yes". However, with the heavy rock example it's clear that you can't simply answer "Yes" all the time. >The standard answer to the APB who allows evil in the universe is that >it's logically impossible to create creatures with free will without >allowing the possibility of evil. Just like the rock too heavy to >carry, it's complete nonsense. Now I know there are people who think >this argument doesn't hold water, and I suppose it has to do with how >you define free will. I personally think it's a good argument, but just >like most arguments on this subject, it certainly won't convince >everyone! I agree it makes sense that it's logically impossible to create creatures with free will without allowing the possibility of evil. Unfortunately, if you accept this premise it brings up the obvious question of why an absolutely _good_ being would create free will, if it inherently implies the possibility of evil. Of course, it could be that the notion of "absolutely good" is simply a nonsensical notion. This is an issue which must be addressed in the light of the fact that nonsensical notions can be worded (e.g. the heavy rock). The problem, of course, is that there isn't a standard definition of "good", much less a standard definition of "absolutely good". -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### From: kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: 29 Sep 1999 05:04:33 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, LSU, Baton Rouge Lines: 33 Message-ID: <7ss6l1$1f20$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <7sgsr4$mee$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37F10A0D.75578F1A@mindspring.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldbit.csc.lsu.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!news.uah.edu!SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!kuo In article <37F10A0D.75578F1A@mindspring.com>, Johnathan George wrote: >> Quoth kuo@oldbit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo): >> > I mean, if I saw Aragorn parading around with an army of the >> > dead following him, I wouldn't be thinking, "Yeah whatever--I >> > bet he can't do it again." >Certainly, but if you went and told your scientist friend what you'd >seen he probably wouldn't start to construct a theory about how souls >hung around on earth when they had a debt to repay.... he'd be more >likely to pack you off to the funny farm! Actually, I consider myself scientifically minded, and if I actually saw Aragorn parading around with an army of the dead following him, I'd be thinking to myself all sorts of scientifically minded questions, starting first and foremost with the idea of gathering as much useful data/information as I can about what's going on. I wouldn't start to construct a theory about souls and debts until later, if at all. First comes data gathering--then comes analysis and conclusions! (Okay, this is oversimplifying--in reality it's a cycle where you continue to gather data, of course.) My point with my joke was to illustrate that I wouldn't just dismiss the event solely on the grounds that it wasn't repeatable. Neither would any reasonable scientist. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ ICQ 29055726 /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi ###### From: azazoth@access2.mountain.net (Marie Barnett) Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EEEAC7.A8FD1B4E@erols.com> <7sn7h5$83o$3@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF2923.27FA7E23@erols.com> <7spckj$1ao2$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37F11546.A9AD1C54@mindspring.com> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.mountain.net Message-ID: <37f22456@News> Date: 29 Sep 1999 10:38:14 -0400 X-Trace: 29 Sep 1999 10:38:14 -0400, access2.mountain.net Lines: 26 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!newspeer1.nac.net!news.lightning.net!netra-news.ntrnet.net!washdc3-snf1!news.gtei.net!News!access2.mountain.net!azazoth Johnathan George (thegeorges@mindspring.com) wrote: : Isaac Kuo wrote: : : > : > >(b) is hard to defend in the presence of so much evil in the world. : > : > The presence of so much evil in the world also makes it hard to : > defend that God is absolutely perfect (since an APB must : > necessarily be perfectly good, perfectly powerful, and have : > perfect knoledge). : Saying a being is all powerful doesn't mean it can do something which is : really nonsense. The question about God making a rock so heavy he can't : lift it isn't really a deep question... it's simply nonsense. It's like : asking an APB to make 2+2= orange. Complete nonsense. Playing devil's advocate... Should not a being that is all powerful be able to do anything that a non-all powerful being(such as myself) can do? I can stack up a pile of rocks big enough that I can't carry it, so why can't god? These kind of problems tell me that there just might be an intrinsic problem with the existence of an APB. ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37E90798.7E6B00B1@erols.com> <37E980BF.A96F1689@wizard.net> <37EAD2E8.672B084F@erols.com> <7sf16e$1ium$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37EBE48C.593B7D41@erols.com> <37EC2B6E.660556AD@wizard.net> <37EE7B07.3E59AF7D@erols.com> <7sn7h4$83o$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF26E2.D428CD1@erols.com> <37EF75F7.31D53B96@wizard.net> <37F02C85.CC17F2B9@erols.com> <37F05971.9733D98E@wizard.net> <37F1554E.EC03C22F@wizard.net> Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Lines: 28 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: <4BrI3.161$HX.517@nntpserver.swip.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.151.105.227 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 938624448 212.151.105.227 (Wed, 29 Sep 1999 19:00:48 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 19:00:48 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 X-Sender: s-774765@d212-151-105-227.swipnet.se Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 19:00:17 +0200 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail James Kuyper Jr. hath written: >"Öjevind Lång" wrote: >> >> James Kuyper Jr. hath written: >> [snip] >> >centuries of scientific exploration. Based upon our current rate of >> >scientific progress, I wouldn't recommend betting on any specific >> >mystery remaining unsolved after a few more centuries of effort. >> >> Wasn't that what the scientists were saying before Einstein? That basically, >> all that remained to be done was fill in a few holes, and then everything >> would be known. Then it turned out they were most drastically wrong. > >I was very careful in constructing my statement. I said "any specific >mystery". I fully expect that future progress in science will uncover >far more mysteries than it resolves. I'm happy to hear it. I would think it terribly boring if everything in the world was known and discovered. Not that I really believe that will ever happen. Öjevind -- ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 00:49:04 -0400 Lines: 19 Message-ID: <37F2EBBB.997A2108@erols.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EEEAC7.A8FD1B4E@erols.com> <7sn7h5$83o$3@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF2923.27FA7E23@erols.com> <7spckj$1ao2$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37F11546.A9AD1C54@mindspring.com> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ZKit/rdo2VgATT4pTi7++BihmzkIh1irdYQe8mTrT50= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Sep 1999 04:58:12 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.enteract.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Johnathan George wrote: > Saying a being is all powerful doesn't mean it can do something which is > really nonsense. The question about God making a rock so heavy he can't > lift it isn't really a deep question... it's simply nonsense. It's like > asking an APB to make 2+2= orange. Complete nonsense. You're right, of course. That reference was tongue-in-cheek. I wish I knew how to make a "tongue-in-cheek" smiley! -- -- FotW "My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." ###### From: Ermanna Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Mortality and Immortality Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:47:48 -0400 Message-ID: <37F37813.1455D133@erols.com> References: <37E8E187.23A3A7D0@erols.com> <37EEEAC7.A8FD1B4E@erols.com> <7sn7h5$83o$3@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <37EF2923.27FA7E23@erols.com> <7spckj$1ao2$1@its1.ocs.lsu.edu> <37F11546.A9AD1C54@mindspring.com> <37f22456@News> Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: 93dqZYWWXbAY1Pc2XY/FoQY1lxQ3j5n8cGWgWYIiCPI= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Sep 1999 17:46:34 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Lines: 19 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!iol.ie!newsfeed.icl.net!ayres.ftech.net!news.ftech.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Marie Barnett wrote: > Playing devil's advocate... Should not a being that is all powerful be > able to do anything that a non-all powerful being(such as myself) can do? > I can stack up a pile of rocks big enough that I can't carry it, so why > can't god? See Finrod's explanation. Lúthien Tinúviel/Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight Ewoks are Hobbits.