I want to revisit this original thought I had because I've pondered some more and I think I've come to a logical conclusion that is troubling for the Christian, or any snake oil salesman in general.
To recap, in the book/movie 1984 towards the end we have the main character being tortured by some guy working for Big Brother. The dialogue I originally used might be a hybrid situation and not the actual dialogue from the book/movie, but that is irrelevant, as the message is what is crucial here:
Torturer: what is 2 + 2?
Victim: 4
*torture*
T: what is 2 + 2?
V: four!
*torture*
T: what is 2 + 2?
V: FOUR!
*torture*
...
T: what is 2 + 2?
V: what do you want it to be?
T: good... muahahah!
Clearly, we have a situation here where the victim is using their reasoning in order to give an answer. When the desired outcome isn't being achieved, the victim is made to override reasoning. From here onward, their mind becomes a blank book where any non-truths can be stored by the torturer at will. The order of things is as follows:
#1) 2 + 2 is 4
#2) I'm being told it is not
#3) I'm certain it is 4 according to reason
#4) In order to believe it isn't actually 4, I need to let go of reason
#5) 2 + 2 is in fact ____
Now, something very important that needs to be noted is that under normal circumstances (e.g. two people having a similar dialogue about 2 + 2 at a cafe) there arguably is no "driving force" that will make the "victim" abandon reason. Because they are being tortured in 1984, it is a matter of following instincts; they need to stop the pain, and to do that they have to adapt their reasoning to the situation.
Now, let's have a look at A/S/K: we have a case where the non-believer says something like "I can't experience God through my senses" (the 1984 equivalent is reason). The theist will say "In order to experience God [in some way, shape or form] you need to A/S/K". We can clearly see that the two viewpoints are going to slide past each other without really coming to an agreement. So, for this hypothetical, I suggest we think of the "victim" as a weak believer who thinks e.g. God speaks to them only through scripture and not vocally/through dreams/in their head. This would naturally introduce a sort of "driving force", but instead of physical pain, we have a sort of mental pain that can be classified as cognitive dissonance, because the "victim" believes they cannot experience God directly through the senses, but we have the other theist saying it is in fact possible. Therefore the "victim" might feel like they are missing out, or their view of God is incomplete which then means they can't experience God. I think this "driving force" is actually quite common in Pentecostal churches where e.g. worship is quite charismatic and the older church members seem to have weekly encounters with God, which leaves the young ones in a state of "mental torture" as they feel they aren't doing it right. Anyways, the dialogue between "victim" and "torturer" might go something like this:
T: to experience God, you need to A/S/K
V: I've tried, but I cannot experience God with my senses
*cognitive dissonance. self inflicted mental torture*
T: just A/S/K and you will experience God!
V: I can't. I'm not feeling anything!
*more mental torture*
T: A/S/K!
V: there he is!
The order in which things happen is as follows:
#1) My senses can't detect God talking to me
#2) I'm being told A/S/K works though
#3) I'm certain God isn't talking to me according to my senses
#4) In order to effectively A/S/K, I need to ignore my senses
#5) God is there
In 1984, the victim comes to the conclusion that it doesn't have to make sense. They know that 2 + 2 is actually ___. Likewise, the conclusion the weak believer comes to is that they don't have to feel God. They know the feeling is there. Clearly, both have let go of something crucial to the mind in order to achieve the desired outcome by the torturer and believer respectively.
Now, here's my conclusion to all this: for a second, let us (the non-believers and weak believers) assume that the Judeo-Christian God does in fact exist and to reach him, one must necessarily abandon trusting one's senses to be correct and just have faith that he will speak. Does it sound sensible to think the Ultimate Truth of the Cosmos is accessible through such a bizarre method? Let's assume "yes". Now, what if I wanted to start a new cult today, right now? I would have to devise the "driving force" which would be the thing that makes people think they are missing out on salva--ahem, something or other. What methods might I employ in order to get someone to believe whatever I wanted, like, oh I dunno, 2 + 2 is 5?
It's rather suss that to experience a part of reality (the Judeo-Christian God) we must use the method that can also be used to inject non-truths into someone. Christians, by all means use special pleading and confirmation bias to justify why A/S/K works for you but not any other religious person and their god. Just don't expect us to see your method as credible, as it smells of snake oil.
To recap, in the book/movie 1984 towards the end we have the main character being tortured by some guy working for Big Brother. The dialogue I originally used might be a hybrid situation and not the actual dialogue from the book/movie, but that is irrelevant, as the message is what is crucial here:
Torturer: what is 2 + 2?
Victim: 4
*torture*
T: what is 2 + 2?
V: four!
*torture*
T: what is 2 + 2?
V: FOUR!
*torture*
...
T: what is 2 + 2?
V: what do you want it to be?
T: good... muahahah!
Clearly, we have a situation here where the victim is using their reasoning in order to give an answer. When the desired outcome isn't being achieved, the victim is made to override reasoning. From here onward, their mind becomes a blank book where any non-truths can be stored by the torturer at will. The order of things is as follows:
#1) 2 + 2 is 4
#2) I'm being told it is not
#3) I'm certain it is 4 according to reason
#4) In order to believe it isn't actually 4, I need to let go of reason
#5) 2 + 2 is in fact ____
Now, something very important that needs to be noted is that under normal circumstances (e.g. two people having a similar dialogue about 2 + 2 at a cafe) there arguably is no "driving force" that will make the "victim" abandon reason. Because they are being tortured in 1984, it is a matter of following instincts; they need to stop the pain, and to do that they have to adapt their reasoning to the situation.
Now, let's have a look at A/S/K: we have a case where the non-believer says something like "I can't experience God through my senses" (the 1984 equivalent is reason). The theist will say "In order to experience God [in some way, shape or form] you need to A/S/K". We can clearly see that the two viewpoints are going to slide past each other without really coming to an agreement. So, for this hypothetical, I suggest we think of the "victim" as a weak believer who thinks e.g. God speaks to them only through scripture and not vocally/through dreams/in their head. This would naturally introduce a sort of "driving force", but instead of physical pain, we have a sort of mental pain that can be classified as cognitive dissonance, because the "victim" believes they cannot experience God directly through the senses, but we have the other theist saying it is in fact possible. Therefore the "victim" might feel like they are missing out, or their view of God is incomplete which then means they can't experience God. I think this "driving force" is actually quite common in Pentecostal churches where e.g. worship is quite charismatic and the older church members seem to have weekly encounters with God, which leaves the young ones in a state of "mental torture" as they feel they aren't doing it right. Anyways, the dialogue between "victim" and "torturer" might go something like this:
T: to experience God, you need to A/S/K
V: I've tried, but I cannot experience God with my senses
*cognitive dissonance. self inflicted mental torture*
T: just A/S/K and you will experience God!
V: I can't. I'm not feeling anything!
*more mental torture*
T: A/S/K!
V: there he is!
The order in which things happen is as follows:
#1) My senses can't detect God talking to me
#2) I'm being told A/S/K works though
#3) I'm certain God isn't talking to me according to my senses
#4) In order to effectively A/S/K, I need to ignore my senses
#5) God is there
In 1984, the victim comes to the conclusion that it doesn't have to make sense. They know that 2 + 2 is actually ___. Likewise, the conclusion the weak believer comes to is that they don't have to feel God. They know the feeling is there. Clearly, both have let go of something crucial to the mind in order to achieve the desired outcome by the torturer and believer respectively.
Now, here's my conclusion to all this: for a second, let us (the non-believers and weak believers) assume that the Judeo-Christian God does in fact exist and to reach him, one must necessarily abandon trusting one's senses to be correct and just have faith that he will speak. Does it sound sensible to think the Ultimate Truth of the Cosmos is accessible through such a bizarre method? Let's assume "yes". Now, what if I wanted to start a new cult today, right now? I would have to devise the "driving force" which would be the thing that makes people think they are missing out on salva--ahem, something or other. What methods might I employ in order to get someone to believe whatever I wanted, like, oh I dunno, 2 + 2 is 5?
It's rather suss that to experience a part of reality (the Judeo-Christian God) we must use the method that can also be used to inject non-truths into someone. Christians, by all means use special pleading and confirmation bias to justify why A/S/K works for you but not any other religious person and their god. Just don't expect us to see your method as credible, as it smells of snake oil.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
