planting@rsch.WISC.EDU (W. Harry Plantinga) (09/25/86)
> Xref: uwvax talk.religion.misc:240 net.religion.christian:4967 > > I contend that many Christians believe God from experience. That is > the Bible tells of a testable method to find Him (no blind faith just be > determined). Such experience is what I contend is the reason for yet more > 'faith'. Just as we understand that the sun will rise (because we know why). > That is the sort of faith you should understand Christians in general to > have. > > # Mike Gore > # Institute for Computer Research. Mike makes a good point here. Let me expand it a bit. When a person sees another person, he (or she) assumes or "knows" that there is another person near him. In fact, however, he cannot *prove* the existance of the other person--he cannot prove that the appearance is not an illusion. The point is that he has had an experience from which he concludes that there is another person nearby. In the same way, most (many?) Christians believe in God because they experience Him. For many Christians, the experience is just as compelling as the appearance of another person nearby. It's not a mental defect that causes the person to believe in God, it's a correct and natural response to experience. Many Christians *don't have a choice* about believing in God any more than a person has a choice about believing there's another person in the room when he sees him. I sometimes even wonder if *everyone* experiences God, and either accepts him or rejects him. It would certainly explain the venom I see in this newsgroup . . . Harry Plantinga planting@colby.wisc.edu {allegra,seismo,ihnp4}!uwvax!planting
sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP (Stephen Nahm) (09/26/86)
In article <2759@rsch.WISC.EDU> planting@rsch.WISC.EDU (W. Harry Plantinga) writes: > >When a person sees another person, he (or she) assumes or "knows" >that there is another person near him. In fact, however, he cannot >*prove* the existance of the other person--he cannot prove that the >appearance is not an illusion. But that person can relate the ways that he or she "experiences" the other person. If you describe how that person appears to you, other people who also "experience" the observed person will either agree with you or not. If they agree with you, fine. If they don't agree with you, someone must account for the difference: Too foggy to see correctly? Are the observers experiencing an altered conciousness? Is someone describing something that's contained only within that person's mind? > Many Christians *don't have a >choice* about believing in God any more than a person has a choice >about believing there's another person in the room when he sees him. A Christian (or any person for that matter) *does* have a choice as to what experiences he or she will rely on for acquiring beliefs. Would a religious person rely on sensations experienced under the influence of a mind altering drug? I hope not. Would a person who has been indoctrinated in a belief in the supernatural believe "experiences" which he or she has been told are manefestations of God? Probably; if you've been told that certain feelings and thoughts are direct experiences of God, you're likely to believe you've experienced God when you've had those feelings or thoughts. You have decide to use emotions and internal thoughts as criteria for belief (in God). >I sometimes even wonder if *everyone* experiences God, and either >accepts him or rejects him. It would certainly explain the venom I >see in this newsgroup . . . Everyone *doesn't* experience God (I don't). I hope my follow-up has been sufficiently free of venom to allow you to believe this. -- Steve Nahm UUCP route: {amd|cae780}!ubvax!sxnahm sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP Internet address: amd!ubvax!sxnahm@decwrl.DEC.COM
cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel Rives) (09/26/86)
In article <2759@rsch.WISC.EDU> planting@rsch.WISC.EDU (W. Harry Plantinga) writes: > >In the same way, most (many?) Christians believe in God because >they experience Him. For many Christians, the experience is just as >compelling as the appearance of another person nearby. It's not a >mental defect that causes the person to believe in God, it's a correct >and natural response to experience. Many Christians *don't have a >choice* about believing in God any more than a person has a choice >about believing there's another person in the room when he sees him. > I am not convinced that most (or many) people who profess to be Christian believe in god out of personal experience. Many people, from many walks of life, in many different countries throughout time have referred to a "spiritual" experience. Some people recognize this experience as evidence in some external deity (not necissarily a Christian deity either). Others, see it as evidence of their own oneness with the universe - their own potential godhead, so to speak. Those two groups, by no means, define the set of reactions to this experience. Such an experience as you are referring to is - as are all experiences - subject to various filters in our minds. If you are brought up as a Hindu, you might filter the experience into a form that is compatible with Hindu scripture. If you are a Toaist, you might perceive this experience as being one with the flow of Tao. If you are a Christian, the layers of indoctrination and cultural background might flavor the experience so that it conforms to the concept of god. Two people, perceiving the same object, will not necissarily describe the object in similar terms afterwards. This happens quite often in the mundane world. How much more so must it occur when we experience something so intangible as the experience you refer to. A dozen persons sitting in a circle around some central object will all perceive a slightly different aspect of the whole object. None of them has the perspective to perceive the object in it's entirety and so, some may disagree completely as to the objects appearance. What's more, if this object were to be something that each person in the circle sought to obtain, then it would not be possible for all of them to achieve the goal by going along the same path or the same direction. Each person in that circle would have to make a unique path to the object. >I sometimes even wonder if *everyone* experiences God, and either >accepts him or rejects him. It would certainly explain the venom I >see in this newsgroup . . . > I have had such experiences often in my life. When I was younger and didn't know any better, I attributed them to Jesus Christ's influence in my life. Later, when I was rebelling aginst the religion which was forced down my throat as a youth, I preferred to perceive these experiences as Magic in the universe. Now, I prefer not to attach a label to the experience. For, any such label will only limit the experience. -- Joel Rives gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr { * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ ^ }-------{ * } There is no place to seek the mind; It is like the footprints of the birds in the sky. { * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }--------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (09/28/86)
I really don't have the faintest idea what questions of mine this is supposed to refer to. Care to enlighten me? In article <2759@rsch.WISC.EDU> planting@rsch.WISC.EDU (W. Harry Plantinga) writes: >When a person sees another person, he (or she) assumes or "knows" >that there is another person near him. In fact, however, he cannot >*prove* the existance of the other person--he cannot prove that the >appearance is not an illusion. The point is that he has had an >experience from which he concludes that there is another person >nearby. This experience is trustworthy because it is almost never contradicted. Anyone with you at the time will see the same person, and future meetings by other people with the same person will confirm their meeting with you. This is not the case with respect to contact with deities. If the universe were so constituted that meeting a person was, like meeting deity, a highly questionable experience, in which one had only subjective feelings of contact but no outside corroboration, and in which the person allegedly met could not state to any other person at what time and place he or she had last met with you, then we would hardly have the same absolute confidence in our meetings with people. >In the same way, most (many?) Christians believe in God because >they experience Him. For many Christians, the experience is just as >compelling as the appearance of another person nearby. It's not a >mental defect that causes the person to believe in God, it's a correct >and natural response to experience. Many Christians *don't have a >choice* about believing in God any more than a person has a choice >about believing there's another person in the room when he sees him. Nonsense. In my own pagan invocations I have many times had contact with what appeared to be pure and transcendent beings, a feeling of contact that was, if anything, far more vivid and compelling than my current contact with you. This does not mean that I am unable to treat these experiences with skepticism, once I re-activate my intellect. I do not believe in non-human sentience on the planet; I believe that the experience of such was largely conditioned by my expectations of encountering apparently sentient beings. When I was twelve years old and privately foreswore Catholicism, one of the two chief insights I had was that my own religious experience proved absolutely nothing about the correctness of any doctrine derived from literally interpreting it. If I had been raised a Hindu, then I would have experienced Vishnu rather than Jesus. This caused me to over-react for a few years into dogmatic atheism; since becoming eclectic I have since experienced both gods, though you would say the experiences contradict each other. (Actually, what you would say is that I experienced Satan both times; this is presumptive to start with, and therefore throws aside your supposed basis in repeatable experience. It also ignores the issue of how you know that what *you* have experienced is not Satan....) You will note that for me to accept your viewpoint would require that I accept that your religious experiences have somehow been superior to mine. On the other hand, for you to accept mine only requires that you grant that our experiences have been equally valid. >I sometimes even wonder if *everyone* experiences God, and either >accepts him or rejects him. It would certainly explain the venom I >see in this newsgroup . . . I don't understand. There is venom on both sides, and you have explained it on neither. If you want to see where the greater venom lies, I suggest you compare the tone of Ken Arndt (the sole resident of my global kill file) with that of any non-Christian poster, including such supposedly terribly venomous posters as myself and Rich Rosen. -- Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot {ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp) hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)