From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: And over to you Sean... (a mixed bag of subjects)
Date: 8 Jan 93 04:11:39 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <root.726436155@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>
>>For what it's worth, I think what you're up against is a conflict between
>>your ideals and the world you find yourself in. I sympathize with the
>>desire to believe in God, I think I understand it; I know at some level
>>I share it. Same for free will. These beliefs have a certain beauty,
>>and more than that, they both take our minds of the imminence of death,
>>_and_ promise an escape from death. 
>
> So in the end, you think that God and free-will are both simply illusions
> that I use to keep myself sane?  Perhaps 'illusion' isn't the right word,
> but it does seem to fit. 

Well, 'delusion' might be a better word. A delusion is when a person
gets confused about what is imaginary and what isn't. I think you have
a vested interest in maintaining these beliefs _regardless_ of whether
or not they are true. Free will is pretty obviously untrue -- God is
a bit trickier. Some sort of creator being may well exist! Why not?
But you want to say (to yourself?) that these things _are_ true (when one 
isn't, and one is beyond settling) for your own reasons. That's cheating. :)
 
> Not saying *I* think they are illusionary, just
> that it seems to be where you're trying to (nicely) lead me...

I would put the emphasis on the self-deceptive mental process involved
in believing in things you have no way of knowing are true. Maybe 
the belief in God is ILlusionary, maybe not. But it _is_ DElusionary.

So far, you've been extremely reasonable about taking a skeptical
attitude towards certain questions. But you seem to have a core set
of beliefs that are out-of-bounds for serious, earnest
questioning. We've discussed reasons why this may be, and again, 
you've been more than reasonable about acknowledging the factors
that seem to make belief necessary (apparently) for you. 

My purpose in discussing all this with you is two-fold. Firstly, I 
want to really know what makes believers tick, and you've been quite
kind to allow me to discuss your most personal concerns with you. It's
been worthwhile for me, so far. Secondly, there is a way out of your
dilemma, and life is a lot more fun and beautiful if one takes it.
Now, it is none of my business how you live your life, that's for sure. 
But as long as you're even mildly interested, I don't mind trying to show
you that there is another way to live. However, as Oscar Wilde said,
"Education is an admirable thing, but it is good to remember from time
to time that nothing worth knowing can be taught."  You have to do it
yourself, and obviously, unless you want to, you won't. 

If the time ever comes that all this craziness about fine points of
ideological dogma begins to just make you tired, maybe you'll remember
some of the things we've talked about, and they can be perhaps a little
pointer in a useful direction, for YOUR voyage on an uncharted sea.
We are surrounded by mystery! Yet we cling to these childish fantasies
that we think make us safe, and dream away what may be our only life.
I sometimes think that if there is a Creator, he must like it better
if we stare around us in bogglement and wonder, rather than thinking
in our vanity that we have the Inside Info on the state of the universe.
Might that not be the only kind of true worship available, if such 
a being exists? I dunno. Idle thoughts from an idle fellow. End of
sermon. :)

>>if God thinks good and evil are real, he's as deluded as we are. 
>>Another reason I can't believe in this moralist God. God shouldn't
>>be stupider than some of his creations. 
> 
> Actually, this seems somewhat of a monist position - God is responsible for
> everything good and bad.  The question is whether or not God judges us
> based on arbitrary "Good" and "Bad" or on merit....

Da fact is, "good" and "bad" are just names.  Also, "merit" is just
a name. Just because God says a beachball is "bad" doesn't mean 
anything. It only means God thinks the beachball is "bad."
What does "bad" mean? It means God doesn't like X.  So what?
If he thinks that a thing is "evil" in some absolute sense just because
he doesn't like it, he's as much of a twit as we humans are. 

> Of course, this is a basic problem with justification by faith...if God
> judges on merit, simple faith just ain't enough....

I'm questioning the ultimate validity of terms like "merit." If God says
a beachball is the USS Iowa, does that make it so?  In fact a beachball
is what it is, and that's all it is. To call it "good" is an act of
the imagination, a _fictionalizing_ of the ball -- no matter _who_ does it.

Re: No man comes to the Father but by me 

> The Father is God and Jesus is God.  They are one in the same.  To quote
> the creed "of one being with the father."  Jesus was also a man, made
> incarnate, etc, etc.  You probably know the creeds as well as I, and I do
> believe the creeds.

Uhhh...your original quotation then reduces to: No man comes to me but by me!
Pretty deep...:)    Yep, I know the creeds (sort of) so I think I know
where you stand, but....
 
..you didn't answer part II, which was "why do you think this is who Jesus
is?"  Very important!
 
> Of course, there is the metaphorical aspect, which I suspect you'll be
> happy to tell us about right now! ;-)

All in good time, grasshopper. :)

>>I wanna be famous as the advocatus diaboli whose cunning dialogue
>>led St. Stephen to the revolutionary theology that finally brought about
>>the conversion of the Jews, et al. and brought about the Millenium...:)
>
> You got it...you'll get the dedication.  Boy will that piss off my wife!
> ;-)
 
Whee...fame at last! Hop to it, then laddie! Get that _Summa Contra Sean_
rolling...:)
 

>>Ouch...that means I was created in order to be a force for evil in the
>>world? Well, heck.
> 
> Nah - you were created to be my own personal cross to bear! ;-)  (That's a
> joke, son!)

Heh heh! Maybe I should put that in my .sig...:)

> But yeah, if you ask good ol' John Calvin, God created you
> with the full intent to send you to hell.  See why I can't stand Calvinism?
> Or Predestination?  I mean if you exercise free-will, then no problem.  But
> otherwise?  Yech.

Yeah! I'm way too nice a guy to get sent to hell. My mom thinks so, too.


Re: Wife and kids 

>>I bet it does! But we are condemned to freedom. (Freedom, not free will! :)
>>You are free whether you want to be or not. You can always walk away
>>from your wife and kids. If you abandon your moral ideology, you will
>>be free to do this or not do it. If you stay, it will be because you
>>_want_ to, not because you feel you should. 
> 
> Can I walk away from my wife and kids?  I don't think so.  I guess perhaps
> if I did completely abandon every moral that I had, but even so, I don't
> think I could stop loving them, and that's enough to keep me from doing it.
> Am I theoretically free to leave?  Yes.  Emotionally?  No.

Wham! Wham! Yet another nail in the coffin of free will, eh?  
Remember though, this is not an argument for determinism. In actuality,
free will and determinism are the two extreme halves of the paradox that 
most accurately describes this matter. Our feeling of freedom and choice
is a process over which we have no control. Weird, but that's life
for you.

>>But people who really _want_ to
>>be good have never needed an external code to tell them how to do this,
>>although sometimes they may think they do.
> 
> I agree....but it is comforting to have a code to measure oneself by.
 
Ahh...but why? Not because the code is so wonderful, but because of our
vanity! We want to know that we are good boys and girls, so we can
feel all warm inside. This, too, is vanity.  :)

And now we're back to the question of narcissism. Isn't this fun?? :)

>  -Steve

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

A throw of the dice will never abolish Chance.
- Mallarme
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc