Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: brandy@mimsy.umd.edu (Brandy R. Provine) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Self-Serving Beliefs Message-ID: Date: 18 Jan 90 04:59:28 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 140 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Dave Mileke's reply to my last article, and the moderator's comments which were attached to it, indicate to me that my example of aspirin is not helping explain my question. I do not actually care about aspirin, and indeed I have never needed one. I care about one person claiming that another person's beliefs are `self- serving', and was attempting to use aspirin to illustrate the point. Mr. Mielke's claim that another's beliefs are `self-serving' seems to require knowledge that he does not have access to. Let me try another example, actually a pair of them: A few months ago, Virginia Whitten came to talk at Severna Park Baptist Church, and she told of some things she has been through in her life, and some of the obstacles she's overcome and how she did so. Ms. Whitten has a chemical imbalance in her brain, and she has been locked up for extended periods of time for her own protection. One of the things she said happens from time to time is that people come up to her, and explain that her illness is a result of an unconfessed sin. If she'll just confess that unconfessed sin, then she'll be healed. While I enjoy perfect health, Darren is nearsighted and wears glasses. He has never had anyone tell him that his nearsightedness is a result of an unconfessed sin. I see no operational difference between these two cases. I can see no reason why Ms. Whitten's problem is the result of an unconfessed sin and Darren's is not; and I can see no justification for claiming that another's illness is the result of an unconfessed sin. In the same way, I can also see no justification for claiming that another's beliefs are `self-serving'. What I have been trying (rather unsuccessfully) to find out is why Mr. Mielke feels it is okay to claim that someone holds beliefs for selfish motives. How does he know? Here is another example of what I mean. In his last article, Mr. Mielke wrote this: > >A little further on you indicated that you believe that I believe that >my interpretation of the Scriptures is better than anyone else's. While >many people may wish to make this claim of me in an attempt to justify >their desire to ignore a lot of the things which I proclaim, I, myself, >do not believe even for a moment that my interpretation is any better >than anyone else's. You've included lots of qualifications (`may wish', `many people', etc) in this paragraph, which you can claim are based on probablitity or a good guess, and therefore hold that this is true. However, the basic point that comes through is that you are attributing motives to other people. You've said that others claim that your value only your interpretation due to a desire to ignore it -- you have not in the least acknowledged that someone might make this determination based on their best reading of your words. For example, me. Your earlier claim that free will was `self-serving' essentially says that anyone who disagrees with you has made an inappropriate reading of the Bible. Guessing *why* others believe things does not seem likely to work; why don't you _ask_ them instead? You've now claimed that people believe in free will for some selfish motives, and that people claim you are unconcerned with other interpretations solely to ignore yours. Why don't you consider the possibility that people believe these things honestly, as a result of their reading and interpretation? There is nothing wrong with thinking that your interpretation is the best possible, of course -- if you thought there was a better one you would change to that. But your description of free will goes further, in saying that other readings aren't only worse, but are wrong. It seems to me that if you actually think that other opinions are valid, then the most you can say is "I disagree with a belief in free will based upon my understanding of Scripture". Claiming that a belief in free will is `self-serving' is saying that the other interpretations of Scripture are _wrong_, which is the same as saying that you know which one is Right. You quoted Galatians 1:10, and concluded: > >I know that I would be proclaiming lies if everyone would like what I am >saying. You seem to have lost the distinction between Christians and `the world': do _you_ like what you are saying? Do you think that when people got letters from Paul they were unhappy? What do you make of the fact that there are Christians who do not like what you are saying? In the event you don't care that it is Christians you are upsetting, let me try something else. I can show you an example of someone who said things that people don't like, and with whom you will not agree: Adolf Hitler.% Does you believe that he spoke the truth? I think that people dislike what Mr. Hitler said because lots of it was offensive. (Note that I am not saying Mr. Mielke is comparable to Hitler, I am only showing why I think his argument is flawed.) ------ % - I cannot know that Mr. Mielke disagrees with Mr. Hitler, but it seems a good guess. There are lots of other examples. ------ >I am encouraged by the fact that a lot of the negative criticism of my >interpretations of the Scriptures is based on an attempt to impose >perceived earthly wisdom on top of what the Bible actually says. The >few times that people respond with Scriptural rebutals provide >marvelous oportunities for me to reassess my own beliefs. All the >others, which contain a lot of human reasoning, but usually not even >one Scriptural quotation, convince me more and more that I am becoming >more and more correct. The problem with this is that you have to use your human understanding in order to produce your interpretations of Scripture. If a reply to one of your articles is an attempt to show why your reasoning is wrong, it may not have many Scriptural citations in it because it is not a discussion over whether Scripture is right, but instead about how reasoning is properly applied. (For example, the above paragraphs about Galatians 1:10 -- I accept that the verse is correct, but I believe your application of it to any words of yours that people dislike is incorrect. I am not criticising the verse, I am criticising an unthinking application of it to anything someone may write.) Let me summarise with a few questions that will get at my points: 1) What is your justification for claiming that another's beliefs are `self- serving'? 2) What is your justification for assuming that the perception you are overly confident is a result of wanting to ignore you? 3) Does it matter to you that it is Christians who are unhappy with your articles? 4) Do you believe that people dislike your words only because you are telling the truth? Do you not recognise that others may find your writing style rather abrasive? brandy@cs.umd.edu Brandy R. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!brandy