rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/11/85)
>>Who's to say that this isn't exactly what has happened (in a lifetime instead >>of a weekend) to you? You alone. Just like they alone would vouch for their >>experience. Why is yours so much better, as you seem to indicate from your >>own tone above? What would you have to say if I let you know that the >>story came from the experience of an actual charismatic Christian? What >>would your conclusions be? [ROSEN] > Did you read what I said in the rest of the article? If you did, and > if you understood what I wrote, then I would think that you'd know > what my conclusions would be. I said: > > > *Of course*, experience isn't enough to prove anything, all by > > itself. *Of course*, people's senses can deceive them. [DEERWESTER] If you meant what you said in the rest of your article, then you and I are in agreement: such experiences have no real evidential basis behind them. They may have actually been perceived in the minds of those who've had them, but that doesn't make the experience "supernatural" or "religious" because they say so, and it doesn't make their subjective interpretation (possibly based on, as others have mentioned, years of societal indoctrination resulting in presumptions) correct. If you agree with me on this point, then why have you been deriding the original article that pointed out exactly those flaws in the notion? > 1) Subjective experiences that are interpreted as evidence > for the existance of God may be deceptive and must be > backed up by objective evidence. > 2) Objective evidence for God's existance doesn't really > matter either if it's not considered in the context of > how the person experiences God. In other words, even if > it's true, it doesn't "connect". > > Case in point: Paul knew the scriptures very, very well. He > understood the prophesies about the Messiah and had rejected the idea > that Jesus could be the Messiah a priori. He was converted when his > own experiences, interpreted in light of his knowledge of the > scriptures, forced him to seriously consider the possibility that > Jesus really was who he said he was. Thus his pre-formed conceptions as to what to expect led him first to believe that Jesus was not the Messiah (didn't conform to his original interpretation) and second to believe that he was (because he interpreted subjective experience to support the claim---the nature of his interpretation was not molded by "why do I interpret it this way" but rather by "ah, this interpretation actually PROVES it!") >>>First you look to see if the belief set, taken as is, is reasonable. >>>The fundamental tenets of Christianity have been presented many times >>>before in this forum. Basically: >>> >>> - God created the universe in general and man in particular. >>> - Man sinned and fell away from God. >>> - Jesus was born in accordance with prophesy and lived >>> a sinless life. >>> - He gave his life and this act was sufficient to permit Man >>> to be restored to fellowship with God. >>> - He was resurrected and ascended to be with God the Father. >>> - He gave the Holy Spirit to live within, guide and comfort >>> all those who believe in Him. >>And the funny thing is, you claim all the above is reasonable. Yet clearly >>the only possible basis for calling such things reasonable, in the absence >>of evidence, is to already believe them to be true! And we know what that's >>called... > You didn't understand what I said, Rich. Reasonable != true, okay? > You are responding to the above as if I were saying that since it's > possible, it must be true. I said nothing like that. Yes I DO claim > that the above is reasonable. I'm suggesting that the process of > coming to believe goes something like this: > > "Okay, even though I don't really believe that Jesus is Lord, what > if he were? Would all of this stuff make sense?" > > That's not at all the same as saying > > "Well, I really believe this stuff, so how can I show that it's > true?" As opposed to the rational perspective "Okay, I see no reason to believe that any of this stuff is true, the only evidence is subjectivism and legends written down specifically by people trying to spread the doctrine, SO, why believe ANY of it?" Your perspective seems to be "Okay, let's assume all these things are true (i.e., 'What if he were?'). Look, it's all consistent, and it explains things I didn't understand. Thus I believe it." In fact, the effect is exactly the same for both of YOUR examples above. In the first you ask "what if", then assume that it is, find consistency and "answers", and then believe. In the second, you just skip the "what if" and proclaim directly "it is". Many would use the second because they are so well indoctrinated, while others would use the first as if to convince themselves that they are in a questioning or investigating mode. By the flow described here, they are not. And that's my point. > Is all hypothesis testing wishful thinking? Not in MY lab... It is when the hypothesis is formed based on a view one would WISH the world to have, rather than a view that one thinks it might based on evidence. >>> I'm really not concerned about whether my faith can stand up to scrutiny >>> or not. I'm confident that it can. >>So you don't bother to scrutinize, having faith that your faith would >>obviously withstand the test. > I meant to say, but didn't, "stand up to your scrutiny". Sorry if > you misunderstood for that reason. I'm very interested in scrutiny. But not mine? Just yours? Which is a better form of scrutiny: self-examination, rife with your own patterning and preconceptions, or the scrutiny of an outside observer? >> Or, perhaps, fearful that it wouldn't. > Wrong again. Didn't I just explicitly state that I'm not concerned? So? People state lots of things. Like people saying "I don't care" about something when their actions show that they do. (like the old 10cc song "I'm Not in Love", if you remember that) The way in which you say "I'm not concerned, I'm confident that it can withstand scrutiny" bespeaks a desire not to have it do so. ("I'm confident that it can do so, so I won't bother"; sounds like that inventor of the perpetual motion machine getting so much airplay in net.misc, the one who won't let the Patent Office scrutinize his invention) > To spell it out: I've scrutinized my own beliefs well enough that I'm > confident that they can and will stand. I'm not afraid that you or > anybody is going to be able to blow them away. Then you should have no fears about my attempting to do so. And yet the way you proclaim it indicates that you would rather I didn't. Why? Because you proclaim me as "unwilling to listen" or "disrespectful"? Were those labels applied precisely because I question them at all? > No, Rich, I'm quite willing to engage in *dialog* with people whose > opinions differ from mine. One can respectfully disagree. I > remember very well when Yigal Arens sent out a question about > glossolalia (speaking in tongues). He got a fair amount of mail from > Christians who told them about their experiences. His response was, > "There really are thinking people out there who believe in speaking > in tongues. Amazing." Period. No flame about how stupid they were. > No caustic remarks belittling their experience. I really appreciated > that from him. This is a dialog right here. I'd really like to see the quotes in which I refer to you (or anyone and their beliefs) as "stupid". I know for a fact that there aren't any. There are a number of occasions in which I show certain notions and beliefs as being flawed. If that makes YOU *feel* stupid, then don't blame me!!! I'm not labelling you as anything of the sort. If my analysis makes it seem like I'm calling you stupid, read it again. If revealing flaws in your beliefs makes you feel stupid, then isn't that a signal that you acknowledge the flaws yourself? Don't blame me for that, please! > Respect in this context means something like, "well, I disagree with > you, but I can see that you sincerely believe the things you're > saying. I don't understand why you believe them. Maybe I'm wrong or > maybe you are. Let's discuss it." What makes you think I've been saying anything else? I've shown holes in the reasoning to which I would like to know why you still believe, and your response is the old Rodneyesque "I don't get no respect". It is precisely because I have respect for those I talk to that I choose to point out these things. Perhaps I assume too much understanding of the fundamentals that lead me to my conclusion: that's ALWAYS been a problem for me in discussion or education of any sort by me -- I assume that that which is obvious to me is obvious to others (I'm certainly not alone in this flaw!). But I've found that once I carefully elaborate on the fundamentals of my points, listeners generally either understand and agree OR are better empowered to SHOW ME where I am making an error in my fundamentals. Neither of these two has happened here in net.religion.xxxx (with RARE exceptions). I still contend that your definition of respect from me would seem to only be satisfied by my not disagreeing with you. > Is it any wonder that people, including me, aren't very > enthused about conversing with you? Certain people. Including you. It certainly hasn't applied to the generic all-inclusive term "people", in general. Just certain people. > Have you ever entertained, even > for a moment, the thought that MAYBE the Christians are right? Yes. I think the evidence I have shown is so clearly against that position that they're obviously not right. Have you offered any evidence to warrant my changing my position? The evidence I've presented hasn't convinced you, and that is one reason why I continually ask why you still believe. What am *I* missing? Or what are *you* ignoring? Which is it? Let's find out. > The sad thing is that you think that you're the one who's open minded. It's my openmindedness that has led me to the conclusions I've reached. And that same openmindedness is still awaiting any evidence that might alter my opinions. Openmindedness doesn't just mean "Say, this person believes this, let's listen, and if he/she is persuasive or sincere enough, I'll believe". It means "Say, this person believes this, let's listen, and if he/she provides enough interesting evidence to support his/her position or that shows flaws in my own, then I'll believe." > You dispensed with my usage of the word "respect" (although I think > that I've answered that here). Would you like to address the words > "ridicule" and "belittle"? You might also want to toss in "caustic". The fact that you feel that way says more about you than it does about me. Yes, I believe your beliefs have holes in them, and I think I've shown why. (You even CONCURRED on the point above that this series of articles was all about.) If the statements I've made are wrong, then you should be able to show why they are wrong, what logical errors I've made, what incorrect evidence I am using, etc. But all you do is claim that I'm "disrespectful" and "caustic", "belittling" and "ridiculing". All you've done to me is ACCUSE me of calling you stupid. As shown here, you have used some of the quoted words above (specifically referring to my lack of respect and the label "caustic"). Who is engaging in name-calling? I'd say you are, and that's supposedly a very unChristian thing to do. I'd hope you'd have something more to say. -- "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I dunno." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr