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!net.religion From: net.religion@shark.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: what does it mean to talk to God [a brief attempt at an answer] Message-ID: <1383@shark.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-May-85 19:32:30 EDT Article-I.D.: shark.1383 Posted: Wed May 8 19:32:30 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 10-May-85 03:23:50 EDT Sender: hutch@shark.UUCP Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 251 From: Stephen Hutchison [ this line offensive to bugs ] I don't read net.religion at all. If y'all want this discussion to move out of net.religion then send MAIL (do NOT reply to the whole newsgroup) to Mike or myself. If you have a comment you want me to see, and you are restricting your reply to net.religion, send me a copy via mail or I won't see it. In article <504@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <1351@shark.UUCP> hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) writes: >> ... it was my impression from your original argument that there was >> absolutely no historical validity to the Bible at all and that it was >> useless as any kind of account of anything. Now, either I misunderstood you >> or you have revised your position. I will assume the former. > >My evaluation of the bible's historical validity is this: the human cast, >the localities, and major events (such as wars and migrations) probably >occurred. The god, the miracles, and probably alot of the specifics are >fictional. I am not sure that "fictional" is the right term, but this position is a lot more understandable than what I thought you were saying earlier. In this case it isn't really worth our time to argue over the details. My basis for accepting the historic accuracy of many of the accounts is based on the fact that they just don't fit the structures of myth. There are some sections of the OT that actually do, like the story of Noah, or the other early parts of Genesis, or the various Eden stories. Some of the others don't. For instance, the histories of the Judges, the Kings, and so forth. Some parts combine mythic formation and history, like the Exodus. In each of these there are events, usual or unusual, attributed to Divine agency. The people who were recording these events were often MORE skeptical than you or I would be (considering that they had the motivation to ensure that they weren't being mislead by charlatans or by some demonic agency.) I don't automatically assume that any account is fictitious NOR do I automatically assume that any account is completely true. However, I cannot ever be perfectly objective about the accounts any more than you can. >>>> What would YOU suggest as sufficient, stringent experiment? Remember, we >>>> are testing the hypothesis that there IS a living person, with pervasive >>>> control and knowledge of events, who is interested in forming a >>>> relationship with humans. >>>> >>>> How do you propose testing this hypothesis? What are you willing to accept >>>> or reject as evidence? How would YOU go about testing it? >>> >>>I don't think I could construct such an experiment. Nor do I think you >>>could. That is why I criticized and showed fault with your methods. >>>To show how worthless and flawed most religious claims of "proof" are. >>>The best I've seen in the way of religious claims has been some self- >>>consistency. But self-consistency is something lots of delusional systems >>>possess. I've never seen anything tie religious supernatural claims >>>to our real world convincingly. >> >> If you couldn't construct such an experiment then you similarly cannot >> construct an experiment which gives any kind of credibility to >> any historic event (other than grossly physical ones) and THAT is exactly >> my original point. > >Non sequiteur. Proving the current existence of a god is hardly comparable >to proving the past occurrence of an event. For example, say I accepted >the bible as historical proof god existed. How do we know he hasn't >choked and died on a chicken bone since then? If that happened, a present >experiment to show he existed would fail. It is beginning to be painful trying to condense this line of discussion. Proving the past existance of a god is essentially the same class of problem as proving an historic event BECAUSE the original hypothesis is that of a living person with pervasive control and knowledge of events. To show that such a person exists or once did exist, you must be able to do at least two things: First, show that an action attributed to that person did in fact occur; Second, show that the action was in fact due to that person. "Proving" historical events we can postpone for now. Then we come to the second question, given an event can we prove that it was due to a particular cause? Well, experimentally we can (usually) do so only on a microlevel and often only via proper statistical analysis of a lot of data. But when we are dealing with events which aren't necessarily repeatable then we have to resort to less stringent methods and accept a degree of uncertainty. As for the "non sequitur", the only way you CAN show the existance of any god, other than by a direct experience of that entity (which you might deem inadmissible due to its unrepeatability or due to its subjective nature) is by examining past evidence of its actions. Any such evidence, even that which might be gathered in the very recent past, will be subject to the same constraints which you put on any historic evidence. There is of course the advantage that more recent evidence is usually better preserved and more accessible. As for proving the continuing existence of any person, the ONLY way to do it is via some wretchedly subjective experience, no? You have to TALK to them, touch them, etc. but how do you know this isn't just someone else acting out a part? I started to compose this reply last night in the middle of "Harvey" so forgive me if it seems a bit disjoint. >> Standard scientific method is not the most useful tool >> for examining history. You claim that religious claims of proof are flawed >> because they don't stand up to scientific inquiry. I claim that this isn't >> necessarily the best way to evaluate the claims. I do NOT assert that the >> claims should be unevaluated or that they should be flatly accepted. I do >> assert that you are attempting to misapply scientific method here. >> You cannot effectively use a wrench to tighten a screw. > >There are (at least) two sorts of religious claims of proof. Historical >ones, that may be attacked by showing that by historical standards (not >scientific ones) the evidence is not compelling; and what I'll call >"scientific" claims, such as answered prayer, watchmaker arguments, etc. > >If you think I'm not using the appropriate historical or scientific >arguments, you may cite the specific cases. You reject historic accounts of miracles outright. This is an invalid argument from an historical perspective, AND a scientific perspective. You construct hypotheses about the phenomenon of answered prayer and accept them as true without actually testing them. This violates scientific standards. Do those suffice as specific cases? It is not enough to come up with an alternative, even a more likely alternative, unless you can come up with evidence that supports your alternative over the working explanation. >> [Much stuff removed in the interests of saving some space here] > >I'm pretty certain that we do have different acceptance criteria for >historical information. > >For example, you seem to only be concerned with how information is >propagated, rather than its origin. A falsehood can be as reliably >passed on as a truth. Not so. However, as I said, I don't automatically assume that someone is lying or deluded just because their claims don't fit my hypothesis. >You also seem to be a fan of Sherlock Holmes: "when the possible has been >eliminated, only the impossible remains." This sort of "proof" is >vulnerable on many fronts. If you don't enumerate all the possibilities, >or if you reject one for a bad reason, then you may be lead to believe >the impossible falsely. Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies for the >latter reason (the perpetrator of the fraudulent photographs recently >confessed, 60 years later.) I think my explanation of the biblical >writings is quite possible: thus you shouldn't accept the traditional, >superstitious, "impossible" ones. Actually I am more a fan of Moriarty :=) There is no such thing as "impossible". There are degrees of improbability. There are observed events. If there is any reason to believe that the data which are presented to support interpretation of an event are fraudulent then of course the data are given much less weight. However, just because there was fraud does not invalidate everything. Sir A.C.Doyle was not sufficiently acquainted with photographic techniques to be able to tell the difference. He violated his own methodology when he accepted those photos without investigating this possibility. >My acceptance of historical information is based on whether the source(s) >could reasonably want to falsify it. For example, there's no lack of >evidence of WWII: too many people of too many persuasions experienced it, >saw the evidence after the war, and recorded it. But should we believe >Moses talked with God any more than we believe Falwell or Moon or others? >They all have strong reasons to lie, to form and control large organizations. > >Jesus and his apostles working together for years making their living on >the prophet circuit had plenty of economic and social reasons to lie. >The same way modern faith healing shows make claims of cures, and >stage phony healings. Jesus worked the "prophet circuit" for no more than three years. His apostles worked the "prophet circuit" for around sixty years after that. You seem to be claiming that He got kicks out of being rich and out of having all these gullible people hanging on His every word. If in fact you completely discard the claims of miracles, then there might even be something to that assertion. I assert that you are premature in discarding those claims. There are strong indications that He knew that He would be tortured to death. It seems very unlikely that a charlatan would continue to make such claims, right up to the point of being tried for blasphemy and heresy TWICE. Further, there is the personality revealed by these accounts. Jesus of Nazareth didn't come off as being stupid, nor as being dishonest with Himself and others. That kind of dishonesty usually results in the kind of situation that happens with folks like Myong Myung Moon, or Rajneesh (I refuse to give him either of the other two titles he claims), in that there are those who LEAVE the group disenchanted with the leader or the people who surround the leader. In fact, there is no evidence that there WERE such people, other than Judas Iscariot. The Sanhedrin USED their right to preach to the masses and to set the form of the prayers in the various lesser temples. They taught current doctrine and denounced false prophets. They used evidence from the disenchanted fallen-away disciples of false prophets in order to bust up the cults when the cults were too strange. >> >I will test the hypotheses of systems that provide superior standards of >> >proof to those of Christianity and other religions. After all, I only have >> >limited time and resources. I've already devoted more time and belief to >> >Christianity (until my teens) than it has shown me to deserve. >> >> In that case, why do you bother trying to disprove them?? If you are going >> to ignore them, ignore them. If not, then you are being dishonest to attack >> them without actively considering their merits. > >I have already considered their merits, and found them lacking. But pardon >me if I try to help others to the same understanding. There's no reason >for everyone to have to explore the same paths to understanding, when I can >freely give the fruit of my labors. There's no reason then for you to have to consider the merits of Christianity since I already did so. Let me decide for YOU. Oh, come ON, Mike! Do you believe EVERYTHING you believed as a teenager? Do you honestly think that nothing new has been learned since then? That you found, at that time, everything that there was to consider? (Sorry. This is getting personal. I applaud your convictions and your willingness to share them and discuss them.) >> I am also interested in how you will deal with those anomalies which refuse >> to fit inside the framework provided by strict scientific method. There is >> a materialist philosophy which seems to be the default philosophy used to >> cope with these problems. Usually it does so by denying that they exist. >> Do you adhere to this amorphous materialism? > >It is possible to construct "anomalies" that won't fit into any system. >Say you hear a report that god appeared to someone and demanded that we >kill and eat everyone until there is only one human left? Would you deny >that this anolmalie occurred? If there was enough evidence that it had actually occurred, I would say that there was in fact such an anomaly. I would attempt to integrate it into existing systems. (It would contradict prior evidence about the nature of God, you see.) >I am a scientific materialist (or at least attempt to be.) If something >comes up that doesn't ostensibly fit, I would first try to confirm it, >and failing that, if I can find an explanation in human motivation, I >would tentatively assign it fictional status. >-- > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh I attempt to apply materialism wherever it is reasonable to do so, but since not all things really fit the paradigms as I understand them, I resort to other methods when necessary. I don't assign fictional status to anything until I have very good reason to believe it was deliberate fiction. The case you give sounds more like a delusion, a bad dream, or demonic encounter. Without further information I would probably assign it that status. Fiction is something deliberate. We've gotten kind of far from the topic of "what it means to talk to God". Do you want to continue in that discussion? Hutch