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!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: the Temptations (not a singing group)
Message-ID: <470@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 15:27:13 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.470
Posted: Mon Apr 15 15:27:13 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 02:27:27 EST
References: <461@cybvax0.UUCP> <1191@topaz.ARPA> <4880@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 113
Summary: 

In article <4880@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
> ]The fraudulent Godhead, who hasn't any powers to use to rule the world,
> ]must construct an excuse for why he doesn't do so.  The best explanation
> ]is one that embarasses the questioners, and puts them on the defensive by
> ]comparing them to Satan.
> 
> Well, he certainly doesn't use that device anywhere in Matthew or Luke,
> which are the only gospels which count here.  And besides, your first
> sentence rather baldly assumes that the purpose of incarnating God is so
> that he can come down and rule the world.  Sounds to me like you're trying
> to impose your notion of what a god should act like on Jesus, and then
> saying he's an imposter because the shoe doesn't fit.

You've precisely reversed my argument.  I am hypothesizing a fraud, and
making retrodictions of what we would expect from one in response to
some common ideas of what prophets, sons of god, etc. are likely to be
like.  Because JC had to face the problem of other people's expectations.

> There are two other problems with the above passage.  One is pointed out by
> root@topaz: only one of the three temptations involves working miracles.  The
> other, more serious, is that one can postulate a different sort of god, and
> have an explanation which fits the event much better.  If you had a god
> which did not want to rule the world, and a Satan which wanted "break"
> creation by tricking him into doing so, then the temptations are perfectly
> obvious.

It only requires one of the temptations to request a miracle of JC for the
story to be used to quell requests for JC or his apostles to work miracles.

"Fits the event better", huh?  You are starting with the excess assumptions
of God and Satan.  Without those assumptions, I can construct a consistent
hypothesis that fits just as well, using only human behavior such as we
can observe around us.

> Now, I do not doubt that Mike is going to continue to prefer his
> explanation.  But given that there are some inconsistencies surrounding his,
> it is immediately evident to me that the is some presupposition at work
> here: namely, that no one can work miracles.

What inconsistencies?  However, I do first look for a non-miraculous
explanation.  That is different than presupposing nobody can work miracles.

> And I do think there are problems with Mike's interpretation, even taking a
> very critical approach to the story.  I have never, ever heard anyone use
> the kind of justification for the failure of a miracle as Mike claims is
> happening here.  For one thing, Jesus even compares his diciples to Satan!
> For another, the incident represents a fairly weak excuse, since Jesus is
> only refusing to perform miracles as tests of his power.  The temptations
> are also never referred to by Jesus either; he certainly never uses the
> incident as an excuse later on.  The incident's content is so highly
> allegorical anyway that its meaning isn't particularly affected by whether
> it actually happened or not.

Originality is no excuse for rejection of an argument.  Nor is your
admission that you haven't heard it before.

The analogy of JC's disciples to Satan wouldn't hold water because (with
a burst of theological handwaving) Satan knew of JC's divinity and wasn't
won over to JC's side.  The disciples were supposed to be unsure, and
were won over to JC's side.

You're right that the meaning is independant of whether the temptations
ever took place or not.  For both of our hypotheses.

> ]Any fraud is within his rights not to work miracles simply because people
> ]demand them.  But people will get suspicious unless you concoct plausible
> ]sounding excuses, and learn how to quiet hecklers.  A real god might use
> ]these devices, but wouldn't need them.
> 
> Well, I think you'ld better come up with some evidence that the text in
> question is intended as an excuse, seeing as how it is never referred to
> later in that matter, and given the considerable evidence in favor of the
> traditional interpretation.

The text in question has traditionally been used to call skeptics tools of
Satan.  (Along with other texts.)  I've personally been subject to such
attacks with that particular text.  If it is used that way now, why
couldn't it have been used that way even during the lifetime of JC?

> ]It's too late to shut the barn door once the cow's loose.  It is skepticism
> ]that is responsible for clearing away the worthless testimony of previous
> ]generations to allow new knowledge to emerge.  (Mind you I'm not saying
> ]that all testimony is worthless.  Some can be confirmed by first skeptically
> ]rejecting it and then arriving at the same conclusions.)
> 
> Sufficiently strong skepticism is strong enough to deny any historical claim.
> You seem to be saying that because the evidence for the ressurection
> happening in the form described in the gospels is necessarily weak by
> conventional historical standards, that you will deny it out of hand.  Your
> analysis of this event seems to be predicated on the notion that there are
> no miracles;  before you can legitimately use such a principle, you need to
> provide some justification for it.  The fact that the universe has so far
> appeared to be regular as far as scientific investigation is concerned, in
> no way conflicts with the reality of miracles.  Occam's Razor doesn't cut it
> here, since its use is predicated on absolute uniformity.

"Your analysis of this "event" seems to be predicated on the notion that there
are god(s) and miracles; before you can legitimately use such a principle,
you need to provide some justification for it."

The above paragraph demonstrates the nature of your argument: special pleading.
I am proposing a simpler hypothesis: simpler because it involves fewer
assumptions.  Contrary to what you say, I do not make an assumption of
"no miracles": I simply do not use them in my hypothesis.

Occam's Razor is a heuristic that even theologians sometimes employ to
determine plausibility.  You employ all sorts of heuristics yourself.
When you use the "fits the event better" heuristic, you could still be wrong;
the actual explanation could be otherwise.  You are just trying to disqualify
Occam's Razor because it weighs against your explanation.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh