From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Justifying Views related to Valid Proof
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:41:35 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <dabrowsk.712383964@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>In <1992Jul23.194143.29373@nmsu.edu> Stephen Doe wrote about Jarek's
>standards, about The Multiple Only Way, and the psychology of the Bible: 
>
>*** JAREK'S STANDARDS FOR (accept X? reject X? change view?) ***
>>>>>>>>  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:
>>>[not a problem,] it doesn't matter to me which model I accept. 
>>-Steve:
>>No, it is because I assume that you wish to reach the truth,
>>
>Truth? What 'truth'? I am an agnostic, Steve. The only 'truth' one can
>reach is the truth which is true according to one's own definition of
>truth. While such truths can be useful in practice, their ontological

A circular definition if I ever heard one.

>status can never go beyond wild speculations. So when I see two models
>which are mutually exclusive and which don't differ by anything which I
>find important, I am not troubled at all by having to throw dices.
>
>No, I don't look for 'truth' because I know I can't know whether I found
>it or not. I look for my self, for views which are in agreement with my
>self, because my self is the only reference point I can directly access.
>I don't know whether this will lead me to truth or to falsehood, but as
>there's no way to tell how far from the "absolute truth" (if it exists)
>I am, I have chosen a way which can at least assure that "I am as I
am".

I don't see you as being terribly consistent here.  In an earlier post
you claimed that you are always changing your mind.  Yet your approach
seems a surefire way to prevent that from happening, because your
approach allows you to rationalize away any arguments you feel
uncomfortable with.

>>-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 [...]
>-Steve:
>>Ah, but your standards, with the exception of the requirement for
>>logical consistency, seem totally subjective.
>>
>What are your standards, Steve? I'll try to reduce them to my scheme. 

OK, I'll take a shot at it.

     1)  Logical consistency. 
     2)  Does this belief make sense in the context of what I already
know?  If so, I accept.  If not, I

        a)  Discard the belief.
        b)  Change my beliefs.
        c)  Wait for more evidence.

     How do I decide which option to go with?  I go with the belief
that best accounts for the evidence.  The key is, what is admissable
as evidence?  You seem to be willing to admit feelings, your level of
comfort with a belief, as evidence.  I am not.  At most, my feelings
may goad me to search for more evidence--they do not in themselves
count as evidence.  

-Steve:
>>You said it is possible to reach God through religious and
>>philosophical traditions other than Christianity, a position that
>>Scripture emphatically denies. 
>>  
>Does it? As far as I know, the Old Testament speaks about the Law FOR
>JEWS (ask any Jew). As for the New Testament - well, I've discussed it
>in my previous post and this subject is still pending:

That brings up another interesting point:  did Jesus come for
everybody, or just the Jews?  Several times he states that he came
*only* for the children of Israel.  

I found your post on interpreting the New Testament unconvincing.
There's a big difference between taking cultural factors into account
and completely ignoring or negating what the text says.

>-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.
>>
>Exactly. The Law. The Word of God. Not the Word of Man. To tell them
>apart you must know God. As I said:

My point is that the Bible says it is the word of God, right there in
black and white.  Are you saying the Bible is the word of Man?  That's
my position, but it would seem a strange attitude for a Christian to
take.

>-Jarek:
>>>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). 
>
>-Steve:
>>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.
>>
>The Bible is a Big Book and has many passages, so we can discuss this
>for ages. But I don't mind. And there's no other way to support your
>contention but by checking it passage by passage...

Yes, the Bible is a big book and that is one thing that keeps people
from really noticing the more glaring contradictions in the text.
Easier to pass them by, just because there is so much text.

>-Steve:
>>Why do you think we now have so many denominations of Christianity 
>>
>I think I've made it clear in my previous post... Different view points. 
>The same God.
>
>-Steve:
>>It is my understanding that salvation was achieved through Christ's
>>suffering and Resurrection.  Sounds pretty essential to me.
>>
>AND IS THE SAME TO ME. I don't see your problem. Please check my
>complete comments on this issue and tell me what was unclear. 

You said it was auxiliary, not essential.  I interpreted this to mean
that a belief in the Resurrection is not necessary to reach God.  But
the Bible says it is indeed necessary.

>-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.
>>
>Indeed. But they will also tell you that God is the Judge; they simply
>believe that their way is the ONLY way but they will NEVER tell you that
>their judgement or belief is ABOVE the judgement of God. 

So what?  That does nothing to change the many Bible statements to the
effect that Christianity is the only way.

>>>>>********* 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 [...]
>
>-Steve:
>>I am now convinced that [my arguments against Christianity] are
>>correct, regardless of my motives in searching for them. 
>>
>Sounds reasonable. Though, of course, *I* find no such arguments against
>Christianity which would make ME reject it. But that's another story.

That's because you have a non-disprovable hypothesis.  I can't show
you are wrong, but you can't show you are right.

> 
>Thanks for the reference to Cohen's book; I may have a look into it one
>day. Still, as I don't argue that the Bible IS TRUE BECAUSE it was a
>great psychological success but I say that I ACCEPT the Bible because I
>find that the message I find in it AGREES with what I feel about God, I
>won't be much impressed by any convincing psychological explanation of
>the success of the Bible... You see, it is tangential to the problem...

Ah, but consider it as a competing model, if you will.  If one
discounts your level of comfort with a belief (which I don't consider
a valid criterion in evaluating a belief anyway) then I find that
Cohen's hypothesis is simpler, more elegant and accounts for the
various Bible passages we have cited *better* than your model of what
Christianity really is.  (Incidentally, Cohen makes no assumption as
to the existence or non-existence of God in his thesis.  A theist
without any stakes in Christianity could find his book just as
convincing as an atheist would.)   

I find it interesting that a man who is always "changing his mind" has
concluded that Cohen's thesis is unconvincing before even reading the
book.  Oh well, maybe you'll change your mind.:^)

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
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14091 alt.atheism.moderated:6