From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: And over to you Sean... (a mixed bag of subjects)
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:00:32 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>In article <root.726436155@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>>So in the end, you think that God and free-will are both simply illusions
>>that I use to keep myself sane?  Perhaps 'illusion' isn't the right word,
>>but it does seem to fit. 
>
>Well, 'delusion' might be a better word. A delusion is when a person
>gets confused about what is imaginary and what isn't. I think you have
>a vested interest in maintaining these beliefs _regardless_ of whether
>or not they are true. Free will is pretty obviously untrue -- God is
>a bit trickier. Some sort of creator being may well exist! Why not?
>But you want to say (to yourself?) that these things _are_ true (when one 
>isn't, and one is beyond settling) for your own reasons. That's cheating. :)

Cheating, moi?  Mon Dieux!  In any event, 'delusion' has plenty of negative
connotations...that's why I picked 'illusion' instead...Could I interest
you in limited free-will?  Some form of moral agency, which, although
limited, allows me some choice and discretion that is not totally
predicated on past experience?

>>Not saying *I* think they are illusionary, just
>>that it seems to be where you're trying to (nicely) lead me...
>
>I would put the emphasis on the self-deceptive mental process involved
>in believing in things you have no way of knowing are true. Maybe 
>the belief in God is ILlusionary, maybe not. But it _is_ DElusionary.

But am I actually deceiving myself?  Perhaps with a claim that "I know God
exists" when I in fact do not...(ie I have no real physical proof)...
In some respects, I see your point...as you've said, I do have some of the
characteristics of a skeptic...yet refuse to not believe.

>So far, you've been extremely reasonable about taking a skeptical
>attitude towards certain questions. But you seem to have a core set
>of beliefs that are out-of-bounds for serious, earnest
>questioning. We've discussed reasons why this may be, and again, 
>you've been more than reasonable about acknowledging the factors
>that seem to make belief necessary (apparently) for you. 

Questioning by me, yes.  By you?  Not out of bounds.  But I reserve the
right to be stubborn and pigheaded, just like the next human on the block.
You're right, of course, that I do have a core, well 'protected' that I
have not seen fit to challenge, nor at this point do I desire to.  But, I
am aware of the situation...that's the first step, eh?

>My purpose in discussing all this with you is two-fold. Firstly, I 
>want to really know what makes believers tick, and you've been quite
>kind to allow me to discuss your most personal concerns with you. It's
>been worthwhile for me, so far. 
Me too.  It's certainly made me think, and made me 'fess-up,' as it were,
to some things that I've been simply blocking out because they interfered
with what I wanted to believe...

>Secondly, there is a way out of your
>dilemma, and life is a lot more fun and beautiful if one takes it.
At least in your opinion, eh? ;-)  We talked a bit on this before, and as I
said then, from my perspective, life is fun and beautiful.  For once, the
grass is not greener on the other side of the fence....at least in *my*
perception.  And of course, perceptions are funny things.

>Now, it is none of my business how you live your life, that's for sure. 
>But as long as you're even mildly interested, I don't mind trying to show
>you that there is another way to live. However, as Oscar Wilde said,
>"Education is an admirable thing, but it is good to remember from time
>to time that nothing worth knowing can be taught."  You have to do it
>yourself, and obviously, unless you want to, you won't. 
Right.  One of the main goals of education is learning to think, to apply
objective criteria to a situation and evaluate all of the evidence, and
then synthesize something out of that information which accurately reflects
the evidence....at least in my opinion.

>If the time ever comes that all this craziness about fine points of
>ideological dogma begins to just make you tired, maybe you'll remember
>some of the things we've talked about, and they can be perhaps a little
>pointer in a useful direction, for YOUR voyage on an uncharted sea.
Well, ya never know.  And yes, this discussion has been useful, and the
things you've said are part of my (limited) set of information used in
evaluating evidence...

>We are surrounded by mystery! Yet we cling to these childish fantasies
>that we think make us safe, and dream away what may be our only life.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a child-"ish" fantasy.  Perhaps
child-"like".  The former seems insulting...The latter, seems like Christ.
"Unless ye come to me as little children..."  Hmmm....

>I sometimes think that if there is a Creator, he must like it better
>if we stare around us in bogglement and wonder, rather than thinking
>in our vanity that we have the Inside Info on the state of the universe.
We can't know anything about God for a fact....I can speculate, but I will
always miss the mark.  The Bible is correct about the transcendant: His
ways are higher than our ways, his thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
We can never, ever figure God out...

>Might that not be the only kind of true worship available, if such 
>a being exists? I dunno. Idle thoughts from an idle fellow. End of
>sermon. :)
Hmm...interesting sermon...you might shake up a church or two with that
one!

>Re: No man comes to the Father but by me 
>
>>The Father is God and Jesus is God.  They are one in the same.  To quote
>>the creed "of one being with the father."  Jesus was also a man, made
>>incarnate, etc, etc.  You probably know the creeds as well as I, and I do
>>believe the creeds.
>
>Uhhh...your original quotation then reduces to: No man comes to me but by me!
>Pretty deep...:)    Yep, I know the creeds (sort of) so I think I know
>where you stand, but....
Yep...interesting comment from that perspective...hmm, I'll have to think
about that one some more.

>..you didn't answer part II, which was "why do you think this is who Jesus
>is?"  Very important!
To quote a song I remember from when I was little, "for the Bible tells me 
so...", and all kidding aside, that's why.  Remember, I accept the Bible as
the inspired word of God, so my thoughts on Jesus are simply reflections of
the Gospels and Paul, as seen through my experiences...

>> Of course, there is the metaphorical aspect, which I suspect you'll be
>> happy to tell us about right now! ;-)
>
>All in good time, grasshopper. :)

Oh sure.  He has the answer and won't tell.  ;-)

>>>I wanna be famous as the advocatus diaboli whose cunning dialogue
>>>led St. Stephen to the revolutionary theology that finally brought about
>>>the conversion of the Jews, et al. and brought about the Millenium...:)
>>
>>You got it...you'll get the dedication.  Boy will that piss off my wife!
>>;-)
> 
>Whee...fame at last! Hop to it, then laddie! Get that _Summa Contra Sean_
>rolling...:)

Hmm.  "Against Sean"...that's gonna put me right up there with Iraneaus, 
Augustine, Luther et al..;-)  Yeah, right.

>>>Ouch...that means I was created in order to be a force for evil in the
>>>world? Well, heck.
>> 
>>Nah - you were created to be my own personal cross to bear! ;-)  (That's a
>>joke, son!)
>
>Heh heh! Maybe I should put that in my .sig...:)

Sure...I'm using a quote of yours in my .sig, so why not? ;-)

>>But yeah, if you ask good ol' John Calvin, God created you
>>with the full intent to send you to hell.  See why I can't stand Calvinism?
>>Or Predestination?  I mean if you exercise free-will, then no problem.  But
>>otherwise?  Yech.
>
>Yeah! I'm way too nice a guy to get sent to hell. My mom thinks so, too.

I bet Judus Iscariott's mom thought he was a nice guy...;-)  [That's
another joke, son!]

Ya know what, though.  I have a feeling that even if I'm right about God
and salvation, He's got a loophole for people like you... ;-)  In fact, I
think most Christians are going to be quite surprised about who ends up
where...

>Re: Wife and kids 
>
>>Can I walk away from my wife and kids?  I don't think so.  I guess perhaps
>>if I did completely abandon every moral that I had, but even so, I don't
>>think I could stop loving them, and that's enough to keep me from doing it.
>>Am I theoretically free to leave?  Yes.  Emotionally?  No.
>
>Wham! Wham! Yet another nail in the coffin of free will, eh?  
Sure enough...but refer above to my 'limited free will'...do I escape? ;-)

>Remember though, this is not an argument for determinism. In actuality,
>free will and determinism are the two extreme halves of the paradox that 
>most accurately describes this matter. Our feeling of freedom and choice
>is a process over which we have no control. Weird, but that's life
>for you.
Hmm...we are not even free to think we are or aren't free?  Wow...

>>>But people who really _want_ to
>>>be good have never needed an external code to tell them how to do this,
>>>although sometimes they may think they do.
>> 
>> I agree....but it is comforting to have a code to measure oneself by.
> 
>Ahh...but why? Not because the code is so wonderful, but because of our
>vanity! We want to know that we are good boys and girls, so we can
>feel all warm inside. This, too, is vanity.  :)
Yeah, yeah, "vanity of vanities, all is vanity"...

>And now we're back to the question of narcissism. Isn't this fun?? :)
Everything is a circle, my boy, just ask the American Indians...

 -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