Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-k.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-k!tim From: tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: what does it mean to talk to God [a brief attempt at an answer] Message-ID: <310@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> Date: Thu, 14-Mar-85 07:29:00 EST Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-k.310 Posted: Thu Mar 14 07:29:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 16-Mar-85 03:05:27 EST References: <366@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking Lines: 133 Xref: watmath net.religion:6064 net.religion.christian:446 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!"