From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief (was Luke, Derrida, etc.)
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:55:26 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <adams.725035616@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
>>Steve Adams writes:
>>
>>Re: Elaine Pagels

Well, if you get a chance and the spirit moves you, check out her book
I mentioned. It's not long, and it's easy reading. Enough said.

> [on accepting Jesus]
>>>>I guess, technically, I've done my part. :) 
>>> You have to confess with your mind and your heart that Jesus is Lord...
>>Whoa...!  Really?
> Yep!  Or so the Good Book says...or at least Paul...and we know what you
> think of the travelling salesman.

Right. But, as I tried to explain below, that statement, if true, 
eliminates the "free will" aspect of the salvation plan, nullifying the
whole shootin' match.  

>>Think about that for a second. A person cannot control what the impulses
>>of their "heart" are, by definition. You've just asserted that the act
>>of _accepting salvation_ is 100% out of the hands of the individual.
>
> :-)  God gives grace to those who will accept it.  Basically, all you can
> do is stop saying 'No' to God and he does the rest.

Wait, now. In my first remark on this subject I said that I had stopped saying
"no" and that nothing had happened, nevertheless I try to be a good boy
anyway.  You replied: sorry, you have to confess with your mind (which
I did), AND with your heart (which I didn't).  By definition, the impulses
of the heart are spontaneous, uncontrolled, unless they are forced. "Forced"
feelings are universally regarded as yucky and horrible -- 
are you saying that I must fake spontaneous confession of the heart? 
If you aren't, then you are saying that a) I am not saved, and b) I can
do nothing to alter that state.  You are placing the WHOLE business in 
God's hands. Man cannot even choose to accept grace or not. He just
gets it or doesn't.

>>In effect, that only the "elect" (those whose hearts run that way) will
>>be saved. So much for free will, etc. etc. Booom whoosh crunch...geez did
>
> The 'free will' part is in saying 'No' to God.  When you stop saying 'No',
> then you receive the grace...round and round we go, where we stop, nobody
> knows.

For starters, we agreed that free will was a myth back in September, so what
are we arguing about? :)  Second, your remark above is obviously false -
because I stopped saying "no" and didn't receive the grace, and I am certainly
not alone in this. 

I suspect you probably know all this, and are just playing "advocatus Pauli"
for me. :)

Re: Bible stories fictional?
 
>>
>>Heck, I forget the details of that story...it's been years. But I would
>>read that more as Jacob wrestling with God. Next question: from what we know
>>about Yahweh, and what he is a metaphor for, what does it mean to wrestle
>>is what they were originally, I'm sure. I'm sure they were never intended as
>>history, any more, than say, the Arthurian cycles were. 
> 
> Were they?  Assume for a moment that they are just 'stories,' and not
> divinely inspired documents.  Think about that for a moment.  In this case,
> these 'stories,' told by early story tellers, were likely considered as 
> logical explanations for how things came to pass.  They were likely
> believed by the people as 'truth'...whatever that is!

Oh, certainly they were. You're 100% right, I think. As a student of literature,
I run across this phenomenon all the time. The Iliad and Odyssey were regarded
as more or less historical for centuries. Heck, most of the Greek myths,
which seem to us to be pretty obviously fictional, were regarded as 
historical. Socrates got in trouble for denying their historicity, I seem to
recall. In more modern times, authors like Daniel Defoe and Edgar Allan Poe
have tried to pass off novels as non-fiction, and been believed (for a while). 
Heck, in the Middle Ages, a lot of those apocrypal Mary stories were 
regarded as historical, along with all those saints' lives. All it takes
is for one generation to pass, for all the people who witnessed the events
in question to die off, for legends to become regarded as fact. 

We can see this process in reverse today, in the people who try to 
push the idea that the Holocaust never happened. You think people aren't
credulous?  There are people who seriously believe the Holocaust never 
happened, despite films of the death camps ("faked"), survivors' testimony
("lies") etc. etc.

>>>[About 'belief' vs. 'unknowing belief']

>>You see, God is not a directly apprehendable thing, the way these characters
>>on your screen are. God is a matter of interpretation -- God is only seen in
>>his works, never directly. 
>
> Agreed.  I have never seen God.  I can relate.
> 
>>So, in order for you to sincerely think that
>>he exists, you must regard your interpretation as correct, and in fact
>>there is no way to know if this is the case. There is no way to even
>>measure likelihoods of one interpretation's correctness vs. those of others.
> "I think therefore I am"?  In other words, I have my hypothesis, which I
> believe to be correct in light of my view of the universe and the 'answers'
> to the unknowns?

More or less, yep. As for the Descartes thingy, it's more accurately rendered
as "I think I think, therefore I think I am." :)

>>There are an infinite number of possible hypothesis to explain any given
>>phenomenon -- this means that sincere belief is ALWAYS based on a totally
>>unsupportable conclusion.  
> Agreed...
> 
>>Now, my personal bias is to say that God does NOT exist. In fact, it seems
>>pretty clear to me that he doesn't, at least not the God of the Bible.
>>However, if I indulge in regarding my tentative conclusion as being
>>accurate, I am deluding myself, because there are an infinite number
>>of other hypotheses that explain life as I experience it besides the
>>scientific materialist one that appeals to me so.  In other words --
>>yes, I really think there is no God, but no, I don't trust what I 
>>think for a minute. That is to say, I believe, but I don't believe
>>in my beliefs.  
> 
> In other words, you're agnostic! ;-)  Kind of a long-winded way to say it,
> isn't it???

Not just an agnostic. The term I like to use is "Recursive meta-agnostic." :)
In other words, not only do I see that it is impossible for me to make 
a judgement about God's existence, I see that I can't even be sure about 
that!  Or about THAT! (ad infinitum)   

My uncertainty is total and absolute -- I am even uncertain if I am condemned
to uncertainty.   Faith, or belief of any kind, is really meaningless,
since we are surrounded by total mystery. There is not one thing we can be sure
of -- not even taxes. This is one way to tackle the issue of belief, although
not my personal favourite. Nevertheless, I hope I've made it clear that
sincere belief of any kind is silly. In fact, it is always a sign of
delusion. Someone who has sincere beliefs is subject to the delusion
that he or she can actually know anything.  

They may say otherwise, and often do. They will often nod and assert that they
"know that you can't know anything for sure,"  which is a sure sign they
don't get it, because we don't even know that! Our ignorance is infinite
and recursive.  The person who says they get this but then adds "well, I still
believe it, even though I don't really know if it's true" has missed the
boat, also. They have accepted this as an intellectual argument, but not
as the central fact of their lives. We are in the center of an absolute
mystery. Life is far, far, weirder than we give it credit for. 

You'll know you're getting a feel for this when you start to get scared.
Belief is a pleasant blindfold that keeps us from coming face to face
with the Void, which is the world where we have been living 
all along, where you stare the unfathomable and indifferent Mystery in the eye
every minute. No wonder we want to be blindfolded!
 
>>>Likely so.  'God' explains quite a few things that otherwise I wouldn't
>>>have an acceptable explanation for...
>>
>>Fair enough. But consider the points above -- there are an infinite
>>number of possible hypotheses that can explain the phenomena you
>>are thinking of. People believe in God because the notion appeals to them
>>on a non-rational level -- there can be no rational ground for any belief.
>
> I don't know about this...not sure I agree with it.

We have already established there is ultimately no grounds at all for
any belief. Obviously, then, people do not believe for rational reasons.
We believe because we are scared little creatures who are afraid to
die. And why the hell shouldn't we be?  So, having a belief means: 
living in a dream-world (literally),  playing make-believe all life
long, in order to hide our eyes from the mystery that seems to threaten
our existences.  That's why people get rattled when their beliefs get
shaken -- they catch a glimpse of the Void beyond the
dream. They feel the "cold hand of Death." Quite naturally, this
scares the bejesus out of them. How much nicer it is inside where it's
warm...

Belief (of any kind) is a folding screen we set up to curtain off death. 

(note that immortality doctrines are not necessary for this to be true)

Which of course means that my current efforts to "wake you up" are a
rather cruel form of aggression. However, I don't
think you're buying any of this, so I don't feel too bad...:) if it looked
like you were starting to realize that I'm not joking around, I'd cool it
a little.

ps. Where in the States are you (just out of curiosity)?
 
>  -Steve

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

If this were a .sig, it would be even more misleading than it already is.