rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/01/84)
> Yes, I do believe. Belief surpasses knowledge. I guess that sums it up. Children believe in fairies and goblins and monsters and Santa Claus, therefore THAT surpasses our knowledge about their existence or non-existence: they simply do exist because belief surpasses knowledge. Jeff might respond that the beliefs of children are very different from those of a Christian (or any religious) adult. I fail to see the difference. Perhaps because there is none. (If "belief surpasses knowledge" isn't wishful thinking and preconception, I don't know what is. Call me a liar...) > People who, from my general personal knowledge of them, had trustworthy > characters, have said they experienced this phenomenon, sometimes in my > presence. I have no good reason to doubt that I've seen it before or > that it has happened before. Nor any reason to choose to investigate it. Other than the possibility that you might be proven wrong about your opinions, their opinions, their trustworthiness, etc. A valid reason for not investigating? Sure. Especially when you don't want to invite the possibility of other conclusions. > I find it hard to believe that the mere act of a man's laying his hands > on my shoulders and saying a few words could possibly physically change > me so that now, over 12 years later, I can still speak in tongues! Your > (apparent) assumption that this phenomenon is physically caused is more > absurd than my belief that it is caused by God. I don't find it hard to believe at all. Especially since we've now clearly established the role of wishful thinking and preconception (you know, those things I "lied" about) in your belief system, it's no wonder you've "fallen" for such chicanery, deliberate or not. You assume the conclusion in advance, thus the events were caused by "divine intervention". There CAN BE no other explanation, provided you don't want to investigate other explanations. Which is absurd? Kulawiec's contention that Jeff is deluding himself based on what he wants to believe, or Jeff's contention that "it's god" because he wants to believe that it's so? > Speaking in tongues happens. That's a fact, regardless of the world view > with which you interpret it. Your world view states that those who believe > as I do are lying, as far as I can tell. (It could be claiming that we > don't know we're lying; but then how do you know you're not? No double > standards here.) To translate: the phenomenon called speaking in tongues happens. What causes it has been explained as a form of hypnosis (Has Jeff ever been hypnotized? Then how does he know he wasn't hypnotized as he claims?), but the exact cause is unclear, though some assume it to be divine in nature. Kulawiec's world view states that those who believe as Jeff does are lying, misled, or misinformed. How do others know if they are also misled? Ultimately we can't tell. But the scientific approach offers evidence obtained in rigorous fashion. (You used the pun rigorous mortis, but it was neither funny nor appropriate; it only showed your contempt for the fact that science is rigorous, while neither offering something better nor explaining why it was so, from your perspective.) You offer nothing but, to put it plainly, subjective crap. What you call "knowledge-surpassing belief". Subjective viewpoints aren't worthless. They determine, to a large degree, how people wind up perceiving and interpreting the real world. But those tailored perceptions used by an individual mind do NOT change the way the world really is, only the way YOU perceive it! > The last sentence is the real key. Your standard of proof is limited, being > relative *only* to the physically perceptible world. When we start talking > about God, things don't always work according to humanity's standards of > proof or logic. (Both Testaments are full of examples.) Jeff goes into this further in the next article, on Lewis' "Miracles", which I'll be answering next week. Suffice to say: when we hear the phrase "full of examples", but don't see any examples, we should pause to wonder what sort of evidence, thought, and reason are behind such a statement, before we accept it as face value. Even though others might not do so. -- When you're omniscient, everything's a tautology. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr