Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: what does it mean to talk to God [a brief attempt at an answer]
Message-ID: <4947@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 16:00:10 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4947
Posted: Fri Mar  8 16:00:10 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Mar-85 10:22:03 EST
References: <893@topaz.ARPA>, <2635@mcnc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 74
Xref: watmath net.religion:5901 net.religion.christian:382

>In article <893@topaz.ARPA> hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) writes:
>> ...if I claim that God is sending me messages on 100 MHz with frequency
>>modulation, it is very easy to verify whether this is true or not.  When I
>>claim that he is sending me messages through the events around me, it is
>>very hard to prove this true or false.  Someone else can look around and see
>>no message there.  According to certain philosophers of science, in the
>>final analysis this means that my claim is meaningless.
>
>[Byron Howes:]
>More problematic is the situation where someone else looks around and sees
>a *different* message there.  Now we have counterclaims of truth, each with
>the same degree (or lack thereof) of falsifiability.  This is the question
>which generates the continuing heat in this newsgroup.  As I have been
>asked on any number of occasions, how is it possible to determine what is
>correct?  I would claim that it is not, and that the evidence would
>indicate that G-d speaks to different people in different ways and with
>different messages.

Not only different, but often contradictory.  Is there still no way
to sort out what is correct?  I would disagree that all religions have
truth claims with the same degree (or lack thereof) of falsifiability.

>It is easy to beg the question by saying that essentially "I know I am
>right and you are mistaken -- come read *my* books."  There is not,
>however, any objective criteria on which to base that statement and all
>subjective criteria have to be equally weighted (my revelation is not
>objectively superior or inferior to your revelation.)

Some religions have their revelation grounded more firmly in history than
others.  That is, once we accept the proposition that God is there (the
most basic) and that we also exist (undeniably so) we can examine the
relationship between God and us that is revealed by each religion and its
implications (philosophy of religion).  We may look at the problems
common to humankind and see how each philosophy deals with them.  We can
also look at the historical claims made by each and see where the firmest
ground lies.

There are religions with little grounding in the events of history.  There
are those whose adherents make circular claims for the authority of their
own revelation.  There are some that make denial of problems out to be the
solution to those problems.  And there are those that seem to deny the
usefulness of the very tools of reason we use to grapple with the problems
we face.  For these--you are right--there is little falsification possible
and no way to connect "epistemological subjectivity" with "metaphysical
objectivity".  You cannot, however, force all religions into that pigeon
hole and say objectivity is completely irrelevant to them all.

Even if you could do that, you still have to face the problems of
contridictory truth claims.  Surely you don't resolve them by saying they
are all equally valid.  You must have reasons for believing some things
are true and others not, even in the realm of religious belief.  How
can all subjective criteria be equally weighted when the only subjectivity
any of us posesses is our own?  Doesn't the act of weighing them require
something a little beyond total subjectivity?  From your parenthetical
note, it seems that you would agree that it does.  Yet you claim that
determination of what is correct it impossible.  I would hope that God
has made a provision to resolve the issues adaquately (albeit not
absolutely).  We cannot suspend judgement indefinitely on many things
that are important; the implications of our beliefs.  Laura thinks
Satanism is horrible.  Tim thinks Christianity is horrible.  I may agree
with Laura and disagree with Tim, but I would not claim that there
are no grounds for making such judgements; that the judgements themselves
are meaningless.  Religions invariably lead their adherents to hold
beliefs that inherently imply that other religious beliefs are wrong.
We cannot ignore this conflict.  There must be some meaningful way
to consider it.  We have no choice, I think.

Maybe I have totally misunderstood your point, Byron.  But you must
have some way of resolving these conflicts to your own satisfaction
and you must believe the methods you use have validity that extends
beyond your own subjectivity (why even discuss religion otherwise?).
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd