From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: And over to you, Sean...
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:09:47 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>In article <adams.725740367@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>> Re: accepting Jesus (ie "stop saying 'no'")

>>No. Yes.  I don't think I could will myself into disbelief, and were I to
>>do so, I'd still have that nagging cognitive dissonance.
>
>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 eveny, 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? ;-)

So I'd have to agree with you that intellectual concerns are hadrly relevant
to belief.

>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')...

>But we give differing amounts of weight to the same 
>pieces of evidence, and you know, I think the reasons are not
>rational. Emerson called temperament the "iron string" upon which the
>beads of experience are strung. Hmmm...
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.

>>>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
>> predestination is worse...;-)  Stuck between a rock and a hard place.
>
>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.  If the doctrine is false, then clearly there must be
some other answer, selected from that set of solutions that fit all of the
evidence.  

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).

>Consider the Paulist salvation doctrine as a scientific hypothesis. 
>The only means we have to test it are our perceptions. In both possible
>forms (free will/predest.) the hypothesis does not agree with the
>experimental data. We need another hypothesis: is there another acceptable
>way to formulate the doctrine that avoids this dilemma? 
See above...if you have one, let me know! ;-)  Ya know I'm looking for it!

>>I don't think this is what God wants...what God wants, at least in my
>>opinion, is our love, worship and obedience.
>
>How does a person like myself fit in to this program? In order to do what
>God wants I'd have to act in "bad faith," I'd have to suppress my
>sense of intellectual integrity.  Why would God create a person who
>was _incapable_ of doing what was required for salvation?  
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.

Now I don't believe that ANYONE is ir-redeamable...so at least in my book,
ya got a chance!

>As I'm sure you're sensing, this is starting to look like predestination
>again, isn't it?  I ask out of curiosity: is there _really_ no escape
>from this rather bleak point of view?
I sure hope so!  You know that.  Unfortunately, greater minds than I have
come to the conclusion that there isn't.  Bleh.

>Re: psychoanalyzing Steve :)
Why not?  It's free and probably more accurate than the local headshrinker!

>>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 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.

>Is it the nagging sense of congnitive dissonance, the psychological
>discomfort that goes along with "bad faith" that drives you to try and find
>a way of resolving this tension in yourself?  You want to find a way
>to bring your intellect into line with your convictions?  Just making
>a quasi-educated guess. 
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 knowledge or the
bible.  Good luck...

>Note: this is the opposite of how I'd do it -- I'd try to bring my 
>convictions into line with my intellect, but chacun son gout...
I can't yield that far on my convictions...I'm stuck with the dissoance
until I can figure out some way to make this work.

>My guess would be that belief seems to offer you a relief from 
>existential anxiety, that is to say, the reaction of the rational mind to the 
>dual incomprehensibilities of Life and Death.
>
>Just rephrasing your comment really.
Accurately, too.

>Re: Bible inspired?

>> 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.
>
>I think your vision of Christianity is loose enough that you aren't put
>off by the historical questions that alienate more literal-minded people.
I think you're correct.  I'm of the opinion that most modern Christian
denominations are way off the mark.  I wish I could find the mark.

>In such a case, your _a priori_ belief in a Biblically-derived God would
>naturally lead you to interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with this
>belief. Thus the whole thing would look more and more "true" the more
>you worked at interpreting it (i.e. read it in the light of your 
>_a priori_ belief).  Make sense?
Yes it does...more or less along the lines I was thinking.

> Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief

>>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...
>
>Actually, that response is a great example of what I mean. You thought
>I meant _intellectually_ constrained. I meant _experientially_
>constrained. In other words, I found that having my experience narrowed
>so intensely into the imaginative realm (as Xianity requires) was
>an unbearable mode of life -- it wasn't worth living. 
Oh, I don't know...experience wise, well, let's say I've done just about
everything...not quite, but darn near...that I would ever want to.  I'm
sure that there are some things that I haven't experienced that I might
enjoy, but can't think of any that I'm constrained from by my belief.

Or are you getting at something even deeper?

>You on the other hand, not only don't find this narrowing unbearable,
>you _like_ it, and you really don't see that it _is_ a narrowing.
Correct...

>To you (as it did for me), it seems like the whole world. But because
>I couldn't stand it, I had to find out if that were true, or kill
>myself.  Because you _like_ it, you have no desire to find out if
>your life is "all there is." 
Well, actually, I do.  But I want to look at the question from THIS side of
the line, not yours...thank you very much!

>This is the whole difference between us in a nutshell...:)
I would agree.

>So comforting, in fact, that the pleasure of having that belief outweighs
>the discomfort of the cognitive dissonance that the belief causes
>for a person like yourself. So the intellect yields...
Just as one would expect...we agreed, more or less, above.

>> Hmm...to me, Christianity is not limiting...it is freeing.  Strange, eh?
>
>Well, not really. You are mellow enough that your Xianity is not 
>_intellectually_ constraining_ (well, not unbearably so, anyway :).
Just a pain in the neck sometimes, intellectually.

>> Perhaps so, but the box is illusionary and not so limiting as you might
>> think.
>
>Well, intellectually, I agree. You are a pretty open-minded ideologue...
Jumbo Shrimp?  Military Intelligence?  Computer Sciene?  Open-minded
ideologue...see any pattern? ;-)

>I was thinking about freedom from the limitations of being an ideologue. :)
Hmm...I guess that's another blinder...I don't see myself as much of an
ideologue, but my mirror's been inaccurate before.

>Hamm (anguished): What's happening? What's happening?
>Clov: Something is taking its course. 
Always true...at least from our perspective.

 -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,sci.skeptic