Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: More Skepticism of Skeptics - (nf)
Message-ID: <2298@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Apr-84 12:51:39 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.2298
Posted: Mon Apr 16 12:51:39 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Apr-84 01:14:40 EST
References: <2195@cbscc.UUCP>, <8300053@uokvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 125

A response to James Jones:

}>Let me give you an example of non-rational learning.... [Young
}>children] are not very developed.  They learn mostly by being told this
}>or that is true, false, good, bad, etc.  This is not irrational for the
}>child because it doesn't necessarily go against reason, it just goes
}>beyond his powers of reason.  With an adult like myself, the reasoning
}>is more developed, but I have no trouble accepting the idea that it may
}>be flawed or limited and there are truths that must be 'revealed' to
}>me.  As in the case with a child and his parent, a personal relationship
}>is needed for this kind of learning to be effective.
}
}OK; I certainly acknowledge my limitations (having one's nose rubbed in them
}periodically sort of does that to one :->). However, there is nobody around
}who is an obvious candidate for virtual parent to my virtual child; only
}equally fallible humans making conflicting claims about alleged gods and
}revealed truths.

My example above asumes the parent-child relationship to have already been
made.  Your objection to it stems from the fact that you have no such
"virtual" relationship.  I understand your point of view, but it still does
not invalidate mine.  The example only serves to illustrate that such
relationships do exist (and there for may be possible between us and God),
and that the knowlege we obtain through such a relationship is considered
valid though not strictly rational.  Where a relationship with God is concerned
it also does not invalidate my belief that you are likely to experience the
same kind of understanding of God, were you to meet him.  How do you meet him?
I can't really tell you.  That is between you and him.  I can only tell you
how I met him, or how others met him and that would probably be of little
use to you.  It would be like me telling you how I met my wife and then
(assuming you are not already married) expecting that you should meet a
woman the same way.  (That's a very limited illustration, but I hope
you know what I mean to convey by it.)  Speaking from Christian experience
it seems that each person's relationship with God is as personal and varied
(within certian accepted constraints) as their relationship with a spouse
(or parent, for that matter).  I can only tell you that we do not "discover"
God in quite the same way as we would discover whether or not there is
a pink flamingo in the next room. ;-)  i.e. we can't just go and look and
examine at an arm's length.

What else would you expect from fallible humans but to make conflicting
claims about anything (not just God)?  Does this mean that there is no
truth whatsoever to the claims?  I don't think I am giving you any reasons
for you to believe in God.  But I think my way of understanding him to
be valid, not irrational, and able to be shared by anyone because the
means of understanding are used by everyone.  It is also not my *sole*
means of understanding.  Just as I believe there are some things rationality
cannot accomplish, I believe the same is true for faith.  The trick is
knowing the place of each.  Something I'm really not very good at, but
it's getting better.

}>As far as artistic expression goes, I made that point only to illustrate
}>the fact that we accept many things just for what they are, without
}>asking whether or not they are "logical".  I don't question whether
}>or not it is logical for my wife to like roses better than tulips.
}
}True, nor do we usually bother looking for Freudian explanations or any
}others. Theological questions are usually considered differently from
}questions of taste (by non-logical positivists, anyway :->), i.e. they
}are thought to be propositions with truth values, and many people
}devote considerable effort to arguing their truth or falsity.

Who said anything about theology?  Not I.  Of course theology is debated
and is cognitive, the same as philosophy.  Theology, by definition, is
the study of diety.  It seems to me that theological aspects of religion
have to be quite detached from the experiencal aspects.  But in these
examples I am talking about knowledge of a person through a relationship,
not just observation ("who as ever seen God?") or logical deduction.
What I said before can be said in a different way:  When we consider
Christianity we consider a relationship, not just the adoption of a 
philosophy *or theology*.

}Does your
}wife try to convince people that they'll suffer eternal torment if they
}don't prefer roses to tulips?

No.  Do you know someone who does?  She has never claimed the authority
to confine anyone to eternal torment for any reason, to my knowledge.

On a more serious note, I don't see how anyone can be *convinced* of the
existence of Hell before the fact.  God says there is such a place.  I
believe him, but no one will really know until we see it.  Of course,
by then whether or not we take up residence there may aready have been
decided.  Anyway, I don't think the possiblity of suffering Hell should
figure significantly into one's decision of whether or not to enter into
a relationship with God.  What kind of relationship is one that is
maintained by fear?  The way I see it Hell is a bypoduct of a fallen
world, a grim necessity for a God that cannot accept the presence of
evil in eternity.  It is not the solution to the falleness of Man (as
if by the threat of it we may be made better) but a consequence of it.
Like them or not, we're all subject to the same rules.  For a Chistian to
present Hell as the threat to non-beleivers is to miss the whole point of
its existence.  It is of consequence to me as much as (or even more than)
anyone else.  David Norris' pointer to C. S. Lewis' book "The Problem
of Pain" is worth looking into.  (I have only read sections of that book,
however, and I don't know if my view of Hell corresponds to his.  I haven't
read that chapter.) 

All said, I don't think I know enough about God's
criteria for assigning individuals to Hell to be able to make such a
determination myself about any individual.  I only believe that Hell will
be a reality for many.  I'll apply its implications to myself and leave
those for others to be between them and God.  The possibility of such
a fate for others does lead me to an evangelical belief, however.  One
that I hope is motivated out of love and respect for the dignity of all
persons.  Many like to believe that evangelicals are motivated out of
a desire to dominate or impose upon the beliefs of others.  The joy of
a right relationship with God is something that I neither seek to impose
or keep to myself.

Well I've gotten off the track, but I hope these things are of interest to
some anyway.  A good part of the reason I believe in Hell is not just my
adherence to a form of Christian theology.  Some of it also has to do
with my subjective relationship to God.  I trust that he is telling the
truth because of that relationship.  I realize that many don't have the
benefit of that relationship, but that is not to say that it is false
(a conclusion that many seem to come to) or that such a relationship is
not possible for you.  Please don't say that I have been brain washed
or that I am deceived.  I haven't a shred of evidence to tell me that
is so.  Do you?  :-).

Paul Dubuc
-- 

Paul Dubuc 		ihnp4!cbscc!pmd