nowlin@ihu1e.UUCP (09/05/84)
>> [Jeff Sargent] >> I think the wishful thinking is on your side; you don't want >> there to be a God, >> >>[John T. Nelson] >>That's what I think of people who say they've met God or know God >>intimately. They rush head-long to the conclusion that most appeals >>to them... that they have experienced some sort of personal and >>meaningfull communion with the diety. What is required here is a healthy >>sense of what is real and what might very well be your own thoughts. >What about those of us who had no desire to be Christian, wanted >nothing to do with Christianity, in fact LOATHED the very idea, >and yet became Christians? Have we rushed headlong to the >conclusion we found most appealing? > >I am in this class, and so do not find it very compelling >when people tell me that I'm a Christian because I needed/wanted >a psychological crutch, or because it's what I wanted to believe, >or because I found it comforting to believe, or some variant >on one of these... >-- >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois This is an interesting concept. I know lots of very intelligent successful people who profess christianity as a way of life. I can't conceive of them faking this belief any more than I believe they need a panacea like eternal life to sleep at night. That doesn't mean I understand their belief. While I remain a confirmed skeptic I admit that accounts of modern day conversions, where the change of mind is as radical as Paul DuBois claims his was, are mystifying. What kind of personal experience has to take place to convince people with all their defenses up? I assume a good example of a conversion like Paul DuBois experienced would be Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus (you have to assume the accounts in the new testament are factual). Even a blinding light accompanied by a disembodied voice wouldn't automatically signify divinity to me. I know some people, who after living with a person with strong religious beliefs, have slowly been converted. Others were raised in a family that made religion such an integral part of their life they never bothered to question whether it was right or not. This kind of faith is understandable even though I don't think it's based on the correct foundation (who am I to define what's correct though). It's the abrupt instantaneous "miraculous" conversions that I have questions about. Anybody got answers? Jerry Nowlin ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin
hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (09/08/84)
>I know some people, who after living with a person with strong religious >beliefs, have slowly been converted. By their actions you shall know them. -- rick (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (09/10/84)
In John 6 : 43 - 45 it says, Jesus answered unto them, "Murmur not among yourselves." 44. "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." 45. "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." God is Good! Julie Harazduk philabs!jah
ncss@mrvax.DEC (Ed Smith) (09/11/84)
Religion is that which is at the core of an individual's belief, their belief as a whole. Whatever they say they believe, there is some internal completeness which organizes reality for them. Essentially, religion is about reality...about uderstanding the organization of the world around us. Real-Region. Real-Ligion (perhaps) Real-Tounge. Re-Light-ion. Let's say, a whole understanding of the world as it is (as opposed to how we might want it to be) expressed in its own terms, on reflection. Everyone has some whole feeling of the world, for the world. In order to take any action at all entails a communion with the infinite, a bridging of the gap between moments. For most of us, this bridge is completely invisible to the intellectual consciousness (Ego self, reflective awareness, etc.) which we identify with, and grasp onto as our identity. Yet, It is the lower force, the bridge between moments, the wordless and purely emotional leap into the void that is the future, which is what makes that detatched, intellectual, limited self possible. This is not the newsgroup to hash out how the intellectual self and came to dominate the identity of people, but we can see that this has happened, so the question is simply, what do we do about this now? There is no lack in the universe as it is, there is no lack in human experience as it is. The problem is in people's intellectual beliefs about the universe, about reality. It is people's beliefs in words given to them by others and words arranged by themselves that make them anxious about the nature of reality, the cause of events, the reason for life, and what happens at death. If they would allow the words to stop holding them, if they would cease grasping for objects outside of themselves, if they would stop trusting the words of idols and graven images over their own visceral experience of the infinite world around them every moment, then there would be no problem. Except, in the vast majority of social situations around, this is very difficult. At some point or another, you will feel the need to talk with others about what cannot be worded. There are times when people come face to face with some of the infinite that is always following them, and that they always follow. Their intellectual shell cracks...their barrier of exclusive beliefs simply becomes inadequate to phrase what they suddenly feel on a much deeper, much more complete level. It might happen crossing the street on a deserted summer day. It might happen looking into the eyes of a child. It might happen late at night staring at the incomplete logical diagram of an integrated circuit. It might happen watching the sunrise while tripping on acid. It happened to me staring at a streetlight during a light snow, smoking dope. When it happens, you can forget about it, you can find someone else who has written about something like it, you can find your own words for it, or some combination. The key is expression. This sort of experience is generally the culmination of years of hopes and doubts and fears and pain. It is a sudden focussing of all that is real, of all that is wonderful and all that is horrible into something that is so childishly simple that any words only serve to confuse the issue. It's a hard thing to explain to people who just saw the streetlight, and who's hands are getting cold. Just as people have a lot of money invested in a certain type of computer, or machinery, or system of measurement, or language, and they want to stay with something compatible, people have an awful lot invested in religion. When you are talking about an individual and wordless infinity, then any words will do, but when you're talking about that individual talking to someone else, then you need a definite (or just finite) exclusive vocabulary. Of course, it is possible to reinvent the wheel and start a new religion, but that never becomes particularly popular for at least a hundred years or so. So, you find a vocabulary that more or less fits what you remember of your peak experience, pin it down by saying to yourself enough, "Yeah, that's it," and relax. I've run on for a bit too long. Flames are welcomed, along with reasonable comments. I am particularly interested in hearing about "peak" experiences, especially from those who still consider themselves "atheists." To put my article in religious perspective, I suppose I should say that I was raised a Reform Jew, was a rather devout atheist through high school, (Very "scientific") saw the streetlight my freshman year at college, and stumbled around looking for something that I couldn't name, but which was just so simple it made me laugh a lot (especially when I was high.) Buddhism finally hit me as being just about right, and as holding the key to every problem of existence, if it could just be integrated into western science and culture. That was further directed by a year and a half of philosophy grad work, concentrating on existentialism, phenomenology, and post-stucturalism. So, if asked, I'm a Zen Phenomenologist. I like SF too, especially Delany. Then there's Eno... Ed Bernstein (better path)--> decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!dec-kl2116!ebernstein
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/20/84)
> [Paul DuBois] > What about those of us who had no desire to be Christian, wanted > nothing to do with Christianity, in fact LOATHED the very idea, > and yet became Christians? Have we rushed headlong to the > conclusion we found most appealing? > > [Jerry Nowlin] > It's the abrupt instantaneous "miraculous" conversions that > I have questions about. Anybody got answers? > > [John Nelson] > There seem to be two issues here. First, what did the person > experience? Second, is that person's interpretation of what happened If you're asking what I felt like when I was converted: I didn't feel anything. No emotional experience, no bells and whistles, or choirs, or warm feelings. Nothing. > REALLY what happened (truth is so hard to pin down). Perhaps the Ah, yes! It's all so complicated and how are we to know... I've heard that one before. Question for you: is there an objective reality? If not, then your question doesn't make sense. > reaction to the experience all depends on the individual and the nature > of the experience. Some might discount a religious experience as some > natural or psychological phenomenom (two words I could never handle > without a dictionary). Others might believe that they have indeed > experience something unique and inspired by a supernatural divinity. My usual reaction to this sort of thing is to state that if one wishes to ascribe a naturalistic explanation to my experience, go right ahead. I don't, however. Nor do I make much attempt to justify my position. Pretty pigheaded, huh? Why am I that way? Something like this: I was an atheist. God turned me into a Christian. Now I'm not an atheist. Not much of an explanation, I guess. But I didn't do it, so I'm hard pressed to explain it. It's as much of a mystery to me as it is to anyone. All I know is WHO did it. (Which, after all, is quite sufficient) > It isn't uncommon for someone to turn his whole life around and become Before: After: Fornicator No more (read net.singles) Marriage? UGH!! Married. Kids? UGH!!! One daughter Drug user/seller Still drink coffee - everything else went out the window Pro-abortion Anti-abortion Pro-homosexuality Anti-homosexuality Filthy language Can't stand swearing Listened to secular music Can't stand it now all the time Pro-feminism Anti-feminism Completely cynical Can see the bright side of things Evolution Creation Blunt Still blunt! But I didn't turn my life around. I didn't TRY to do anything. So how come I'm different? (note: Some of you may not agree that particular changes reflect a distinctly *Christian* experience. Perhaps not, but all of them came about in relation to my conversion. Note also: anti-homosexual*ity*, not anti-homosexual, anti-femin*ism*, not anti-femin*ist*. There's a difference.) The above list could be taken to reflect only rejection of certain things, and in this sense is of course incomplete. > a wholly different person. Often this succeeds some sort of intensely > emotional experience. Such an experience does not prove the divine Emotional? Not in my case. > intervention of God yet many are quick to ascribe the most commonplace > events as signs from heaven. Others wouldn't believe even if the > clouds parted and choirs of heavenly voices (flanked by the Saints > and Apostles) beckoned them on to a greater truth. Well, of course. Some people see the all things in spiritual terms, others in entirely naturalistic terms. If one believes that all things must have a naturalistic explanation, then unusual events which cannot explained have suspension of judgment applied to them. "It's not supernatural, we just don't have an explanation for it yet." --- One more thing, which wasn't addressed in Mr. Nelson's posting but which has come up before, viz., making God in our image. This doesn't make much sense to me. Why in the world would I make up a God who's going to blow me into Hell forever if I don't wake up and realize that I'm an abomination before Him and had better get with it and start listening to Him? "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life?" We've all heard that one before. And His plan for those who refuse to give up their rebellion and disobedience is to remove them from before His presence forever. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight." Psalm 119:35
jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (09/23/84)
Subject: Re: Wishful thinking (religion) There seem to be two issues here. First, what did the person experience? Second, is that person's interpretation of what happened If you're asking what I felt like when I was converted: I didn't feel anything. No emotional experience, no bells and whistles, or choirs, or warm feelings. Nothing. Come now! I'm surprised that you should interpret this to mean "physical experience." I mean, how were YOU changed as a person, not how your outward behavior changed. In what way did YOU become a different person inside? That's what the word "conversion" means you know... like Uncle Ben's rice. The point is... "Is your conversion REALLY attributable to God." REALLY what happened (truth is so hard to pin down). Ah, yes! It's all so complicated and how are we to know... I've heard that one before. Question for you: is there an objective reality? If not, then your question doesn't make sense. You've heard that one before... as if it were a cynical question. Consider what I am asking. How do you know that your conversion was indeed inspired by the hand of God? Why not convert to Ubizmitizm? Surely you aren't signing your life away to just ANY random deity. Converting to Christianity implies that you converted to that particular belief because...... (fill in the blank) My usual reaction to this sort of thing is to state that if one wishes to ascribe a naturalistic explanation to my experience, go right ahead. I don't, however. Nor do I make much attempt to justify my position. Pretty pigheaded, huh? No... actually sounds rather easy-going to me. Why am I that way? Something like this: I was an atheist. God turned me into a Christian. Now I'm not an atheist. Not much of an explanation, I guess. But I didn't do it, so I'm hard pressed to explain it. It's as much of a mystery to me as it is to anyone. All I know is WHO did it. (Which, after all, is quite sufficient) And how did you know it was God? That's why I ask, "what did you experience?" What is it that made you certain that it was God and not "The Great Ubizmo?" But I didn't turn my life around. I didn't TRY to do anything. Poor choice of words on my part. Emotional? Not in my case. Again poor choice of words on my part. Well, of course. Some people see the all things in spiritual terms, others in entirely naturalistic terms. If one believes that all things must have a naturalistic explanation, then unusual events which cannot explained have suspension of judgment applied to them. "It's not supernatural, we just don't have an explanation for it yet." Which harkens back to my original pair of statements. Sometimes, the reaction depends upon the person and not the experience. Had the naturalistic kind of guy been more of a Kingdom kind of guy he might claim to be in touch with God as opposed to suspending his belief in God. One more thing, which wasn't addressed in Mr. Nelson's posting but which has come up before, viz., making God in our image. This doesn't make much sense to me. Why in the world would I make up a God who's going to blow me into Hell forever if I don't wake up and realize that I'm an abomination before Him and had better get with it and start listening to Him? It wasn't addressed because it doesn't make much sense to me either. Who would be so foolish as to make up a God and then turn around and ignore it (note I said "it"). I guess you have to have a lot of confidence in yourself (or you secretly like punishment). ;-)
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (09/24/84)
I would modify Mr. DuBois's description of God's plan
for the rebellious and disobedient.
God is one day going to burn up all the trash and garbage
in the Universe. Your choice is to turn loose of yours
(by turning to Him) or burn with it.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}gkm@hou2b.UUCP (G.MCNEES) (09/28/84)
from the Bible: "the wicked shall be as though they had never been" in Him who works all things after the council of His own will, gary
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (10/01/84)
> [Bob Brown] > I would modify Mr. DuBois's description of God's plan > for the rebellious and disobedient. > > God is one day going to burn up all the trash and garbage > in the Universe. Your choice is to turn loose of yours > (by turning to Him) or burn with it. So, if you choose to burn with it, are you going to (a) burn forever, or (b) not? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight." Psalm 119:35
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (10/03/84)
Some of the non-Christians in this group have repeatedly stated that belief in
God is based on wishful thinking. I differ with this idea. If I had followed
wishful thinking, I might well have bailed out of Christianity many times over
the years, because I've wished that God weren't there or that He weren't the
kind of God He is -- one who loves us so much that He is determined to see us
cured of all our sins, shortcomings, and problems, no matter what the cost --
to Him, or to us. However, "those whom God foreknew, He also predestined to be
conformed to the likeness of His Son", whether we like it or not.
In other words, wishful thinking is more likely to operate *against* belief in
Christ rather than in its favor.
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
"I'm not asking for anyone's bleeding charity."
"Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity."rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/04/84)
> Some of the non-Christians in this group have repeatedly stated that belief in > God is based on wishful thinking. I differ with this idea. If I had followed > wishful thinking, I might well have bailed out of Christianity many times over > the years, because I've wished that God weren't there or that He weren't the > kind of God He is But another preconception then takes hold: the preconception that there must be a god who fits your perception of "the kind of god he (sic) is". You may at times wish to believe that god does not exist, but the other preconception that he MUST (because ... ?) draws you back. -- AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (08/02/85)
(continued) >>> > [Rich Rosen] >>>> >> [me] >>>Is it (science) "incomplete" in any sense other than that *you*, >>>my friend, like so many others, wish for something more that that which is? Science cannot help me decide, for instance, whether I like a musical composition, or whether love exists, for that matter. I do not consider this to be a failing of science, but if it were complete in the sense that it could describe the entire universe, then it would be able to do these things. Likewise, music is incomplete, in the sense that I would never expect to gain understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle by listening to the Missa Solemnis -- though I suppose anything is possible. BTW, what is it you suppose that that I wish for? >> Again and again, you offer the accusation `wishful thinking' when you >> really ought to be demolishing the idea presented, by means of logical >> argument. If you think a statement is false, please demonstrate its >> fallacy -- you might even shut me up! If you cannot, your estimation of >> my motives, witty as it may be, is a cheap substitute for real >> discourse. > >Since the idea presented has no supporting evidence, one can assume that you >must believe in it for a reason. If not factual evidence, and if not just >because it fits notions of the world as you might like to see it (wishful >thinking) then what??? Then one's own subjective experience of awareness is not valid evidence that `awareness' is a real entity. After all, it might have been a hallucination. If so, I guess I do not exist, since there's absolutely no objective scientific evidence whatsoever for my awareness, and there never will be. By Occam! Conscious awareness is as no more real than Santa Claus, free will, or even God.. Rich, now look what you've done! >>... you are apparently dedicated to the beliefs below: >> The universe of science is All That Is. >> Science will somehow be able to describe everything. > >Here we go again with science-hating. The universe of things that are are the >things that are. That's my position. You are incorrect when you insist that I hate science. In fact, I like science very much, and have devoted a great deal of time to the study, although, admittedly, I am not a scientist. Since you have so many misconceptions about me, I suggest that we attempt to correct a language difficulty that has thwarted our communication somewhat. I hope that my remarks about you are correct, and apologize if they have unfairly characterized your beliefs. I am trying to determine what you meant by the word `exist' so that we might be able to communicate with a deeper understanding of each others' words than the past. I had hoped that you would say "Yes, those are my beliefs" or "No, they are not". Unfortunately, you responded with a tautology. We should try to avoid pointless semantic quibbling so that we will avoid flooding the net with so much silly verbal diarrhoea. So I will ask you as a straightforward question: When you say something exists, do you mean, loosely, that it must be an object or phenomenon that could be verified by the scientific method? >What is a "universe of science"? I believe I said "THE universe of science", by which I mean all that is `real', from the scientific viewpoint. For example, God is not `real in the universe of science', whereas probably electrons are. Admittedly, all scientists would not come to an agreement on everything, but most could be persuaded of the existence of a phenomenon verified by the `scientific method'. To take another example, I suspect that in `the universe of QM physicists of the Copenhagen persuasion', there is no reality at all beyond the readings on their instruments, but I am probably presumptuous in making this statement. As a final example, Santa Claus is `real' in the universe of many young children. This is all quite sloppy, I know. But with so many different viewpoints and kinds of people, it is handy to have some way of fairly dealing with them all. I certainly cannot assume that what seems true to me will likewise be true to others. khronos estai ouketi -michael
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/03/85)
Even > = rlr, Odd > = Ellis >>>>Is it (science) "incomplete" in any sense other than that *you*, >>>>my friend, like so many others, wish for something more that that which is? > Science cannot help me decide, for instance, whether I like a musical > composition, or whether love exists, for that matter. I do not > consider this to be a failing of science, but if it were complete in the > sense that it could describe the entire universe, then it would be able > to do these things. No one is asking you to "decide" these things through science. And yet, the basis for your liking or not liking stems from your make-up, your history of experience, etc. Science is only the method for acquiring facts, it is not the facts themselves. > BTW, what is it you suppose that that I wish for? A non-causal world in which you can have your free will and eat it too. You've said this more than once. >>> Again and again, you offer the accusation `wishful thinking' when you >>> really ought to be demolishing the idea presented, by means of logical >>> argument. If you think a statement is false, please demonstrate its >>> fallacy -- you might even shut me up! If you cannot, your estimation of >>> my motives, witty as it may be, is a cheap substitute for real >>> discourse. >>Since the idea presented has no supporting evidence, one can assume that you >>must believe in it for a reason. If not factual evidence, and if not just >>because it fits notions of the world as you might like to see it (wishful >>thinking) then what??? > Then one's own subjective experience of awareness is not valid evidence > that `awareness' is a real entity. After all, it might have been a > hallucination. If you really believe it's all an illusion, then stab yourself in the arm with a fork. If not, don't bother positing such a position for argument's sake. Objectivity in science is designed to try to ensure within this system an avoidance of such subjectivity. > If so, I guess I do not exist, since there's absolutely no objective > scientific evidence whatsoever for my awareness, and there never will be. I agree. You don't exist. > By Occam! Conscious awareness is as no more real than Santa Claus, > free will, or even God.. As I said in the last article, Occam says to reduce assumptions to a minimum, not to ignore evidence. > Rich, now look what you've done! Does this mean we've heard the last of you now that you don't exist, or will your posting appear "acausally" from time to time? >>>... you are apparently dedicated to the beliefs below: >>> The universe of science is All That Is. >>> Science will somehow be able to describe everything. >>Here we go again with science-hating. The universe of things that are are the >>things that are. That's my position. > You are incorrect when you insist that I hate science. In fact, I like > science very much, and have devoted a great deal of time to the study, > although, admittedly, I am not a scientist. Since you have so many > misconceptions about me, I suggest that we attempt to correct a > language difficulty that has thwarted our communication somewhat. If you don't hate science, then explain what the term "universe of science" means, if not some debasing term that names a specific subset of the universe as being in the realm of science. Please. > I had hoped that you would say "Yes, those are my beliefs" or "No, they > are not". Unfortunately, you responded with a tautology. Because you made remarks about a "universe of science". > So I will ask you as a straightforward question: When you say something > exists, do you mean, loosely, that it must be an object or phenomenon > that could be verified by the scientific method? Ass backwards. The scientific method, by its nature, with viable tools, can determine whether or not an object or phenomenon exists in a physical sense. Other things that "exist", like "love", "music", etc. are human labels that are placed upon certain collections and ordering of physical phenomena with certain causes. > As a final example, Santa Claus is `real' in the universe of > many young children. I wasn't aware that young children lived in a different universe that the rest of us. (Though you might think so from the way some parents reat them.) > This is all quite sloppy, I know. Me too. > But with so many different viewpoints > and kinds of people, it is handy to have some way of fairly dealing > with them all. I certainly cannot assume that what seems true to me > will likewise be true to others. "Seems true"! Now you've got it. Seeming true doesn't make something true. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr