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 17:57:17 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <root.726508832@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>
>>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. :)
> 
> Cheating, moi?  Mon Dieux!  In any event, 'delusion' has plenty of negative
> connotations...that's why I picked 'illusion' instead...

True. I don't mean to be critical, though. Centuries of ideological
in-fighting have made most words like that somewhat nasty in tone,
unfortunately.

> Could I interest
> you in limited free-will?  Some form of moral agency, which, although
> limited, allows me some choice and discretion that is not totally
> predicated on past experience?

Could you explain this a little more?

>>>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.
> 
> But am I actually deceiving myself?  Perhaps with a claim that "I know God
> exists" when I in fact do not...(ie I have no real physical proof)...
> In some respects, I see your point...as you've said, I do have some of the
> characteristics of a skeptic...yet refuse to not believe.

Maybe you _aren't_ deceiving yourself. Only you know for sure. But 
I think you're trying real hard...:)

>>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. 
> 
> Questioning by me, yes.  By you?  Not out of bounds.  But I reserve the
> right to be stubborn and pigheaded, just like the next human on the block.
> You're right, of course, that I do have a core, well 'protected' that I
> have not seen fit to challenge, nor at this point do I desire to.  But, I
> am aware of the situation...that's the first step, eh?

I would say so, yep. At the very least, I think you'll probably be happier
as an honest Christian, aware of the shaky character of your beliefs, 
but also knowing that you are unwilling to drop them. This self-knowledge
will give you a bit of peace-of-mind, I expect. It will free you from
feeling (if you ever have) threatened by people who hold opinions
different from your own. It will keep you humble...help make you a better
Christian, maybe?  You'll be free of the most pernicious feature of
ideology -- the ruthlessness that comes from thinking you really know
what's right and wrong. Humility is nothing but the tentativeness 
and gentleness that comes from knowing your own limitations. 
 
You may have some struggles with intellectual integrity, 
as you're doing now, but obviously you feel that is a price worth
paying for the benefits these beliefs confer. 

End of sermon. :)   Heh heh, you know, a minister friend of mine
keeps trying to get me to go to theology school...I seem to be verbose
and preachy enough for the ministry...I wonder...

Nahh....:)

>>Secondly, there is a way out of your
>>dilemma, and life is a lot more fun and beautiful if one takes it.
>
> At least in your opinion, eh? ;-)  We talked a bit on this before, and as I
> said then, from my perspective, life is fun and beautiful.  For once, the
> grass is not greener on the other side of the fence....at least in *my*
> perception.  And of course, perceptions are funny things.

You're right -- I should have qualified that comment with "for me."
This really boils down to a question of _taste_, I am thinking. 
You like being an ideologue, I don't. Of all possible forms of
ideologue, a self-critical, sincere, good-natured Christian is 
probably the most benign. Who am I to criticize?

It seems quite reasonable to me that you and I might require 
different psychological conditions in order to thrive. Of course, 
none of this has anything to do with _truth!_ :)
  
>>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.
>
> Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a child-"ish" fantasy.  Perhaps
> child-"like".  The former seems insulting...The latter, seems like Christ.
> "Unless ye come to me as little children..."  Hmmm....

It isn't childlike, not in the sense I understand that term. The 
Christian fantasy has very beautiful elements, but also very evil ones.
A truly child-like faith would have no Hell.

Now, I say child-ish because the main elements of our being that attract us to
faith are fear and egotism, two qualities of childhood that most of us
would rather forget. 

What does J.C. mean when he says be like a little child? Does he mean
accept whatever you're told blindly? Children _don't_ do that. 
You oughta know that Steve... ("No! I don't wanna!")
Children are curious, they want to learn and understand, at least until
the school system gets hold of them.  In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus
specifies what kind of child he means: a 7-day old child! Think about
_that!_

>>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.
>
> We can't know anything about God for a fact....I can speculate, but I will
> always miss the mark.  The Bible is correct about the transcendant: His
> ways are higher than our ways, his thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
> We can never, ever figure God out...

Well, you still think you have the Inside Info. Which is, in this case, that
the _heart_ of the Inside Info is incomprehensible. Just another way
of thinking you know the score. You don't really know if God is
incomprehensible or not, comrade. This, too, is vanity...:)


>>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...interesting comment from that perspective...hmm, I'll have to think
> about that one some more.

You crack me up sometimes, you silly goose! :)
 
>>..you didn't answer part II, which was "why do you think this is who Jesus
>>is?"  Very important!
>
> To quote a song I remember from when I was little, "for the Bible tells me 
> so...", and all kidding aside, that's why.  Remember, I accept the Bible as
> the inspired word of God, so my thoughts on Jesus are simply reflections of
> the Gospels and Paul, as seen through my experiences...

Remember -- the Trinitarian doctrine you espouse is not spelled out
in the Bible. Strong cases have been made for various other 
positions...why do you accept the Council of Nicaea's (et.al) decisions
about which interpretation of the Bible is inspired and which isn't?

In other words, why do you accept the Bible as the inspired word of God?
And why the Trinitarian position?

>>Re: Wife and kids 
>>
>>>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?  
>
> Sure enough...but refer above to my 'limited free will'...do I escape? ;-)

I'll wait until I think I understand this concept before I reply...but
I suspect you don't escape.  Because _every single thing you do_
is motivated by an impulse you did not create!  You did not choose
to love your kids -- you just do! And _that_ is what motivates you
WRT this hypothetical choice.   You did not choose to like being
an ideologue -- you just like it! You really had no choice but to
believe in God.  Or rather, you did have a choice, but the dice
were loaded. 

Here's my argument against free will in a nutshell -- the dice are
always loaded.

>>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.
>
> Hmm...we are not even free to think we are or aren't free?  Wow...

Actually, what I meant was that whatever attitude a person has, for example,
towards the question of free will, they can have no other, the universe
being what it is. 


>  -Steve

Sean Hartigan                      Created by God to torment Steve Adams!
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Life, don't talk to me about life...