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 (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Invitation for Scott Deerwester Message-ID: <863@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 19:29:39 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.863 Posted: Thu Apr 4 19:29:39 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 04:37:38 EST References: <> <398@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY: We have no slogan Lines: 116 > Rich invited me to react to an account of a (mystical?) experience > that he posted recently. This article is my response and is in two > parts. The first (which I'm very sure will not be at all satisfying > to Rich) is my reaction to the article. The second is a short > exposition on the role of subjectivity in the acquisition of faith in > God. [SCOTT DEERWESTER] And this, of course, is my reply. > Rich, I liked the account that you posted. It was, if nothing else, > good prose. I found the imagery very effective. It sounds a lot > like something that a Mooney or somebody from The Way, International > might write. Both rely heavily on weekend *intensive* "seminars" as > indoctrination methods. They (at least the Moonies) allow people > very little sleep, no privacy and essentially bombard them with > experiences until their defenses are simply worn out and they're > willing to accept about anything. When you're disoriented enough and > are ready to reach out to something or somebody for support, they > make very sure that the nearest person is somebody who can help you > "understand" what's happening to you. Powerful technique. The > account that you posted sounds a lot like that. People can be > manipulated into having very powerful experiences by somebody who > knows what they're doing. Who's to say that this isn't exactly what has happened (in a lifetime instead of a weekend) to you? You alone. Just like they alone would vouch for their experience. Why is yours so much better, as you seem to indicate from your own tone above? What would you have to say if I let you know that the story came from the experience of an actual charismatic Christian? What would your conclusions be? > It may well be possible to construct > a set of doctrines that is self consistent, provable from basic > axioms, etc. There may be *lots* of such sets. It's not enough, > however, for a set of beliefs to just be reasonable. Plausibility > isn't the same as veracity. So how do you decide if something that's > reasonable is true? > > First you look to see if the belief set, taken as is, is reasonable. > The fundamental tenets of Christianity have been presented many times > before in this forum. Basically: > > - God created the universe in general and man in particular. > - Man sinned and fell away from God. > - Jesus was born in accordance with prophesy and lived > a sinless life. > - He gave his life and this act was sufficient to permit Man > to be restored to fellowship with God. > - He was resurrected and ascended to be with God the Father. > - He gave the Holy Spirit to live within, guide and comfort > all those who believe in Him. And the funny thing is, you claim all the above is reasonable. Yet clearly the only possible basis for calling such things reasonable, in the absence of evidence, is to already believe them to be true! And we know what that's called... > *Of course*, experience isn't enough to prove anything, all by > itself. *Of course*, people's senses can deceive them. But if the > scripture says things are supposed to happen a certain way, perhaps > with certain conditions on my part, then my faith grows as my > experience bears out the truth of the scripture. How do I know that > God lives? By what He does. And He's the same God to me as He was > to His children that He led out of Egypt and loves me with the same > love that they experienced. To support your subjective experience, you have a book that tells you what to expect from your subjective experiences, what preconceptions to have about them, and how to relate to them. *That* is a reason for one's faith to grow? Again, clearly you are believing what you already choose to believe. > Remember how God would identify Himself when He addressed His people? > "The God who led you out of Egypt... the God who fed you for forty > years in the desert... the God who drove out nations before you..." > They, the children of Israel, knew and know Him because of the ways > in which He intervened in their lives. He was called their Deliverer > because, in specific circumstances, He delivered them. He was their > Rock because, when they couldn't rely on anyone or anything around > them, He showed Himself to be unchanging and faithful. Wait a minute! That's some jump there! From "my experiences are supported by what it says in that book because I read it and had such an experience, and lo and behold it met my expectations of what the book told me" to "let's assume thus that this book is truth" in one simple leap. > I'm really not concerned about whether my faith can stand up to scrutiny > or not. I'm confident that it can. So you don't bother to scrutinize, having faith that your faith would obviously withstand the test. Or, perhaps, fearful that it wouldn't. Either way, you have no interest in knowing the answer: you've already accepted a set of premises and don't care whether they're flawed or not-- you're going to continue along the same way in any case. > But frankly, you show so little > respect to the people that you interact with on the net that I'm not > very anxious to talk about things that are precious to me only to > have you ridicule and belittle them. You know, it's so ironic. You are doing nothing but engaging in excuse making, my friend. I'd venture that the only way you'd consider my words respectful to you is if I stopped disagreeing with you and only took your side. No matter. Either what I have to say above is valid, or it is not. The fact is, as you've stated above, that you're not concerned with whether it's valid or not. You're *more* concerned about whether what I say is "respectful" in your view. Given your very lack of concern for the validity of your premises, I conclude that you are indeed engaging in wishful thinking, that you are putting your precious premises up on a pedestal from which no one may knock them down (that would be "disrespectful"). And that you are choosing to ignore anything that would go against those premises, preferring instead to stick by them because they are what you choose to believe. Because they are what you want to believe. -- Meet the new wave, same as the old wave... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr