gulley@stolaf.UUCP (William T. Gulley) (10/07/84)
> > [Steve Nelson] > > I have a simple, perhaps naive, but utterly fundamental question: > > > > What is it that leads a person from any other state of mind > > to the state of believing that the Bible is totally true > > and inspired by the God described therein? > > > > Answers from those in either state of mind will be appreciated, thank you. } [Mike Huybensz] }Positive feedback. The same kinds of positive feedback that cause people to }become confirmed conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Moslems, Hindus, agnostics }sociobiologists, etc. And the same thing that causes a person to become a confirmed Mike Huybensz. (no personal judgement intended) }Christianity can provide superficially consistent answers }to a variety of commonly asked questions. Consistency of explanation is very }convincing to people, and explanations that rule out accepting other kinds of }explanation are the positive feedback that lock people into Christianity and }other cults. If I'm anything like the average human being (and I assume that I am, by positive feedback), I *prefer* one coherent perception of truth, for sanity's sake, if anything. And therefore, I will lock myself into that explanation if it provides me with even a semblance of a coherent reality that works for me. And me, Mr. Joe Superficially-minded, had better be able to understand that explanation, or I'll soon be heading down Nietsche's Road to Nonmoralistic Insanity. (you know, where all the signs say things like, "No left or right turn" at a T-intersection.) And that's why Christianity has had such a good record with the simple-minded, and not with the intellectual snobs that can't stoop to such an easily-assimilated truth. Only coherently one-track minds will accept a coherently one-track Truth, and the others will get what they look for. (i.e., pieces of a shattered mirror) ---- The Charbroiled William Gulley {!inhp4 | !decvax} !stolaf!gulley
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/09/84)
> [William Gulley] > } [Mike Huybensz] > }Positive feedback. The same kinds of positive feedback that cause people to > }become confirmed conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Moslems, Hindus, agnostics > }sociobiologists, etc. > > And the same thing that causes a person to become a confirmed Mike Huybensz. > (no personal judgement intended) > > }Christianity can provide superficially consistent answers > }to a variety of commonly asked questions. Consistency of explanation is very > }convincing to people, and explanations that rule out accepting other kinds of > }explanation are the positive feedback that lock people into Christianity and > }other cults. > > If I'm anything like the > average human being (and I assume that I am, by positive feedback), I > *prefer* one coherent perception of truth, for sanity's sake, if anything. > And therefore, I will lock myself into that explanation if it provides me > with even a semblance of a coherent reality that works for me. And me, > Mr. Joe Superficially-minded, had better be able to understand that > explanation, or I'll soon be heading down Nietsche's Road to Nonmoralistic > Insanity. (you know, where all the signs say things like, "No left or > right turn" at a T-intersection.) And that's why Christianity has had > such a good record with the simple-minded, and not with the intellectual > snobs that can't stoop to such an easily-assimilated truth. Only coherently > one-track minds will accept a coherently one-track Truth, and the others > will get what they look for. (i.e., pieces of a shattered mirror) (I hate long citations, but I couldn't break up this one.) I like this response. Partly because I like it when people agree with me. (For example, William has confirmed that I apply my ideas to myself as well, without his knowing that I am agnostic, a sociobiologist, liberal, and a Democrat.) William also agrees with me about positive feedback. But then he goes on to attempt a justification for remaining locked into a positive feedback loop, supported by a few choice red herrings (such as Nietsche and "shattered mirror".) If the original question had also asked how some people escape from convictions, I would have expanded my feedback analogy to include negative feedback. Ideas which keep one from rejecting inconsistant data, and thus cause one to reformulate hypotheses. One common form is the plea for an "open mind". Another is the scientific method. William's ideas of Christianity and other religions being easily digested pablum for the masses are also correct in my view. They serve an important purpose, the same way archaic ideas of atoms are taught in elementary schools. First you learn that atoms are little balls that make up everything. Later, you learn that atoms are little solar systems made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Later you learn about orbitals... and later about quarks, strong and weak forces, etc. Very little is required to see that traditional religions are insufficiently explanatory: which is why religions have been strongly selected to cause immediate rejection of such negative feedback. -- Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/09/84)
> If I'm anything like the > average human being (and I assume that I am, by positive feedback), I > *prefer* one coherent perception of truth, for sanity's sake, if anything. > And therefore, I will lock myself into that explanation if it provides me > with even a semblance of a coherent reality that works for me. And me, > Mr. Joe Superficially-minded, had better be able to understand that > explanation, or I'll soon be heading down Nietsche's Road to Nonmoralistic > Insanity. And that's why Christianity has had > such a good record with the simple-minded, and not with the intellectual > snobs that can't stoop to such an easily-assimilated truth. Only coherently > one-track minds will accept a coherently one-track Truth, and the others > will get what they look for. (i.e., pieces of a shattered mirror) > [stolaf!gulley] I couldn't have defended the proposition (that religion is founded in wishful thinking, preconception, and believing what one wants to believe rather than thinking about things one possibly might not understand) better myself. Thank you, Mr. Gulley. -- Occam's Razor: I liked it so much, I bought the company! Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr