From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re:  Science and god:  Are they incompatible?  If so, why?
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:02:34 GMT

In article <1e9jrsINNolh@gap.caltech.edu> lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

>Many Christians claim that their religion is the one true religion.  They also
>claim that the religion has been passed down from the time of Jesus.  I'm
>merely pointing out conclusions that follow from their own claims. 
>Interestingly, you're the first person in several years to make this argument. 
>The standard response is "Those weren't REAL Christians."

	"Here's a way of looking at the problem: suppose that there
was a reputedly great professor of, oh, say literature.  Now, suppose
that the method by which he's supposed to teach is that his students
are supposed to study alone a few hours a day, and then, if they've
done the preparatory work and sit quietly at a prearranged time with
an honest interest in literature, his lecture is delivered by
telepathy.  Now, since he isn't limited by class size or anything,
there's no formal registration process.  Anyone can be a student of
Doctor Bright simply by following the prescribed procedure.  Suppose
also that Bright won't teach people who are only interested in
determining whether Bright exists or not-- because he's interested in
a teacher-student dialogue about literature, not himself-- so that if
someone tries the course of study with a primary interest in that and
not in literature he won't get the telepathic lecture.

	"Now, suppose that it can be socially advantageous to be known
a student of Dr. Bright.  Suppose further that claiming to be an
advanced student gains one a good reputation in some circles.  Now,
there are people who undergo the prescribed course of study, people
who do the reading but never bother with the lectures (and thus may
have their own insights into the material, but not Dr. Bright's),
those who listen to the lectures while skimping the reading (so that
sometimes Dr. Bright is talking over their heads), and those who do
nothing, due to lack of interest but say they did.  All of these
people claim to be students of Dr. Bright.  Add in the fact that the
students of Dr. Bright have differing aptitudes for the material--
someone who doesn't study at all and just reads the Cliff notes may
have a clearer idea of the themes of _Crime and Punishment_ than a
lesser student who did all the work but just isn't very good at it.

	"Suppose now that there are other students who are wondering
if Dr. Bright is all he's cracked up to be.  After all, there are
people who've never tried to talk to Dr. Bright who know more about
literature than many of Dr. Bright's alleged students.  There are
students of Dr. Bright who are complete ignoramuses about literature.
Indeed, there's no clear evidence that a random student of Dr. Bright,
viewed externally, is any good at literature at all.

	"Now, Dr. Bright may know who's really studying and who isn't,
and may be making a list of who gets to go on to advanced study.  And
that may even include some students not taking his course.  But if he
doesn't want people studying just to impress others with their
studiousness, he isn't going to release the list.  So those who view
the Students of Dr. Bright from the outside may well demand to know
what evidence they have that Bright isn't just a charlatan, if he
exists at all.  This may happen even if Bright is the greatest teacher
that ever lived-- an outsider might say that sure, some of his
students are excellent, but that may just be dumb luck or prior
knowledge of literature.  And given the fact that Bright's best
students are likely to be the ones who are quietest about their
achievement (since they aren't in it for the image of being a Student
of Dr. Bright, but for the love of the literature itself), it becomes
even tougher to detect a noticeable influence coming from Bright.

	"The problem is basically that the same term is used for two
classes: those people who identify themselves as Students of Dr.
Bright, and those people who are actually studying.  An outsider might
not believe in the distinction-- "Sure, go ahead, say that bozo who
confused _Of Mice and Men_ with _Stuart Little_ isn't a _real_ Student
of Dr. Bright.  Funny how all the loud, obnoxious folks who make a big
point of being his students never seem to be able to tell the
difference between Jean Valjean and Jane Eyre.  What's the big deal
about Bright anyway, if so many of his students are so stupid?"  Well,
what sort of response could someone who actually did the work-- not
perfectly, to be sure, and not without skipping the occasional night--
make to the charges?  His own aptitudes may only be middling, so that
he's not getting the full benefit of Dr. Bright's expertise and he
can't point to himself as a brilliant example of the program (even
though he may know a hundred times as much about literature as he did
when he started).  He doesn't _know_ who's studying and who doesn't,
and Dr. Bright doesn't approve of speculating about his other
students.  And there it stands-- _he's_ studied under Bright, and
benefitted from it, but can't prove to a skeptic that Bright is
anything more than a superstition made up by self-important lit
students."

Michael
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Indeed I tremble for my country
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 when I reflect that God is just."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
mss2@amber.uchicago.edu		    Virginia (1784)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans