1984 & A/S/K revisited

[FallentoReason]

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.

[Undeceived]

So you are accusing Christians of rationalizing. Well, what do you call dreaming up reasons people might convert?

[FallentoReason]

So you are accusing Christians of rationalizing. Well, what do you call dreaming up reasons people might convert?

???

The "too long; didn't read" version of the OP would be this:

You're telling us that in order to experience God, we need to use a method that can equally be used to make someone believe whatever you desire. Based on this (whose justification went right over your head apparently) I call bullcrap on the whole "experiencing God" thing, just like I call bullcrap on the 1984 hypothetical that 2 + 2 is anything but 4.

[Godscreated]

So you are accusing Christians of rationalizing. Well, what do you call dreaming up reasons people might convert?

???

The "too long; didn't read" version of the OP would be this:

You're telling us that in order to experience God, we need to use a method that can equally be used to make someone believe whatever you desire. Based on this (whose justification went right over your head apparently) I call bullcrap on the whole "experiencing God" thing, just like I call bullcrap on the 1984 hypothetical that 2 + 2 is anything but 4.

There is no method of coming to faith in Christ, many different experiences are described by Christians, to some degree you need to know what your committing to. The rest comes as you experience God in a daily walk with Him. One could say you first come to Christ in faith and through faith will come belief and through belief comes knowledge and in this knowledge comes the wonderful relationship that goes beyond description.
By the way you did explain the way in which the anti-christ will fool the world, he will show many aspects of Christ with half truths and the world will believe 2+2=__.

[FallentoReason]

???

The "too long; didn't read" version of the OP would be this:

You're telling us that in order to experience God, we need to use a method that can equally be used to make someone believe whatever you desire. Based on this (whose justification went right over your head apparently) I call bullcrap on the whole "experiencing God" thing, just like I call bullcrap on the 1984 hypothetical that 2 + 2 is anything but 4.

There is no method of coming to faith in Christ, many different experiences are described by Christians, to some degree you need to know what your committing to. The rest comes as you experience God in a daily walk with Him. One could say you first come to Christ in faith and through faith will come belief and through belief comes knowledge and in this knowledge comes the wonderful relationship that goes beyond description.

The OP only deals with the method of A/S/K which claims that direct experiences will result.

By the way you did explain the way in which the anti-christ will fool the world, he will show many aspects of Christ with half truths and the world will believe 2+2=__.

White noise. What you speak of is something you've accepted after you left some part of your mind at the door. As Galileo so elegantly put it:

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

[Undeceived]

What is your definition of "faith"? It seems you put faith and reason in conflict with one another. They work in partnership. Faith goes beyond reason. At some point the senses have to give up their quest for knowledge. A Christian is one who journeys on past the natural epistemic boundaries. God is, by definition, not of this world. So one needs faith to "see" Him. And once they presume His presence, everything else makes sense (kind of like starting a theory with a hypothesis).
Bible verses on reason: http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...915AAz6EC7
Bible verses on faith: http://www.acts17-11.com/faith.html

[Ryantology]

Faith and reason do not necessarily have to conflict.

The faith of Christianity is certainly in conflict with reason, however. To 'know' God, you must first assume he exists and you must interpret the results to match the assumption because it is impossible to verify in any way. One can never even attempt to 'know' God without being informed of the concept of God by some outside source, which means, at best, that every claim to 'know' God through personal revelation is, at best, massively questionable. That claim goes entirely against the concept of reason.

Personal revelation is demonstrably prone to confirmation bias, and since no one has ever demonstrated evidence to the contrary (and, since that is the only evidence which exists), reason can only lead one to the conclusion that the Christian God is fraudulent to a degree of nearly total certainty.

[Godscreated]

There is no method of coming to faith in Christ, many different experiences are described by Christians, to some degree you need to know what your committing to. The rest comes as you experience God in a daily walk with Him. One could say you first come to Christ in faith and through faith will come belief and through belief comes knowledge and in this knowledge comes the wonderful relationship that goes beyond description.

The OP only deals with the method of A/S/K which claims that direct experiences will result.

Does not what I say result in direct experience, the answer would be yes, just trying to help. Since the results are the same I see no problem in using my statement, or does this pose a problem for your argument.

[FallentoReason]

What is your definition of "faith"? It seems you put faith and reason in conflict with one another. They work in partnership. Faith goes beyond reason.

I would think "faith" is a sort of "trust". The question here seems to be if it is justified trust, like when I get on a bus and I trust the driver not to crash. I would use some simple reasoning that would lead me to think it's rational to trust him/her, such as think to myself when was the last time a bus driver crashed in my city (dealing with probabilities), assuming he/she has been doing the job for years and therefore has the experience (dealing with an understanding of the nature of employment) etc etc. I would assume you think your faith in e.g. the A/S/K method is justified, but how exactly? You have no prior evidence that it works, which means it's literally a blind leap of faith into the unknown. Why not also believe 2 + 2 is 5?

At some point the senses have to give up their quest for knowledge.

Why, so that we can believe the snake oil salesman? It doesn't sound rational in the least to say that we have to let go of the senses in order to believe something. Would it be sensible for me to have faith that when I get on the bus, it will take off and fly? No, because my senses tell me the bus doesn't hold such an ability to do that.

Let's think of an example closer to A/S/K: an organisation tells people that if they give them $10 a day, eventually the CEO will give them 1 million dollars. I could do background checks on this organisation and talk to people about it and come to the conclusion that they are a fraud OR I could have faith that they will follow through and give me 1 million dollars. Do I trust my senses/reasoning or am I justified in simply putting trust into them?

A Christian is one who journeys on past the natural epistemic boundaries. God is, by definition, not of this world. So one needs faith to "see" Him.

Ah, so now it's all about 66 seeing 99, is it? Why the jump from literally experiencing him to a metaphorical experience? I have the feeling I might have gotten to you and you're having to readjust to your new-found cognitive dissonance... this is always the way; salvage the belief and adapt the view to somehow still harmonize with the belief.

And once they presume His presence, everything else makes sense (kind of like starting a theory with a hypothesis).

It's not like a theory and hypothesis in the least. A hypothesis will make an educated guess as to what the results are going to be. The theory is the explanation for the observations after the experiment, which will either prove your hypothesis right or wrong. If we think of A/S/K in these terms we then have our hypothesis saying that A/S/K will result in an experience with God. Now, what you've said is "once they presume his presence, everything else makes sense"... in other words, screw the experiment, the theory is that God speaks to you through A/S/K because we "presume his presence". Thus, our hypothesis gets an automatic tick since we've fixed the entire thing to fit our unjustified presupposition. You're telling me to override the entire process and just presuppose God. Reason seems to have been left at the door altogether.

Having to "presume his presence" would be like presuming the organisation's legitimacy. Of course, from then on "everything will make sense" and after spending thousands of dollars, you still won't doubt for a second that a 1 million dollar check is coming your way.

---

The OP only deals with the method of A/S/K which claims that direct experiences will result.

Does not what I say result in direct experience, the answer would be yes, just trying to help. Since the results are the same I see no problem in using my statement, or does this pose a problem for your argument.

I just find it too generalized of a statement. That's why I said I'm dealing just with A/S/K here because that way we can analyze a particular beast.

Looking back at your statement, I guess I do have something to comment on.

There is no method of coming to faith in Christ, many different experiences are described by Christians, to some degree you need to know what your committing to. The rest comes as you experience God in a daily walk with Him. One could say you first come to Christ in faith and through faith will come belief and through belief comes knowledge and in this knowledge comes the wonderful relationship that goes beyond description.

Faith -> belief -> knowledge. I find that order to be a problem that is parallel to the OP. Why not knowledge -> belief -> faith? E.g. I come to know that a chair is made up of sturdy parts. This knowledge allows me to form a belief that it can hold someone's weight, therefore, I will put my faith into it that when I sit on it, it won't collapse under my weight. I sit on it and, viola, it doesn't collapse. My entire thought process lead to a justified application of faith.

No, you seem to suggest that I first have to put faith into it... right so I'll put myself out there from the word "go", sit on it, and hope for the best. It doesn't break under my weight... "ah!", I come to believe it's designed to hold my body weight. I can then inspect it and obtain the knowledge that it's made of sturdy parts. My wanting to put faith in it first was completely unjustified, a leap of faith for no apparent reason.

Why is it reasonable to apply your order of faith -> belief -> knowledge when it seems like it's rather silly for anything else we have faith on?

[Godscreated]

What is your definition of "faith"? It seems you put faith and reason in conflict with one another. They work in partnership. Faith goes beyond reason.

I would think "faith" is a sort of "trust". The question here seems to be if it is justified trust, like when I get on a bus and I trust the driver not to crash. I would use some simple reasoning that would lead me to think it's rational to trust him/her, such as think to myself when was the last time a bus driver crashed in my city (dealing with probabilities), assuming he/she has been doing the job for years and therefore has the experience (dealing with an understanding of the nature of employment) etc etc. I would assume you think your faith in e.g. the A/S/K method is justified, but how exactly? You have no prior evidence that it works, which means it's literally a blind leap of faith into the unknown. Why not also believe 2 + 2 is 5?

Yes I believe faith and trust are the same and I believe it is true for scripture as well.
2+2=5 is not logical and has nothing to do with faith, it is wrong from our experience of math. Same for faith, as I've seen the results of 2+2=4, I've seen the results of faith, trust and A/S/K in those who were before me and the ones of my age and the ones coming up. Seeing faith in action for me is no different than seeing 2+2=4. This is the very reason God said the anti-christ will fool the entire world, even the elect, if that were possible. Through our faith Christians will realize what the anti-christ sales is false, we will see it as 2+2=5.