>Russell wrote back: (here I paraphrase for I lost part of your answer) that
>one needed to "want" the answer that Christianity was true. You also went
>on to say that " And you know what? That's fine, as long as one doesn't
>pretend that this answer was arrived at entirely by objective, logical
>means. "
>--------------------
>I see I was unclear in my last post. Apologies. . Let me rephrase it.. I
>will capitalize to show wording changes.
>
>"The thing one brings to it is a willimgness to commit to the answer,
>WHATEVER THAT ANSWER MAY BE. More specifically, a willingness to commit to
>the answer that you "want," I.E. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.
I know that that's what you said. And my point is that my willingness to
commit to the answer, whatever that answer may be, has led me to atheism.
I just have seen absolutely no reason to believe that there is a God of
any sort. Indeed, everything I have seen strongly indicates that the human
species is on its own in a universe indifferent to our existence.
>Your closing sentence says. "That's fine, as long as one doesn't pretend
>that this answer was arrived at entirely by objective, logical means."
>
>There is a problem here. The word "pretend" suggests dishonesty; let me
>change your sentence to read,
>
>"that's fine, as long as one doesn't assert that this answer was arrived at
>entirely by objective, logical means."
You're right; I didn't mean to imply any form of deliberate dishonesty.
[Snip]
>I read recently of two philosophers who attacked the question "What
>evidence of God's existence would convince me." Woody Allen was one -- he
>said the sudden appearance of an extra 11 million dollars in his checking
>account would do. Of course he was joking -- if 11 million showed up in his
>account (or your or mine) tomorrow, neither of us would think "God did it."
>Much more likely a bank error.
>
>The second guy, more seriously, wanted to see a Cecil de Mille type
>production, with all kinds of spectacular pyrotechnics, etc. He was more
>serious. But again, if you, or I, stepped out of our home to see such a
>display in the skies, the "God did it" hypothesis would almost certainly
>take second place to a more naturalistic explanation, possibly that we had,
>finally, cracked under the stress of living!
>
>Evidence of God's existence & care for me is -- it has to be -- private
>knowledge. I can talk about some of it -- but it still remains private. I
>cannot replicate it for you -- or anyone. I assert here, however, that it
>came, and was real. Not by the physical senses; not by hallucinations, much
>more subtle than that.
This is exactly what I have been saying all along. It is a personal, subjective
thing.
>Durango is particularly lovely tonight.
I may be there in a few weeks; I have some friends I'm going to try and visit
on the weekend of the 4th.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
Tautology
(n) See truism.
Truism
(n) See tautology.