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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: what does it mean to talk to God [a brief attempt at an answer]
Message-ID: <542@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-May-85 18:35:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.542
Posted: Wed May 22 18:35:30 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 07:45:46 EDT
References: <1383@shark.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 190

In article <1383@shark.UUCP> net.religion@shark.UUCP writes:
> In article <504@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
> >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.

I can just see someone 2000 years from now trying to classify current
literature's historicity as mythical or historical by the literary style.
It wouldn't work, and it probably doesn't work for Biblical literature either.

Oh, and the transcribers of things like the Book of Mormon were more
skeptical than you or I would be.  After all, they wouldn't want to be
mislead....

I remain skeptical of claims of miracles, and assume them false until I am
convinced otherwise.

> >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.

I reject specific historic accounts, because they are too poorly supported
by reasonable historic standards.  The fact is that where the miracles of
bible might have left archaeological evidence (like the flood), the evidence
does not exist.  And there is no supporting literary evidence of the other
purported miracles.

> You construct hypotheses about the phenomenon of answered prayer and accept
> them as true without actually testing them.  This violates scientific
> standards.

Isn't it funny that if answered prayer is real, either everybody's prayers
are answered or those whose prayers are answered wish for undiscernable
things?  You'd think that people whose prayers were answered would be more
prosperous or something.  But nobody's found a statistical difference.
There is a lack of supporting evidence for the hypothesis of answered
prayer.  Therefore there's no reason to retain it.  That's one of the ways
science works.

> 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.

Occam's razor says otherwise.

> >> [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.

Not an assumption: an inference.  But anyhow, just how do you explain
all those other religions then?  Do you assume their prophets and sacred
texts all lying or deluded?  Or do you just put your mind in neutral?  :-)

> >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.

The STORY is that he knew.  There's no reason why he wouldn't have been
sufficiently aware to suspect he might.  But the story is SO much improved if
he predicts it and yet does it anyhow.

> 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.

Isn't it funny, that the nonexistent organization of disenchanted early
Christians did not produce extensive literature and preserve it till today,
through 20 centuries of Christian bookburning, etc.  Gee, where is all the
literature of the disenchanted early Moslems and Hindus?

> >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!

Shame on you for misrepresenting me like that.  I do not require others to
accept my reasoning without explantion: heck, I'm even explaining it to
"hostiles" like you.  :-)

> >> 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.)

As would I.  That's why I want better proof for miracles before I add
Gods and such to my world view.
 
> >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.
> 
> 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.

Such as what when?

> 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.

Funny, my dictionary says "ficticious... implies fabrication... more than
deliberate falsification or deception".  But that's besides the point:
I mean "not true", without necessarily assigning responsibility for the
falsehood.

> 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?

Sure.  I still think of that expression as a euphemism for talking to oneself
or deluding oneself about the source of thoughts.
-- 

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