From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Lines: 66

norris@athena.mit.edu  writes:

> This is certainly a valid objection to religion-as-explanation-of-
> nature.  

> Fortunately for the convenience of us believers, there is a class of
> questions that can never be reduced away by natural science.  For
> example: why does the universe exist at all?  

Must there be a "why" to this?  I ask because of what you also
     assume about God-- namely, that He just exists, with no "why"
     to His existence.  So the question is reversed, "Why can't
     we assume the universe just exists as you assume God to
     "just exist"?  Why must there be a "why" to the universe?"

> After all, the time-space
> world didn't have to exist.  Why does *anything* exist? And: is it
> possible for persons (e.g. man) to come into being out of a purely
> impersonal cosmos?  These questions which look at the real mysteries of
> life -- the creation of the world and of persons -- provide a permanent
> indicator that the meaning of life in the material world can only be
> found *outside* that world, in its Source.

It may be that one day man not only can create life but can also
     create man.  Now, I don't see this happening in my lifetime,
     nor do I assert it is probable.  But the possibility is there,
     given scientists are working hard at "decoding" out "genetic
     code" to perhaps help cure disease of a genetic variation.
     Again, though, must there be "why" or a "divine prupose" to
     man's existence?

> When you say that man is *only* an animal, I have to think that you are
> presenting an unprovable statement -- a dogma, if you will.  And one
> the requires a kind of "faith" too.   By taking such a hard line in
> your atheism, you may have stumbled into a religion of your own.

As far as we can tell, man falls into the "mammal" catagory.  Now,
     if there were something more to the man (say, a soul), then
     we have yet to find evidence of such.  But as it is now, man
     is a mammal (babies are born live, mother gives milk, we're
     warm-blooded, etc.) as other mammals are and is similar in
     genetic construction to some of them (in particular, primates).
     For more on this check out talk.origins.

> But before you write off all Christianity as phony and shallow, I hope
> you'll do a little research into its history and varieties, perhaps by
> reading Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity".  From your remarks,
> it seems that you have been exposed to certain types of Christian
> religion and not others.  Even an atheist should have enough faith in
> Man to know that a movement of 2000 years has to have some depth, and
> be animated by some enduring values.

Well, then, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism,
     Zoerasterism, Shintoism, and Islam should fit this bit of logic
     quite nicely... :-)  All have depth, all have enduring values,
     thus all must be true...

Stephen

    _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist
   _/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian
  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality
       _/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...

-- 
