From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: Justifying Views related to Valid Proof
Organization: Xerox PARC
Distribution: world, public
Date: 29 Jul 92 04:26:04 GMT

In <1992Jul23.194143.29373@nmsu.edu> Stephen Doe wrote about Jarek's
standards, about The Multiple Only Way, and the psychology of the Bible: 

*** JAREK'S STANDARDS FOR (accept X? reject X? change view?) ***
>>>>>>>  1) is X logical?
>>>>>>>  2) is X useful to Jarek?
>>>>>>>  3) is X acceptable to Jarek?
>>>>>>>  4) is X compatible with Jarek's world view?
-Jarek:
>>>>the more complicated model is unacceptable (Occam Razor). 
-Steve:
>>>what if both models are equally complex, or equally "acceptable,"
-Jarek:
>>[not a problem,] it doesn't matter to me which model I accept. 
>-Steve:
>No, it is because I assume that you wish to reach the truth,
>
Truth? What 'truth'? I am an agnostic, Steve. The only 'truth' one can
reach is the truth which is true according to one's own definition of
truth. While such truths can be useful in practice, their ontological
status can never go beyond wild speculations. So when I see two models
which are mutually exclusive and which don't differ by anything which I
find important, I am not troubled at all by having to throw dices.

No, I don't look for 'truth' because I know I can't know whether I found
it or not. I look for my self, for views which are in agreement with my
self, because my self is the only reference point I can directly access.
I don't know whether this will lead me to truth or to falsehood, but as
there's no way to tell how far from the "absolute truth" (if it exists)
I am, I have chosen a way which can at least assure that "I am as I am".
Remember "Lucky Man"? "You'd be better by far/ To be just what you are/
You can be what you want/ If you are what you are/ And there's the Lucky
Man"... 

-Jarek:
>>The crux is, as you noted, what is understood by useful, by acceptable,
>>and what does one's world view actually contain. These are subjective,
>>personal variables in a quite objective, general block diagram [...]
-Steve:
>Ah, but your standards, with the exception of the requirement for
>logical consistency, seem totally subjective.
>
What are your standards, Steve? I'll try to reduce them to my scheme. 

-Steve:
>>> And how do [these variables] change for other people?
-Jarek:
>>Who knows? I am not "other people" :-D.
-Steve:
>If I include a hallucination as part of my "input data" as you put it,
>how do I decide whether or not the experience is relevant?
>
If your world view cares for objective science (as my does), you will
check against the objectivity criterion all what CAN be checked; this
will remove hallucination (item 4) from being fed into the scientific
machinery. Still, you may retain your hallucination as carying some
meta-scientific (subjective) information. Or you may reject it for any
reason which is convincing to you. And if you don't care for objective
science, you'll never be accepted as a scientist; that's all.

>>>>************ IS JAREK A FALSE PROPHET? *******
-Steve:
>You said it is possible to reach God through religious and
>philosophical traditions other than Christianity, a position that
>Scripture emphatically denies. 
>  
Does it? As far as I know, the Old Testament speaks about the Law FOR
JEWS (ask any Jew). As for the New Testament - well, I've discussed it
in my previous post and this subject is still pending:

-Steve:
>1)  Christ also said that he came not to destroy the Law, but to
>fulfill it.  He even said the Law would remain unchanged until heaven
>and earth passed away.
>
Exactly. The Law. The Word of God. Not the Word of Man. To tell them
apart you must know God. As I said:

-Jarek:
>>You've given the satisfactory argument: "No one comes to the Father but
>>through me"... You may also search for the quotes which say that it is
>>not the Law, but the proximity to God that counts. And which say that
>>you may have a deep knowledge of the Word but have no knowledge of God.
>>And which say that one should love God as children do (children have no
>>knowledge of the Written Law, mind you). 

-Steve:
>2)  It is my contention that no matter what your interpretation is,
>one can find a Bible passage that is in contradiction with that
>interpretation.
>
The Bible is a Big Book and has many passages, so we can discuss this
for ages. But I don't mind. And there's no other way to support your
contention but by checking it passage by passage...

-Steve:
>Why do you think we now have so many denominations of Christianity 
>
I think I've made it clear in my previous post... Different view points. 
The same God.

-Steve:
>It is my understanding that salvation was achieved through Christ's
>suffering and Resurrection.  Sounds pretty essential to me.
>
AND IS THE SAME TO ME. I don't see your problem. Please check my
complete comments on this issue and tell me what was unclear. 

-Jarek:
>>Not exactly. I say: "If the Bible leads me to God, then it really means
>>TO ME what it should mean TO ME. And God is the Judge". Now please find
>>a Christian which will tell you that the Bible should not lead to God.
-Steve:
>I can find you plenty of Christians who will say that ONLY the Bible
>will lead you to God.
>
Indeed. But they will also tell you that God is the Judge; they simply
believe that their way is the ONLY way but they will NEVER tell you that
their judgement or belief is ABOVE the judgement of God. 

>>>>********* DID JAREK CONSIDER REJECTION OF CHRISTIANITY ****
-Jarek:
>>>>I had been an atheist for many years. 
-Steve:
>>>My family is RC [...] Eventually I realized [...] so I quit [...]

-Steve:
>I am now convinced that [my arguments against Christianity] are
>correct, regardless of my motives in searching for them. 
>
Sounds reasonable. Though, of course, *I* find no such arguments against
Christianity which would make ME reject it. But that's another story.
 
Thanks for the reference to Cohen's book; I may have a look into it one
day. Still, as I don't argue that the Bible IS TRUE BECAUSE it was a
great psychological success but I say that I ACCEPT the Bible because I
find that the message I find in it AGREES with what I feel about God, I
won't be much impressed by any convincing psychological explanation of
the success of the Bible... You see, it is tangential to the problem...


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic