From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Keywords: Bible--psychology--fundamentalism
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:47:16 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec14.192145.18552@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>I really enjoy these posts!  Keep 'em coming.  I don't know much about
>'academic' psychology, but everything presented seems to make pretty good
>sense.
>
>Of course, the Bible clearly states that God's wisdom will appear as
>foolishness to "the world", which you would explain as a "cushion" against
>such a work as this.  

      This is the sort of thing we are trying to understand. "The bible
      clearly states...." As if that somehow made it true? But it is a
      trivial proof that the bible is not 100% inerrant: if I find a
      single error, then I have my proof. So, a bat is not a bird. So
      the bible is not 100% inerrant. QED.

      So which parts do you believe, and why?

      We are trying to understand why some people keep quoting the bible
      to others who don't accept it, as if that settled the argument.

      What would your reaction be to somebody who quoted the Koran to
      settle an argument about anything other than the content of the
      Koran?

>
>I would like to present, for your analysis, the reaction of such a mind to
>what you have written:
>
>1: What alternative state of mind should I have, and why would it be any better
>   than what I have now?  (What is the state of mind of the author?)
>
>2: Where is the supposed harm that this is doing?  I don't see it anywhere in my
>   life - in fact, God has changed my life for the better!

      How do you know it was "God" and not Rama or Thor? What do you
      (honestly) expect somebody who doesn't share your religion, to
      make of this?

>
>3: Given that God does in fact exist, re-write the analysis.

      An unsupported assertion. I have seen no convincing argument that
      "God" could exist, let alone does. We are trying to understand why
      people make these unsupported assertions and expect expect others to
      give them any more credence than the fairies at the bottom of the
      garden.
>
>4: Why is presupposing that He does not exist any more credible than
>   presupposing that He does?

      I don't know anybody who presupposes that deities don't exist. If
      a phenomenon can be explained without your particular god, then why
      should we introduce another layer of complexity? Especially if it
      can also be explained without taking Krishna, Odin, or Mithras into
      account. What would your reaction be to, say an AIDS researcher from
      another country who produced a vaccine, and his explanation to us
      was along the lines of "it works because Osiris makes it work"?

>
>5: How could Biblical authors write such a cohesive and psychologically
>   influential book, separated in time and space as they were?  For that
>   matter, given the Old Testament, could -YOU- construct such a masterpiece
>   in your life-time, given the education of any one of the Biblical
>   authors?  Would -YOU- suffer and die for your careful lie?  What possible
>   gain is there?  I think "THE MIND OF THE BIBLE WRITER" is in order...
>
>I think all of these are pertinent and need to be answered...

      It's as cohesive as any other collection of myths, legends and
      allegories. So it's no different from the books of the other
      religions.

      People have suffered and died for a lot of things, including
      leaders with charismatic personalities. A lot of people suffered
      and died in Jonestown for instance, and more recently for the
      Ayatollah Khomeini. But this does not make their cause correct.

      We are trying to understand why people repeat this kind of
      "preaching to the converted" argument when a moment's thought
      should have made them realise that the same argument can apply
      to most of the world's religions.
>
>Expounding on 4:  The human mind seems to exist in a greater state of
>"comfort" when there are no loose ends - when questions are answered.
>Credibility aside, why should someone choose to reject such a powerful 
>"answer" given (2)?
>

      (2) is only powerful when talking to other believers in the same
      god. We are trying to understand why people repeat this kind of
      "preaching to the converted" argument when a moment's thought
      should have made them realise that the same argument can apply
      to most of the world's religions.

      What would your reaction be to somebody who said that Krishna
      changed his/her life? Or Zeus? Or Allah? Or Osiris?

>
>John M.

      I, for one, am very interested in why believers think the way they
      do.

      Chris Lee
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack