Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: what does it mean to talk to God [a brief attempt at an answer]
Message-ID: <698@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Mar-85 01:19:09 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.698
Posted: Thu Mar 14 01:19:09 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Mar-85 23:43:42 EST
References: <893@topaz.ARPA> <2635@mcnc.UUCP> <366@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <368@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 51
Xref: watmath net.religion:6028 net.religion.christian:439

>>>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