From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief (was Luke, Derrida, etc.)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:46:56 GMT

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>Steve Adams writes:
>
>Re: Elaine Pagels
>
>> The `Pesher' texts, and Qumran?  My impression is that she's way out
>> The 'Pesher' texts?  About Qumran?  My understanding is that she's way out
>> in left field, with some provably inaccurate understandings of the Essenes
>
>I was actually thinking of her book "The Gnostic Gospels." I don't know
>what she thinks about Qumran, etc.  The book I'm thinking about
>doesn't mention the Essenes. I've been quoting her on the Gnostics
>for a while now, and nobody's trashed me yet...and her comments on
>Gnosticism have checked out with other sources I've looked at. 

It was pointed out to me in Email that I have confused Ms. Pagels with
another author.  I retract the mistake. ;-)

>Veh. What is truth?
"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make ye free."  
[Acts of the CIA, 1:1]

>Now that I think of it, it sounds like you're talking about Barbara Thierling.
>She has a recent book out on the things you describe which is getting
>panned by the scholarly world, I hear. Sound right?
Yes....exactly.

[on accepting Jesus]
>>>I guess, technically, I've done my part. :) 
>> You have to confess with your mind and your heart that Jesus is Lord...
>Whoa...!  Really?
Yep!  Or so the Good Book says...or at least Paul...and we know what you
think of the travelling salesman.

>Think about that for a second. A person cannot control what the impulses
>of their "heart" are, by definition. You've just asserted that the act
>of _accepting salvation_ is 100% out of the hands of the individual.
:-)  God gives grace to those who will accept it.  Basically, all you can
do is stop saying 'No' to God and he does the rest.

>In effect, that only the "elect" (those whose hearts run that way) will
>be saved. So much for free will, etc. etc. Booom whoosh crunch...geez did
>the whole edifice of Paulist Xianity collapse again?  It's fun kicking
>the knees out from under Xianity the first ten or twenty times, but
>even I'm getting bored with it...geez...must be getting old...
The 'free will' part is in saying 'No' to God.  When you stop saying 'No',
then you receive the grace...round and round we go, where we stop, nobody
knows.

>>>But the next question is: Who's Yahweh?  I think JC was speaking in 
>>>metaphoric terms for an aspect of life that could go by many other names. 
>>>Jewish tradition personifies this aspect. This has its ups and downs.
>>>One one hand, it's a good metaphor, but on the other, it is easily
>>>misunderstood and taken as a literal term instead of a metaphoric term.
>>So Jacob (Israel) was wrestling with the metaphor...ie, struggling with the
>>concept of God?? ;-)
>
>Heck, I forget the details of that story...it's been years. But I would
>read that more as Jacob wrestling with God. Next question: from what we know
>about Yahweh, and what he is a metaphor for, what does it mean to wrestle
>with Yahweh? See what we're doing?  We're reading these things as myths, which
>is what they were originally, I'm sure. I'm sure they were never intended as
>history, any more, than say, the Arthurian cycles were. 

Were they?  Assume for a moment that they are just 'stories,' and not
divinely inspired documents.  Think about that for a moment.  In this case,
these 'stories,' told by early story tellers, were likely considered as 
logical explanations for how things came to pass.  They were likely
believed by the people as 'truth'...whatever that is!

>> [About Revelation & metaphors]
>> Hmm..interesting thought...I'm just not as attuned to poetry...
>Sure you are -- the only difference between you and Shakespeare is that
>Shakespeare never took his poetry seriously. 
:-)

>>[About 'belief' vs. 'unknowing belief']
>>I don't see the difference here...and how is this insincere?  If I
>>acknowledge that I can't really know, yet I still sincerely 'think' that
>>God exists????  I'm SOOO confused by what you're getting at here...
>
>I'll try to stick to the relevant point as much as I can.
Yeah, right!

>You see, God is not a directly apprehendable thing, the way these characters
>on your screen are. God is a matter of interpretation -- God is only seen in
>his works, never directly. 
Agreed.  I have never seen God.  I can relate.

>So, in order for you to sincerely think that
>he exists, you must regard your interpretation as correct, and in fact
>there is no way to know if this is the case. There is no way to even
>measure likelihoods of one interpretation's correctness vs. those of others.
"I think therefore I am"?  In other words, I have my hypothesis, which I
believe to be correct in light of my view of the universe and the 'answers'
to the unknowns?

>There are an infinite number of possible hypothesis to explain any given
>phenomenon -- this means that sincere belief is ALWAYS based on a totally
>unsupportable conclusion.  
Agreed...

>Now, my personal bias is to say that God does NOT exist. In fact, it seems
>pretty clear to me that he doesn't, at least not the God of the Bible.
>However, if I indulge in regarding my tentative conclusion as being
>accurate, I am deluding myself, because there are an infinite number
>of other hypotheses that explain life as I experience it besides the
>scientific materialist one that appeals to me so.  In other words --
>yes, I really think there is no God, but no, I don't trust what I 
>think for a minute. That is to say, I believe, but I don't believe
>in my beliefs.  

In other words, you're agnostic! ;-)  Kind of a long-winded way to say it,
isn't it???

>>>In other words, you have a set of ideas about life which do not seem to 
>>>adequately account for life as you experience it. So 
>>>you have questions. You have found that one way to deal with this
>>>problem is to adopt another set of ideas which satisfies your
>>>desire to have the universe make sense. 
>>
>>Likely so.  'God' explains quite a few things that otherwise I wouldn't
>>have an acceptable explanation for...
>
>Fair enough. But consider the points above -- there are an infinite
>number of possible hypotheses that can explain the phenomena you
>are thinking of. People believe in God because the notion appeals to them
>on a non-rational level -- there can be no rational ground for any belief.
I don't know about this...not sure I agree with it.

>What are these non-rational attractions?  We have to save _something_
>for next time. :)
Of course!

 -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