The best definition of genius I have heard is that which say that "a genius
is someone with an uncommon amount of common sense." I think the question of
the existence of a creator or God is a gut feeling, a sort of common sense,
that is knowledge perfect enough for you but imperfect enough to convince
someone else. This is the issue of self-evidentness. What is self-evident
to one is not self-evident to someone else. I think a strong degree of
honesty is required for someone not to fool oneself. At times I think we
are like birds who do excellently in flight but know nothing, and will never
know, about aerodynamics. Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Petermann <SteveGP@email.msn.com>
To: Adrian Teo <ateo@whitworth.edu>; asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Friday, September 15, 2000 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: atheism vs theism
>Hello Adrian,
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>This raises an interesting question about why we adhere to the
>presuppositions that we have and not others. If it is a matter of faith,
>then what is it that makes a person choose one set of presuppositions over
>another? I even wonder if we really make conscious decisions over the
>presuppositions that we have, or were these so subtly instilled in us
>through our upbringing that we (in general) are not aware of the influences
>that led to where we are today?
><<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>This is a complex question because it strikes at the heart of the free will
>issue. As one who does not believe in free will, I believe we adopt
various
>positions because of the enormous complex of factors: genetic,
>environmental, life experience, chance, and through God's freedom. When I
>say that belief in God is through faith, I include it as being effected by
>these other determinative factors. Faith as a psychological function is
>effected by our genetic makeup and personal history. This type of faith is
>an epistemological function of determining the reliability of something in
>our belief framework. Faith as a metaphysical principal relates to our
>unity in being part of the divine life. It is a relational term that leads
>to epistemology but is not knowledge, per se. I would stipulate that both
>atheists and theists adopt their positions primarily because of prior
>conditions related to personality archetype, psychological development,
etc.
>As an example, if a person is an introverted, thinking archetype as Jung
>describes, they may have difficulty relating to other people. Their
>individuation may overwhelm any sense of participation with others.
Because
>this type of person has difficulty with subject-subject dynamics, they may
>also have difficulty relating to a personal God concept. They just flat
>don't get it. This is not a volitional failing on their part but a feature
>of their makeup. I suspect that many atheists also have problems relating
>to other people. Then there are developmental aspects where a person may
>have had a very bad experience in their youth with religious concepts
either
>from a parent or a militant believer. A factor of that sort could also
>create a resistance to any form of religion. What I am trying to stress is
>that the adoption of a belief system is not volitional, it is the creation
>of many factors that even today continue to modify that position. While we
>may critique an atheist's position, it should not be done from a condemning
>framework but one of agape. Agape not only loves unconditionally, it also
>desires the best for the other. This seeking of change, however, should be
>done in all humility. After all in the final analysis, *we* may be the
ones
>in need of change.
>
>All the Best,
>Steve Petermann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 10:44:43 EDT