From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: And over to you, Sean...
Date: 30 Dec 92 18:32:47 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.


In which Sean decides that I'll make a great subject for his psychology
class...

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <adams.725656027@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>Re: accepting Jesus (ie "stop saying 'no'")
>>
>Ok...hold this thought. One can't believe in something that seems to be
>false and still retain one's intellectual integrity. 
Right, as far as I can tell.

>>>step 3. Therefore, belief is not an act of will! One cannot accept Jesus
>>>in the way you mean as an act of will.  Your doctrine _precludes_ free will.
>>
>>I disagree in this case...we went through this back in Septmber, eh?  I
>>think that one can commit an act of will to accept the evidence and believe
>>that evidence as true.
>
>Could you make an effort of will and reject the evidence? You said that
>you couldn't will yourself to accept Ahura Mazda -- could you
>will yourself to accept atheism? And if you could, wouldn't you _know_
>deep down that you were lying to yourself?
No. Yes.  I don't think I could will myself into disbelief, and were I to
do so, I'd still have that nagging cognative dissonance.

>>In fear of trying to predict response, I suspect you'll say that the
>>'ability' to decide to accept the evidence is really a factor of past
>>encouters and experiences, and as such is not truly free.
>
>You know, you _conceded_ back then that free will was a myth. Have you
>changed your mind?
I don't know.  I haven't come upon anything I like better, and
predesitnation is worse...;-)  Stuck between a rock and a hard place.

>For me to accept Jesus wholeheartedly, I would have to act in "bad faith,"
>in effect, deny and repress my intellectual integrity and accept a doctrine
>that does not appear to me to be true.
>
>That is what would be required. If you tell me that this is what God wants,
>that will be just one more reason I can't buy that doctrine. 
I don't think this is what God wants...what God wants, at least in my
opinion, is our love, worship and obedience.

[on predesitnation/free will]

>We did this one before...you conceded that there was no free will. If you
>want to maintain a belief in God and Paulist salvation, you're stuck
>with this one?
And as I've said, this doesn't work for me.  It contradicts my views on
what God is all about...in other words, I can't make this work for me.

>>Could well be.  We've been through this one a bit, too.  Of course, there
>>is no single 'Christian doctrine' on salvation...there are many.  And there
>>have been since the beginning.
>
>Fair enough. I don't mean to challenge you, but the question that occurs
>to me is: why does this guy believe?  You acknowledge(d?) that free will
>is a myth, but you reject predestination as too harsh. 
That about sums it up...I lean more towards free-will, but, as you have
said, I can't successfully defend it...I haven't come up with a better
explanation....at least that fits scripture.

>What is it exactly, if I may ask, that you are holding on to so tightly?
>You freely admit (and I admire this) that you have no idea what 
>Christianity is about, metaphysically. We've trashed Paul over and
>over, yet you resolutely cling to a Paulist outlook, even as you
>reject both possible interpretations of his doctrine. Obviously
>it's none of my business what you think or don't think, but cases like
>yours fascinate and puzzle me. 
Obsessive compulsive disorder? ;-)  In any event, I guess the answer comes
down to wanting to believe, in spite of everything that my intellect tells
me is contradictory.  Stubborn, I guess.  More or less a reverse of Picard
and the Cardassians - I see 5 lights, when there are only 4.

>I think one is close to understanding something important about
>humans when one looks at people who tenaciously hang on to a belief that
>crumbles into contradiction and irrationality at every touch. 
>Especially if one meets a person who acknowledges this irrationality,
>but STILL believes. Fascinating!
I don't know *why* I believe, I just *do*.  As I said, I want to, in some
strange way.  Perhaps it is as you said, that ultimate fear is comforted by
such ideas...

>>Re: Bible stories fictional?
>>
>>>Hmm...so it seems reasonable to regard the OT as legend, then?
>>
>>If I ever came to the conclusion of non-inspiration, this would be my
>>position on the OT.  As for the NT, I'd take the Gospels as a similar
>>record of the man Jesus Christ, and go from there.
>
>Why do you think the Bible is inspired, knowing what you know? Is this
>another _a priori_ thing that one has to accept wholeheartedly?

It's a position I've come to...I didn't use to believe this.  But the more
I read and study and the more I see, the more convinced I am that it is.
Strange, eh?  This generally brings people *away* from that position.  Not
me.  Just strange, I guess.

Is it an <<a priori>> thing that one has to accept?  No.  I don't think
that salvation in any way depends on ones belief in the book.  That would
be bibliolotry...

>Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief
> 
>>>Probably you will regard everything I'm saying as just another theory. 
>>Correct...
>
>heh heh...:)   (to heck with it...I'm going to use smileys)
Ok...smart guy!

>>Of course, at this point, I don't want to, as I'm sure you realize.
>>Someday, perhaps, but I don't know that I AM wearing a blindfold...
>
>Understood. This is the hard part. But I'm getting the feeling that
>you don't feel unduly constricted by your imaginative world, so hey...
That's true...my positions don't constrain me...nor do they prevent my
examining positions other than my own to test them against my own personal
hypothesis.  I'm not scared of contradictory ideas...

>>This sort of confirms your point, eh?  One tangible thing to hold on to in
>>the face of the loss of everything else.
>
>Sure, yup. This is exactly what I mean. It's comforting, isn't it?
Yes, it is.

>>Same kind of thing when I've jumped out of an airplane and things haven't
>>gone 100% correctly...seconds from death, as it were.  It does wake you up.
>
>I bet! Plenty of Here and Now. They say there are no atheists in foxholes...
>and we are all in foxholes, waiting for the shell to land. 
An interesting analogy....

>I'll come back to my original point -- maybe Xianity is true, maybe it isn't.
>But there is no way to know. Personally, I can't stand living in an
>ideological box. It is too much of a narrowing of experience...I hate it.
>And one doesn't have to do it! Hurray! So I'll play out here for now...
Hmm...to me, Christianity is not limiting...it is freeing.  Strange, eh?

Both of us take the path that seems most free to us.  That appears to be
logical and is more or less what I would expect.

>You want to live inside the box, hey, no skin off my nose. And methinks
>you do, comrade...:)
Perhaps so, but the box is illusionary and not so limiting as you might
think.

I like th Becket quote...;-)

 -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
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24733 alt.pagan:14645