hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (03/07/85)
Amid the usual clutter of junk in net.religion, I have seen two perfectly reasonable requests from non-believers. The first is in response to the various Christians. These folks said they believe in God because they talk to him all the time. Many readers found it hard to figure out what this means. It seemed unlikely that these people were really seeing visions and hearing voices. And they couldn't figure out what else could be meant. I think it is quite reasonable to expect a bit more explanation. So I am going to try to explain what I mean when I say that I talk to God. I am reluctant to take on this task, because it is primarily the task of the philosophy of religion. If any readers are versed in philosophy, it will become painfully clear that I am not a competent philosopher. However the question seems important, and no one else seems likely to try, so I will. Maybe one of you philosophers can try to clean up what I say. In order to understand what I mean when I talk about God doing this or that, you have to realize that my model of the universe does not separate events cleanly into those that are caused by God and those that happen by "natural causes". It seems clear that the laws of the physics do not uniquely determine what goes on in history. Even in classical physics, many different histories are possible, depending upon the initial conditions (or some equivalent, if you believe in a universe that has lasted forever). With quantum mechanics, there is of course far more freedom. I think of God as being responsible for the specific course that history has taken. I view the laws of physics as being similar in kind to the laws of poetry. The Author has chosen to follow certain patterns. But these patterns are not so rigid as to contrain what he is saying. Thus I believe that every event can be looked at from two different perspectives: that of someone tied to the visible universe, and God's. From our perspective, the event is tied in to history, and has the usual sort of causes. Depending upon the type of event, these causes may or may not uniquely determine it. But I also believe that in his providence, God has either chosen to have the event happen, or at least to make the universe a place such that the event would happen. This is somewhat similar to the "two levels" that other people have talked about, except that I consider that every event can be understood in terms of either level. Now on to communication with God... There are certainly times when God hits people over the head, but for most of us, most of the time, communication with God occurs in the context of prayer. When I say that "God showed me X", I think I normally mean that I realized X when I was praying. If you want to look at this from the worldly perspective, it could probably be said that no information actually arrives from an extraterrestrial source when I pray. I think most insights could be regarded as coming from one of the following sources: - considering events around me and seeing patterns in them - Scripture, particularly meditating on the life of Christ - the views of other Christians (or non-Christians, for that matter) However in my view, God is still responsible. One can see something like this even in the case of human teachers. I have found that it is not always possible to teach something just by lecturing about it. Often you have to find some way of pointing to it. Socrates is well known for trying to bring his students to see matters for themselves. Nevertheless, one would still say that a teacher of this sort is communicating. In my view, God has arranged the world, and our lives, to help bring us to certain insights. He has provided Scripture to remove any ambiguity that might otherwise be there. Prayer is when I take time to think about things carefully enough that I can see what God is trying to tell me. (NB: This is not a complete description of the role of prayer. I am completely omitting intercessory prayer, and no doubt other types of prayer as well.) There is a danger here that I will be understood as meaning something like the Deist model, where God sort of sets up the Universe and then leaves man to make the best of it. I believe that God is concerned with everything that happens to us, and that his providence applies from minute to minute. He *is* trying to tell me something specific. It is just that normally he speaks through events around me, through Scripture, and through other people. The primary difficulty with this view is that it is not "falsifiable". That is, if I claim that God is sending me messages on 100 MHz with frequency modulation, it is very easy to verify whether this is true or not. When I claim that he is sending me messages through the events around me, it is very hard to prove this true or false. Someone else can look around and see no message there. According to certain philosophers of science, in the final analysis this means that my claim is meaningless. I do not have the space here (or the expertise) to give a complete defense against this charge. However to some extent it is based on a naive understanding of the way science itself works. Many of the basic ideas of science (e.g. conservation of energy) are not subject to direct proof or even disproof. These basic ideas are embodied in a specific theory. But if that theory is disproven, it is always possible to add epicycles to it so that the basic principle continues. The actual choice among basic approaches is made in the long run, on the basis of whether it proves useful or not. If conservation of energy leads theorists to be able to propose lots of new experiments, and continues to be able to summarize the results of these experiments elegantly, we will keep it. I believe that it is the same with following God. If it leads me to new insights about myself and the world around me, and if it is capable of making sense out of everything I run into and see in the world, then it is a useful (and hence meaningful) idea.
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (03/08/85)
In article <893@topaz.ARPA> hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) writes: > ...if I claim that God is sending me messages on 100 MHz with frequency >modulation, it is very easy to verify whether this is true or not. When I >claim that he is sending me messages through the events around me, it is >very hard to prove this true or false. Someone else can look around and see >no message there. According to certain philosophers of science, in the >final analysis this means that my claim is meaningless. More problematic is the situation where someone else looks around and sees a *different* message there. Now we have counterclaims of truth, each with the same degree (or lack thereof) of falsifiability. This is the question which generates the continuing heat in this newsgroup. As I have been asked on any number of occasions, how is it possible to determine what is correct? I would claim that it is not, and that the evidence would indicate that G-d speaks to different people in different ways and with different messages. It is easy to beg the question by saying that essentially "I know I am right and you are mistaken -- come read *my* books." There is not, however, any objective criteria on which to base that statement and all subjective criteria have to be equally weighted (my revelation is not objectively superior or inferior to your revelation.) I think Chuck's analysis is, as usual, well thought out but I don't think it really addresses the questions that have been asked here. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/08/85)
Chuck Hedrick provides the most intelligent and best written discussion of a personal relationship with god that I've ever read. It's such a pleasure to read something intended to communicate avoiding jargon. In article <893@topaz.ARPA> hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) writes: > Now on to communication with God... There are certainly times when God hits > people over the head, but for most of us, most of the time, communication > with God occurs in the context of prayer. When I say that "God showed me > X", I think I normally mean that I realized X when I was praying. If you > want to look at this from the worldly perspective, it could probably be said > that no information actually arrives from an extraterrestrial source when I > pray. I think most insights could be regarded as coming from one of the > following sources: > > - considering events around me and seeing patterns in them > - Scripture, particularly meditating on the life of Christ > - the views of other Christians (or non-Christians, for that matter) This corresponds very closely with my past views (back when I was religious). This is the reason why I requested that someone describe their "talking with god" using something other than buzzwords: because "talking with god" is so inexact as to imply an inappropriate significance. "I'm as important as Moses, 'cause I talk with God just like he did, and you can too" is the misleading meaning I (and many others) catch from fundamentalists. > However in my view, God is still responsible. .... When I > claim that he is sending me messages through the events around me, it is > very hard to prove this true or false. Someone else can look around and see > no message there. According to certain philosophers of science, in the > final analysis this means that my claim is meaningless. You miss one other possibility: that the message may have come from yourself, and not god. However, it is the undecidability between the possibilities that lead me to agnosticism. > Many of the basic ideas of science (e.g. > conservation of energy) are not subject to direct proof or even disproof. > These basic ideas are embodied in a specific theory. But if that theory is > disproven, it is always possible to add epicycles to it so that the basic > principle continues. The actual choice among basic approaches is made in > the long run, on the basis of whether it proves useful or not. If > conservation of energy leads theorists to be able to propose lots of new > experiments, and continues to be able to summarize the results of these > experiments elegantly, we will keep it. I believe that it is the same with > following God. If it leads me to new insights about myself and the world > around me, and if it is capable of making sense out of everything I run into > and see in the world, then it is a useful (and hence meaningful) idea. Actually, some old theories are subsumed by new theories. Instead of adding an epicycle, the old theories become an epicycle (or degenerate case) of the new. Relativistic physics includes Newtonian physics. I agree that elegance (meaning terseness and utility in making sense of things) is a criterion well worth following. People can perceive elegance with or without religious belief. For example, while I am a zealous agnostic, I have (and do) learn from the Bible. Perhaps different messages. The elegance of the Bible that I perceive boils down primarily to inter- human relationships. Until recently, the elegance of science has been primarily chemical, physical, mathematical, and biological. Now I feel that science is beginning to subsume the inter-human relationship field, with medicine, psychology, ethology, archaeology, anthropology, ethnology, sociology, sociobiology, and a host of others all prying their way towards explanation of how and why we are what we are and do what we do. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/09/85)
>In article <893@topaz.ARPA> hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) writes: >> ...if I claim that God is sending me messages on 100 MHz with frequency >>modulation, it is very easy to verify whether this is true or not. When I >>claim that he is sending me messages through the events around me, it is >>very hard to prove this true or false. Someone else can look around and see >>no message there. According to certain philosophers of science, in the >>final analysis this means that my claim is meaningless. > >[Byron Howes:] >More problematic is the situation where someone else looks around and sees >a *different* message there. Now we have counterclaims of truth, each with >the same degree (or lack thereof) of falsifiability. This is the question >which generates the continuing heat in this newsgroup. As I have been >asked on any number of occasions, how is it possible to determine what is >correct? I would claim that it is not, and that the evidence would >indicate that G-d speaks to different people in different ways and with >different messages. Not only different, but often contradictory. Is there still no way to sort out what is correct? I would disagree that all religions have truth claims with the same degree (or lack thereof) of falsifiability. >It is easy to beg the question by saying that essentially "I know I am >right and you are mistaken -- come read *my* books." There is not, >however, any objective criteria on which to base that statement and all >subjective criteria have to be equally weighted (my revelation is not >objectively superior or inferior to your revelation.) Some religions have their revelation grounded more firmly in history than others. That is, once we accept the proposition that God is there (the most basic) and that we also exist (undeniably so) we can examine the relationship between God and us that is revealed by each religion and its implications (philosophy of religion). We may look at the problems common to humankind and see how each philosophy deals with them. We can also look at the historical claims made by each and see where the firmest ground lies. There are religions with little grounding in the events of history. There are those whose adherents make circular claims for the authority of their own revelation. There are some that make denial of problems out to be the solution to those problems. And there are those that seem to deny the usefulness of the very tools of reason we use to grapple with the problems we face. For these--you are right--there is little falsification possible and no way to connect "epistemological subjectivity" with "metaphysical objectivity". You cannot, however, force all religions into that pigeon hole and say objectivity is completely irrelevant to them all. Even if you could do that, you still have to face the problems of contridictory truth claims. Surely you don't resolve them by saying they are all equally valid. You must have reasons for believing some things are true and others not, even in the realm of religious belief. How can all subjective criteria be equally weighted when the only subjectivity any of us posesses is our own? Doesn't the act of weighing them require something a little beyond total subjectivity? From your parenthetical note, it seems that you would agree that it does. Yet you claim that determination of what is correct it impossible. I would hope that God has made a provision to resolve the issues adaquately (albeit not absolutely). We cannot suspend judgement indefinitely on many things that are important; the implications of our beliefs. Laura thinks Satanism is horrible. Tim thinks Christianity is horrible. I may agree with Laura and disagree with Tim, but I would not claim that there are no grounds for making such judgements; that the judgements themselves are meaningless. Religions invariably lead their adherents to hold beliefs that inherently imply that other religious beliefs are wrong. We cannot ignore this conflict. There must be some meaningful way to consider it. We have no choice, I think. Maybe I have totally misunderstood your point, Byron. But you must have some way of resolving these conflicts to your own satisfaction and you must believe the methods you use have validity that extends beyond your own subjectivity (why even discuss religion otherwise?). -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) (03/10/85)
> >In article <893@topaz.ARPA> hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) writes: > >> ...if I claim that God is sending me messages on 100 MHz with frequency > >>modulation, it is very easy to verify whether this is true or not. When I > >>claim that he is sending me messages through the events around me, it is > >>very hard to prove this true or false. Someone else can look around and see > >>no message there. According to certain philosophers of science, in the > >>final analysis this means that my claim is meaningless. > > > >[Byron Howes:] > >More problematic is the situation where someone else looks around and sees > >a *different* message there. Now we have counterclaims of truth, each with > >the same degree (or lack thereof) of falsifiability. This is the question > >which generates the continuing heat in this newsgroup. As I have been > >asked on any number of occasions, how is it possible to determine what is > >correct? Clearly, such messages are below the threshold of detectability, in a signal-to-noise kind of way. People are required to make decisions in their lives, and unfortunately cannot wait around to "signal average" for a thousand or so years before acting. Religion really addresses those human problems which are inaccessible to rational inquiry within a reasonable length of time. As the methods of rational inquiry, as it were, are enlarged, there will obviously be developed certain areas in which religion is not the only authority giving such "messages." It is not inconceivable to me that some religions may one day be considered spurious as a result. This point of view has no logical relationship to either a belief or disbelief in any particular religion. If a given set of beliefs (and this is my ultimate reduction of the definition of what constitutes a religion--though I also would like to exclude "cults" from being considered as such) is shown to be inconsistent with reality, and that proof is accepted, then that would just about prove that the origins of that religion were falsely perpetrated upon innocent followers. (This makes it imperative that all religions adjust to modernity: they run a serious risk of being considered outmoded. Hence, many religious authorities today do not consider evolution to be in conflict with the story of creation in Genesis--a new interpretation is developed to the extent that before the world was created, the meaning of the word "day" was unclear and could constitute centuries or more.) HOWEVER, I would like to shift the emphasis from the religions themselves, which cannot be verified or disproven (that's why we call them beliefs, natch!) to the followers or rejectors of those religions, including all of us reading the net. In other words, the psychology of religion is my topic today: Since as mentioned above people need to make life decisions without all the facts, there arises an allegiance to those decisions because psychologically (Abeles' 1st principle of psychology; forget about some of what you may have been taught) man's greatest psychological need is the need to be right. It's that simple, folks. If you're a fundamentalist Ubizmatist, and if you just got finished spending fifty years of your life living your life like a good Ubizmatist, it would just about send you to the loony bin to look honestly at the claims of other beliefs because you are going to be afraid, and I mean AFRAID, to find out that you have been wasting your time swinging dead chickens around over your head every Tuesday afternoon (a requirement of Ubizmatic mystical beliefs). It's MORE than EMBARRASSING! Similarly for atheists. If you are a dyed-in-the-wool atheist and you are getting old and find out that atheism is a drag 'cause it kind of says that there is no particular reason to live, it is a bit embarrassing to proclaim to the world that Ubizmatology is the one true religion. Actually agnostics have it the best; they can slowly move in the direction they feel most comfortable with, without making a big deal about it and staking their sense of self as strongly on this issue of religion. But ultimately, they have the same problem. Point is, I don't really take the things people say about their religious thinking too seriously because to a great extent they are only claiming those beliefs to be facts because their egos can't take the heat. The ego is the part of the mind, according to S. Freud, which deals with reality, and the fact of the matter is that there aren't enough facts available on which to base life decisions--thus potentially overloading the ego. So sometimes it compensates by spewing out nonsense. Again, this bears no relationship to the validity of the general concept of religion or validity of any particular manifestation. --J. Abeles
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/12/85)
Well, it finally happened. No, really. God actually spoke to me. I now really and truly believe in God. What's more, I see the correctness of the Christian perspective!!! God has explained it all to me. It happened in a dream last night. Now you may remember that someone (I think it was Alan Algustyniak) reminded us that when someone says "God appeared to me in a dream", we should ask if God actually appeared to that person or if that person just dreamed that God appeared to him/her. So, being a very objective and rational guy, I performed some scientific analysis: I asked God if He was just something I dreamed up or if He was really talking to me. He told me to shut up, and stated (rather loudly) that He was indeed God and not my own imagination. Who was I to argue with God? Moreover, He was really pissed off. He told me, first of all, to stop using the name Ubizmo as the name of a deity, because it was quite simply wrong, and He didn't like it. Secondly, He told me not to post to net.religion.christian anymore, because He said so. And thirdly, He told me to print this retraction of everything I've ever said about belief in God being based on wishful thinking or presumption or assuming the conclusion of God first and analyzing the universe from there, and about the nature of subjective personal experience not being a viable guage of reality. Now I know what you're thinking. All you atheists and agnostics with your pessimistic dry and dead ideas and your hostile attitudes are just waiting to ask me questions about my experience in order to debunk my story as a fraud. Well, I'll answer some of your hostile offensive questions in advance. What does God look like? What a stupid question. God is an incorporeal being!!! Jeez! What was He wearing? / A very garish purple lame suit. When I told Him it was tacky, He turned my face into jello (not a very pleasant experience). How did you know it was God and not just your own dream/imagination? I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT! He told me it was Him and not just a manifestation of my own dreams. Do you doubt the word of God? How can God be both omnipotent and omniscient? I asked Him that. In response, He punched me in the face. He then said unto me: "And I thought about it, and I knew it was going to happen, and I did it. And I saw that it was good." Luckily for me, my face had already been turned into jello at this point, so I didn't feel the infinitely massive blow of God's punch, because everyone knows there are no nerves in jello. Who will win the third race at Pimlico tomorrow? I asked Him that, too, during my dream last night. Why do you think I became a believer? What's that? You don't believe me? You say that wasn't God I conversed with last night? How would YOU know? This was MY personal experience, and only I know for sure whether or not it was God or not. Who are YOU to judge MY personal experience, and claim it to be fraudulent and flawed and erroneous? You hostile arrogant vindictive humanist atheists are all alike. Oh, wait, it's not the atheists and agnostics and humanists who are telling me that my vision of God is wrong. It's my fellow Christians!!!!! I'm wrong, they say, because I don't believe in their "god". My vision of God is different from theirs, and they claim that thus mine must be wrong. Well, I hate to tell you this, but I really did speak to God last night, and He told me that you were going to say this, and He told me that you're all wrong, and that I (now) have it quite exactly right. So, Karen (alias whomever), and Ken Nichols, and Jeff, and anyone else out there, God told me this directly: you're going straight to hell and never coming back. I hope you are satisfied. What's that? You're saying that I'm NOT a Christian? That my beliefs are FALSE and INCORRECT? How can you say that? How can you judge my personal experience? You claim I'm just making it all up? HOW DARE YOU!!!! You claim that my vision of god doesn't show the true nature of god, whereas yours does? I say POPPYCOCK! Oh, God *may* deign to listen to your feeble incorrect modes of prayer, but I know that the only correct way to worship is the one I use myself, because I *have* spoken to God. [WARNING: Satire follows.] [Uhh, excuse me, but shouldn't that have gone at the BEGINNING of the article?] [Whoops, sorry...] I know I'm going to net.hell for posting this, but I really am not concerned. The point of this article is to show the "burning issue" of one's personal subjective experience of god for what it is. A person who had the same experience I describe above offers nothing more and nothing less than any other equivalent subjective experience. If you are offended by what I've said, perhaps some personal reflection is in order. Of a more objective sort. If you feel I've attacked your personal beliefs, so be it. It is not any individual's personal beliefs being "attacked", but rather the nature of all such systems based on such beliefs. If you take that personally, that's your problem, I'm not going to apologize for it. I wrote this a few weeks ago and thought a lot about whether or not to post it. I decided to do so, because I thought it offered something worth saying. AND I'm letting it go to n.r.c because it is in followup to numerous other articles on the topic that have gone there. If this offends you, realize that this is an example of satire. It is an attempt to show the erroneousness of a certain thing by offering it in a completely different context so that it may be seen in a different light. If you fail to see this in such a different light, if you feel there is a real quantifiable difference between your experience and my "experience", please explain what that is. If you can't, please say so. At the very least this article will give you a chance to show how your experience is different from that which I experienced... -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
scott@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Scott Deerwester) (03/12/85)
A cute satire, but there's an important flaw here exists in a lot of
what you and others say about the role of personal experience. I've
read a few dozen articles, the gist of which is, "what makes your
experience any more valid that the experiences of {Rich Rosen,
Buddhists, Ubizmologists, ...}?" The difference is that mine aren't
made-up examples. I'd be glad to discuss the subjective basis as
well as the objective basis for my faith with you. It's just that
statements describing a hypothetical personal experience that most
people (including me) would agree is off the wall doesn't send me
into a cold chill, doubting everything that I've ever experienced.
All that you're doing is saying, "See, I can make up an example of a
personal experience that clearly has no relationship to reality.
Therefore no personal experiences, including yours, can be used as
the basis for anything." Sorry, but I'm not convinced.
Another important point: the subjective basis complements the
objective basis. There are a lot of reasons why I believe that Jesus
Christ is really the Son of God, and that He really did die for my
sins. Some are based on personal experience. A lot of others
aren't. Some that aren't:
- the resurrection (see "Who Moved The Stone?")
- fulfilled prophesies in the life of Jesus
- the testimony and lives of people who were with Him
- His words and wisdom (C.S. Lewis' "Lord, lunatic or liar" argument)
- the Earth (the creation implies creator argument)
When I add everything up, including my own experiences and a rational
look at objective evidence, believing in God makes a lot more sense
than anything else that I've heard.
--
Scott Deerwester
Graduate Library School
University of Chicago
...!ihnp4!gargoyle!scott UUCP
scott@UChicago.CSNet CSNet
scott@UChicago.ARPA ARPAtim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/13/85)
Paul, I take very poorly to people misrepresenting my positions. I do not think Christianity is horrible. I have never made any comment about Christianity that would imply such a belief. Christians sometimes find it convenient to misrepresent me in this way to make it easy to write off anything I say, much as the segregated black social clubs which I opposed at college called me a racist. My understanding of the motive does not lessen the negativity of my reaction: this sort of lie is totally irresponsible. Furthermore, I find it ludicrous that a fundamentalist creationist is demanding "proof" of others' religious positions. Give me a break. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (03/13/85)
[feed a bug, starve a lineater] In article <338@mhuxm.UUCP> abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) writes: >(This makes it imperative that all religions adjust to modernity: they >run a serious risk of being considered outmoded. Hence, many religious >authorities today do not consider evolution to be in conflict with >the story of creation in Genesis--a new interpretation is developed >to the extent that before the world was created, the meaning of the >word "day" was unclear and could constitute centuries or more.) Actually, this isn't the outright creation of a new interpretation. The tradition that "A day for the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a single day" dates from before Jesus. The problem was in the literalistic interpretation which came earlier, which did not consider all that was known about God. Hutch
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/13/85)
> A cute satire, but there's an important flaw here exists in a lot of > what you and others say about the role of personal experience. I've > read a few dozen articles, the gist of which is, "what makes your > experience any more valid that the experiences of {Rich Rosen, > Buddhists, Ubizmologists, ...}?" The difference is that mine aren't > made-up examples. > All that you're doing is saying, "See, I can make up an example of a > personal experience that clearly has no relationship to reality. > Therefore no personal experiences, including yours, can be used as > the basis for anything." Sorry, but I'm not convinced. [FLAME ON] How *DARE* you claim that I made up my example!!! I really experienced all the things I described, and who are YOU to claim that it's all falsified or made-up???? Oh, I see, *you* can claim that MINE are made up, but I can't claim that YOURS are made up. Quite a double standard there. -- "When you believe in things that you don't understand, you'll suffer. Superstition ain't the way." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/13/85)
> A cute satire, but there's an important flaw here exists in a lot of > what you and others say about the role of personal experience. I've > read a few dozen articles, the gist of which is, "what makes your > experience any more valid that the experiences of {Rich Rosen, > Buddhists, Ubizmologists, ...}?" The difference is that mine aren't > made-up examples. > All that you're doing is saying, "See, I can make up an example of a > personal experience that clearly has no relationship to reality. > Therefore no personal experiences, including yours, can be used as > the basis for anything." Sorry, but I'm not convinced. [SCOTT DEERWESTER] [FLAME ON] How *DARE* you claim that I made up my example!!! I really experienced all the things I described, and who are YOU to claim that it's all falsified or made-up???? Oh, I see, *you* can claim that MINE are made up, but I can't claim that YOURS are made up. Quite a double standard there. -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (03/13/85)
In article <4947@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > > ...you still have to face the problems of >contradictory truth claims. Surely you don't resolve them by saying they >are all equally valid. You must have reasons for believing some things >are true and others not, even in the realm of religious belief. How >can all subjective criteria be equally weighted when the only subjectivity >any of us posesses is our own? Doesn't the act of weighing them require >something a little beyond total subjectivity? It is precisely because the only subjectivity we have is our own that we cannot begin to "weigh" others religious experiences. When Karen claims she has spoken to G-d, who am I to dispute it? It is her experience and she, alone, knows the full texture of it. If you or I call into question the subjective religious experiences of the Hindu, the Moslem or the Mormon are we not essentially doing the same thing as Rich Rosen (in his followup to this subject?) My take is that this is hubris in the classi- cal sense. > Yet you claim that >determination of what is correct it impossible. I would hope that God >has made a provision to resolve the issues adaquately (albeit not >absolutely). We cannot suspend judgement indefinitely on many things >that are important; the implications of our beliefs. Laura thinks >Satanism is horrible. Tim thinks Christianity is horrible. I may agree >with Laura and disagree with Tim, but I would not claim that there >are no grounds for making such judgements; that the judgements themselves >are meaningless. Religions invariably lead their adherents to hold >beliefs that inherently imply that other religious beliefs are wrong. >We cannot ignore this conflict. There must be some meaningful way >to consider it. We have no choice, I think. "Horrible" is interestingly different than "wrong." It is an aesthetic rather than moral judgement. I think Okra is "horrible" but I don't think folks who like it are "wrong." Chuck Hedrick has astutely pointed out that the "purpose" of religion is to bring man into relationship with G-d. To this purpose all else is secondary. From what you have written, I take it that you believe there is only one valid form of this relationship which is what you mean when you say "right" or "wrong" in the context of religious experience. The "judgement" you refer to above is the decision as to which path is "correct" from G-d's point of view. Dangerous stuff. The only "judgement" I can make is whether a particular set of beliefs can or will lead *me* into knowing G-d. I do not suspend that judgement, but only limit its scope to my own existence. For whatever reason, fundamentalist Christianity does not provide me with the tools to sustain a relationship with G-d, in that sense it is "wrong" for me. Similarly, my brand of Gnostic Christianity is not useful to you or to Karen. In that sense it is "wrong" for you. It does not meet your needs. There are billions of people in this world, each of the with differing needs and perspectives. My assumption is that the manifold ways people relate to G-d are sustained because G-d has provided them to meet differing human needs. Although there may be a universal Truth (which I don't believe I am privy to) I can't see a universal "correct" in this sense. > >Maybe I have totally misunderstood your point, Byron. But you must >have some way of resolving these conflicts to your own satisfaction >and you must believe the methods you use have validity that extends >beyond your own subjectivity (why even discuss religion otherwise?). > The purpose in discussing religion is to listen to and share the religious experience. That we are different means that we cannot help but learn from one another. If what is said here helps anyone in knowing G-d, then the purpose is served. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
scott@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Scott Deerwester) (03/13/85)
>> A cute satire, but there's an important flaw here exists in a lot of >> what you and others say about the role of personal experience. I've >> read a few dozen articles, the gist of which is, "what makes your >> experience any more valid that the experiences of {Rich Rosen, >> Buddhists, Ubizmologists, ...}?" The difference is that mine aren't >> made-up examples. >> >> All that you're doing is saying, "See, I can make up an example of a >> personal experience that clearly has no relationship to reality. >> Therefore no personal experiences, including yours, can be used as >> the basis for anything." Sorry, but I'm not convinced. > >[FLAME ON] >How *DARE* you claim that I made up my example!!! I really experienced >all the things I described, and who are YOU to claim that it's all >falsified or made-up???? > >Oh, I see, *you* can claim that MINE are made up, but I can't claim that >YOURS are made up. Quite a double standard there. > Point one: I claim that I believe that the experiences that I allude to actually happened. You said that you were being satirical: >[WARNING: Satire follows.] >[Uhh, excuse me, but shouldn't that have gone at the BEGINNING of the article?] >[Whoops, sorry...] ... > ... If this offends you, realize that this is >an example of satire. implying that the experiences of which you spoke did not actually occur. What double standard? *I* didn't claim that your experiences were made up. *You* did. I just believed you. Point two: I referred also to claims that an Ubizmologist can say that he experienced the same things the I claim, etc. Asserting that it's possible for some person with some set of beliefs can claim to experience something isn't the same thing as first or second hand recounting of specific experiences that real people have actually had. This is the main point of my article. -- Scott Deerwester Graduate Library School University of Chicago ...!ihnp4!gargoyle!scott UUCP scott@UChicago.CSNet CSNet scott@UChicago.ARPA ARPA
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/13/85)
I don't think you talked to God, Rich. talking to God is supposed to *change* *your* *life* -- so far Ihaven't seen much evidence of that! :p) Laura
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/13/85)
In article <366@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> scott@gargoyle.UUCP ( Deerwester) writes: > A cute satire, but there's an important flaw here exists in a lot of > what you and others say about the role of personal experience. I've > read a few dozen articles, the gist of which is, "what makes your > experience any more valid that the experiences of {Rich Rosen, > Buddhists, Ubizmologists, ...}?" The difference is that mine aren't > made-up examples. There are two ways to look at this claim. If you are trying to convince me that you are not making up examples, then how can I distinguish you from a liar? The other way is to consider how your own experience is convincing you. Our memories of our experiences are quite volatile, inaccurate, and subject to progressive modification. And our experiences include a fair number of unreal delusions, dreams, misunderstandings, perceptual errors, hallucinations, etc. So, while you may have experienced something, that you didn't consciously make it up is not sufficient reason to assume it to be valid. > I'd be glad to discuss the subjective basis as > well as the objective basis for my faith with you. It's just that > statements describing a hypothetical personal experience that most > people (including me) would agree is off the wall doesn't send me > into a cold chill, doubting everything that I've ever experienced. If we could do that, I expect you'd worship us instead. :-) Yes, please do discuss your subjective basis for your faith. > All that you're doing is saying, "See, I can make up an example of a > personal experience that clearly has no relationship to reality. > Therefore no personal experiences, including yours, can be used as > the basis for anything." Sorry, but I'm not convinced. You shouldn't be convinced by that argument. However, Rich isn't making it. What Rich is pointing out is the uselessness of testimony as a rational argument for convincing someone else of religious beliefs. Other arguments are used for denying validity of personal experience. > Another important point: the subjective basis complements the > objective basis. There are a lot of reasons why I believe that Jesus > Christ is really the Son of God, and that He really did die for my > sins. Some are based on personal experience. A lot of others > aren't. Some that aren't: > > - the resurrection (see "Who Moved The Stone?") > - fulfilled prophesies in the life of Jesus > - the testimony and lives of people who were with Him > - His words and wisdom (C.S. Lewis' "Lord, lunatic or liar" argument) > - the Earth (the creation implies creator argument) These are hardly "objective" reasons to believe in JC or God or whatever. The first three depend on the unjustified assumption that the Bible is true. The lunatic/liar argument is a false dilemma: the conclusion that the Bible is the product of liars resolves the dilemma. As for the creation argument, try it in net.origins and give us something to laugh at. > When I add everything up, including my own experiences and a rational > look at objective evidence, believing in God makes a lot more sense > than anything else that I've heard. (Great restraint exercised here to refrain from the obvious ad-hominem attack.) You remind me of a lawyer who can't understand why he loses his cases when he is so convinced by his own arguments. You seem blind to the fallacies of your arguments. Objective does not equal "anything written in the Bible". Try again. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/14/85)
>>>A cute satire, but there's an important flaw here exists in a lot of >>>what you and others say about the role of personal experience. I've >>>read a few dozen articles, the gist of which is, "what makes your >>>experience any more valid that the experiences of {Rich Rosen, >>>Buddhists, Ubizmologists, ...}?" The difference is that mine aren't >>>made-up examples. >> >>>All that you're doing is saying, "See, I can make up an example of a >>>personal experience that clearly has no relationship to reality. >>>Therefore no personal experiences, including yours, can be used as >>>the basis for anything." Sorry, but I'm not convinced. [DEERWESTER] > >>[FLAME ON] >>How *DARE* you claim that I made up my example!!! I really experienced >>all the things I described, and who are YOU to claim that it's all >>falsified or made-up???? >> >>Oh, I see, *you* can claim that MINE are made up, but I can't claim that >>YOURS are made up. Quite a double standard there. [ROSEN] > Point one: > I claim that I believe that the experiences that I allude to actually > happened. You said that you were being satirical: >> ... If this offends you, realize that this is an example of satire. > implying that the experiences of which you spoke did not actually > occur. What double standard? *I* didn't claim that your experiences > were made up. *You* did. I just believed you. [DEERWESTER] I lied. In fact I am lying right now. But more importantly, just because it was satirical doesn't mean it didn't actually happen. I had that dream. God spoke to me in that dream. In that very tone that I described. Are you calling me a liar? Was I wrong if I believed that that was god? If you can answer "yes" to either of those questions, then it's only fair that I make the same claims about your personal subjective experiences, lest we engage in a double standard. > Point two: > I referred also to claims that an Ubizmologist can say that he > experienced the same things the I claim, etc. Asserting that it's > possible for some person with some set of beliefs can claim to > experience something isn't the same thing as first or second hand > recounting of specific experiences that real people have actually > had. This is the main point of my article. Could you please explain the difference between the recounting of "claims" and the recounting of "specific experiences that real people have actually had"? How are you able to tell the difference? What is your gauge for determining the accuracy of the recounting of others? And of your own? -- Meet the new wave, same as the old wave... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/14/85)
This is a response to an article from scott@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Scott Deerwester) Tue Mar 12 11:15:41 1985. That was a response to an article by Rich Rosen, which took a reductio ad absurdum approach to showing the worthlessness of personal spiritual experience in "proving" any system of dogmatic religious beliefs. > A cute satire, but there's an important flaw here exists in a lot of > what you and others say about the role of personal experience. I've > read a few dozen articles, the gist of which is, "what makes your > experience any more valid that the experiences of {Rich Rosen, > Buddhists, Ubizmologists, ...}?" The difference is that mine aren't > made-up examples. I see. And Buddhists' experiences, by direct implication, ARE "made-up examples". Thanks for clearing up the issue, Scott; it isn't that you are ignorant of other religions, it is that you are intolerant of them. I expect you to deny that you implied that, overt intolerance being unfashionable (although intolerant implications are not). Please include the complete text I have quoted above if you do so. It will save me a lot of time.... > I'd be glad to discuss the subjective basis as > well as the objective basis for my faith with you. It's just that > statements describing a hypothetical personal experience that most > people (including me) would agree is off the wall doesn't send me > into a cold chill, doubting everything that I've ever experienced. Ever hear of a thought experiment? It is a perfectly valid form of argument. (In fact, I used it against Rich just yesterday. :-) ) Suppose someone came up to you out of the blue and said what Rich did. Perhaps that will enable you to grasp his point. > All that you're doing is saying, "See, I can make up an example of a > personal experience that clearly has no relationship to reality. > Therefore no personal experiences, including yours, can be used as > the basis for anything." Sorry, but I'm not convinced. No, that is completely missing Rich's point. Can you show that Rich is not telling the truth? No. Can Rich show that you aren't telling the truth? No. But the failure to definitely refute either position is without value; it does not lend any credence to either position, unless you want to admit that Rich was telling the truth.... In the absence of evidence to support such wild claims of contact with extraterrestrial intelligence, any person without an emotional stake in the issue is going to assume that the person or group making the wild claims is mistaken, if not fraudulent. > Another important point: the subjective basis complements the > objective basis. There are a lot of reasons why I believe that Jesus > Christ is really the Son of God, and that He really did die for my > sins. Some are based on personal experience. A lot of others > aren't. Some that aren't: > > - the resurrection (see "Who Moved The Stone?") Christians have consistently refused to tell me what method is used to show that this supposed revivification actually took place. (One did once, on CompuServe's Religion SIG; I refuted her method point-by-point; she responded with a message consisting solely of a single insult [it was "You are obviously ignorant", if you're curious] and refused to discuss the issue with me any more.) I am willing to discuss this on a basis of reason with you, Scott, but only if you first explain exactly what METHOD you intend to use to prove that this took place. If you refuse, or just start spewing McDowell at me, that will be par for the course, but I honestly am hoping for something better. > - fulfilled prophesies in the life of Jesus I have read a long essay written by a Jew on how to respond to Christian missionaries who make this claim. He made a very strong case that at least as many prophecies went unfulfilled. What it comes down to with prophecy is what you want to believe. There is no measure of objectivity in its interpretation. > - the testimony and lives of people who were with Him Charisma does not equal divine birth. You can find equal praise of Hitler if you look, or of the leader of any political party or religion. > - His words and wisdom (C.S. Lewis' "Lord, lunatic or liar" argument) At least as much wisdom can be found in the Upanishads as in the Bible. And the Tao Teh Ching blows away anything you'll find in the New Testament. This is what you call "objective evidence"? Clearly it is a purely subjective claim! The Lewis argument (from "Mere Christianity") is as preposterous as Lewis always is. I recommend that anyone who is convinced by it should read R. D. Laing, who shows that lunacy and enlightenment can and do co-exist. There are also a variety of religious works on the subject, particularly in Buddhism and Thelema. In any case, why should we shy from applying the label "lunatic" to a man who (according to his biographies -- of course, he may have been framed) got a great deal of satisfaction from sadistic and macabre gloatings on the coming fate of anyone who failed to worship him? > - the Earth (the creation implies creator argument) These are just getting sillier and sillier. Yes, creation implies a creator. However, nothing implies that our world is in fact a creation. The vast weight of evidence shows that it was produced by natural forces. I assure you that the Biblical explanations would be espoused by scientists if they explained the facts better; there is no inherent schism between religion and science, and in the old days (before we really got any good measuring instruments and mathematics) scientific theories were always in accord with the religion of their country. They still would be if the religious explanations had turned out to be correct. The argument from evidence of design (your probable response to this objection) is false because the ecosystem contains none of the clues that normally tell us when something was created: for instance, removable parts, tool marks, signatures, and so on. The imagined evidences of design are nothing like the evidences of design we are familiar with, and in fact they are just as subjective as your opinions about the relative worth of Jesus' sayings as opposed to Lao Tzu's. > When I add everything up, including my own experiences and a rational > look at objective evidence, believing in God makes a lot more sense > than anything else that I've heard. Perhaps after showing us the methodologies employed in your "objective evidence", you'll grace us with your refutations of Atheism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, Zoroastrianism, Agnosticism, Thelema, Hinduism, Wicca, and the dozens of other "anything elses" you have no doubt heard. Be sure to explain in particular why exclusivist monotheism is superior to each of these, and why each of them would not have equally satisfactory explanations for your experiences. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/15/85)
[Tim Maroney:] >Paul, I take very poorly to people misrepresenting my positions. I do not >think Christianity is horrible. I have never made any comment about >Christianity that would imply such a belief. Christians sometimes find it >convenient to misrepresent me in this way to make it easy to write off >anything I say, much as the segregated black social clubs which I opposed at >college called me a racist. My understanding of the motive does not lessen >the negativity of my reaction: this sort of lie is totally irresponsible. I have a different opinion about the implications of your writing about Christianity, I guess. I suppose our idea of what your words imply doesn't count since we are only trying to write off anything you say? If that isn't your position, Tim, then I suggest you represent your position better. Maybe you do think there is something good about Christianity. I certainly don't know what it is. By and large, you only speak out about Christianity and Christians in order to condemn some aspect of it or their actions. You have even stated that horrible actions are inherenty justified by biblical doctrine. To accuse me of lying here implies that I know of things that should give me a different impression of your attitude toward Christianity. I don't. If my impression of your true feelings about Christianity is wrong, I apologise. But I do get that impression from what you write here and I'm not trying pass off anything you say. At worst, I misunderstand your position, not misrepresent it. >Furthermore, I find it ludicrous that a fundamentalist creationist is >demanding "proof" of others' religious positions. Give me a break. A fundamentalists I am not (unless you say so, of course). Creationist? Well, I'll just say that as far as evolutionism goes I am not a true believer. I don't buy the whole creationist line either. I am not demanding proof from Byron in particular. I differ with him as to whether religious positions can be compared, or justified philosophically in comparision to others. He seems to understand that. You have spent a lot of time rejecting the claims of Christianity with rational argument. Do you subject the claims of your own religion to the same scrutiny? If you want a "break" you are welcome to hit 'n' when you see my articles. I'm not forcing you to read anything I write, Tim, and I would expect that you would find much of it to be ludicrous. Seeing how you are so quick to belittle those who misunderstand you and infer that they are liars, it comes as no suprise. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/16/85)
Scott Deerwester writes: > I referred also to claims that an Ubizmologist can say that he > experienced the same things the I claim, etc. Asserting that it's > possible for some person with some set of beliefs can claim to > experience something isn't the same thing as first or second hand > recounting of specific experiences that real people have actually > had. This is the main point of my article. Pardon me, Scott, but I have provided exactly that and none of you exclusivists has seen fit to reply. In case your memory conveniently fails you, I recounted my mystical experiences within Christianity, Wicca, and my current eclectic stance. My experiences in all three positions were of comparable intensity and illuminating power. And yes, one class of experiences was of the sort usually characterized as "talking with God". Let me assure you that I AM a "real person".... -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/16/85)
> I don't think you talked to God, Rich. talking to God is supposed to > *change* *your* *life* -- so far Ihaven't seen much evidence of that! :p) > > Laura How dare you! Etc., etc., etc., re: :p) --- Have you taken up pipe smoking? :-) ? (Or is that a spoon under your nose? Tsk, tsk, tsk. :-) Seriously, isn't it ironic that someone whose belief system doesn't foster notions of a deity has presumptions about what "talking to god is supposed to do". :-? -- "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I dunno." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/16/85)
In article <5227@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: > I don't think you talked to God, Rich. talking to God is supposed to > *change* *your* *life* -- so far Ihaven't seen much evidence of that! :p) There are several possible explanations, Laura. You may be too immersed in maya to perceive the truth of his change. Or, you may be jumping to conclusions in thinking that a change would be visible. After all, Adam and Eve talked with God, but they fell shortly afterwards. Rich has not yet reported talking to Satan or some less opposed being, but who knows if he would? (It's so much fun playing paranoid-fantasy games!) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/17/85)
Ah, but I *have* studied what ``talking with God'' -- or having religious experiences of any sort -- is supposed to do to you. The interesting thing is that there is tremendous agreement over what sorts of things happen - no matter what tradition you are dealing with. This is why, by and large, mystics of all religions can get together and discuss what is going on. Often the mystics have more trouble with their own religious community. This bit of ecumanism is one reason why the eastern religions are very interested in being considered religions. Some western mystics have real difficulty with non-certified religions. I know some Christian mystics who are much more uncomfortable with Gnosticism than with Sufism or Buddhism, and I think that in part this is because they can say ``oh, that is a religion, therefore it is okay''. The ``p'' looks like a very good nose on the terminal I have at work. Alas, it looks crummy here at home, though. Another idea bites the dust! Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/19/85)
> From pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Fri Mar 15 13:17:32 1985 > [Tim Maroney:] > >Paul, I take very poorly to people misrepresenting my positions. I do not > >think Christianity is horrible. I have never made any comment about > >Christianity that would imply such a belief. Christians sometimes find it > >convenient to misrepresent me in this way to make it easy to write off > >anything I say, much as the segregated black social clubs which I opposed at > >college called me a racist. My understanding of the motive does not lessen > >the negativity of my reaction: this sort of lie is totally irresponsible. > > I have a different opinion about the implications of your writing about > Christianity, I guess. I suppose our idea of what your words imply doesn't > count since we are only trying to write off anything you say? If that isn't > your position, Tim, then I suggest you represent your position better. > Maybe you do think there is something good about Christianity. I certainly > don't know what it is. By and large, you only speak out about Christianity > and Christians in order to condemn some aspect of it or their actions. You > have even stated that horrible actions are inherenty justified by biblical > doctrine. I suggest you read better. Many times I have said here that I use Christian symbolism in my work and that I consider the Jesus legend a valid manifestation of the Dying God archetypal story. People don't want to hear that; it doesn't fit their image of me as a nasty hateful person who is just pissed off that Christianity is right. So they forget it as soon as it scrolls past their face. I do criticize Christianity, and I do it often. That is because people insist on saying false things about it, putting a nicer face in it than it really has. For instance, would you believe that someone actually claimed that it was impossible for a mainstream Christian to justify the persecution of unbelievers using the Bible, which is full of praise for people who persecuted unbelievers? I don't know where people get such nonsense, but I'm not about to let it go by. Also, fundies like the late (of this group, that is) and unlamented Larry Bickford, Ken Nichols, Gary Samuelson, etc., insist on insulting me by telling me I have to join their religion or I will be rightfully tortured for all eternity. When I explain to them why I don't consider that to be a valid argument, Christians of all denominations start screaming that I'm attacking them, when all I'm doing is defending myself. (This despite the fact that I was careful to avoid anything that implied that people who DID accept Christianity were wrong.) It seems that what is wanted is simply for me to shut up whenever I am attacked because of my non-Christianity, or I see someone spouting absurdities about Christianity. > To accuse me of lying here implies that I know of things that should give me > a different impression of your attitude toward Christianity. I don't. If > my impression of your true feelings about Christianity is wrong, I > apologise. But I do get that impression from what you write here and I'm > not trying pass off anything you say. At worst, I misunderstand your > position, not misrepresent it. If you are going to represent my position in a certain way, you are supposed to have a reason for thinking that is what it is. Having no reason to think that is NOT what it is does not suffice. > >Furthermore, I find it ludicrous that a fundamentalist creationist is > >demanding "proof" of others' religious positions. Give me a break. > > A fundamentalists I am not (unless you say so, of course). Creationist? > Well, I'll just say that as far as evolutionism goes I am not a true > believer. I don't buy the whole creationist line either. Sorry for misrepresenting you. I could have sworn you were a fundamentalist. What parts of the Bible do you think are false? In any case, I should not have said "fundamentalist", but "Biblical literalist"; that is, someone who believes that the Bible is largely accurate about such impossibilities as resurrection of the long-dead having occurred. My apologies for my lack of clarity. > I am not demanding proof from Byron in particular. I differ with him > as to whether religious positions can be compared, or justified > philosophically in comparision to others. He seems to understand that. > You have spent a lot of time rejecting the claims of Christianity with > rational argument. Do you subject the claims of your own religion to > the same scrutiny? Yes indeed. Remember, I wasn't born a Thelemite. I picked it because it agreed with what my reason told me about morality and religious experience. Do you have some objection in particular? As for proof, that was in part a reaction to your net.religion message and in part to personal mail. Not just personal mail to me; someone else posted a message here recently saying that you had made a similar demand of "proof" in personal mail to him. > If you want a "break" you are welcome to hit 'n' when you see my articles. > I'm not forcing you to read anything I write, Tim, and I would expect that > you would find much of it to be ludicrous. Seeing how you are so quick > to belittle those who misunderstand you and infer that they are liars, > it comes as no suprise. When people misrepresent my positions, making them into what they wish the positions were rather than what the positions actually are, I can see no reason not to call that a lie. Whether it is from malice or irresponsibility makes no difference. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (03/20/85)
>[Tim Maroney:] >>Paul, I take very poorly to people misrepresenting my positions. I do not >>think Christianity is horrible. I have never made any comment about >>Christianity that would imply such a belief. Christians sometimes find it >>convenient to misrepresent me in this way to make it easy to write off >>anything I say, much as the segregated black social clubs which I opposed at >>college called me a racist. My understanding of the motive does not lessen >>the negativity of my reaction: this sort of lie is totally irresponsible. [Paul Dubuc:] >I have a different opinion about the implications of your writing about >Christianity, I guess. I suppose our idea of what your words imply doesn't >count since we are only trying to write off anything you say? If that isn't >your position, Tim, then I suggest you represent your position better. Maybe >you do think there is something good about Christianity. I certainly don't >know what it is. By and large, you only speak out about Christianity and >Christians in order to condemn some aspect of it or their actions. You have >even stated that horrible actions are inherenty justified by biblical doctrine. Sorry, Paul, I've got to side with Tim on this one. Certainly Tim uses some strong rhetoric, but by in large rebuttal to his points takes place outside the context of the discussion which generated them. I do not recall Tim ever disparaging Christianity as a faith. He has, however, taken the secu- lar practice of christianity [small "c" deliberate] to task many times. If I understand Tim correctly it isn't the belief he objects to, but its social effects as produced by the American fundamentalist movement. Tim's major contribution to this forum ("Even if I did Believe...") I interpret not as an attack on Christianity, but as an attack on those who "prove" Christianity on the basis of Biblical inerrancy but who in fact exclude or ignore some of the more embarrasing events described in the Bible. It is a call to honesty: fundamentalists have created G-d in their own image as much as have the more liberal sects and need to be aware of this. Tim's opponents have tried, unsuccessfully, to pick the argument apart point by point without dealing with the essential issue. >To accuse me of lying here implies that I know of things that should >give me a different impression of your attitude toward Christianity. I >don't. If my impression of your true feelings about Christianity is >wrong, I apologise. But I do get that impression from what you write >here and I'm not trying pass off anything you say. At worst, I >misunderstand your position, not misrepresent it. Tim's use of "lie" is an effective, but unfortunate, turn of phrase. It did get your attention, didn't it? There's a real frustration involved when folks deal with your submissions on a sentence-by-sentence basis rather than responding to the article as a whole. After a while it is very easy to believe that it is a deliberate attempt to sidestep the issue. Paul is not usually guilty of this, but many are. >>Furthermore, I find it ludicrous that a fundamentalist creationist is >>demanding "proof" of others' religious positions. Give me a break. >A fundamentalists I am not (unless you say so, of course). Creationist? >Well, I'll just say that as far as evolutionism goes I am not a true >believer. I don't buy the whole creationist line either. >I am not demanding proof from Byron in particular. I differ with him >as to whether religious positions can be compared, or justified >philosophically in comparision to others. He seems to understand that. >You have spent a lot of time rejecting the claims of Christianity with >rational argument. Do you subject the claims of your own religion to >the same scrutiny? Hopefully I'm not putting words in Tim's mouth, but so long as I have crawled out on this limb I might as well saw it off behind me... I believe Tim's contention to be (well, it certainly is *my* contention) that one selects a faith on the basis of personal preference and world-view. All faiths are essentially different views of the construction of the universe. None are unambiguosly provable. One is drawn to a faith because it conforms to one's pre-existing ideals (perhaps not at a conscious level) about morality, justice, fairness and a whole host of other attributes. In a sense one makes G-d over in the image of what one expects. Some faiths, like Christianity, have an enormous body of interprative literature to aid in this transformation. Others, like Tim's do not. The request for Christian self-analysis is a response to the Christian claim of being the one TRUE faith. In passing let me note that Tim has demanded the same of any other faith, like the Bahai, who have claimed a greater authority. As neither Tim or I believe that our respective faiths are in any sense provable, the only person we need to account to for them is ourselves. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (03/21/85)
<Does a lineater experience bugs?> > are from <414@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) >> are from <366@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> scott@gargoyle.UUCP ( Deerwester) >> ... I've >> read a few dozen articles, the gist of which is, "what makes your >> experience any more valid that the experiences of {Rich Rosen, >> Buddhists, Ubizmologists, ...}?" The difference is that mine aren't >> made-up examples. > >There are two ways to look at this claim. If you are trying to convince >me that you are not making up examples, then how can I distinguish you >from a liar? You obviously cannot. How can you distinguish the stories you hear about your next door neighbor's vacation from the ravings of a lunatic? You cannot. How can you tell that the tale of a survivor of the death camps in Germany isn't a paranoid delusion? You cannot. How can you tell that your parents didn't really adopt you as an infant, or conversely that (if they told you that you are adopted) that you are really their own child? You can't. Well, actually you can. You look for other corroborative evidence. If you can't find evidence to confirm or deny, you have to resort to learning as much as you can about the person making the testimony. Then, you decide whether that person is sane, and whether they are prone to exaggeration or delusion. Then, if they aren't, you give limited credence to their testimony. That is, you accept that they did experience what they say they experienced, though you might not accept their explanation as the only explanation. >The other way is to consider how your own experience is convincing you. >Our memories of our experiences are quite volatile, inaccurate, and >subject to progressive modification. And our experiences include a fair >number of unreal delusions, dreams, misunderstandings, perceptual errors, >hallucinations, etc. So, while you may have experienced something, that >you didn't consciously make it up is not sufficient reason to assume it >to be valid. This is a very popular argument. It even has some basis in reality. However, it can become an excuse for ignoring evidence which doesn't fit within the framework we want our world to fit in. The truth is, many people do have very volatile memories, and others do not. Some subjective experiences can be laid to hallucination, or to perceptual error or illusion, or to dreams. Others should not. This screening method must be used with extreme caution. An irreproducible event may still have happened. >> All that you're doing is saying, "See, I can make up an example of a >> personal experience that clearly has no relationship to reality. >> Therefore no personal experiences, including yours, can be used as >> the basis for anything." Sorry, but I'm not convinced. > >You shouldn't be convinced by that argument. However, Rich isn't making >it. What Rich is pointing out is the uselessness of testimony as a >rational argument for convincing someone else of religious beliefs. >Other arguments are used for denying validity of personal experience. Watch out! You'll get Rich chewing on your leg for putting words in his mouth! Actually, whether it was his intent or not, the "dream story" Rich told, and his reply to the indignant followups, sure made it LOOK like he was saying that NO personal experience, especially that of a religious nature, can be used to draw ANY conclusions. And to a limited extent I agree with that; my proviso is that personal experience must be limited to a supportive role, unless it can be corroborated by physical evidence or repeated reliably. >> Another important point: the subjective basis complements the >> objective basis. There are a lot of reasons why I believe that Jesus >> Christ is really the Son of God, and that He really did die for my >> sins. Some are based on personal experience. A lot of others >> aren't. Some that aren't: >> >> - the resurrection (see "Who Moved The Stone?") >> - fulfilled prophesies in the life of Jesus >> - the testimony and lives of people who were with Him >> - His words and wisdom (C.S. Lewis' "Lord, lunatic or liar" argument) >> - the Earth (the creation implies creator argument) > >These are hardly "objective" reasons to believe in JC or God or whatever. >The first three depend on the unjustified assumption that the Bible is true. >The lunatic/liar argument is a false dilemma: the conclusion that the Bible >is the product of liars resolves the dilemma. As for the creation argument, >try it in net.origins and give us something to laugh at. I beg to disagree. The resurrection of Jesus is one of the best documented events in ancient history. Further, there is no need to assume that the whole Bible is true; the Gospels and the Acts are all that must be considered. When they are treated as historic documents, several things come clear: First. the Gospels are not mythologized. They are not written in the style in which myths were written. Second. They are not teaching fables. They aren't written in the language of teaching fables. We have examples of contemporary teaching fables to compare against, and they don't fit. Third. They clearly are written as histories. Therefore, we have to conclude that they are fabrications or tales written by liars, or are histories written by honest men who were mistaken or hallucinating, or by honest men telling the truth. If they are fabrications, then there would have been a large number of holes in the different accounts. There would be a considerable amount of physical evidence which could be used to discredit them. There would be witnesses and testimony. In fact, there was no such evidence produced by the people who were trying to discredit the Nazarene movement. Similarly, if the histories were mistaken, then there would be counter-evidence produced. This is in fact what happened with respect to the various Gnostic cults which spun off of the early Church, especially that one led by Simon Magus. There is only one option remaining. Unless you choose to discard the evidence because it doesn't fit your framework. >> When I add everything up, including my own experiences and a rational >> look at objective evidence, believing in God makes a lot more sense >> than anything else that I've heard. > >(Great restraint exercised here to refrain from the obvious ad-hominem >attack.) You remind me of a lawyer who can't understand why he loses his >cases when he is so convinced by his own arguments. You seem blind to >the fallacies of your arguments. Objective does not equal "anything >written in the Bible". Try again. Nor does objective mean "anything written in the Bible is trash". Try again yourself. Hutch
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/23/85)
> are from <1292@shark.UUCP> hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) > > are from <414@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) > >There are two ways to look at this claim. If you are trying to convince > >me that you are not making up examples, then how can I distinguish you > >from a liar? > You look for other corroborative evidence. There is no other corroborative evidence for a subjective religious experience. > If you can't find evidence to confirm or deny, you have to resort to > learning as much as you can about the person making the testimony. > Then, you decide whether that person is sane, and whether they are > prone to exaggeration or delusion. Then, if they aren't, you give > limited credence to their testimony. That is, you accept that they > did experience what they say they experienced, though you might not > accept their explanation as the only explanation. In other words, you depend on how good a judgement of character you can make. You ask yourself "would this person be 100% accurate knowing that there was no way for anyone to check on his story, and knowing that there are all sorts of rewards (from peer admiration to money)?" Keeping in mind of course that few people are honest with themselves, let alone others. Keeping in mind, of course, that many of these people WANT to have such experiences, and have been told to look for them by their religious leaders. Keeping in mind, of course that perfectly normal people not infrequently confuse dreams with reality until they deduce what was the dream: an impossible task for experiences that are supposed to be subjective. > >The other way is to consider how your own experience is convincing you. > >Our memories of our experiences are quite volatile, inaccurate, and > >subject to progressive modification. And our experiences include a fair > >number of unreal delusions, dreams, misunderstandings, perceptual errors, > >hallucinations, etc. So, while you may have experienced something, that > >you didn't consciously make it up is not sufficient reason to assume it > >to be valid. > > This is a very popular argument. It even has some basis in reality. > However, it can become an excuse for ignoring evidence which doesn't fit > within the framework we want our world to fit in. The truth is, many > people do have very volatile memories, and others do not. Some subjective > experiences can be laid to hallucination, or to perceptual error or illusion, > or to dreams. Others should not. This screening method must be used > with extreme caution. An irreproducible event may still have happened. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So tell me, have you measured the accuracy of your religious leader's perceptions and memories? Over long periods of time, and while just waking, or dreaming? And having established a percentage accuracy, how do you know that the religious experience is in the accurate category, and not otherwise? Or are you trying to just make a valid argument go away with some handwaving? > I beg to disagree. The resurrection of Jesus is one of the best documented > events in ancient history. Further, there is no need to assume that the > whole Bible is true; the Gospels and the Acts are all that must be considered. The resurrection of JC is supported only by the writings of ONE cabal. People who had lots of time to get their stories straight. And why should I assume any part of the Bible to be entirely true? > When they are treated as historic documents, several things come clear: > First. the Gospels are not mythologized. They are not written > in the style in which myths were written. Neither is "Gone With The Wind". Surely you need another method for deciding whether something is a myth than style. > Second. They are not teaching fables. They aren't written in > the language of teaching fables. We have examples of contemporary > teaching fables to compare against, and they don't fit. Neither is "Gone With The Wind" a teaching fable. So what? > Third. They clearly are written as histories. So is "Gone With The Wind". How could you tell which parts were fictional 2000 years later? Or even today, assuming you could only use historical records and evidence from that period? > Therefore, we have to conclude that they are fabrications or tales > written by liars, or are histories written by honest men who were > mistaken or hallucinating, or by honest men telling the truth. I prefer to think of the bible as embroidery upon the facts. Fine, JC was a real man. But he didn't work miracles: those were tall tales. > If they are fabrications, then there would have been a large > number of holes in the different accounts. There would be a > considerable amount of physical evidence which could be used > to discredit them. There would be witnesses and testimony. > In fact, there was no such evidence produced by the people > who were trying to discredit the Nazarene movement. The different accounts are about all that has survived the council of Nicea. They were selected for consistancy. Nor is consistancy unexpected: the cabal of apostles worked together closely for several years. > Similarly, if the histories were mistaken, then there would be > counter-evidence produced. How do you know there was no such evidence? What evidence would you produce? A witness who said he didn't see JC after the resurrection? A rotted corpse that looked like any other corpse? Trying to squash rumors and popular tales was not something feasible in an era before mass communication. > >> When I add everything up, including my own experiences and a rational > >> look at objective evidence, believing in God makes a lot more sense > >> than anything else that I've heard. > > > >Objective does not equal "anything written in the Bible". > > Nor does objective mean "anything written in the Bible is trash". This is funny. You are saying here "If I can't be right, you have to be wrong too." Historical "evidence" like the bible can hjardly be considered objective all by itself. Your rationale is very weak. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (03/29/85)
In article <424@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> are from <1292@shark.UUCP> hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) >> > are from <414@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) >> >There are two ways to look at this claim. If you are trying to convince >> >me that you are not making up examples, then how can I distinguish you >> >from a liar? >> You look for other corroborative evidence. > >There is no other corroborative evidence for a subjective religious >experience. Baloney. A "subjective religious experience" does not necessarily occur in a vaccuum, Mike. Case in point, answered prayer. If I point to what I consider to be an answered prayer, I do so by showing that in fact prayer DID take place, and that an event occurred which seemed to be in response to that prayer. The event in response MIGHT be a coincidence. So, I corroborate it. I gather up the evidence. I take account of how many prayers I have made or seen made. I look at whether they have been "answered" and I look at the form of the alleged answer. If it looks to me like the number of answers is below the "noise" level then I assume that it is in fact noise, that coincidence IS the operant word here. I ATTEST (you need not believe me, you can try for yourself) that the number of answers exceeded coincidence. >In other words, you depend on how good a judgement of character you can >make. Yup, that's a good summary. That is, of course, how you determine whether or not to believe ANY testimony. > ... You ask yourself "would this person be 100% accurate knowing that >there was no way for anyone to check on his story, and knowing that there >are all sorts of rewards (from peer admiration to money)?" Keeping in >mind of course that few people are honest with themselves, let alone others. You have an interesting perception of reality, Mike. Please tell me how you know that few people are honest with themselves. Subjective assessment? >Keeping in mind, of course, that many of these people WANT to have such >experiences, and have been told to look for them by their religious >leaders. Keeping in mind, of course that perfectly normal people not >infrequently confuse dreams with reality until they deduce what was the >dream: an impossible task for experiences that are supposed to be subjective. Actually, I agree with you that many people WANT to have such experiences. This doesn't guarantee that they'll actually HAVE them, though. It MIGHT cause "false experiences" but again, if I am trying to get a character judgement of a person, I would certainly look carefully to see if there is any chance that they're prone to this. >Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I really admire the dogged way in which that little catch phrase gets thrown out by everyone who wants to discredit someone elses' claims. Claims are claims. There is no such thing as an extraordinary claim, merely a claim which does not fit within the framework you have constructed. If an event is claimed which does not fit within that frame, you cannot reject it offhand just because it doesn't fit. If the proof is valid for anything which fits inside the framework, it is valid for anything which does not. So, instead of demanding a standard of proof greater than that which you apply to events which DO fit the framework, you look for an alternative description of the event which DOES fit the framework, and see if that alternative IS true, as supported by the evidence given and as supported by any further evidence you can gather. If you cannot do this, then you better either expand on the framework, or admit that it cannot be applied to everything. > ... So tell me, have you >measured the accuracy of your religious leader's perceptions and memories? >Over long periods of time, and while just waking, or dreaming? >And having established a percentage accuracy, how do you know that the >religious experience is in the accurate category, and not otherwise? >Or are you trying to just make a valid argument go away with some handwaving? Of course not. I have, however, measured my own. I have about 80% accuracy under normal circumstances, varying by whether I am sick, or in especial good health at a given time. I don't try to make any religious insights or visions I might have had into anything special, though. They are seldom of that concrete a nature. Nor do I think your argument is necessarily invalid, merely that it is not conclusive. The existance of an alternative, no matter how plausible, does not make that alternative correct without further support. What are you looking for in terms of an "accurate" experience? >> I beg to disagree. The resurrection of Jesus is one of the best documented >> events in ancient history. Further, there is no need to assume that the >> whole Bible is true; the Gospels and the Acts are all that must be considered > >The resurrection of JC is supported only by the writings of ONE cabal. >People who had lots of time to get their stories straight. And why should >I assume any part of the Bible to be entirely true? Support, please. The resurrection of JC is supported by the writings of many different people, and at least two Gnostic churches which were in major disagreement with the Apostolic church. You are making a claim against the historical validity of Biblical documents, so where do you get the evidence to make that claim? You assert that there was a great deal of unity in the early church ("ONE cabal") which allowed different stories to be changed and brought into agreement; I suggest that this was not the case. The Gospels differ from each other on several details. I wasn't saying you had to ASSUME anything. I said you have to CONSIDER the Gospels and the Acts. That is, if you intend to try to poke holes in the historical truth of the Gospels, you will have to actually LOOK at them. To wit: >> When they are treated as historic documents, several things come clear: >> First. the Gospels are not mythologized. They are not written >> in the style in which myths were written. > >Neither is "Gone With The Wind". Surely you need another method for >deciding whether something is a myth than style. Not necessarily. In a culture where the writing of myths is extremely stylized, the fact that a document is not written as a myth becomes a significant factor to consider. However, I meant more than just saying the style was different. Mythologization is a process which takes some time. Adding "extra" miracles and so on are all things that happen with mythologization. As an example, there is an apocryphal gospel which claims to present the life of "Young Jesus" which is clearly mythologized. The earliest copies we have date from >250 AD. There are fragments of a Gospel of John which date from ~50 AD. That's about 20 years after the fact; there were still other witnesses present at that time who could (and would) confirm or deny details. >> Second. They are not teaching fables. They aren't written in >> the language of teaching fables. We have examples of contemporary >> teaching fables to compare against, and they don't fit. > >Neither is "Gone With The Wind" a teaching fable. So what? Beg to disagree; GWTW is most certainly a teaching fable. So what is that the Gospels cannot be discarded as "edifying fiction". >> Third. They clearly are written as histories. > >So is "Gone With The Wind". How could you tell which parts were fictional >2000 years later? Or even today, assuming you could only use historical >records and evidence from that period? Sorry, but GWTW isn't written as a history, it has a completely different structure. It is written as an historical fantasy with a moral, i.e. as a teaching fable. >> Therefore, we have to conclude that they are fabrications or tales >> written by liars, or are histories written by honest men who were >> mistaken or hallucinating, or by honest men telling the truth. > >I prefer to think of the bible as embroidery upon the facts. Fine, JC was >a real man. But he didn't work miracles: those were tall tales. That is an interesting claim. If they were tall tales then they would LOOK like tall tales. They don't. Tall tales would change with time, getting more and more wild. The versions which we have don't vary that way. More to the point, would YOU put your life on the line for a tall tale, which you KNEW to be a tall tale? There were a LOT of followers of Jesus, who were stoned as heretics, for insisting that what they saw was the truth, whose lives would have been saved if they had said that it was a tall tale. There is no evidence of any of those folk recanting and being set to counter-testimony. >> If they are fabrications, then there would have been a large >> number of holes in the different accounts. There would be a >> considerable amount of physical evidence which could be used >> to discredit them. There would be witnesses and testimony. >> In fact, there was no such evidence produced by the people >> who were trying to discredit the Nazarene movement. > >The different accounts are about all that has survived the council of >Nicea. They were selected for consistancy. Nor is consistancy unexpected: >the cabal of apostles worked together closely for several years. >> >> Similarly, if the histories were mistaken, then there would be >> counter-evidence produced. > >How do you know there was no such evidence? What evidence would you produce? >A witness who said he didn't see JC after the resurrection? A rotted corpse >that looked like any other corpse? Trying to squash rumors and popular tales >was not something feasible in an era before mass communication. I agree that Nicea spent lots of time throwing out mythologizations as well as trying to expunge the Gnostic "taint" from the approved scriptures. But we DO have many copies of different accounts, and many predate Nicea. Nor are the ONLY surviving documents from those times the Christian ones. There are Gnostic accounts, and there are some records from the Temple, though I am unsure how extensive the latter are. What evidence would I produce if I were trying to quash a rumor? I would produce a body, yes, within a few days. The Sanhedrin, unable to do that, claimed that the apostles stole the body; since there were guards and since all the apostles were off moping, and since the burial was performed under supervision by the Sanhedrin, and since there were hundreds of witnesses who saw, in person, the resurrected Jesus, this was not believed. If I wished to disprove it afterwards, I would put out counter-testimony that showed that the testimony was false. No records of such counter-testimony survive, not even by reference. However, records DO show that the Sanhedrin was attempting to prove that the Nazarites were heretics, and that Jesus was not the Messiah. >> >> When I add everything up, including my own experiences and a rational >> >> look at objective evidence, believing in God makes a lot more sense >> >> than anything else that I've heard. >> > >> >Objective does not equal "anything written in the Bible". >> >> Nor does objective mean "anything written in the Bible is trash". > >This is funny. You are saying here "If I can't be right, you have to be >wrong too." You claim that his evidence is invalid based on a blanket condemnation of the Bible as non-objective. I don't accept your assertion. Further, I think it is especially weak to argue by ridicule. (Not that I haven't indulged myself in the past :-) >Historical "evidence" like the bible can hjardly be considered objective >all by itself. Your rationale is very weak. I suppose that historical "evidence" about World War II can hardly be considered objective? Actually, there are criteria for determining how believable a record is. The Bible stands up very well when judged by those criteria.
brian@digi-g.UUCP (03/29/85)
References: In article <5277@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >game. >1,$d >0a Is this for sh or csh? Merlyn Leroy "God Speaks In ASCII"
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/03/85)
> Seriously, isn't it ironic that someone whose belief system doesn't foster > notions of a deity has presumptions about what "talking to god is supposed to > do". :-? No more ironic than the presumptions manifest in your original article. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "You're a slave either way." |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/03/85)
> >Furthermore, I find it ludicrous that a fundamentalist creationist is > >demanding "proof" of others' religious positions. Give me a break. > > A fundamentalists I am not (unless you say so, of course). Creationist? > Well, I'll just say that as far as evolutionism goes I am not a true > believer. I don't buy the whole creationist line either. He's probably thinking of me. Not the first time we've been confused with each other... -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "You're a slave either way." |
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/06/85)
Nope, that is for the editor. Things would have worked out bwtter if my modem hadn't been fried due to a lightening storm at that point. The editor returned bad status, but pnews wasn't checking, and so posted it anyway.... grrrr.... Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/09/85)
> [Tim Maroney:] > I do criticize Christianity, and I do it often. That is because people > insist on saying false things about it, putting a nicer face in it than it > really has. For instance, would you believe that someone actually claimed > that it was impossible for a mainstream Christian to justify the persecution > of unbelievers using the Bible, which is full of praise for people who > persecuted unbelievers? I don't know where people get such nonsense, but > I'm not about to let it go by. Also, fundies like the late (of this group, > that is) and unlamented Larry Bickford, Ken Nichols, Gary Samuelson, etc., > insist on insulting me by telling me I have to join their religion or I will > be rightfully tortured for all eternity. Well, I'm insulted to be left out here. That's what I get for not reading these newsgroups for a couple of months! But, none of the "fundies" (name-calling is allowed, as long as we play by the rules and do it to Christians) said you have to join their religion, did they? Don't join a religion, Tim. Submit to the Christ. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Glory! |
net.religion@shark.UUCP (05/09/85)
From: Stephen Hutchison <shark!shark!hutch> [ this line offensive to bugs ] I don't read net.religion at all. If y'all want this discussion to move out of net.religion then send MAIL (do NOT reply to the whole newsgroup) to Mike or myself. If you have a comment you want me to see, and you are restricting your reply to net.religion, send me a copy via mail or I won't see it. In article <504@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <1351@shark.UUCP> hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) writes: >> ... it was my impression from your original argument that there was >> absolutely no historical validity to the Bible at all and that it was >> useless as any kind of account of anything. Now, either I misunderstood you >> or you have revised your position. I will assume the former. > >My evaluation of the bible's historical validity is this: the human cast, >the localities, and major events (such as wars and migrations) probably >occurred. The god, the miracles, and probably alot of the specifics are >fictional. I am not sure that "fictional" is the right term, but this position is a lot more understandable than what I thought you were saying earlier. In this case it isn't really worth our time to argue over the details. My basis for accepting the historic accuracy of many of the accounts is based on the fact that they just don't fit the structures of myth. There are some sections of the OT that actually do, like the story of Noah, or the other early parts of Genesis, or the various Eden stories. Some of the others don't. For instance, the histories of the Judges, the Kings, and so forth. Some parts combine mythic formation and history, like the Exodus. In each of these there are events, usual or unusual, attributed to Divine agency. The people who were recording these events were often MORE skeptical than you or I would be (considering that they had the motivation to ensure that they weren't being mislead by charlatans or by some demonic agency.) I don't automatically assume that any account is fictitious NOR do I automatically assume that any account is completely true. However, I cannot ever be perfectly objective about the accounts any more than you can. >>>> What would YOU suggest as sufficient, stringent experiment? Remember, we >>>> are testing the hypothesis that there IS a living person, with pervasive >>>> control and knowledge of events, who is interested in forming a >>>> relationship with humans. >>>> >>>> How do you propose testing this hypothesis? What are you willing to accept >>>> or reject as evidence? How would YOU go about testing it? >>> >>>I don't think I could construct such an experiment. Nor do I think you >>>could. That is why I criticized and showed fault with your methods. >>>To show how worthless and flawed most religious claims of "proof" are. >>>The best I've seen in the way of religious claims has been some self- >>>consistency. But self-consistency is something lots of delusional systems >>>possess. I've never seen anything tie religious supernatural claims >>>to our real world convincingly. >> >> If you couldn't construct such an experiment then you similarly cannot >> construct an experiment which gives any kind of credibility to >> any historic event (other than grossly physical ones) and THAT is exactly >> my original point. > >Non sequiteur. Proving the current existence of a god is hardly comparable >to proving the past occurrence of an event. For example, say I accepted >the bible as historical proof god existed. How do we know he hasn't >choked and died on a chicken bone since then? If that happened, a present >experiment to show he existed would fail. It is beginning to be painful trying to condense this line of discussion. Proving the past existance of a god is essentially the same class of problem as proving an historic event BECAUSE the original hypothesis is that of a living person with pervasive control and knowledge of events. To show that such a person exists or once did exist, you must be able to do at least two things: First, show that an action attributed to that person did in fact occur; Second, show that the action was in fact due to that person. "Proving" historical events we can postpone for now. Then we come to the second question, given an event can we prove that it was due to a particular cause? Well, experimentally we can (usually) do so only on a microlevel and often only via proper statistical analysis of a lot of data. But when we are dealing with events which aren't necessarily repeatable then we have to resort to less stringent methods and accept a degree of uncertainty. As for the "non sequitur", the only way you CAN show the existance of any god, other than by a direct experience of that entity (which you might deem inadmissible due to its unrepeatability or due to its subjective nature) is by examining past evidence of its actions. Any such evidence, even that which might be gathered in the very recent past, will be subject to the same constraints which you put on any historic evidence. There is of course the advantage that more recent evidence is usually better preserved and more accessible. As for proving the continuing existence of any person, the ONLY way to do it is via some wretchedly subjective experience, no? You have to TALK to them, touch them, etc. but how do you know this isn't just someone else acting out a part? I started to compose this reply last night in the middle of "Harvey" so forgive me if it seems a bit disjoint. >> Standard scientific method is not the most useful tool >> for examining history. You claim that religious claims of proof are flawed >> because they don't stand up to scientific inquiry. I claim that this isn't >> necessarily the best way to evaluate the claims. I do NOT assert that the >> claims should be unevaluated or that they should be flatly accepted. I do >> assert that you are attempting to misapply scientific method here. >> You cannot effectively use a wrench to tighten a screw. > >There are (at least) two sorts of religious claims of proof. Historical >ones, that may be attacked by showing that by historical standards (not >scientific ones) the evidence is not compelling; and what I'll call >"scientific" claims, such as answered prayer, watchmaker arguments, etc. > >If you think I'm not using the appropriate historical or scientific >arguments, you may cite the specific cases. You reject historic accounts of miracles outright. This is an invalid argument from an historical perspective, AND a scientific perspective. You construct hypotheses about the phenomenon of answered prayer and accept them as true without actually testing them. This violates scientific standards. Do those suffice as specific cases? It is not enough to come up with an alternative, even a more likely alternative, unless you can come up with evidence that supports your alternative over the working explanation. >> [Much stuff removed in the interests of saving some space here] > >I'm pretty certain that we do have different acceptance criteria for >historical information. > >For example, you seem to only be concerned with how information is >propagated, rather than its origin. A falsehood can be as reliably >passed on as a truth. Not so. However, as I said, I don't automatically assume that someone is lying or deluded just because their claims don't fit my hypothesis. >You also seem to be a fan of Sherlock Holmes: "when the possible has been >eliminated, only the impossible remains." This sort of "proof" is >vulnerable on many fronts. If you don't enumerate all the possibilities, >or if you reject one for a bad reason, then you may be lead to believe >the impossible falsely. Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies for the >latter reason (the perpetrator of the fraudulent photographs recently >confessed, 60 years later.) I think my explanation of the biblical >writings is quite possible: thus you shouldn't accept the traditional, >superstitious, "impossible" ones. Actually I am more a fan of Moriarty :=) There is no such thing as "impossible". There are degrees of improbability. There are observed events. If there is any reason to believe that the data which are presented to support interpretation of an event are fraudulent then of course the data are given much less weight. However, just because there was fraud does not invalidate everything. Sir A.C.Doyle was not sufficiently acquainted with photographic techniques to be able to tell the difference. He violated his own methodology when he accepted those photos without investigating this possibility. >My acceptance of historical information is based on whether the source(s) >could reasonably want to falsify it. For example, there's no lack of >evidence of WWII: too many people of too many persuasions experienced it, >saw the evidence after the war, and recorded it. But should we believe >Moses talked with God any more than we believe Falwell or Moon or others? >They all have strong reasons to lie, to form and control large organizations. > >Jesus and his apostles working together for years making their living on >the prophet circuit had plenty of economic and social reasons to lie. >The same way modern faith healing shows make claims of cures, and >stage phony healings. Jesus worked the "prophet circuit" for no more than three years. His apostles worked the "prophet circuit" for around sixty years after that. You seem to be claiming that He got kicks out of being rich and out of having all these gullible people hanging on His every word. If in fact you completely discard the claims of miracles, then there might even be something to that assertion. I assert that you are premature in discarding those claims. There are strong indications that He knew that He would be tortured to death. It seems very unlikely that a charlatan would continue to make such claims, right up to the point of being tried for blasphemy and heresy TWICE. Further, there is the personality revealed by these accounts. Jesus of Nazareth didn't come off as being stupid, nor as being dishonest with Himself and others. That kind of dishonesty usually results in the kind of situation that happens with folks like Myong Myung Moon, or Rajneesh (I refuse to give him either of the other two titles he claims), in that there are those who LEAVE the group disenchanted with the leader or the people who surround the leader. In fact, there is no evidence that there WERE such people, other than Judas Iscariot. The Sanhedrin USED their right to preach to the masses and to set the form of the prayers in the various lesser temples. They taught current doctrine and denounced false prophets. They used evidence from the disenchanted fallen-away disciples of false prophets in order to bust up the cults when the cults were too strange. >> >I will test the hypotheses of systems that provide superior standards of >> >proof to those of Christianity and other religions. After all, I only have >> >limited time and resources. I've already devoted more time and belief to >> >Christianity (until my teens) than it has shown me to deserve. >> >> In that case, why do you bother trying to disprove them?? If you are going >> to ignore them, ignore them. If not, then you are being dishonest to attack >> them without actively considering their merits. > >I have already considered their merits, and found them lacking. But pardon >me if I try to help others to the same understanding. There's no reason >for everyone to have to explore the same paths to understanding, when I can >freely give the fruit of my labors. There's no reason then for you to have to consider the merits of Christianity since I already did so. Let me decide for YOU. Oh, come ON, Mike! Do you believe EVERYTHING you believed as a teenager? Do you honestly think that nothing new has been learned since then? That you found, at that time, everything that there was to consider? (Sorry. This is getting personal. I applaud your convictions and your willingness to share them and discuss them.) >> I am also interested in how you will deal with those anomalies which refuse >> to fit inside the framework provided by strict scientific method. There is >> a materialist philosophy which seems to be the default philosophy used to >> cope with these problems. Usually it does so by denying that they exist. >> Do you adhere to this amorphous materialism? > >It is possible to construct "anomalies" that won't fit into any system. >Say you hear a report that god appeared to someone and demanded that we >kill and eat everyone until there is only one human left? Would you deny >that this anolmalie occurred? If there was enough evidence that it had actually occurred, I would say that there was in fact such an anomaly. I would attempt to integrate it into existing systems. (It would contradict prior evidence about the nature of God, you see.) >I am a scientific materialist (or at least attempt to be.) If something >comes up that doesn't ostensibly fit, I would first try to confirm it, >and failing that, if I can find an explanation in human motivation, I >would tentatively assign it fictional status. >-- > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh I attempt to apply materialism wherever it is reasonable to do so, but since not all things really fit the paradigms as I understand them, I resort to other methods when necessary. I don't assign fictional status to anything until I have very good reason to believe it was deliberate fiction. The case you give sounds more like a delusion, a bad dream, or demonic encounter. Without further information I would probably assign it that status. Fiction is something deliberate. We've gotten kind of far from the topic of "what it means to talk to God". Do you want to continue in that discussion? Hutch
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/23/85)
In article <1383@shark.UUCP> net.religion@shark.UUCP writes: > In article <504@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >My evaluation of the bible's historical validity is this: the human cast, > >the localities, and major events (such as wars and migrations) probably > >occurred. The god, the miracles, and probably alot of the specifics are > >fictional. > > I am not sure that "fictional" is the right term, but this position is a lot > more understandable than what I thought you were saying earlier. In this case > it isn't really worth our time to argue over the details. My basis for > accepting the historic accuracy of many of the accounts is based on the > fact that they just don't fit the structures of myth. There are some sections > of the OT that actually do, like the story of Noah, or the other early parts > of Genesis, or the various Eden stories. Some of the others don't. For > instance, the histories of the Judges, the Kings, and so forth. Some parts > combine mythic formation and history, like the Exodus. In each of these > there are events, usual or unusual, attributed to Divine agency. The people > who were recording these events were often MORE skeptical than you or I would > be (considering that they had the motivation to ensure that they weren't being > mislead by charlatans or by some demonic agency.) I don't automatically > assume that any account is fictitious NOR do I automatically assume that > any account is completely true. However, I cannot ever be perfectly > objective about the accounts any more than you can. I can just see someone 2000 years from now trying to classify current literature's historicity as mythical or historical by the literary style. It wouldn't work, and it probably doesn't work for Biblical literature either. Oh, and the transcribers of things like the Book of Mormon were more skeptical than you or I would be. After all, they wouldn't want to be mislead.... I remain skeptical of claims of miracles, and assume them false until I am convinced otherwise. > >There are (at least) two sorts of religious claims of proof. Historical > >ones, that may be attacked by showing that by historical standards (not > >scientific ones) the evidence is not compelling; and what I'll call > >"scientific" claims, such as answered prayer, watchmaker arguments, etc. > > > >If you think I'm not using the appropriate historical or scientific > >arguments, you may cite the specific cases. > > You reject historic accounts of miracles outright. This is an invalid > argument from an historical perspective, AND a scientific perspective. I reject specific historic accounts, because they are too poorly supported by reasonable historic standards. The fact is that where the miracles of bible might have left archaeological evidence (like the flood), the evidence does not exist. And there is no supporting literary evidence of the other purported miracles. > You construct hypotheses about the phenomenon of answered prayer and accept > them as true without actually testing them. This violates scientific > standards. Isn't it funny that if answered prayer is real, either everybody's prayers are answered or those whose prayers are answered wish for undiscernable things? You'd think that people whose prayers were answered would be more prosperous or something. But nobody's found a statistical difference. There is a lack of supporting evidence for the hypothesis of answered prayer. Therefore there's no reason to retain it. That's one of the ways science works. > Do those suffice as specific cases? It is not enough to come up with an > alternative, even a more likely alternative, unless you can come up with > evidence that supports your alternative over the working explanation. Occam's razor says otherwise. > >> [Much stuff removed in the interests of saving some space here] > > > >I'm pretty certain that we do have different acceptance criteria for > >historical information. > > > >For example, you seem to only be concerned with how information is > >propagated, rather than its origin. A falsehood can be as reliably > >passed on as a truth. > > Not so. However, as I said, I don't automatically assume that someone is > lying or deluded just because their claims don't fit my hypothesis. Not an assumption: an inference. But anyhow, just how do you explain all those other religions then? Do you assume their prophets and sacred texts all lying or deluded? Or do you just put your mind in neutral? :-) > >My acceptance of historical information is based on whether the source(s) > >could reasonably want to falsify it. For example, there's no lack of > >evidence of WWII: too many people of too many persuasions experienced it, > >saw the evidence after the war, and recorded it. But should we believe > >Moses talked with God any more than we believe Falwell or Moon or others? > >They all have strong reasons to lie, to form and control large organizations. > > > >Jesus and his apostles working together for years making their living on > >the prophet circuit had plenty of economic and social reasons to lie. > >The same way modern faith healing shows make claims of cures, and > >stage phony healings. > > Jesus worked the "prophet circuit" for no more than three years. His apostles > worked the "prophet circuit" for around sixty years after that. You seem to > be claiming that He got kicks out of being rich and out of having all these > gullible people hanging on His every word. If in fact you completely discard > the claims of miracles, then there might even be something to that assertion. > I assert that you are premature in discarding those claims. There are strong > indications that He knew that He would be tortured to death. It seems very > unlikely that a charlatan would continue to make such claims, right up to the > point of being tried for blasphemy and heresy TWICE. The STORY is that he knew. There's no reason why he wouldn't have been sufficiently aware to suspect he might. But the story is SO much improved if he predicts it and yet does it anyhow. > Further, there is the personality revealed by these accounts. Jesus of > Nazareth didn't come off as being stupid, nor as being dishonest with Himself > and others. That kind of dishonesty usually results in the kind of situation > that happens with folks like Myong Myung Moon, or Rajneesh (I refuse to give > him either of the other two titles he claims), in that there are those who > LEAVE the group disenchanted with the leader or the people who surround the > leader. In fact, there is no evidence that there WERE such people, other than > Judas Iscariot. The Sanhedrin USED their right to preach to the masses > and to set the form of the prayers in the various lesser temples. They taught > current doctrine and denounced false prophets. They used evidence from the > disenchanted fallen-away disciples of false prophets in order to bust up the > cults when the cults were too strange. Isn't it funny, that the nonexistent organization of disenchanted early Christians did not produce extensive literature and preserve it till today, through 20 centuries of Christian bookburning, etc. Gee, where is all the literature of the disenchanted early Moslems and Hindus? > >I have already considered their merits, and found them lacking. But pardon > >me if I try to help others to the same understanding. There's no reason > >for everyone to have to explore the same paths to understanding, when I can > >freely give the fruit of my labors. > > There's no reason then for you to have to consider the merits of Christianity > since I already did so. Let me decide for YOU. Oh, come ON, Mike! Shame on you for misrepresenting me like that. I do not require others to accept my reasoning without explantion: heck, I'm even explaining it to "hostiles" like you. :-) > >> I am also interested in how you will deal with those anomalies which refuse > >> to fit inside the framework provided by strict scientific method. There is > >> a materialist philosophy which seems to be the default philosophy used to > >> cope with these problems. Usually it does so by denying that they exist. > >> Do you adhere to this amorphous materialism? > > > >It is possible to construct "anomalies" that won't fit into any system. > >Say you hear a report that god appeared to someone and demanded that we > >kill and eat everyone until there is only one human left? Would you deny > >that this anolmalie occurred? > > If there was enough evidence that it had actually occurred, I would say > that there was in fact such an anomaly. I would attempt to integrate it > into existing systems. (It would contradict prior evidence about the > nature of God, you see.) As would I. That's why I want better proof for miracles before I add Gods and such to my world view. > >I am a scientific materialist (or at least attempt to be.) If something > >comes up that doesn't ostensibly fit, I would first try to confirm it, > >and failing that, if I can find an explanation in human motivation, I > >would tentatively assign it fictional status. > > I attempt to apply materialism wherever it is reasonable to do so, but since > not all things really fit the paradigms as I understand them, I resort to > other methods when necessary. Such as what when? > I don't assign fictional status to anything until I have very good reason > to believe it was deliberate fiction. The case you give sounds more like > a delusion, a bad dream, or demonic encounter. Without further information > I would probably assign it that status. Fiction is something deliberate. Funny, my dictionary says "ficticious... implies fabrication... more than deliberate falsification or deception". But that's besides the point: I mean "not true", without necessarily assigning responsibility for the falsehood. > We've gotten kind of far from the topic of "what it means to talk to God". > Do you want to continue in that discussion? Sure. I still think of that expression as a euphemism for talking to oneself or deluding oneself about the source of thoughts. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh