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