pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/06/84)
[From Darrell Plank:] > I am ready to question the passage which the "critics were not ready to > respond to". Just what is this "non-rational" means you keep talking > about? Why is "non-rational != irrational"? What does it mean to talk > about the "inconsistency of artistic expression"? I understand perfectly > what it means to talk about it being inconsistent for an all loving God > to slaughter innocent children, but the "inconsistency of artistic > expression"??? I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Precisely > which statements are you referring to which are inconsistent? Perhaps as > soon as you define your terms more precisely, your critics will be able > to answer you. Let me give you an example of non-rational learning. The reasoning powers of young childern are not very developed. They learn mostly by being told this or that is true, false, good, bad, etc. This is not irrational for the child because it doesn't necessarily go against reason, it just goes beyond his powers of reason. With an adult like myself, the reasoning is more developed, but I have no trouble accepting the idea that it may be flawed or limited and there are truths that must be 'revealed' to me. As in the case with a child and his parent, a personal relationship is needed for this kind of learning to be effective. If, as a child, I never had contact with my mother, it is obvious that I have never learned anything from her in this way. I see it as being much the same between myself and God. I don't understand everything that has been revealed to me about him. But I know I can expect to understand more as the relationship progresses. When I was at the rebellious age of 13, I thought I knew everything and that my parents were wrong about many things. When I grew older I saw that a good many of the things they said and did were right and I wished I had learned from them more than I did. When does a man ever get to the stage that he knows, or feels he can know, everything? As far as artistic expression goes, I made that point only to illustrate the fact that we accept many things just for what they are, without asking whether or not they are "logical". I don't question whether or not it is logical for my wife to like roses better than tulips. That is part of being a person. In an art museum we don't ask ourselves why the artist painted something one way and not another. Those things do, however, reveal something about my wife and the artist that we could not have known by logic and reasoning. It is the same with God. I don't think that recognizing this aspect of obtaining knowledge of God rules out rational discovery or understanding of his ways. Just as I can engage in rational discussion or inquiry about certian things my wife says or does without demanding that her whole character be "logically" composed, so it is with my relationship to God. If you think this is not so then you must know God (or my wife) better than I do. As I said before, when we consider Christianity we consider a relationship, not just the adoption of a philosophy. As far as your problem with the "evilness" of God is concerned, suppose I don't care whether or not you think God is good? How much do you care about whether or not your picture of him is correct? If your questions are so pressing and you really desire knowledge, you can't expect others to do all the work for you. > > As far as Jeff Sargent's ex-atheist friend goes, the same kind of changes > have come about in people's lives through many, many other religions and > atheism too for that matter. If, as Jeff's friend suggests, SOMETHING must > be at work here, why doesn't he believe that SOMETHING is at work when > somebody converts to Hinduism? And why is his SOMETHING better that the > Hindu's SOMETHING? > I don't know. I don't deny that *something* isn't at work in other religions (what is that *something* in atheism?). As far as whether or not it is better, well, that depends on a lot of things that vary between individuals. If my greatest desire were to shave my head and wear weird cloths, I might want to be a Hindu. Seriously, I don't choose Christianity because I "fits" me or makes me happy. I could reccomend other religions to those whose primary goal is personal happiness. The word "better" really says nothing when it is based totally on our own perspective. If "better" means it contains more of the truth, then we have something to go on, but it is still too simplistic to assume that everyone will naturally accept the truth when confronted with it. Many times we just don't like the truth. > Finally, you argue that you should not be asked to write out all the > logically conclusive arguments in books like those by C.S. Lewis. Why > not? You're too busy to summarize the books but we're not too busy too > read them through in their entirety? If such potent arguments exist, I > would assume that you would have put them up on the net. Are you only > giving us the poorer arguments in these books or what? And have you read > the myriad books on Hare Krishna? If not, then I suggest that your > example discussion between yourself and an atheist could have also taken > place between yourself and a Hare Krishna with the roles reversed. Why > is it reasonable for a critic of Hare Krishna to take this stand but not > a critic of Christianity? Are we obligated to read all the major > theological treatises of the world before we make a final decision on > which one best represents reality? Have YOU done this? Have YOU read > the Talmud, the Torah, the Book of the Dead? If not, what right do you > have to claim that the religions based on these books is wrong? You have a point here Darrell. If I spent as much time trying to debunk the Krishnas or the Jewish faith as you and Rich do Christianity without having made myself familiar with their first hand teaching, I would be pretty ignorant. Again, you miss the point of my conversation with the atheist. I wasn't asking him to read *everything*. His "I don't have to read everything" statement is true. But I only mentioned a few books, and not obscure ones either. The point is that he hadn't read anything, especially the things that might give him answers to the specific problems he has with Christianity. He seems to like having those problems with it. Once I lent him my copy of "Mere Christianity" to read. He tossed it back on my desk a few days later having read only the chapter on sexual behaviour. He told me he didn't think it was a very good book and he didn't agree with Lewis. Well, I didn't expect it to appeal to his own personal desires. I am only using C. S. Lewis' writing as an example. His are umong the highest quality and best known, I think. He was very good at communicating his thoughts in writing, doing it in a way that is easy for most people to understand. I said that I make a serious attempt to read the books of sceptics and other faiths. And I have looked forward to reading the ones you mentioned. But then again, I don't involve myself much in debunking their teaching unless I think I understand it. And I don't get understanding by trying to rip it apart before hand. Christianity is a large part of the culture you live in, Darrell (like it or not). I would think that you and I have more of an intellectual obligation to learn about it than either of us has to learn about the Krishnas. > > As far as the Bible representing itself, little credence if any is given to > a suspect's claim of "I didn't do it". The very most that might be said > for this is the look in the person's face when he says it. This hardly > applies to the Bible. Do you give credence to the greek myths because they > are stated as fact? If not, then why the Bible? My point was that skeptics like to assume that the belief in the divine inspriation of the Bible rests totally on itself. Suppose I suspect you of not being Darrell Plank. The fact that you say you are, though, at least gives me a basis on which to investigate further. If you never claimed to be Darrel Plank, then there would be little reason to question. I understand the Bible's claims about itself in the same way. > > Finally, the argument that because a 2000 year old book claims that so and > so said such and such and if I don't believe it, then it is a contradiction > to believe anything in the book - this is really pretty weak, don't you > think so? If somebody says the moon is made of green cheese and the earth > is spinning on its axis, is it contradictory to claim that the first > statement is foolish but still believe the second? Again, you miss the point, Darrell. Jesus claimed to be one with the God of the O. T. The one you call a "horror". In the above, you are comparing two different things that one person may say. I am comparing Jesus teaching with who he claimed to be. As Lewis has said (paraphrased) no one could say the things Jesus said and still be considered a great moral teacher. If he was not who he claimed to be, either he was a lunatic (on the level with a poached egg) or the Devil of Hell. He has not left the "great moral teacher" option open to us. > > Finally, as far as why people tend to "attack" Christianity, I don't see > how you can advance arguments such as these and then claim that your critics > are attacking you unfairly because they haven't read C.S. Lewis. Maybe you > are getting scorched because people are tired of hearing about all the > remarkable "proofs" of God and his goodness without seeing them. You're > right, I haven't read them, but I have seen many Christians put forth > what they consider to be the more potent arguments in them and if they're > that weak, why waste my time? You say you're too busy, but you're still > writing articles. All I ask is that you bring forth the GOOD arguments > instead of the BAD ones. That shouldn't waste any more time than you are > wasting right now. > All I am asking is for informed criticism. Giving a summary of the books I mentioned won't do it, and you know it. Summarys are intended to be informative, they don't provide a complete defence. It's easy to poke holes in a summary. As for "proofs", that is not the point either. Informed criticism is the issue. I don't offer any book as a "proof" of Christianity, only as helps in understanding it. Why waste your time? Why, then did you bother with this response? Do you think you would do well defending your own philosophy of life in the critic's den? Why don't you give a "summary" of it? Is there a book in which I can read about it? And none of the phony stuff about Hitler being God. Do it with your own beliefs. Another thing that struck me since my last posting is that even if the skeptics put their consistent philosophies up for examination they still may not get a feel for what they inflict on others. To hack away at someone's position the way they do is out of character for a Christian. I feel the need to apologise when I have "broken the rules" and caused an offence. Also, I can't resort to profanity in good conscience. (e.g. calling something "BS". Let's not use abbrieviations. If you mean to call something "bull shit" spell it out.) Maybe we should have a news group called net.anti-religion. It's not always a matter of GOOD or BAD arguments, Darrell. It is often a distinction between complete and incomplete. If you assume that the BAD arguments are complete, then, yes, they are bad. On the other hand people have varing abilities to communicate them and different personal understandings of them. As far as time and thought goes, it has taken me very little of either to compose this article. A comprehensive defence of my beliefs would take volumes. I might be willing to give a summary, (Which is really what I do anytime I submit an article) but not where it will get torn to shreds as if it was suposed to be the whole story. Having read the same book at least give two people a common groundwork for discussion. My argument here against the attitude of net.religion skeptics here is incomplete. I could write much more time and interest permitting. But I won't. I leave the last word to those who can't stand to let people like me have it. :-) Regards, Paul Dubuc
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (04/12/84)
#R:cbscc:-219500:uokvax:8300053:000:1779 uokvax!emjej Apr 12 13:24:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.religion / cbscc!pmd / 12:22 am Apr 6, 1984 */ >Let me give you an example of non-rational learning.... [Young >children] are not very developed. They learn mostly by being told this >or that is true, false, good, bad, etc. This is not irrational for the >child because it doesn't necessarily go against reason, it just goes >beyond his powers of reason. With an adult like myself, the reasoning >is more developed, but I have no trouble accepting the idea that it may >be flawed or limited and there are truths that must be 'revealed' to >me. As in the case with a child and his parent, a personal relationship >is needed for this kind of learning to be effective. OK; I certainly acknowledge my limitations (having one's nose rubbed in them periodically sort of does that to one :->). However, there is nobody around who is an obvious candidate for virtual parent to my virtual child; only equally fallible humans making conflicting claims about alleged gods and revealed truths. >As far as artistic expression goes, I made that point only to illustrate >the fact that we accept many things just for what they are, without >asking whether or not they are "logical". I don't question whether >or not it is logical for my wife to like roses better than tulips. True, nor do we usually bother looking for Freudian explanations or any others. Theological questions are usually considered differently from questions of taste (by non-logical positivists, anyway :->), i.e. they are thought to be propositions with truth values, and many people devote considerable effort to arguing their truth or falsity. Does your wife try to convince people that they'll suffer eternal torment if they don't prefer roses to tulips? /* ---------- */ James Jones
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/16/84)
A response to James Jones: }>Let me give you an example of non-rational learning.... [Young }>children] are not very developed. They learn mostly by being told this }>or that is true, false, good, bad, etc. This is not irrational for the }>child because it doesn't necessarily go against reason, it just goes }>beyond his powers of reason. With an adult like myself, the reasoning }>is more developed, but I have no trouble accepting the idea that it may }>be flawed or limited and there are truths that must be 'revealed' to }>me. As in the case with a child and his parent, a personal relationship }>is needed for this kind of learning to be effective. } }OK; I certainly acknowledge my limitations (having one's nose rubbed in them }periodically sort of does that to one :->). However, there is nobody around }who is an obvious candidate for virtual parent to my virtual child; only }equally fallible humans making conflicting claims about alleged gods and }revealed truths. My example above asumes the parent-child relationship to have already been made. Your objection to it stems from the fact that you have no such "virtual" relationship. I understand your point of view, but it still does not invalidate mine. The example only serves to illustrate that such relationships do exist (and there for may be possible between us and God), and that the knowlege we obtain through such a relationship is considered valid though not strictly rational. Where a relationship with God is concerned it also does not invalidate my belief that you are likely to experience the same kind of understanding of God, were you to meet him. How do you meet him? I can't really tell you. That is between you and him. I can only tell you how I met him, or how others met him and that would probably be of little use to you. It would be like me telling you how I met my wife and then (assuming you are not already married) expecting that you should meet a woman the same way. (That's a very limited illustration, but I hope you know what I mean to convey by it.) Speaking from Christian experience it seems that each person's relationship with God is as personal and varied (within certian accepted constraints) as their relationship with a spouse (or parent, for that matter). I can only tell you that we do not "discover" God in quite the same way as we would discover whether or not there is a pink flamingo in the next room. ;-) i.e. we can't just go and look and examine at an arm's length. What else would you expect from fallible humans but to make conflicting claims about anything (not just God)? Does this mean that there is no truth whatsoever to the claims? I don't think I am giving you any reasons for you to believe in God. But I think my way of understanding him to be valid, not irrational, and able to be shared by anyone because the means of understanding are used by everyone. It is also not my *sole* means of understanding. Just as I believe there are some things rationality cannot accomplish, I believe the same is true for faith. The trick is knowing the place of each. Something I'm really not very good at, but it's getting better. }>As far as artistic expression goes, I made that point only to illustrate }>the fact that we accept many things just for what they are, without }>asking whether or not they are "logical". I don't question whether }>or not it is logical for my wife to like roses better than tulips. } }True, nor do we usually bother looking for Freudian explanations or any }others. Theological questions are usually considered differently from }questions of taste (by non-logical positivists, anyway :->), i.e. they }are thought to be propositions with truth values, and many people }devote considerable effort to arguing their truth or falsity. Who said anything about theology? Not I. Of course theology is debated and is cognitive, the same as philosophy. Theology, by definition, is the study of diety. It seems to me that theological aspects of religion have to be quite detached from the experiencal aspects. But in these examples I am talking about knowledge of a person through a relationship, not just observation ("who as ever seen God?") or logical deduction. What I said before can be said in a different way: When we consider Christianity we consider a relationship, not just the adoption of a philosophy *or theology*. }Does your }wife try to convince people that they'll suffer eternal torment if they }don't prefer roses to tulips? No. Do you know someone who does? She has never claimed the authority to confine anyone to eternal torment for any reason, to my knowledge. On a more serious note, I don't see how anyone can be *convinced* of the existence of Hell before the fact. God says there is such a place. I believe him, but no one will really know until we see it. Of course, by then whether or not we take up residence there may aready have been decided. Anyway, I don't think the possiblity of suffering Hell should figure significantly into one's decision of whether or not to enter into a relationship with God. What kind of relationship is one that is maintained by fear? The way I see it Hell is a bypoduct of a fallen world, a grim necessity for a God that cannot accept the presence of evil in eternity. It is not the solution to the falleness of Man (as if by the threat of it we may be made better) but a consequence of it. Like them or not, we're all subject to the same rules. For a Chistian to present Hell as the threat to non-beleivers is to miss the whole point of its existence. It is of consequence to me as much as (or even more than) anyone else. David Norris' pointer to C. S. Lewis' book "The Problem of Pain" is worth looking into. (I have only read sections of that book, however, and I don't know if my view of Hell corresponds to his. I haven't read that chapter.) All said, I don't think I know enough about God's criteria for assigning individuals to Hell to be able to make such a determination myself about any individual. I only believe that Hell will be a reality for many. I'll apply its implications to myself and leave those for others to be between them and God. The possibility of such a fate for others does lead me to an evangelical belief, however. One that I hope is motivated out of love and respect for the dignity of all persons. Many like to believe that evangelicals are motivated out of a desire to dominate or impose upon the beliefs of others. The joy of a right relationship with God is something that I neither seek to impose or keep to myself. Well I've gotten off the track, but I hope these things are of interest to some anyway. A good part of the reason I believe in Hell is not just my adherence to a form of Christian theology. Some of it also has to do with my subjective relationship to God. I trust that he is telling the truth because of that relationship. I realize that many don't have the benefit of that relationship, but that is not to say that it is false (a conclusion that many seem to come to) or that such a relationship is not possible for you. Please don't say that I have been brain washed or that I am deceived. I haven't a shred of evidence to tell me that is so. Do you? :-). Paul Dubuc -- Paul Dubuc ihnp4!cbscc!pmd