Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site shark.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch From: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: what does it mean to talk to God [a brief attempt at an answer] Message-ID: <1304@shark.UUCP> Date: Fri, 29-Mar-85 00:40:14 EST Article-I.D.: shark.1304 Posted: Fri Mar 29 00:40:14 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 31-Mar-85 02:48:33 EST References: <893@topaz.ARPA> <2635@mcnc.UUCP> <> <366@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <414@cybvax0.UUCP> <1292@shark.UUCP> <424@cybvax0.UUCP> Reply-To: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 227 Xref: watmath net.religion:6382 net.religion.christian:535 Summary: In article <424@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> 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. Baloney. A "subjective religious experience" does not necessarily occur in a vaccuum, Mike. Case in point, answered prayer. If I point to what I consider to be an answered prayer, I do so by showing that in fact prayer DID take place, and that an event occurred which seemed to be in response to that prayer. The event in response MIGHT be a coincidence. So, I corroborate it. I gather up the evidence. I take account of how many prayers I have made or seen made. I look at whether they have been "answered" and I look at the form of the alleged answer. If it looks to me like the number of answers is below the "noise" level then I assume that it is in fact noise, that coincidence IS the operant word here. I ATTEST (you need not believe me, you can try for yourself) that the number of answers exceeded coincidence. >In other words, you depend on how good a judgement of character you can >make. Yup, that's a good summary. That is, of course, how you determine whether or not to believe ANY testimony. > ... 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. You have an interesting perception of reality, Mike. Please tell me how you know that few people are honest with themselves. Subjective assessment? >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. Actually, I agree with you that many people WANT to have such experiences. This doesn't guarantee that they'll actually HAVE them, though. It MIGHT cause "false experiences" but again, if I am trying to get a character judgement of a person, I would certainly look carefully to see if there is any chance that they're prone to this. >Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I really admire the dogged way in which that little catch phrase gets thrown out by everyone who wants to discredit someone elses' claims. Claims are claims. There is no such thing as an extraordinary claim, merely a claim which does not fit within the framework you have constructed. If an event is claimed which does not fit within that frame, you cannot reject it offhand just because it doesn't fit. If the proof is valid for anything which fits inside the framework, it is valid for anything which does not. So, instead of demanding a standard of proof greater than that which you apply to events which DO fit the framework, you look for an alternative description of the event which DOES fit the framework, and see if that alternative IS true, as supported by the evidence given and as supported by any further evidence you can gather. If you cannot do this, then you better either expand on the framework, or admit that it cannot be applied to everything. > ... 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? Of course not. I have, however, measured my own. I have about 80% accuracy under normal circumstances, varying by whether I am sick, or in especial good health at a given time. I don't try to make any religious insights or visions I might have had into anything special, though. They are seldom of that concrete a nature. Nor do I think your argument is necessarily invalid, merely that it is not conclusive. The existance of an alternative, no matter how plausible, does not make that alternative correct without further support. What are you looking for in terms of an "accurate" experience? >> 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? Support, please. The resurrection of JC is supported by the writings of many different people, and at least two Gnostic churches which were in major disagreement with the Apostolic church. You are making a claim against the historical validity of Biblical documents, so where do you get the evidence to make that claim? You assert that there was a great deal of unity in the early church ("ONE cabal") which allowed different stories to be changed and brought into agreement; I suggest that this was not the case. The Gospels differ from each other on several details. I wasn't saying you had to ASSUME anything. I said you have to CONSIDER the Gospels and the Acts. That is, if you intend to try to poke holes in the historical truth of the Gospels, you will have to actually LOOK at them. To wit: >> 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. Not necessarily. In a culture where the writing of myths is extremely stylized, the fact that a document is not written as a myth becomes a significant factor to consider. However, I meant more than just saying the style was different. Mythologization is a process which takes some time. Adding "extra" miracles and so on are all things that happen with mythologization. As an example, there is an apocryphal gospel which claims to present the life of "Young Jesus" which is clearly mythologized. The earliest copies we have date from >250 AD. There are fragments of a Gospel of John which date from ~50 AD. That's about 20 years after the fact; there were still other witnesses present at that time who could (and would) confirm or deny details. >> 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? Beg to disagree; GWTW is most certainly a teaching fable. So what is that the Gospels cannot be discarded as "edifying fiction". >> 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? Sorry, but GWTW isn't written as a history, it has a completely different structure. It is written as an historical fantasy with a moral, i.e. as a teaching fable. >> 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. That is an interesting claim. If they were tall tales then they would LOOK like tall tales. They don't. Tall tales would change with time, getting more and more wild. The versions which we have don't vary that way. More to the point, would YOU put your life on the line for a tall tale, which you KNEW to be a tall tale? There were a LOT of followers of Jesus, who were stoned as heretics, for insisting that what they saw was the truth, whose lives would have been saved if they had said that it was a tall tale. There is no evidence of any of those folk recanting and being set to counter-testimony. >> 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. I agree that Nicea spent lots of time throwing out mythologizations as well as trying to expunge the Gnostic "taint" from the approved scriptures. But we DO have many copies of different accounts, and many predate Nicea. Nor are the ONLY surviving documents from those times the Christian ones. There are Gnostic accounts, and there are some records from the Temple, though I am unsure how extensive the latter are. What evidence would I produce if I were trying to quash a rumor? I would produce a body, yes, within a few days. The Sanhedrin, unable to do that, claimed that the apostles stole the body; since there were guards and since all the apostles were off moping, and since the burial was performed under supervision by the Sanhedrin, and since there were hundreds of witnesses who saw, in person, the resurrected Jesus, this was not believed. If I wished to disprove it afterwards, I would put out counter-testimony that showed that the testimony was false. No records of such counter-testimony survive, not even by reference. However, records DO show that the Sanhedrin was attempting to prove that the Nazarites were heretics, and that Jesus was not the Messiah. >> >> 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." You claim that his evidence is invalid based on a blanket condemnation of the Bible as non-objective. I don't accept your assertion. Further, I think it is especially weak to argue by ridicule. (Not that I haven't indulged myself in the past :-) >Historical "evidence" like the bible can hjardly be considered objective >all by itself. Your rationale is very weak. I suppose that historical "evidence" about World War II can hardly be considered objective? Actually, there are criteria for determining how believable a record is. The Bible stands up very well when judged by those criteria.