From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: And over to you Sean... (a mixed bag of subjects)
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:06:44 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada



Re: What makes people believe.
 
>>I'm thinking
>>this is a matter of motivation, i.e. that if your motivation to suppress
>>your intellectual sense of "rightness" is stronger than your motivation
>>to recognize it, than you can maintain belief in spite of contrary
>>evidence. In other words, you are a practitioner of "doublethink." 
>
> I'd have to say yes, that's true.  And, as we've said before, the source of
> the motivation would appear to be fear.  I'd have to say that it was fear
> of 'the end' actually being the end, if you know what I mean.  Some
> self-examination has shown me that I truly do fear death being the end of
> everything...

My brother said something the other day that struck me: "I'm feeling
really mortal these days." I think I know what he means. I am only 24,
but already the end is in sight. Years are passing quicker and quicker,
and I am starting to really _feel_ that my time is limited. This is
disquieting...I just can't imagine what death could be. Somehow, though,
the thought of the actuality of my impending end clears away a lot
of silliness. The universe is so totally indifferent to us and our
concerns. Example: I have an old dog who is getting that old dog look to her -
she's just waiting. When I see her waiting for her end (which I can't help
but think she knows is coming, at some level) it just makes me feel how
childish we humans are with our stupid little beliefs. The dog has 
dignity. She's just waiting. 
 
> Right, at least from what I can see from this vantage point.  There are
> many things that I 'know' that give rise to skepticism.  I can give you all
> of the counter-arguments for most of my beliefs, and, in the past, I've
> argued them to a winning conclusion...bleh.  Great for debate class, and
> great for defending ones position (when you know the other side's
> arguments, you're up one point), but lousy when trying to keep one's
> beliefs in line.  The free-will/predesitnation discussion was a tough one
> on me...

For what it's worth, I think what you're up against is a conflict between
your ideals and the world you find yourself in. I sympathize with the
desire to believe in God, I think I understand it; I know at some level
I share it. Same for free will. These beliefs have a certain beauty,
and more than that, they both take our minds of the imminence of death,
_and_ promise an escape from death. 

These beliefs account admirably for _certain aspects_ of our experience. 
The beauty we see in nature, the affection we have for other people --
these things appear to validate these beliefs. But it is only possible
to maintain these beliefs by selectively excluding from one's consciousness
the elements of experience that _invalidate_ them. And there are a few.

>>I am fortunate in that I have nothing to defend, in this arena. The existence
>>of God is ultimately irrelevant from the point of view of human
>>happiness, and of ultimate truth. And I have no real axe to grind with 
>>Christianity anymore...if I thought God was real, I'd have no
>>qualms at all about submitting to his will. 
> 
> The irrelevence of God is something I cannot hold to.  To me, God is
> totally relevent....this is the the core of our difference, I think.

God is relevant as long as you want to be "saved." That is, as long as you
want to have some external judge pronounce you "good."  If you no longer
care about being good or evil, because you've seen that these two things
are just artificial classifications with no real meaning, than you
lose interest in being saved. The universe just _is_, and it is we
who call this thing "good" and this thing "evil."  Now, even if 
God himself calls X evil and Y good, that doesn't make it so. In other
words, if God thinks good and evil are real, he's as deluded as we are. 
Another reason I can't believe in this moralist God. God shouldn't
be stupider than some of his creations. 
 
>>As for how we examine evidence, I admit that I find the scientific materialist
>>account of the origin of life, of the history of the universe, much more
>>intellectually satisfying than the Christian one, or the Babylonian one,
>>etc. etc.  
> Well, here is one of my major issues...a good friend of mine, who is a
> Biblical literalist and I have been over this one again and again.  I have
> a very hard time with Genesis 1-7.  Mostly because of all the science I
> learned over the years.  I just don't believe that all of the archaeology
> and dating of objects is a giant conspiracy directed against religion.

One can go on from this to look at scientific models of human behaviour,
which to my mind are far more convincing than religious ones -- in fact,
they subsume religious ones, in the way that relativity physics subsumes
Newtonian physics. 

>>It's dull as ditchwater,
>>because it's so phony and artificial, and it has virtually no 
>>predictive power. It's cheating, I think. Dixi! 
>
> Ah, but what if Genesis is poetry...as we've said?  Remember Paul Harvey's
> and my theoretical discussion about the Fall?

Fair enough. My point ultimately was that I find orthodox religious
interpretations of the Bible, even, just plain dull in comparison to 
interpretations born of good old fashioned curiosity plus a willingness
to play straight intellectually.  Interpretations of the Bible, and
interpretations of life, both.

>>And now, let's hear from the other camp....:)
> Not from me, pal...I have problems with creationism...literal 24-hour days,
> and all that.  Earth only ~4000 years old. &c.
 
What about the NT?  I feel the same way about that. Paul to me is far more
fascinating as a temporal-lobe epileptic with the mother-of-all-bees in his
bonnet than as yet another (yawn) preacher of the Good News.

>>In this case the other option is: Paul had an epileptic seizure of the
>>temporal lobes on the road to Damascus, and not a visitation from the creator
>>of this infinite universe.
> 
> Well...in this case, then we revert back to the Gospels 'No man comes to
> the father but by me.'  Now what?

Ok, I'm willing to take that sentence at face value. The next question,
it seems to me, then, is: if no one comes to the father but by Jesus,
than who or what is the Father, and who is Jesus?  You tell me what you
think and why, and then I'll do likewise.


>>>That leaves either free-will, predestination, or (!) no salvation (at least
>>>as Christians know it).
>>
>>And we _know_ free will is out. Uh oh....
>
> Yeah, yeah...get off my case, eh? ;-)  When I do work all of this out (!)
> you'll be the third to know (right after my PhD committee and publisher!)
> :-)

As long as I get mentioned in the saint's life of St. Steven of Chicago! 
I wanna be famous as the advocatus diaboli whose cunning dialogue
led St. Steven to the revolutionary theology that finally brought about
the conversion of the Jews, et al. and brought about the Millenium...:)

>>>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.
>>
>>So God created a being (me) that is incapable of doing what it has to do
>>to be saved. Come on, Steve, baby...we're talking predestination here...:)
> 
> Well, God created Lucifer and Judas Iscariott...all things good and
> bad...Isaiah says that God brings everything good and bad....

Ouch...that means I was created in order to be a force for evil in the
world? Well, heck.

>>>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.
>>
>>There are always lots of volunteers for that sort of project, true enough.
> 
> Though I suspect that they may go away with a very differnt idea than when
> they came, if they listen to you!

They never listen. :)
 
>>>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 knowled
>>
>>I think you may be out of luck on that point, but what do I know? 
> 
> I hope your wrong, but history doesn't bear out a great hope for me, now
> does it?

I don't think so. I suppose it's possible to just keeping being confused
one day at a time. Do that enough times and it makes a lifetime. :)

>  Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief
> 
>>Now I have no 
>>ideals to live up to, no goals to acheive, nowhere to go, no one 
>>to be. I am Nothing, no one at all. I am a wanderer in a world I
>>don't understand. I have no ideas of right and wrong, I have no guidance,
>>and nowhere I want to be guided to.  Freedom is non-existence, being
>>dead while you're still alive. 
> 
> Ah...ok.  But what about having a wife and kids....;-)  That puts a
> different spin on things...responsiblity, etc. ;-)

I bet it does! But we are condemned to freedom. (Freedom, not free will! :)
You are free whether you want to be or not. You can always walk away
from your wife and kids. If you abandon your moral ideology, you will
be free to do this or not do it. If you stay, it will be because you
_want_ to, not because you feel you should. 

> In any event, I guess I need the guidance at this point in my life.  I need
> some form of structure...

Fair enough. I think I understand...we talk about freedom as if it were
something inherently good, but freedom means: taking total responsibilty
for everything you do. It means: realizing that no one can really help
you, that you're on your own. This can be bloody frightening and a bit over-
whelming. Also, freedom means morality must come from the "heart," because
you no longer recognize an external code. 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.

>  -Steve

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
 
As private parts are we to the Gods:
They play with us for their sport. 
- Blackadder II