From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: And over to you, Sean... (anyone else can play - just jump in!)
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:17:16 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <adams.725843387@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>>>Do you have this sense of dissonance now, considering all the things we've
>>>talked about, the atheist arguments on the net, etc? If not,
>>>this leads to an interesting point. I'm still trying to work this out
>>>in my head, but I'm thinking more and more that intellectual concerns
>>>are largely irrelevant to the question of belief/unbelief.
>>
>>I'd have to say yes, that sense of dissonance actually started from our
>>major conversation last fall...;-)  In any event, in thinking, 'belief'
>>often counters intellect.  In this case, I'd have to say that I suffer from
>>some form of psychological blinders...most likely mindset or thought habit.
>>Both errors in logic generally cause the mind to reject evidence
>>contradictory to belief.  [Damn logic class I took!]  How's that for
>>self-analysis? ;-)
>
>heh heh! Not bad! BTW, have you been following the Orwell thread? 
Thanx, and yes, I've been following that...I think Dogbert hit this one too,
last week 'Do you yield to my superior technology?' ;-)

>I'm thinking
>this is a matter of motivation, i.e. that if your motivation to suppress
>your intellectual sense of "rightness" is stronger than your motivation
>to recognize it, than you can maintain belief in spite of contrary
>evidence. In other words, you are a practitioner of "doublethink." 
I'd have to say yes, that's true.  And, as we've said before, the source of
the motivation would appear to be fear.  I'd have to say that it was fear
of 'the end' actually being the end, if you know what I mean.  Some
self-examination has shown me that I truly do fear death being the end of
everything...

>You both recognize that your belief has no rational basis, and retain
>a rational conviction in that belief. You are a skeptic, and a blind believer,
>at the same time. You are having your cake and eating it, too. Nice trick! :)
More or less...the trick is getting it all worked out...without getting
stuck in predestination!

>>So I'd have to agree with you that intellectual concerns are hardly relevant
>>to belief.
>
>Ultimately, they are perhaps only one factor among many. And not the
>strongest factor, either, eh?

Right, at least from what I can see from this vantage point.  There are
many things that I 'know' that give rise to skepticism.  I can give you all
of the counter-arguments for most of my beliefs, and, in the past, I've
argued them to a winning conclusion...bleh.  Great for debate class, and
great for defending ones position (when you know the other side's
arguments, you're up one point), but lousy when trying to keep one's
beliefs in line.  The free-will/predesitnation discussion was a tough one
on me...

>>>You know at least as much as I do about the historical data regarding
>>>Xianity.  
>> Sean...personal request...please don't use this form (ie 'X')...
>
>My apologies...I just do that for the sake of brevity. I _do_ think
>its kind of funny (and in a way, kind of accurate! "X" is a variable,
>after all, symbol of the unknown factor in an equation), but if it
>offends, I shall desist. Behold, I am vile....

I like that 'unknown' idea, but the issue here is that certain rabid
anti-Christians use it with intent to offend, and well, it just bugs me at
the moment...do as you wish, though.

>>This goes to some other types of psychological blinders: attitudes,
>>sterotypes, and identification.  Identification is paterning ones life
>>after some admired person or ideal without considering the ramifications.
>>To some extent, both of us suffer from a bit of both, at least in examining
>>evidence.  You seem a lot closer to a clear, objective view, though.
>
>I am fortunate in that I have nothing to defend, in this arena. The existence
>of God is ultimately irrelevant from the point of view of human
>happiness, and of ultimate truth. And I have no real axe to grind with 
>Christianity anymore...if I thought God was real, I'd have no
>qualms at all about submitting to his will. 

The irrelevence of God is something I cannot hold to.  To me, God is
totally relevent....this is the the core of our difference, I think.

>As for how we examine evidence, I admit that I find the scientific materialist
>account of the origin of life, of the history of the universe, much more
>intellectually satisfying than the Christian one, or the Babylonian one,
>etc. etc.  
Well, here is one of my major issues...a good friend of mine, who is a
Biblical literalist and I have been over this one again and again.  I have
a very hard time with Genesis 1-7.  Mostly because of all the science I
learned over the years.  I just don't believe that all of the archaeology
and dating of objects is a giant conspiracy directed against religion.

What's interesting, though, is that he finds it strange that I have an easy
time accepting the NT miracles and the resurection while having problems
with Genesis, while he has no problem accepting Genesis, but had some
problem with the miracles in the NT.

>It's dull as ditchwater,
>because it's so phony and artificial, and it has virtually no 
>predictive power. It's cheating, I think. Dixi! 
Ah, but what if Genesis is poetry...as we've said?  Remember Paul Harvey's
and my theoretical discussion about the Fall?

>And now, let's hear from the other camp....:)
Not from me, pal...I have problems with creationism...literal 24-hour days,
and all that.  Earth only ~4000 years old. &c.

>>>To my mind, this is a sign that the dilemma is a false one. That is, there
>>>is a third option which resolves this contradiction, i.e. the doctrine is
>>>false.  It does not check out with reality in either case -- free will
>>>is a myth, as we agreed, and predestination is inconsistent with your
>>>perception of what you call "God." 
>>
>>In general, if a dilemma is false if there exists another option that
>>removes the dilemma. 
>
>In this case the other option is: Paul had an epileptic seizure of the
>temporal lobes on the road to Damascus, and not a visitation from the creator
>of this infinite universe.

Well...in this case, then we revert back to the Gospels 'No man comes to
the father but by me.'  Now what?

>>Since the Bible clearly states that some people will go to hell, then 
>>Iranaeus can't be right (ie everyone goes to heaven).  Since the Bible 
>>also clearly says that some people will go to heaven, then the alternative 
>>that all are damned must be rejected.
>> 
>>That leaves either free-will, predestination, or (!) no salvation (at least
>>as Christians know it).
>
>And we _know_ free will is out. Uh oh....
Yeah, yeah...get off my case, eh? ;-)  When I do work all of this out (!)
you'll be the third to know (right after my PhD committee and publisher!)
:-)

>>To quote the Paulist party line, 'bad faith' is no faith...you have to
>>truly and completely accept Christ, his resurection and his divinity.
>>Anything less is no good.  In other words, you're screwed.
>
>So God created a being (me) that is incapable of doing what it has to do
>to be saved. Come on, Steve, baby...we're talking predestination here...:)

Well, God created Lucifer and Judas Iscariott...all things good and
bad...Isaiah says that God brings everything good and bad....

[Is there something other than predestination?]

>>I sure hope there is!  You know that.  Unfortunately, greater minds than I 
>>have come to the conclusion that there isn't.  Bleh.

>It's the only logical conclusion of the Paulist salvation doctrine. 
I'll yield that at this point it is the only logical conclusion I can see.
But, I'll get back to you!

Re: psychoanalyzing Steve :)
>>Why not?  It's free and probably more accurate than the local headshrinker!
>Did you get the bill in the mail yet? :)
No...but that explains why you wanted to know where in the states I was!
;-)

>>>I guess this explains why you keep coming back for more of my abuse...;)
>>
>>Abuse?  Heck no...a strong challenge...I been able to dispatch most people
>>fairly quickly...you're a tougher nut to crack...but before you get the
>>wrong idea, I'm not here to convert you or evangelize...I'll leave that to
>>some other poor soul.
>
>There are always lots of volunteers for that sort of project, true enough.

Though I suspect that they may go away with a very differnt idea than when
they came, if they listen to you!

>>I'd like to formulate something that made my convictions and my intellect
>>happy with each other.  Plain and simply.  Yield a bit on both, and
>>formulate a belief system that doesn't contradict my knowled
>
>I think you may be out of luck on that point, but what do I know? 

I hope your wrong, but history doesn't bear out a great hope for me, now
does it?

 Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief

>Boy o boy, this is a hard one to explain. Not your fault. Let me try again:
>living in my imagination was unbearable for me. I had to stop. 
>I've tried to be about 4 different kinds of ideologue in the last 5 or
>6 years -- until I discovered that my problem was not a specific
>ideology, but the fact that I _had_ an ideology. Then I realized I
>could _stop_ having an ideology if I wanted. Hurray! Now I have no 
>ideals to live up to, no goals to acheive, nowhere to go, no one 
>to be. I am Nothing, no one at all. I am a wanderer in a world I
>don't understand. I have no ideas of right and wrong, I have no guidance,
>and nowhere I want to be guided to.  Freedom is non-existence, being
>dead while you're still alive. 

Ah...ok.  But what about having a wife and kids....;-)  That puts a
different spin on things...responsiblity, etc. ;-)

In any event, I guess I need the guidance at this point in my life.  I need
some form of structure...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan