Family missionaries (fairly long)

Aug 22 00:09 UTC 1997

I don't know if anyone else deals with this (bjorn, I'd be surprised if 
you hadn't dealt with it at some point) but I have an issue I'd like to 
discuss.

I rarely hear from my family.  Like almost never, unless I call first.  
There's one exception.  My family is devoutly Roman Catholic and every 
year or so I'll get a call out of the blue from one or another of my 
five brothers. (Good Catholics all)  

After a few minutes of idle chatter, they always come around to it.  My 
family is on a mission to bring me "back into the fold".  Now there's 
exactly zero chance of that, but I don't really want to offend them 
since this is the only way I hear from them.

With my parents I've come to an uneasy (on their part) agreement to 
agree to disagree.  With some of my brothers I simply haven't been 
allowed a dissenting word.  They weren't confident enough to hear me 
out.

Then I recieved a series of e-mails from my brother-the-PhD-in-theology.

On the bright side he's confident enough to hear me out -- and by e-mail 
he pretty much has to let me have my say anyway.  But he's also a much 
more experienced debater than I am, and much better able to marshall his 
resources on the fly.  

So far he hasn't come up with any arguments I've never heard before, so 
I've had answers for him, but I'm uncomfortable that either I'll seem to 
be attacking him personally or that he'll feel he's "won" if I state my 
points too firmly or don't I have an answer to some point of "logic" he 
brings up.

Now mind you, I have a lot of practice debating door-to-door 
evangelists, but some of my tactics are none-too-kind.  This is my 
brother and I've seldom heard from him in the 20 years since we left 
home.  I want to encourage him to keep in touch without giving him the 
impression he's "won".

Heres a "ferinstance":

Point: If idea A and idea B are in contradiction, then there are only   
       three possible truths: 
          o A is correct and B is incorrect 
          o B is correct and A is incorrect
          o both A and B are incorrect.

Counterpoint: 
       There is a fourth possibility.  A and B may both be correct, but 
       we don't yet recognize the mechanism that drives them both.  
          
       For instance Einsteinian physics and quantum physics are both    
       true, yet seem to be contradictory.  Probably they are parts     
       of a larger truth that we don't yet comprehend.

He wants to try to approach the religious question through logic.  If he 
sticks to logic and it continues to be this flawed I'll have no trouble 
not losing the argument, but will I lose my brother?

If any of you have tried to deal with this missionary zeal from your 
families, would you be willing to share what you did and said and how it 
worked out?

Thanks...

response 2 of 64:

Aug 23 01:57 UTC 1997

Thanks, Jazz.  (Oh well for my physics argument.  *sigh*  That wasn't an 
auspicious start.)

I'm definitely going to look up the infidels page -- he's very academic 
and it'll be interesting to see what he makes of the historical 
arguments.  ;)

response 4 of 64:

Aug 23 03:23 UTC 1997

Try www.infidels.org instead.

(Why do people assume that every Web domain is commercial???)

response 6 of 64:

Aug 25 23:44 UTC 1997

That's a good idea -- because David is a much better debater than I had 
expected and much more up on science than I am.  I don't really expect 
or want to "win", but it's becoming much more clear that he couldn't 
care less what I think, he's just determined to "save" me.

Unfortunately his arguments aren't as stupid as most of the doorstep 
prostelytizers.  If you can grant his primary asssumptions, it's all 
very logical.  Course, his primary assumptions are that there's only one 
right way and that's his way.  <grin>

I did eventually find the infidels page and that has kept my spirits up 
though it didn't especially help with the arguments.  (It occured to me 
to try .org anf there it was!)

If anyone is interested I could post segments of his notes -- I'd be 
-um- very interested in how others would handle specific arguments.

response 8 of 64:

Aug 26 02:50 UTC 1997

OK, when I get home I'll log in here and post it.  It's coming out in 
bits and pieces so far, but that may be what's making it hard to get a 
good grip on.

Or there may be other reasons...

response 10 of 64:

Aug 26 14:45 UTC 1997

        Or you could pose a similar question to *him* and ask for a rational,
logical answer:

        You're convinced someone else's religious beliefs are wrong, and wish
for them to take up the same beliefs that you have, yet in the process you're
sure to cause them emotional pain, and in most cases lose them forever.

        What do you do?

        "Shoot the hostage" :)

response 12 of 64:

Aug 26 23:30 UTC 1997

I guess, Kami, that I've decided to go with number 3.  Can't really 
explain why except that it seems important.  (I'll probably resort to 
your suggestion when we come to a bloody draw, Jazz.)

Here's the salient bits of the second message; it's pretty long. MT is 
me from a previous message, DD is him from this message DD> is him from 
a previous message: 
***********************
MT  I don't think that's the best way to paraphrase my religious views. 
MT  I think that religion was developed by people to serve human needs. 
MT  (Completely aside from whether diety exists.)                       
 
DD  While it is true many religions were developed by humans, it is not 
DD  true that all religion was.  The worship of God is innate to our 
DD  being.  There are two sources of knowledge about God.  That which we 
DD  can derive from the process of reason, and that which is revealed.  
DD  If an element of knowledge cannot be shown to be knowable from 
DD  reason alone, to accept it - you must be able to proove that it came 
DD  from God.  But I know I am ahead of some basic elements 
DD  upon which we do not (yet) agree, so I will move on.   

********************************
MT  Along with the Bhuddists, I believe there are many correct paths to 
MT  the truth, and the truth is not a small easily conceived thing. It's 
MT  enormous - beyong any human ability to comprehend the whole. Each of 
MT  us can hope, at best, for a glimpse of one part. For me, reason per 
MT  se is irrelevant to religion. Religion isn't a logical process. It's 
MT  the "other side" of reason: knowing. You recognize spiritual truth 
MT  not with your mind but with your heart...and sometimes what seems to 
MT  be true on one level will see to be contradicted on the other. But, 
MT  as with the story of the blind men and the elephant, that isn't 
MT  because one truth is more correct than another but because we aren't 
MT  capable of understanding the whole of the truth.           

DD  I agree that there are many paths to the Truth, what is the Truth 
DD  that we are searching for and what is the best path to that.  I will 
DD  try to show that Truth is that there is one God who created us, sent 
DD  His Son to die for us, and left a Church here to guide us to what 
DD  "no eye has seen, no ear has heard, what God has waiting for those 
DD  who love Him."  Most religions have some truth in them, but I 
DD  contend that they are the result of a process akin to the old game 
DD  of "gossip" that have left the true path God has set and error in 
DD  the one Truth has crept in and clouded the entire truth.  I also    
DD  agree that the entire Truth is much more than any human can 
DD  comprehend, but that doesn't mean we cannot understand what we need 
DD  to for our salvation.  Religion is not only a logical process, but 
DD  it cannot be illogical.  Faith cannot deny reason.  While faith 
DD  doesn't come from reason alone, it must be part of the process.  
DD  With the story of the blind men, I don't remember it verbatim; 
DD  however, as I do remember there was no contradiction here, only    
DD  evidence that seemed to conflict with initial assumptions with 
DD  regard to what the truth was.  That simply shows that the "model" 
DD  used for making predictions was incorrect.  In Catholicism I have 
DD  found no data, no evidence that conflicts with the "model."  It all 
DD  makes sense logically and God confirms it through His Grace that I 
DD  respond to -- my faith.              

*********************************** 
MT  Well, I firmly believe that truth is where you find it, and that for 
MT  *you* and for millions of others, yours is the one truth. It feeds 
MT  your need for understanding in a way that no other path will.       
   
DD  What you are assuming here is that religion only exists to serve our 
DD  earth needs.  In that case it is nothing more than as you said 
DD  before, a human creation.  However, while religion can benefit us on 
DD  earth, that is not it primary purpose.  Its purpose is to know God, 
DD  to understand His Will, and follow His Will.  The reason for this is 
DD  not because God is some demanding being, but because we need it.  
DD  Things go wrong when we live outside of the Truth, whether we do it 
DD  purposefully or not.  We are all one Body, the Mystical Body of 
DD  Christ (for those who have been baptized).  When one part suffers, 
DD  we all suffer; when one part is glorified we are all glorified.

**********************************
MT  The only place I disagreewith that is in your idea that other paths 
MT  can't be the one true path to understanding for other people. 

DD  The Truth cannot be changed, nor does it change.  One cannot just DD 
 choose something as the truth because it fits with what one wishes DD  
to believe or because it justifies how one wishes to live.  Many DD  
people have taken different paths to the truth, they end up finding DD  
it in the Catholic Church -- and here they are really satisified, as DD 
 is not possible any other way.    
 
************************************
<long story about a wierd experience snipped>

DD  One cannot always explain how the Holy Spirit.  The cure may not DD 
 have been a sign for you.  It may have been for someone elses DD  
sanctification. The cure may have been given at the Mass and delayed DD 
 for some reason, or God may simply have let the illness take its DD  
course.  Having worked as an analyst and studied some logic, I do DD  
know that human beings tend to apply the most recent cause" to the DD  
"effect" they see and this many times gets us into trouble.  Effect DD  
can sometime immediately follow cause, but not always, sometimes it DD  
is delayed.  

DD  As an example, a hockey player once during a game was hit very hard. 
DD  He got up and finished the game.  Several hours later at dinner, he 
DD  falls limp in his chair.  Everyone rushes to him supposing that he 
DD  choked on his food.  What actually happened was that his vertebrate 
DD  had been lacerated during the game, during dinner and he moved just 
DD  right (wrong) and cut his spinal cord.  The short story long, 
DD  whether this incident was a miracle or not I don't know, but God 
DD  could not have given you a sign that would take you away from His DD 
 Truth.                                                          
    
*************************   
DD> Tolerance I think has come to mean that everyone's beliefs can be 
DD> true. However, that is not possible if they contradict one another. 
DD> The fundamental law of logic is that of non-contradiction. 
DD> Therefore, if two positions say the opposite, there are only three 
DD> possibilities, A is correct, B is correct or they are both 
DD> incorrect. In that case you need to find out which is the case.     
 
MT  Not necessarily true, David. Look for instance at how einsteinian 
MT  physics and quantum phsyics appear to be true in their own realm and 
MT  yet appear to be contradictory. There is a fourth possibility -- MT 
 sometimes both are true but we don't yet understand the mechanism or MT 
 see the whole picture.                 
                                                                        
     
DD  I think you mean the newtonian physics seems to break down at the DD 
 quantum level.  That is true; however again there is no 
DD  contradiction here.  As with the incorrect model used with the blind 
DD  men and the elephant, the newtonian model simply is the incorrect 
DD  model to use to predict what happens at the quantum level.  We don't 
DD  yet have a model that bridges the gap between the quantum level and 
DD  the macro level; however the models don't contradict one another. 

DD  An example of what I mean:  I say there is a chair sitting behind  
DD  me and you say there isn't.  We cannot both be correct, it cannot be 
DD  true for me and not for you.  When I sit down we then find out what 
DD  the object truth was.  If I fall to the floor "my truth" was 
DD  incorrect, your "truth" was THE truth.  The same logical principle 
DD  holds at all levels, two contradictory things cannot both be true, 
DD  in the same way at the same time, in the same place.  

DD  With regard to religion, if I say there is only One true God and    
DD  there are no others besides Him, and you say other deities exist, 
DD  either you there are no others besides Him, and you say other DD  
deities exist, either you are correct or I am (or in this case an DD  
athiest could offer a third possibility) we cannot both be correct. DD  
One (or from the perspective of the athiest both of us) of us is DD  
wrong.  The only way to know is to use reason/logic and any existing DD 
 data one can make an argument for.  We cannot go our separate ways DD  
with nothing happening sooner or later we will sit down 
DD  (when we die) and then we will find out the truth.  In the meantime, 
DD  we must use the faculties God gave us to find the Truth.            
********************                 
MT  That sort of faith doesn't work for me.  I operate from my heart -- 
MT  and yes, my feelings about my children have always been intense: I 
MT  love them beyond reason, and no one can make me as angry.  Not even 
MT  Larry has a greater draw on my emotional resources.  Even when 
MT  things are neither very, very good nor very, very bad, I feel an MT 
intense rightness when I'm with the kids. 
 
MT  I need a religion that feels that right, too.  Like the Native MT  
Americans, I find that rightness in my connection to the earth and MT  
like the Hindus I find that singing of my soul through imagery and MT  
poetry.  The Catholic church leaves behind in my life a taste for 
MT  pageantry and ritual and my experience as a woman demands a religion 
MT  that is honest in its expression and respectful of  the reality of 
MT  my life and the lives of my ancestors.          
 
DD  You have already advised that you do use reason as a guide (at least 
DD  partially) in faith .  You said you couldn't understand the Catholic 
DD  faith and that is your reason, at least in part, for rejecting it.  
DD  I would suggest that the methods you used were perhaps not correct 
DD  for you, but I disagree that the faith cannot be correct for you.  
DD  It is a fact of creation that it is correct for you, that is because 
DD  it is the all encompassing Truth to which you earlier referred.  It 
DD  is true we will never understand all of it, but that is the happy DD 
 consequence from God's infinite Being.  It is a necessity that we DD  
not understand it all, otherwise God would be finite and within our DD  
minds. It is also true that God has revealed that which is DD  DD  
sufficient to understand what we need for our salvation.  I would DD  
suggest that you make another attempt at understanding the Catholic DD  
faith in its fullness before rejecting it.  I would be more than DD  
glad to help.  Once you comprehend it, then the possibility of the DD  
heartfelt acceptance is possible.                 

*******************************    
MT  I've found that religious expression through neo-paganism.  Neo MT  
because though it's based on the pre-Christian European religions, MT  
it's actually only been practiced openly since the 1920s.  Paganism MT  
because it's open to filtering reality through the lenses of many MT  
dieties to see what gold-dust of truth we'll find there.   
    
DD  Again, if you use incorrect models ("the lenses of many dieties") 
DD  you will get erroneous answers.  These will only be seen as error if 
DD  you use reason and logic for the filtering.  The probability of 
DD  error is high in a passive environment, it is greatly enhanced in an 
DD  environment of active evil.  If you reject the possibility of the DD 
 devil (which is his desire) than you have no defense against his DD  
temptations and lies.                                   
 
DD  This is pretty long already so I will have to put off the proofs for 
DD  the existence of God and what attributes the proofs show God must 
DD  have until my next e-mail.                                          
                                                                        
DD    God Bless                                                         
          
                                                                        
                                      

response 14 of 64:

Aug 27 03:12 UTC 1997

Frustrating, Misti.  And also, a delightfully skilled debate partner, if it
were not a matter of such personal importance to both of you.

response 16 of 64:

Aug 27 21:24 UTC 1997

(The very question that I was pondering all day at work...)

response 18 of 64:

Aug 28 04:32 UTC 1997

   oy.  you were right when you said he's a skilled debater, mta. as
far as your question in #15, jazz, the answer to that is easy: in order
to be a good roman catholic, one *must* accept that the roman catholic
church is the one true church, founded by jesus himself. "i call you
`peter,' which means `rock,' and on this rock i build my church..."
is accepted in the roman catholic church as jesus' appointment of peter
as the first pope. it is roman catholic dogma that their church is the
only one started by jesus, therefore it's the only one which could
possibly hold any validity whatsoever, since jesus is the son of the
one true god, and therefore *all* other religions are *wrong*. (but
you won't find too many rc non-clergy these days who are willing to
put it that strongly.) and obviously, he was lucky enough to have been
born into the one true faith because it was god's will.

response 20 of 64:

Aug 28 14:41 UTC 1997

        Right, but here we're  talking about someone who ostensibly has a
certain amount of logic in their faith - the question begs to be answered:
how is it that, among all of the religions that have followers amongst all
of the peoples of the Earth, how is it that he was so lucky to be born into
the One True One - and how can he, as a rational philosopher, tell the
difference between the One True Faith and the others, outside of being born
into it?

response 22 of 64:

Aug 28 20:54 UTC 1997

Re 20 - But that's the easy part for him to explain.  Some
number of people are born into the One True Faith, others
aren't.  He happens to be one of the lucky ones.  If he had
been born into a false faith and then found the True one, he
would probably be willing to admit that he had had an unlucky
start.

response 24 of 64:

Aug 29 15:12 UTC 1997

        Follow my argument for just a moment longer - either there's a
fantastic and logical argument for being born into the One True Religion, or
there is an act of faith in contradiction to logic - and I've a feeling it's
the latter.  Faith that the religion you're born into is true.  If you can
point out to a logical and rational person that their faith is based on flimsy
premises, then they may accept this ad back off. :)