rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (03/29/85)
> You find yourself in a world where many doors are open, doors to your > heart, doors to your feelings, and your logic. You cant think > straight, but you sure can feel straight. Not only are doors opened, > but floors fall away, leaving nothing solid to stand on. Everything you > exerience is new and fresh as it would be to a baby seeing a flower for > the first time. Since the world is new, it can be scarry at times, > until you find that the "real" things in life are the people with you. > Once you discover your friends, you will never be any closer. You will > discover how much people can really care for each other. > > The intensity can get frightening but just when it is too much to bear, > something leaps out at you and grabs you and holds and comforts you. > You can look at the person next to you, who you have never met before and > you KNOW that they KNOW what you are feeling. You are really soulmates > for that short time. Since Scott seems not to want to comment on my experience with god as such, I was wondering what he might think of the experience described above. Was it a real religious experience? I assure you I did not write it. I'm interested in your comments. -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
scott@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Scott Deerwester) (04/04/85)
Rich invited me to react to an account of a (mystical?) experience that he posted recently. This article is my response and is in two parts. The first (which I'm very sure will not be at all satisfying to Rich) is my reaction to the article. The second is a short exposition on the role of subjectivity in the acquisition of faith in God. Rich, I liked the account that you posted. It was, if nothing else, good prose. I found the imagery very effective. It sounds a lot like something that a Mooney or somebody from The Way, International might write. Both rely heavily on weekend *intensive* "seminars" as indoctrination methods. They (at least the Moonies) allow people very little sleep, no privacy and essentially bombard them with experiences until their defenses are simply worn out and they're willing to accept about anything. When you're disoriented enough and are ready to reach out to something or somebody for support, they make very sure that the nearest person is somebody who can help you "understand" what's happening to you. Powerful technique. The account that you posted sounds a lot like that. People can be manipulated into having very powerful experiences by somebody who knows what they're doing. Please note: No matter what the source of your posting, I found it very interesting. Now, some comments on experience and what it means in acquiring faith. I've not claimed that *my* experience can or should be a basis for *your* faith. But my faith is more that just a mind game. (Flame retardant: I'm not asserting that anything *is* a mind game, just that my faith isn't one.) It may well be possible to construct a set of doctrines that is self consistent, provable from basic axioms, etc. There may be *lots* of such sets. It's not enough, however, for a set of beliefs to just be reasonable. Plausibility isn't the same as veracity. So how do you decide if something that's reasonable is true? 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. So what about experience? The scripture says that "God is love". If that love makes no practical difference in my life, then it might as well not be true. I *need* to *experience* God's love for me in order for it to change me. That experience is inherently, unalterably, subjective. Another example: the scripture says "Taste and see that the Lord is good." That's saying, "yes, these things are true, but come and experience how good God is for yourself." Another place in the Bible it says, "He drew them with cords of human compassion." One of the ways that He loves me - i.e. that He shows His love to me - is by the love that He puts in the hearts of His children for me. *Of course*, experience isn't enough to prove anything, all by itself. *Of course*, people's senses can deceive them. But if the scripture says things are supposed to happen a certain way, perhaps with certain conditions on my part, then my faith grows as my experience bears out the truth of the scripture. How do I know that God lives? By what He does. And He's the same God to me as He was to His children that He led out of Egypt and loves me with the same love that they experienced. Remember how God would identify Himself when He addressed His people? "The God who led you out of Egypt... the God who fed you for forty years in the desert... the God who drove out nations before you..." They, the children of Israel, knew and know Him because of the ways in which He intervened in their lives. He was called their Deliverer because, in specific circumstances, He delivered them. He was their Rock because, when they couldn't rely on anyone or anything around them, He showed Himself to be unchanging and faithful. A final note to you, Rich. My faith in my Lord is very close to center. The things that He shows me, and the things that He does in my life are among the most treasured things that I've got. I'm really not concerned about whether my faith can stand up to scrutiny or not. I'm confident that it can. But frankly, you show so little respect to the people that you interact with on the net that I'm not very anxious to talk about things that are precious to me only to have you ridicule and belittle them. -- Scott Deerwester Graduate Library School University of Chicago ...!ihnp4!gargoyle!scott UUCP scott@UChicago.CSNet CSNet scott@UChicago.ARPA ARPA
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/05/85)
> Rich invited me to react to an account of a (mystical?) experience > that he posted recently. This article is my response and is in two > parts. The first (which I'm very sure will not be at all satisfying > to Rich) is my reaction to the article. The second is a short > exposition on the role of subjectivity in the acquisition of faith in > God. [SCOTT DEERWESTER] And this, of course, is my reply. > Rich, I liked the account that you posted. It was, if nothing else, > good prose. I found the imagery very effective. It sounds a lot > like something that a Mooney or somebody from The Way, International > might write. Both rely heavily on weekend *intensive* "seminars" as > indoctrination methods. They (at least the Moonies) allow people > very little sleep, no privacy and essentially bombard them with > experiences until their defenses are simply worn out and they're > willing to accept about anything. When you're disoriented enough and > are ready to reach out to something or somebody for support, they > make very sure that the nearest person is somebody who can help you > "understand" what's happening to you. Powerful technique. The > account that you posted sounds a lot like that. People can be > manipulated into having very powerful experiences by somebody who > knows what they're doing. 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? > It may well be possible to construct > a set of doctrines that is self consistent, provable from basic > axioms, etc. There may be *lots* of such sets. It's not enough, > however, for a set of beliefs to just be reasonable. Plausibility > isn't the same as veracity. So how do you decide if something that's > reasonable is true? > > 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... > *Of course*, experience isn't enough to prove anything, all by > itself. *Of course*, people's senses can deceive them. But if the > scripture says things are supposed to happen a certain way, perhaps > with certain conditions on my part, then my faith grows as my > experience bears out the truth of the scripture. How do I know that > God lives? By what He does. And He's the same God to me as He was > to His children that He led out of Egypt and loves me with the same > love that they experienced. To support your subjective experience, you have a book that tells you what to expect from your subjective experiences, what preconceptions to have about them, and how to relate to them. *That* is a reason for one's faith to grow? Again, clearly you are believing what you already choose to believe. > Remember how God would identify Himself when He addressed His people? > "The God who led you out of Egypt... the God who fed you for forty > years in the desert... the God who drove out nations before you..." > They, the children of Israel, knew and know Him because of the ways > in which He intervened in their lives. He was called their Deliverer > because, in specific circumstances, He delivered them. He was their > Rock because, when they couldn't rely on anyone or anything around > them, He showed Himself to be unchanging and faithful. Wait a minute! That's some jump there! From "my experiences are supported by what it says in that book because I read it and had such an experience, and lo and behold it met my expectations of what the book told me" to "let's assume thus that this book is truth" in one simple leap. > 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. Or, perhaps, fearful that it wouldn't. Either way, you have no interest in knowing the answer: you've already accepted a set of premises and don't care whether they're flawed or not-- you're going to continue along the same way in any case. > But frankly, you show so little > respect to the people that you interact with on the net that I'm not > very anxious to talk about things that are precious to me only to > have you ridicule and belittle them. You know, it's so ironic. You are doing nothing but engaging in excuse making, my friend. I'd venture that the only way you'd consider my words respectful to you is if I stopped disagreeing with you and only took your side. No matter. Either what I have to say above is valid, or it is not. The fact is, as you've stated above, that you're not concerned with whether it's valid or not. You're *more* concerned about whether what I say is "respectful" in your view. Given your very lack of concern for the validity of your premises, I conclude that you are indeed engaging in wishful thinking, that you are putting your precious premises up on a pedestal from which no one may knock them down (that would be "disrespectful"). And that you are choosing to ignore anything that would go against those premises, preferring instead to stick by them because they are what you choose to believe. Because they are what you want to believe. -- Meet the new wave, same as the old wave... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/05/85)
Rich, could you lay off for a bit? I would like to talk to Scott and I figure that others might as well, but I am never going to find out who they are if you flame all people who talk about religious experience into the ground. Only tough old birds like me will come out. Your position is that since Scott's existing beliefs could have (have) influenced his experience, and that his experience could be the result of wishful thinking, that it is okay to flame it. Could you sit back a minute, take about 30 deep breaths and consider the problem from the point of view of someone who is already having religious experiences? I know that something is happening. I recognise that how I interpret things is in part determined by the beliefs that I already have. I do not think that this makes my beliefs in non-religious areas useless. Why should this make my religious beliefs useless? If what I have is an extreme case of self-hypnosis based on wishful thinking I am sure that I will discover this through inconsistencies over the next decade or so. In the mean time all your talk of wishful thinking strikes me as irrelevant. I *don't* think that I am hypnotising myself with wishful thinking, and it is going to take more than the knowledge that Rich Roisen thinks that I am to change my belief -- just that it is going to take more than Dave Norris (remember him) saying that I must become a Christian in order to not go to hell to make me believe him. Scott, I question some of your conclusions. Do you want to move this to private mail, or shall with withstand the flamage of the dictionary-wielder? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (04/06/85)
>> Rich invited me to react to an account of a (mystical?) experience >> that he posted recently. This article is my response and is in two >> parts. The first (which I'm very sure will not be at all satisfying >> to Rich) is my reaction to the article. The second is a short >> exposition on the role of subjectivity in the acquisition of faith in >> God. [SCOTT DEERWESTER] > > And this, of course, is my reply. > [RICH ROSEN] > > > When you're disoriented enough and > > are ready to reach out to something or somebody for support, they > > make very sure that the nearest person is somebody who can help you > > "understand" what's happening to you. Powerful technique. The > > account that you posted sounds a lot like that. People can be > > manipulated into having very powerful experiences by somebody who > > knows what they're doing. > > 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? Perhaps he can answer you. Scott seems to be able to identify the more blatent form of (how shall we put it).... persuasion. I doubt that he has been persuaded by means this obvious. But can Scott Deerswester be sure that HIS beliefs are not the result of slow fundementalist persuasion or wishful-thinking self-prophecy? > > 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... Well yes that's true. He DOES seem to place the belief before the evidence. And we ALL know what that's called. But really Rich, most you state the obvious? How about finding out WHY he did it this way? Actually I don't think you'll get the chance the way you're jumping all over this guy. > > *Of course*, experience isn't enough to prove anything, all by > > itself. *Of course*, people's senses can deceive them. But if the > > scripture says things are supposed to happen a certain way, perhaps > > with certain conditions on my part, then my faith grows as my > > experience bears out the truth of the scripture. How do I know that > > God lives? By what He does. And He's the same God to me as He was > > to His children that He led out of Egypt and loves me with the same > > love that they experienced. > > To support your subjective experience, you have a book that tells you what > to expect from your subjective experiences, what preconceptions to have > about them, and how to relate to them. *That* is a reason for one's faith > to grow? Again, clearly you are believing what you already choose to > believe. I agree with you Rich that a book is NOT enough to base one's belief system on. However, Scott did not claim that this was the ONLY influence in his life. He is merely pointing out that God made himself known to people by doing things they could readily see and touch and taste.... > > Remember how God would identify Himself when He addressed His people? > > "The God who led you out of Egypt... the God who fed you for forty > > years in the desert... the God who drove out nations before you..." > > They, the children of Israel, knew and know Him because of the ways > > in which He intervened in their lives. He was called their Deliverer > > because, in specific circumstances, He delivered them. He was their > > Rock because, when they couldn't rely on anyone or anything around > > them, He showed Himself to be unchanging and faithful. > > Wait a minute! That's some jump there! From "my experiences are supported > by what it says in that book because I read it and had such an experience, > and lo and behold it met my expectations of what the book told me" to > "let's assume thus that this book is truth" in one simple leap. But Rich, remember that you yourself said that this change may have occured over a LIFETIME. That's a long time to look at the world and one's self. Care to elaborate Mr. Deerswester? he's got a point. > > 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. Or, perhaps, fearful that it wouldn't. > Either way, you have no interest in knowing the answer: you've already > accepted a set of premises and don't care whether they're flawed or not-- > you're going to continue along the same way in any case. Well actually Scott might not care to stand up to YOUR kind of test. Perhaps he HAS good reason that you don't know about. Perhaps not. It's too difficult to say from this article. Everyone SHOULD be concerned with the validity of his or her own beleifs though. >> But frankly, you show so little >> respect to the people that you interact with on the net that I'm not >> very anxious to talk about things that are precious to me only to >> have you ridicule and belittle them. > > You know, it's so ironic. You are doing nothing but engaging in excuse > making, my friend. I'd venture that the only way you'd consider my words > respectful to you is if I stopped disagreeing with you and only took your > side. Actually Rich, you DON'T treat net people with enough respect. Didn't you notice that he said "I'm not very anxious to talk to people about things that are precious to me..." Did it occur to you that his experiences are SO precious and SO magical that he DOESN'T want to share the pearls of his life before (what he perceives to be) swine like you? I don't think it's that he doesn't have anything to say. He just doesn't have anything to say to you. Or perhaps it is all a scam. But I don't think Rich Rosen is the one to judge in this case. > No matter. Either what I have to say above is valid, or it is > not. The fact is, as you've stated above, that you're not concerned with > whether it's valid or not. You're *more* concerned about whether what I > say is "respectful" in your view.... > And that you are choosing to ignore anything that would go against those > premises, preferring instead to stick by them because they are what you > choose to believe. Because they are what you want to believe. That's not what I gathered to be the spirit of his article. It might be true of some, or even most, Christianoids on the net... but it is not evidenced by Scott Deerswester's article. In fact, his article quite clearly pointed out that he was unable to provide the evidence (subjective or objective) that you require. He DID show some humility about his own perspective that you rarely find on this net. Rich, is it your habit to pounce on anyone who mentions "subjective evidence" or "religious experience" with the above comments which, let's face it, are pretty standard fare? -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And he made the stars, too, and the world is one of the stars"