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!decvax!genrad!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: <424@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Fri, 22-Mar-85 16:48:57 EST Article-I.D.: cybvax0.424 Posted: Fri Mar 22 16:48:57 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 27-Mar-85 02:39:14 EST References: <893@topaz.ARPA> <2635@mcnc.UUCP> <> <366@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <414@cybvax0.UUCP> <1292@shark.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 121 Xref: watmath net.religion:6290 net.religion.christian:511 Summary: > are from <1292@shark.UUCP> hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) > > are from <414@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) > >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? > You look for other corroborative evidence. There is no other corroborative evidence for a subjective religious experience. > If you can't find evidence to confirm or deny, you have to resort to > learning as much as you can about the person making the testimony. > Then, you decide whether that person is sane, and whether they are > prone to exaggeration or delusion. Then, if they aren't, you give > limited credence to their testimony. That is, you accept that they > did experience what they say they experienced, though you might not > accept their explanation as the only explanation. In other words, you depend on how good a judgement of character you can make. You ask yourself "would this person be 100% accurate knowing that there was no way for anyone to check on his story, and knowing that there are all sorts of rewards (from peer admiration to money)?" Keeping in mind of course that few people are honest with themselves, let alone others. Keeping in mind, of course, that many of these people WANT to have such experiences, and have been told to look for them by their religious leaders. Keeping in mind, of course that perfectly normal people not infrequently confuse dreams with reality until they deduce what was the dream: an impossible task for experiences that are supposed to be subjective. > >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. > > This is a very popular argument. It even has some basis in reality. > However, it can become an excuse for ignoring evidence which doesn't fit > within the framework we want our world to fit in. The truth is, many > people do have very volatile memories, and others do not. Some subjective > experiences can be laid to hallucination, or to perceptual error or illusion, > or to dreams. Others should not. This screening method must be used > with extreme caution. An irreproducible event may still have happened. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So tell me, have you measured the accuracy of your religious leader's perceptions and memories? Over long periods of time, and while just waking, or dreaming? And having established a percentage accuracy, how do you know that the religious experience is in the accurate category, and not otherwise? Or are you trying to just make a valid argument go away with some handwaving? > I beg to disagree. The resurrection of Jesus is one of the best documented > events in ancient history. Further, there is no need to assume that the > whole Bible is true; the Gospels and the Acts are all that must be considered. The resurrection of JC is supported only by the writings of ONE cabal. People who had lots of time to get their stories straight. And why should I assume any part of the Bible to be entirely true? > When they are treated as historic documents, several things come clear: > First. the Gospels are not mythologized. They are not written > in the style in which myths were written. Neither is "Gone With The Wind". Surely you need another method for deciding whether something is a myth than style. > Second. They are not teaching fables. They aren't written in > the language of teaching fables. We have examples of contemporary > teaching fables to compare against, and they don't fit. Neither is "Gone With The Wind" a teaching fable. So what? > Third. They clearly are written as histories. So is "Gone With The Wind". How could you tell which parts were fictional 2000 years later? Or even today, assuming you could only use historical records and evidence from that period? > Therefore, we have to conclude that they are fabrications or tales > written by liars, or are histories written by honest men who were > mistaken or hallucinating, or by honest men telling the truth. I prefer to think of the bible as embroidery upon the facts. Fine, JC was a real man. But he didn't work miracles: those were tall tales. > If they are fabrications, then there would have been a large > number of holes in the different accounts. There would be a > considerable amount of physical evidence which could be used > to discredit them. There would be witnesses and testimony. > In fact, there was no such evidence produced by the people > who were trying to discredit the Nazarene movement. The different accounts are about all that has survived the council of Nicea. They were selected for consistancy. Nor is consistancy unexpected: the cabal of apostles worked together closely for several years. > Similarly, if the histories were mistaken, then there would be > counter-evidence produced. How do you know there was no such evidence? What evidence would you produce? A witness who said he didn't see JC after the resurrection? A rotted corpse that looked like any other corpse? Trying to squash rumors and popular tales was not something feasible in an era before mass communication. > >> 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. > > > >Objective does not equal "anything written in the Bible". > > Nor does objective mean "anything written in the Bible is trash". This is funny. You are saying here "If I can't be right, you have to be wrong too." Historical "evidence" like the bible can hjardly be considered objective all by itself. Your rationale is very weak. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh