Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site oakhill.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!davet From: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: reply to Dave Trissel Message-ID: <371@oakhill.UUCP> Date: Tue, 26-Mar-85 00:58:56 EST Article-I.D.: oakhill.371 Posted: Tue Mar 26 00:58:56 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 30-Mar-85 08:01:05 EST References: Reply-To: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) Distribution: net Organization: Motorola Inc. Austin, Tx Lines: 186 Summary: In article <197@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: >In reply to a reply: > >>[David Harwood] >> >> My feeling >> is that everyone who sincerely wants to know whether there is a God >> will be given sufficient reason for faith, but that not everyone is >> sincere. ... > [Me] >Please step back David and look at what you are saying. You are making a >bold claim that everyone who doesn't believe in your version of a God is >insincere. ... > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > I'm sorry if I have offended you; but I did not insist upon >anything, certainly not, as you suggest, that others must "believe in >my version," unless they would be "insincere". ... > You have cast my words with an intention which is not mine, ... I apologize if such is the case. But your first sentence certainly stated you believe (substituting 'x' for 'y') that I "will be given sufficient reason for faith" since I am sincere. I challenge that as being not only presumptuous but condescending. It presumes that there is only one "correct" way to view reality, and that if another person had all the evidence that you did and was honest they would reach the same conclusions as yourself. > ........ It is you, >apparently, who now thinks that belief in God is self-deception, and >evasion of the truth; but if you think this about your former self, then do >you think this about others also? You might say that we are "self-deceiving", >just as you may believe that I say that others are not "sincere". Not at all. I don't see how any given belief system in and of itself proves that its believer is self-deceived. It doesn't matter whether its in regards to religion or Santa Claus. Only if contradicting facts are ignored or intentionally misinterpreted would self-deception come into play. Children who think Santa Clause is real are certainly not self-deceived. They have ample evidence to support their own convictions. They just don't have the sophistication as yet in their world concepts to rule Santa as an absurdity. Growing up a devout Christian I was not self-deceived. I honestly thought that my concepts were correct and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, later when I had reason to start questioning some of my basic assumptions some self-deception crept in in that I first tried ignoring things or twisted their implications around to fit my world-view. However, If I claimed to now be a Christian I would be either a liar or self deceived given my present understanding of reality. Conversely, I am sure that many Christians, including yourself, honestly believe in their religion and find that it provides them many benefits. In my opinion, the culprits are those of any persuasion that fail to question their beliefs. This leads to dogmatism and intolerance and it occurs with atheists as well as Christians. > From what you have said about yourself, while you are intellectually >sincere, like my friends, you do not now desire faith, even though you may >want to see compelling evidence. ... I do not "desire faith" nor "not desire faith." I do not "want to see compelling evidence" nor "not want to see compelling evidence." I just want to strive for an ever more accurate understanding of "Life, the Universe, and Everything." If this includes a God then fine. If it doesn't, then fine. If it means I will survive bodily death then fine. If when I die, I die then fine. I am determined to face reality whatever I find it to be. However, for me, I found my earlier beliefs unsatifactory and shallow. My search has led me to different water, water more intellectually and spritually satisfying. > Is this my opinion only? I remember that Jesus said to Pilate, >"It is for this reason that I have come into the world. And all who will >hear the truth, they shall hear my voice." But Pilate said, "What is >truth?" then turned away. > My question is -- Was Pilate sincere? Yes and no. Pilate may >have been intellectually sincere, as skepticism is often so called, and >might have assented to evidence, which Jesus did not provide, but he >certainly had no religious desire to know the truth, and would need be >compelled, having no sincere desire to know the will of God. The contrast between intellectual truth and religious desire here is interest- ing. The problem I see here is that this implies that an intellectual search for truth is not sufficient for the investigation of religion and its eventual acceptance. Since this has many important ramifications it would be prudent to support this with some evidence. It seems that you suggest that a "leap of faith" be made before God can be revealed. If so, that puts me in a difficult situation. Since I grew up with the "leap of faith" already made, that means that either I am now ignoring the truths of my earlier religion, or that I never experienced the truths it had to offer at all. I am sure that neither of these statements are accurate. > I think we can agree that Pilate had no sincere religious desire >to know whether Jesus was telling the truth. As he said, "Am I a Jew?" >The attitude of most unbelievers is the same: "Am I a Christian (or Jew)?" >They do not suppose that they would want to be. But they demand evidence. But isn't this natural? I'm sure that you didn't just jump to Christianity without any reason of some sort. Certainly you must have had some "evidence" that Christianity was worth the "leap of faith." I'm sure many others besides myself would be interested in hearing how you came to believe what you do. And maybe to balance the picture, I should show why I had to let go of my religious beliefs. > A great many people are not sincere; you have only to watch >television to see what is our popular culture. How sincerely "Christian", >acting in the spirit of Christ, is a nation that spends 100 times as much >for military purposes (now 50+% of the budget, for past, present, and >proposed wars) as it does on purely non-military, .... I agree completely here. I wonder just how many "Christians" of today would still be in the flock if Jesus' sayings were literally followed. How many would gladly give up their wealth to the poor and spend their time sharing love to those around them like Mother Teresa. > .............I was an unbeliever, and yet I was honest more >than most; nevertheless I was also full of pride; do you think I >would get on my knees and sincerely pray to God for what He wanted >rather than what I wanted? Sincerity is not an intellectual exercise; >it is an exercise of will. Someone who simply wants God to prove His >existence, without the desire to do His will, is not sincere. He is >simply testing God, which is not to be done. I find it fascinating that my story is just the reverse of yours. With very minor changes it rings true for me: I was a believer, and yet I was honest more than most, nevertheless I was also full of pride. Do you think I would get down on my knees as a devoted Christian and sincerely pray to God for what He wanted. After all, I already knew what God wanted and what He thinks since the Bible tells me everything and is perfect. Satan will cause me to doubt and will use my intellect against me, therefore it cannot be trusted. I must not doubt God, for that would be testing Him. Incidently, aren't there several places in the Bible where men "tested" God? Just to name a few, Abraham saying "if only 50 good men don't destroy the city" followed by "45" then "40" etc. Also the "test ye the spirits to know if they be of God." These and others would seem to tell us that we *should* test God. Often it seems that some Christians confuse 'testing' God to 'tempting' God. Yet another statement you make should be 'turned around' to apply to some Christians as well-- > My feeling is that everyone who sincerely wants to know whether there is > a God will be given sufficient reason for faith, but that not everyone is > sincere. You have only to look around to see that many lord it over > the others -- in their hearts, they would presume the place of God. > They hardly want to find out that they were wrong. By replacing the phrase "for faith" with "for doubt" an interesting juxtapos- ition occurs. Many presume God and hardly want to find out that they were wrong. It cuts both ways. >....... And in the Letter to the Hebrews, it is said that the word >of the Lord is sharper than any sword, penetrating our very souls. >Certainly, I did also reject Jesus as Christ, and my arrogance was, >in that very instant, made plain to me. As it was also to Paul on >the road to Damascus. So sure of ourselves, we were wrong about him. To me, I have found certain "truths" penetrate sharper than any sword, combining both intuition with reason producing a powerful form of enlightenment, understanding and reaching needs otherwise unfulfilled. When I was a Christian I was so sure of myself. Now I'm less sure, but more realistic in my determination of what I know. Now I'm free. Free to let the Universe unfold itself within and without me and I don't have to force any of my interpretation into a restrictive religious mold. Does either of our experiences invalidate the other? I don't think so. I believe they are at some level one and the same. My being "less sure" may be related to your "struggle with our doubts" mentioned in your last posting. > > I believe that your reply was honest. Perhaps I can >recommend to you and others some things to read which may change >your religious views considerably, ..... > After 15 years of reading I would be suprized to find any new revolutionary ideas which would change my veiws considerably -- but the search for deeper truths beckons. I will indeed check into these books. Even minor new dis- coveries are always refreshing. In any case, thank you for your reply. One of the great benefits of the net is the wide variety of viewpoints encountered. Dave Trissel {seismo,ihnp4,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet