Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: what does it mean to talk to God [a brief attempt at an answer]
Message-ID: <414@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Mar-85 14:48:16 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.414
Posted: Wed Mar 13 14:48:16 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Mar-85 02:13:09 EST
References: <893@topaz.ARPA> <2635@mcnc.UUCP> <> <366@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 69
Xref: watmath net.religion:6033 net.religion.christian:440
Summary: 

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