scott@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Scott Deerwester) (04/06/85)
Subject: Re: Invitation for Scott Deerwester References: <> <398@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> >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? > 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. That applies as well to my experiences as to anybody elses, including any other charismatic Christian. I have certainly had experiences that affected me as deeply as the one you described. They in themselves don't prove anything, neither to me nor anyone else. People can be deceived. (I know that's true because it says so in the Bible :-) The experiences need to be interpreted relative to external standards. In this and the original articles, I have been trying to make two points. We are discussing why people believe in and follow God. My two points are: 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. >> 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... 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?" Is all hypothesis testing wishful thinking? Not in MY lab... >> 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. I'm looking forward, for example, to conversing with Laura. Bottom line: your conclusion that I don't bother to scrutinize is wrong. > Or, perhaps, fearful that it wouldn't. Wrong again. Didn't I just explicitly state that I'm not concerned? 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. >Either way, you have no interest in knowing the answer: Wrong again. If I'm believing in and living by something that's not true, I'm a whole lot more interested than you are in finding that out. > 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. Wrong again. I care very much and have concluded that they're not - and am willing to discuss the basis for this belief to people who are willing to listen. You don't appear to be such a person. >> 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. 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. 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." I've seen nothing like that from you, ever. You believe that you're right and that's that and you portray anyone who doesn't believe what you do as either a fool or a charlatan. Is it any wonder that people, including me, aren't very enthused about conversing with you? Have you ever entertained, even for a moment, the thought that MAYBE the Christians are right? I've certainly considered the possibility that we're wrong. The sad thing is that you think that you're the one who's open minded. 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". -- Scott Deerwester Graduate Library School University of Chicago ...!ihnp4!gargoyle!scott UUCP scott@UChicago.CSNet CSNet scott@UChicago.ARPA ARPA