From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Justifying Views related to Valid Proof
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:41:43 GMT

In article <dabrowsk.711780603@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:

>*** JAREK'S STANDARDS FOR (accept X? reject X? change view?) ***
>-[edited to form questions]:
>>>>>>  1) is X logical?
>>>>>>  2) is X useful to Jarek?
>>>>>>  3) is X acceptable to Jarek?
>>>>>>  4) is X compatible with Jarek's world view?
>-Jarek:
>>>the more complicated model is unacceptable (Occam Razor). 
>-Steve:
>>what if both models are equally complex, or equally "acceptable,"
>-Jarek:
>Then not only a 'jarekist' would have been troubled. But this 'trouble'
>is not real, because you have assumed that it doesn't matter to me which
>model will I accept. 
-Steve:
No, it is because I assume that you wish to reach the truth, and so
would be bothered by having to randomly choose between two mutually
exclusive models.  It still seems possible to me that someone using
the standards you gave above could evaluate a theistic and an
atheistic model as both being equally true, and thus be driven to a
random choice.  

>-Steve:
>>Your standards are so fuzzy ("useful," "acceptable," etc.
>-Jarek:
>The crux is, as you noted, what is understood by useful, by acceptable,
>and what does one's world view actually contain. These are subjective,
>personal variables in a quite objective, general block diagram (there
>was also a brief prescription how to use these items) of a logical and
>practical program which reads input data, compares it to the stored data
>using a set of rules, and then rejects the input data as irrelevant or
>wrong, or accepts the data as compatible with the program, or rewrites
>itself to increase its predictive power and/or its domain of validity.
-Steve:
Ah, but your standards, with the exception of the requirement for
logical consistency, seem totally subjective.

>>-Steve:
>> And how do [these variables] change for other people?
>-Jarek:
>Who knows? I am not "other people" :-D.
-Steve:
Well, is it possible for people to apply your standards incorrectly?
For example, I have a pretty good idea of what it means to do science
incorrectly (uncontrolled variables, ignoring unfavorable data, etc.).
If I include a hallucination as part of my "input data" as you put it,
how do I decide whether or not the experience is relevant?

>
>>>************ IS JAREK A FALSE PROPHET? *******
>-Steve:
>>>>many paths [...].  Yet Christ himself said [...]
>-Jarek:
>>>Did the guy come to God? Yes? Then he did it through Jesus.
>-Steve:
>>The Scripture seems most emphatic that Christ is the only way.
>-Jarek:
>That's exactly what I said.
-Steve:
You did not include the full quote.  You said it is possible to reach
God through religious and philosophical traditions other than
Christianity, a position that Scripture emphatically denies.
  
>-Steve:
>>If you read Paul for example [...]
>-Jarek:
>Paul was responsible for broadcasting and establishing the new message
>brought by Jesus to the people. The closer in time and space one comes
>...
>Bible (or in one's religion, in general) is now to determine whether one
>does or does not come close to God (of course assuming that God exists).
>There's no unique social measure for it anymore. The sociologically well
>defined One Way became split into many paths and the Guide may be given
>many names and may be described in many religious languages. Still, as
>Jesus said, He is the Guide. If you do come to God, you will doubtlessly
>(assuming the Bible, again) come through Him though you do NOT even have
>to know the sound of the WORD 'Jesus', or even though your environmental
>brainwashing made you HOSTILE to that sound. For the Spirit that Guides
>is not in the lettering, but in the Person. 
>
>-Steve:
>>you're arguing for a "many ways to God" approach *from a Christian
>>context*.  THAT requires some pretty convincing arguments, 
>>given the Scripture's attitude on the issue.
>>
>You've given the satisfactory argument: "No one comes to the Father but
>through me"... You may also search for the quotes which say that it is
>not the Law, but the proximity to God that counts. And which say that
>you may have a deep knowledge of the Word but have no knowledge of God.
>And which say that one should love God as children do (children have no
>knowledge of the Written Law, mind you). If you are familiar with the
>Bible, you will find these quotes without any problem. And if you have
>some counter-arguments (from the Bible), I'll be happy to discuss them
>with you (but remember about my introduction to this subject).
-Steve:
1)  Christ also said that he came not to destroy the Law, but to
fulfill it.  He even said the Law would remain unchanged until heaven
and earth passed away.
2)  It is my contention that no matter what your interpretation is,
one can find a Bible passage that is in contradiction with that
interpretation.  You're not merely interpreting the Bible; you are
selectively editing out or whitewashing passages you are uncomfortable
with.  Why do you think we now have so many denominations of
Christianity out there?  After the Reformation everyone was getting
into that same act.

>-Steve:
>>>>Paul [...] "if Christ was not resurrected, then our faith is in vain."
>-Jarek:
>>>If we rejected the participation of God in our life, then our faith
>>>would be indeed in vain. 
>-Steve:
>>Paul was refering to an actual, physical, bodily Resurrection of
>>Christ, and also that he expected the same for all believers when
>>Christ would return. 
>-Jarek:
>So do I, but the point is that this is not ESSENTIAL but AUXILLARY. You
>mix the method (the belief in Resurection) with the purpose (salvation).
-Steve:
It is my understanding that salvation was achieved through Christ's
suffering and Resurrection.  Sounds pretty essential to me.

>-Steve:
>>I think I do understand your approach to the Bible, which seems to be,
>>"It *really* means what I think it should mean."
>-Jarek:
>Not exactly. I say: "If the Bible leads me to God, then it really means
>TO ME what it should mean TO ME. And God is the Judge". Now please find
>a Christian which will tell you that the Bible should not lead to God.
-Steve:
I can find you plenty of Christians who will say that ONLY the Bible
will lead you to God.

>>>********* DID JAREK CONSIDER REJECTION OF CHRISTIANITY ****
>-Jarek:
>>>I had been an atheist for many years. 
>-Steve:
>>My family is RC [...] Eventually I realized [...] so I quit [...]
>-Jarek:
>So far the pattern of our history is the same.
>-Steve:
>>Even afterwards I felt pretty bad because I felt I had rejected
>>Christianity for the wrong reasons [...]
>-Jarek:
>In my case, I thought I rejected Christianity for very good reasons. And
>I could come back (in a very indirect way which I had never expected to
>take) only when all those "good reasons" disappeared. Just to give one
>example: I thought that people believe in God because they are afraid of
>death, so as long as I was afraid of death, there was no way for me to
>believe in God. But I had to get rid of this fear to make sure that it
>is quite normal to be an atheist; thus, becoming a more and more grown
>up atheist, I - involuntarily - came closer and closer to God.
>-Steve
>>Now I have convinced myself
>-Jarek:
>Maybe one more difference between us was that I was always following the
>choice which I found the right and well grounded one (at least, that's
>what I tried to do :-D), so I did not have to force myself to accept my
>solutions. But maybe you did the same and I misunderstood your words.
-Steve:
My rejection of Christianity was sparked by my discomfort with its
message and its implications.  I didn't WANT it to be true, but that
wasn't quite a good enough reason to reject it; my conscience
compelled me to dig up some reasons for rejecting Christianity.  
I do not accept my level of comfort with a belief as "input data," as
you put it.  If my discomfort with Chritianity had been my only
argument against accepting it, I wouldn't truly feel justified in
rejecting it.  My emotions concerning Christianity compelled me to
look for arguments against it.  I am now convinced that these
arguments are correct, regardless of my motives in searching for them.

One book that went a long way towards convincing me was a book by a
former psychologist and fundamentalist, called "The Mind of the Bible
Believer."  The author's name is Edmund Cohen and I believe that it
was put out by Prometheus books in the mid-80's.  The thesis of the
book is that while the Bible is a mess in terms of moral message and
internal consistency, it is an unparalleled success when it comes to
psychological manipulation.  Cohen attributes this in part to the
authors such as Paul, who must have been a very clever and subtle man,
and in part to the unique sociological and psychological atmosphere of
the time (the complete dominance of Rome, the fusion of Hebrew and
Hellenistic ideas in Christianity, and also the complete destruction
of Israel by the Roman Empire).  Cohen manages to account for many
phenomena using this approach (the rise and spread of biblical
Christianity, the present-day surge of fundamentalism, etc.).  It's an
interesting hypothesis, and I'd encourage you to take a look at it
(it's pretty involved reading, though--took me a couple of days, and
I'm a pretty fast reader).  I find that it accounts for the Bible's
success in a very satisfying manner.

Cheers,

 

----------------------------------------------------------------
 Stephen M. Doe     |         E=mc^2            |    Send me
 sdoe@nmsu.edu      | It's not just a good idea |     money
 Dept. of Astronomy |      It's the law.        |  you bastards
Newsgroups: alt.atheism