Is J. Neil Schulman justified (logically) in believing in God?


Starbuckle

Recommended Posts

Is Starbuckle David M. Brown?

Doubtful. But, according to you, the only person who expressly invited your appearance at OL was the person who sent you an email.

Me, I figure the continua kissed and a ketosis-staggered Prime Mover's orgasmic orgone cosmic ray shot through the heavens and the desktop servers and united eleven dimensions of desire to make fun with all of us.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Starbuckle is the same person you outed as a longtime correspondent, then your answer is to be found in the invitation itself. Have another gander at that fateful email and quit poisoning the well.

Is Starbuckle David M. Brown?

To which you replied in Message #774:

Is Starbuckle David M. Brown?

Doubtful. But, according to you, the only person who expressly invited your appearance at OL was the person who sent you an email.

Uh, you're not making any sense. You conclude I'm probably not outing Starbuckle as having personally invited me. Which leaves my question to Starbuckle open for a response.

So why are you paralogically accusing me of poisoning the well?

Edited by J. Neil Schulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why are you paralogically accusing me of poisoning the well?

Neil: I wonder what Starbuckle's point was in inviting me into a discussion. ... If it's just to make fun of me and make yourself feel more secure in your worldview, I think a lot of people including atheists could agree that's just pathetic.

The fallacious argument is that Starbuckle's motives are contemptible, so his arguments are worthless.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why are you paralogically accusing me of poisoning the well?

Neil: I wonder what Starbuckle's point was in inviting me into a discussion. ... If it's just to make fun of me and make yourself feel more secure in your worldview, I think a lot of people including atheists could agree that's just pathetic.

The fallacious argument is that Starbuckle's motives are contemptible, so his arguments are worthless.

I'm still waiting for Starbuckle to answer questions for himself.

As for you, whenever I make a point you can't answer, you change the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Neil S. Shulman justified (logically) in believing in God? Yes, if he accepts premises as true like e. g. that Christ rose from the grave on the third day. (Neil really believes this).

I accept on faith the Christian dogma that Christ rose on the third day? Thanks for telling me that since it's news to me.

I am puzzled here, Neil, by your answer to Xray.

She writes that if you accept as true that Christ rose from the grave on the third day, yes, you are logically justified in your belief.

So, there you go. If you accept the premise as true -- that Jesus Christ rose on the third day -- then Xray says you are logically justified in your belief in god. Looks to me like you have found support for your belief.

But, what do you do with that support? Well, instead of 'I accept as true that Jesus rose on the third day?,' you change the wording and meaning of what she wrote:

'I accept as true on faith the Christian dogma that Jesus rose from the grave on the third day?'

And then you deny the import of the redacted phrase --'Thanks for telling me that since it's news to me.'

A problem with your 'it's news to me' is that you are on record as accepting as true that Jesus rose on the third day. It's in your book, in Chapter 10, "Heresies":

BRAD LINAWEAVER: What I want to ask you, now, is one of the areas that separate people in religion — that mystics sometimes argue against — are the various specific claims that religions make historically. So I want to begin with, do you believe, before or after — I don’t care which or both — do you believe there was an historical Jesus Christ?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Yes.

BRAD LINAWEAVER: Do you believe he came out of the tomb three days after crucifixion?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Neil S. Shulman justified (logically) in believing in God? Yes, if he accepts premises as true like e. g. that Christ rose from the grave on the third day. (Neil really believes this).

I accept on faith the Christian dogma that Christ rose on the third day? Thanks for telling me that since it's news to me.

I am puzzled here, Neil, by your answer to Xray.

She writes that if you accept as true that Christ rose from the grave on the third day, yes, you are logically justified in your belief.

So, there you go. If you accept the premise as true -- that Jesus Christ rose on the third day -- then Xray says you are logically justified in your belief in god. Looks to me like you have found support for your belief.

But, what do you do with that support? Well, instead of 'I accept as true that Jesus rose on the third day?,' you change the wording and meaning of what she wrote:

'I accept as true on faith the Christian dogma that Jesus rose from the grave on the third day?'

And then you deny the import of the redacted phrase --'Thanks for telling me that since it's news to me.'

A problem with your 'it's news to me' is that you are on record as accepting as true that Jesus rose on the third day. It's in your book, in Chapter 10, "Heresies":

BRAD LINAWEAVER: What I want to ask you, now, is one of the areas that separate people in religion — that mystics sometimes argue against — are the various specific claims that religions make historically. So I want to begin with, do you believe, before or after — I don’t care which or both — do you believe there was an historical Jesus Christ?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Yes.

BRAD LINAWEAVER: Do you believe he came out of the tomb three days after crucifixion?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Yes.

I'll accept a justifiable hit on this one, for my being sloppy in my use of language.

I have no factual basis to regard Jesus Christ as historically real or any of the Gospel claims as historically true.

I do not accept any claims made about Jesus Christ on faith, and that includes his existence or whether he died and was resurrected.

My mindmeld began with a feeling that "I" had done this before -- merged into a physical body. The first few minutes of the mindmeld included senses of having traveled a long distance, feeling taller than I "remembered," and being surprised at how fat and out of shape the body I was in was.

From that I contemplated (and discussed with Brad in the interview) that the stories of Jesus might have been of an earlier mindmeld, except instead of being one that lasted for a few hours, one that lasted for a few years.

These are thoughts that carry little weight to myself. I contemplate them but do not subscribe to them. However, I used some of these ideas as imaginative launching points for characters in Escape from Heaven.

I have discussed elsewhere that the Jewish story of a fall of nature and a fall of man is a first act to a story that requires a more satisfying second act than a real estate deal for a territory less than half as big as Nye County, Nevada. The Christian story of a resurrection and rescuing of man from that fall strikes me, in dramatic terms, as a necessary second act; but that's because I've always preferred classical comedy to classical tragedy.

I've also said that, like Heinlein, I try not to have "beliefs" at all. As Heinlein taught me, "Beliefs get in the way of fact."

The quotes from me, expressing beliefs in the historical Jesus and a resurrection, are not intellectual statements I'm willing to stand behind and defend.

But they have emotional resonance for me as story, and sloppily I answered "yes" to the question of whether I "believed" them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greybird writes (or quotes): "Yet that Objectivist Living thread has been an invective-fest from all sides, providing little genuine understanding."

It's hard to tell who said this from the large block of text Greybird pastes and/or quotes and/or comments on from the Facebook thread, but the above statement, despite the stretches of vituperation and counter-vituperation that can be found in this OL thread, is simply false. [...]

I wrote this, and as much as it pains me to say it, I have to stand by this — as to how I see it. Obviously, I can't speak for others. With that having been written in the limited confines of a Facebook "note," it deserves some unpacking.

You mention "probably a few dozen, at least, of posts by GHS that are substantive and illuminating" — and that, I don't at all disagree about. Others have provided a few as well. Yet look at the message counter on this post. What proportion is that of the total number? As intriguing as I have found his adduced examples and reasoning, it's been a very small portion of the total traffic.

The vast majority of this thread has been stabs at debate, usually missing their target, accompanied by several parties talking past each other. I'd say that the crux of it comes from GHS seeing, or responding to, more of an argument from JNS than actually exists. Neil isn't really making an argument. He's reporting his experiences and his interpretations of them. George was trying to make more sense of them — but Neil isn't claiming sense, external validity, scientific rigor, duplicability, or even consistency as such.

You've all seen, in what's most distressing to me, Neil and George breaking off a 35-year friendship ... or not quite yet, for I can't really tell by now. Neil descended at length to splenetic and vulgar rage, and George finally kept the higher ground with far more elegant (and often superbly reasoned) dismissals, but neither of these major protagonists has been entirely well-behaved. Invective is what we got.

You (Starbuckle) and several others have been more judicious and objective, teasing out the implications of what those two polymaths have been putting forward, and that's been heartening to see. Yet untangling a verbal ten-car pile-up is a needed clean-up job, in the final reckoning, and not really a source of broader understanding.

I've seen many discussions at OL, taken part in many, where the heat outweighs the light. Yet this thread's imbalance has topped most of them in generating sheer frustration, at least with this kibitzer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BRAD LINAWEAVER: What I want to ask you, now, is one of the areas that separate people in religion — that mystics sometimes argue against — are the various specific claims that religions make historically. So I want to begin with, do you believe, before or after — I don’t care which or both — do you believe there was an historical Jesus Christ?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Yes.

BRAD LINAWEAVER: Do you believe he came out of the tomb three days after crucifixion?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Yes.

I'll accept a justifiable hit on this one, for my being sloppy in my use of language.

[ . . . ]

As Heinlein taught me, "Beliefs get in the way of fact."

You might also like that other Heinlein quote on belief, from Time Enough For Love: "Beliefs get in the way of learning."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BRAD LINAWEAVER: What I want to ask you, now, is one of the areas that separate people in religion — that mystics sometimes argue against — are the various specific claims that religions make historically. So I want to begin with, do you believe, before or after — I don’t care which or both — do you believe there was an historical Jesus Christ?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Yes.

BRAD LINAWEAVER: Do you believe he came out of the tomb three days after crucifixion?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Yes.

I'll accept a justifiable hit on this one, for my being sloppy in my use of language.

[ . . . ]

As Heinlein taught me, "Beliefs get in the way of fact."

You might also like that other Heinlein quote on belief, from Time Enough For Love: "Beliefs get in the way of learning."

From The Robert Heinlein Interview and Other Heinleiniana

by J. Neil Schulman

(Pulpless.Com, Trade Paperback, 1999)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1584450150/pulplesscom

I conducted this interview for The New York Daily News in July, 1973.

HEINLEIN: [Quoting question] "If you say it's something you can't justify on a purely rational basis, then what other basis is there to justify it?" That's what you're getting at; you're trying to make it an either/or here between rational and irrational.

SCHULMAN: Well...rational and nonrational in any case.

HEINLEIN: All right. [Long pause] Uh, I'm trying to phrase this clearly. And you say this last question leads up to this next one: "Is there ever any justification to accept something on faith? How can you prove this since by doing so you are inherently rejecting reason as final arbiter?" Now, there are a lot of implications in your question, a lot oh hidden assumptions in your question.

SCHULMAN: I suppose so.

HEINLEIN: Yes, indeed. All the way through this I can see that you regard yourself as a rationalist and you regard reason as the final arbiter on anything.

SCHULMAN: Well, I'm basically starting out with Ayn Rand's Objectivist epistemology.

HEINLEIN: Well, I'm not going to comment on Miss Rand's epistemology; I have notions of my own. Have you read anything by Alfred Korzybski?

SCHULMAN: No, I'm familiar with his work only through your own; you've mentioned him quite a few times.

HEINLEIN: Only through my own. You haven't read Science and Sanity, for example?

SCHULMAN: No, I haven't.

HEINLEIN: And you're not familiar with his epistemological approach?

SCHULMAN: Only what you yourself have mentioned.

HEINLEIN: Uh, huh. [interruption] Uh, I've just been talking to Mrs. Heinlein; now let me see.

Let me invert these questions a bit. If you've read Stranger in a Strange Land, you've probably gathered what I think of faith. I do not regard faith as a basis on which to believe or disbelieve anything. On the other hand, Neil, there are many things--practically all of the important questions of philosophy--are not subject to final answers purely by reason. In my opinion, they are not subject to final answers simply by reason. This has been gone into a considerable extent by philosophers in the past, and there's even a term--a technical term--for that called "noumena" as opposed to "phenomena." Phenomena are things that you can grasp through your physical senses or through measurements made with your physical senses through instruments and so forth and so in other words, phenomena are things that we can know about the physical universe. Noumena translates as the unknowable things. The unknowable things: What is the purpose of the universe? Why are you here on this earth? What should a man do with his life? All of those wide open, generalized, unlimited "whys." There are all noumena, and consequently they are not subject--consequently by definition--these things are not subject to final answers simply by reason. My own attitude on that is shown a bit in several places in this last book (Time Enough For Love) in which Lazarus Long indicates that he hasn't been able to find any purpose to the universe any more significant than gametes using zygotes to create more gametes. He expresses it that way in one place, then he turns it over, turns it upside down, and expresses it another way to the effect that as far as he knows, there's no more important purpose to the universe than making a baby with the help of a woman you love. And yet obviously neither of these things are answers; they are just expressions of what Lazarus Long happens to like. Now, do you happen to like chocolate malted milks?

SCHULMAN: Uh, yes.

HEINLEIN: Now, do you like them better than strawberry malted milks?

SCHULMAN: Yeah, I would say so.

HEINLEIN: Can you justify that by reason?

SCHULMAN: No, I would say that it's a purely subjective judgment.

HEINLEIN: That's right. That is correct. It doesn't involve faith and it doesn't involve reason.

SCHULMAN: But I'm using internal data; there is data which I am acting upon.

HEINLEIN: That's right. The internal data tells you that you like it better...but it doesn't tell you why. This applies also to a great many things about the universe: it's your own internal, subjective evaluation of it, not any final answers given by reason or rationality.

SCHULMAN: This brings up the end of Methuselah's Children in which Lazarus Long seems to be taking just about the opposite attitude.

I have a quote here:

"'The last two and a half centuries have just been my adolescence...men...never had enough time to tackle the important questions. Lots of capacity and not enough time to use it properly.'"

And then he's asked: "'How do you propose to tackle the important questions?'

"'How should I know? Ask me again in about five hundred years.'

"'You think that will make a difference?'

"'I do. Anyhow it'll give me time to poke around and pick up some interesting facts...'"

A little later: "'...Maybe there aren't any reasons.'

"'Yes, maybe it's just one colossal big joke with no point to it.' Lazarus stood up and scratched his ribs. 'But I can tell you this...here`s one monkey who's going to keep on climbing, and looking around him to see what he can see, as long as the tree holds out.'"

HEINLEIN: And that's exactly what he's doing at the end of the next book.

SCHULMAN: Just holding on.

HEINLEIN: Uh, yes. In the mean time it is postulated that he's had a couple of thousand years trying this, that, and the other thing, and he has reached one point. He has reached one opinion; it's stated flatly in the early part of the book: that you cannot get final answers about the universe from inside. He said you'd have to get outside and take a look at it. And the man he's talking to, Weatheral, says: "Then you believe in immortality?" [in the book, the word "afterlife" is used.] And Lazarus says, "Wait, wait, wait, wait, now--hold everything! I didn't say I believed in immortality; I don't believe in anything. Because belief gets in the way of facts." He's made certain observations and they've given him certain limited opinions, and among the limited opinions he has is the one working hypothesis that there are no final answers to be obtained from human being inside the universe, that the position of observation doesn't permit that--to get any final answers. Follow me?

SCHULMAN: Okay.

Copyright © by J. Neil Schulman 1990, 1996, 1999 All rights reserved.

Edited by J. Neil Schulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Yashki Pundric came out of the tomb after three days he must have stunk like his dead friend Lazarus.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was aware of Bailey's uncalled witnesses from one of those books back then, Schiller and Willwerth's American Tragedy.

One can disregard the witneses who allegedly saw the confrontation between a woman resembling Nicole and two men neither of whom was Simpson. Why? Because it was Simpson's blood that was found at the crime scene.

I am a former prosecutor and have tried murder cases, and predicted OJ's acquittal at the time...I was trying not to be too technical with my language.]

What were your reasons for predicting Simpson's acquittal? Poor jury selection? The change of venue transferring the case to downtown L.A.? Celebrity bonus? The defense playing the race card? The prosecution faling to introduce some very crucial incrimating evidence?

I'm very interested in hearing a former prosecutor's take on this case.

Is Neil S. Shulman justified (logically) in believing in God? Yes, if he accepts premises as true like e. g. that Christ rose from the grave on the third day. (Neil really believes this).

I accept on faith the Christian dogma that Christ rose on the third day? Thanks for telling me that since it's news to me.

I am puzzled here, Neil, by your answer to Xray.

She writes that if you accept as true that Christ rose from the grave on the third day, yes, you are logically justified in your belief.

So, there you go. If you accept the premise as true -- that Jesus Christ rose on the third day -- then Xray says you are logically justified in your belief in god. Looks to me like you have found support for your belief.

But, what do you do with that support? Well, instead of 'I accept as true that Jesus rose on the third day?,' you change the wording and meaning of what she wrote:

'I accept as true on faith the Christian dogma that Jesus rose from the grave on the third day?'

And then you deny the import of the redacted phrase --'Thanks for telling me that since it's news to me.'

A problem with your 'it's news to me' is that you are on record as accepting as true that Jesus rose on the third day. It's in your book, in Chapter 10, "Heresies":

BRAD LINAWEAVER: What I want to ask you, now, is one of the areas that separate people in religion — that mystics sometimes argue against — are the various specific claims that religions make historically. So I want to begin with, do you believe, before or after — I don’t care which or both — do you believe there was an historical Jesus Christ?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Yes.

BRAD LINAWEAVER: Do you believe he came out of the tomb three days after crucifixion?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Yes.

Thanks William for digging out the quote from Neil. I knew he said this, but since I only keep few things archived, would have had to wade through the interview again to find the passage.

I case my comment about Neil being "logically justified" in believing in God might be misunderstood: I'm no supporter of Neil's belief, but my point was that people can draw the most absurd "logical" conclusions if they erroneously believe a false premise to be true.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was aware of Bailey's uncalled witnesses from one of those books back then, Schiller and Willwerth's American Tragedy.

One can disregard the witneses who allegedly saw the confrontation between a woman resembling Nicole and two men neither of whom was Simpson. Why? Because it was Simpson's blood that was found at the crime scene.

Barry Scheck systematically dismantled the chain of custody leading to that conclusion. The quantities of blood are too small to conclude O.J. committed the murders. Moreover, O.J.'s DNA would be hard to distinguish from his son Jason's if they weren't tested against each other, which they weren't. I also discuss half a dozen different ways O.J.'s blood could have been brought or transferred to the Bundy crime scene, including multiple pairs of gloves identical to the ones found on the crime scenes which O.J. and Nicole had given out as Christmas gifts.

I've always said there is a reasonable case to be made that O.J. came to the Bundy crime scene, even though the Bruno Magli shoes are not decisive evidence he was there; anyone with access to his shoe closet (like Jason) could have been wearing them. The evidence of control wounds prior to her murder suggest that Nicole could have been forced at knife-point to call O.J. there by her murderer, and O.J. arrived right after the murderer left. Or, Simpson could have been called there afterward if the murderer were someone he knew intimately and would want to protect ... like his son Jason.

Bill Dear makes a better case than the one presented in either the criminal or civil trial of O.J. Simpson that Jason committed the murder, and that beyond not wanting to be sent to prison for the murders, O.J. Simpson has been willing to do almost anything to cover up for Jason, including repeatedly flirting with the press to make himself look guilty every time it looked as if the evidence would point to his son.

Edited by J. Neil Schulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I case my comment about Neil being "logically justified" in believing in God might be misunderstood: I'm no supporter of Neil's belief, but my point was that people can draw the most absurd "logical" conclusions if they erroneously believe a false premise to be true.

What is to be considered as evidence? If it's nothing but data fed to the brain by operation of the five senses -- eyesight, aural hearing, smell, taste, and touch -- there is no way rationally to be certain of any ontological conclusion. As we see in the case of George H. Smith, this assumption readily dismisses anything perceived but unexplainable elsewise as hallucination.

Only if we negate the assumption that the five senses provide the only sources of data, and proceed to examine perceptions regarded as paranormal, can anyone conclude that there are actions and effects of unseen actors. Negating this assumption does not negate any of the axioms of existence, non-contradiction, and identity, which underlie all scientific hypothesizing, theorizing, and attempts to validate.

Edited by J. Neil Schulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks William for digging out the quote from Neil. I knew he said this, but since I only keep few things archived, would have had to wade through the interview again to find the passage.

And though requiring a nuanced explanation of statements I should not have made so starkly, I didn't mean what you thought I meant. I used the word "belief" sloppily. I'll try to be more precise in any continuation of this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is little Johnny justified (logically) in believing in Santa Claus? If Johnny accepts the premise as true that Santa Claus comes through the chimney and is also told by his parents that Santa filled the stockings with goodies, Johny's belief is logically justified. He may even regard the filled stockings as "proof" of Santa's existence.

Santa would need to lose his pot belly to come down most chimneys.

Well, if Santa can manange things like putting the law of gravity out of order, with his stout body being transported in a heavy sleigh high up in the skies, then surely he can also come down narrow chimneys with his pot belly.

Since Santa can do magic, nothing of course poses a problem for him; for example, he is also ubiquitous, coming down countless chimneys all over the US at the same time. :)

While it is easy to smile at the children's naive belief in a false premise (a false premise which the parents have deliberately instilled in their kids' minds by telling them an outright lie), when it comes to figures like Jesus awakening the dead and rising from the grave, such stuff is till being told to billions of believers (and still believed by many) in our enlightened century. Makes me shake my head. If man is as rational as Rand claims, then how is it possible that far too many people still believe this Jesus tale even today?

For epistemologically speaking, the Jesus character is on the same irreal level as any fairy tale figure rising from the dead, only that in Jesus's case, that stuff is claimed to really have happened.

I often do tests with my kindergartners, asking them things like: "Does Snow White exist in reality? Can Snow White knock on our classroom door and say hello?" They shake their heads, most laugh and giggle at the thought: "No, no!"

I then go on: "But still we all know who Snow White is, don't we? So Snow White must exist in some form. In which form does she exist?" Don't think six-year-olds are unable to grasp such line of reasoning. They can grasp it. It's all an matter of practising it with them regularly. Soon some kid will say that Snow White exists "in a story" or "in a book". Which gives me the cue to speak to them about fantasy and imagination, where one can think out in one's head things which don't happen in reality. Thus we can clearly make the important cognitive separation between the realm of fantasy and the realm of reality.

Now compare this to traditional religious education: the children are also told miracle stories there, but of those stories it is brazenly asserted that they really happened. I'm no Objectivist, but Rand would be perfectly right in condemning such proceeding as a monstrous attack on man's reason and cognitive abilities.

On the other hand, I don't have a theoretical problem with a being not having any neutrons or protons bulking him up making his way through a black hole.

Can one interpret this as you meaning to say: in the realm of the imagination, (or your domain, science fiction), anything is possible?

Thanks William for digging out the quote from Neil. I knew he said this, but since I only keep few things archived, would have had to wade through the interview again to find the passage.

And though requiring a nuanced explanation of statements I should not have made so starkly, I didn't mean what you thought I meant. I used the word "belief" sloppily. I'll try to be more precise in any continuation of this discussion.

Here is the quote again:

BRAD LINAWEAVER: What I want to ask you, now, is one of the areas that separate people in religion — that mystics sometimes argue against — are the various specific claims that religions make historically. So I want to begin with, do you believe, before or after — I don’t care which or both — do you believe there was an historical Jesus Christ?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Yes.

BRAD LINAWEAVER: Do you believe he came out of the tomb three days after crucifixion?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Yes.

So you really don't believe Jesus came out of the tomb three days after crucifixion?

And if you used the word "belief" sloppily, with what word would you replace it here?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quotes from me, expressing beliefs in the historical Jesus and a resurrection, are not intellectual statements I'm willing to stand behind and defend.

But they have emotional resonance for me as story, and sloppily I answered "yes" to the question of whether I "believed" them.

But there has never been any doubt as to what it says about Jesus in the religious myth, has there. Everyone familiar with the 'story' will know that it says he rose from the grave.

Therefore imo you could hardly have misinterpreted Lineaweaver's question to you as asking whether you know what it says in the myth. For that knowledge is so established that asking whether you believe it would be absurd.

Example: suppose Lineweaver wanted to make sure whether you are familiar with the biblical story of Judith decapitating Holofernes.

In what form would he pose the question to you? He would ask you wether you know about the Judith story. He would NOT ask you whether you believe the Judith story, since this is another issue altogether.

So could it be that you are trying to wriggle out a bit here, Neil, and try to make some damage control? ;)

I lean more toward you being, at the time of the Lineweaver interview, very enthusiastic about your religious experience, and in the wake of it, enthusiastic about nearly everything "religious", so that you made this uncritical reply about believing Jesus rose from the grave.

No problem on my part, Neil. I too have said things in an emotional state of which in hindsight I can hardly believe I really said them ... :)

So maybe "I said all kinds of things in my enthusiasm" would have been better reply on your part.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is little Johnny justified (logically) in believing in Santa Claus? If Johnny accepts the premise as true that Santa Claus comes through the chimney and is also told by his parents that Santa filled the stockings with goodies, Johny's belief is logically justified. He may even regard the filled stockings as "proof" of Santa's existence.

Santa would need to lose his pot belly to come down most chimneys.

Well, if Santa can manange things like putting the law of gravity out of order, with his stout body being transported in a heavy sleigh high up in the skies, then surely he can also come down narrow chimneys with his pot belly.

Since Santa can do magic, nothing of course poses a problem for him; for example, he is also ubiquitous, coming down countless chimneys all over the US at the same time. :)

While it is easy to smile at the children's naive belief in a false premise (a false premise which the parents have deliberately instilled in their kids' minds by telling them an outright lie), when it comes to figures like Jesus awakening the dead and rising from the grave, such stuff is till being told to billions of believers (and still believed by many) in our enlightened century. Makes me shake my head. If man is as rational as Rand claims, then how is it possible that far too many people still believe this Jesus tale even today?

For epistemologically speaking, the Jesus character is on the same irreal level as any fairy tale figure rising from the dead, only that in Jesus's case, that stuff is claimed to really have happened.

I often do tests with my kindergartners, asking them things like: "Does Snow White exist in reality? Can Snow White knock on our classroom door and say hello?" They shake their heads, most laugh and giggle at the thought: "No, no!"

I then go on: "But still we all know who Snow White is, don't we? So Snow White must exist in some form. In which form does she exist?" Don't think six-year-olds are unable to grasp such line of reasoning. They can grasp it. It's all an matter of practising it with them regularly. Soon some kid will say that Snow White exists "in a story" or "in a book". Which gives me the cue to speak to them about fantasy and imagination, where one can think out in one's head things which don't happen in reality. Thus we can clearly make the important cognitive separation between the realm of fantasy and the realm of reality.

Now compare this to traditional religious education: the children are also told miracle stories there, but of those stories it is brazenly asserted that they really happened. I'm no Objectivist, but Rand would be perfectly right in condemning such proceeding as a monstrous attack on man's reason and cognitive abilities.

I really don't want to get into a discussion of the historicity of Jesus. It's a lose-lose. Yeah, I could say, "Which Jesus are we talking about?" -- the one voted on by the Nicene Council? -- or a prior merely human Jesus?

Usually what makes rationalists choke on the idea of Jesus is having to accept any particular dogma about him, depending which church you are in rebellion against.

My only point would be is that if there's any truth behind the Jesus myth, I'm willing to stand by the statement that no church's dogma has it right.

On the other hand, I don't have a theoretical problem with a being not having any neutrons or protons bulking him up making his way through a black hole.

Can one interpret this as you meaning to say: in the realm of the imagination, (or your domain, science fiction), anything is possible?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Xray, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

So you really don't believe Jesus came out of the tomb three days after crucifixion?

And if you used the word "belief" sloppily, with what word would you replace it here?

My accepting the question as a binary yes/no was bluntly dumb. I'd have to reword my reply entirely into something like, "I don't have an epistemological objection to the idea that God merged his consciousness into a human being like a man named Jesus for the three years written about in the four Gospels, because that's what I experienced, myself for a few hours. I don't have a theoretical objection to the idea of Jesus -- after crucifixion -- walking out of the tomb after three days because I can easily conceive of half a dozen explanations that would satisfy both the myth and what a more robust understanding of our full nature as conscious animals -- more complete than our current one -- could accomplish."

Edited by J. Neil Schulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... according to you, the only person who expressly invited your appearance at OL was the person who sent you an email.

Me...

I shoulda known.

Eu não vejo o seu ponto, Michael.

Mas, eu lamento que eu trouxe até o "outing" de Neil nomeação de seu correspondente em seu web log. Se eu fiz a conexão certa, nós não estaremos vendo a estrela fivela aqui de novo, e isso é uma vergonha. O meu mau.

If you know what I'm saying . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From all of these made-up post-hoc justifications for spiritist beliefs, I conclude that Neil really believes he is pretty dang special. If he didn't hammer on about a crappy Twilight Zone episode, and a blacklist that kept him from achieving his due as a fine screenwriter, and if he didn't bang on about his specialness in every other endeavor he has attempted, I would be more inclined to accept his unique special connection with pixie world.

But his entire identity and self-concept is at stake in every challenge to any aspect, so he resists to the point of delusion.

Just dropping in, don't mind me but it seems you arent just a dick to me-you spread the wealth around. Let's hear an original idea from you, aw maybe if you formulated one and posted it here you might get , i dont know, shredded to bits?

Coward.

You could never hold a candle to MSK or Selene or any of the other real thinkers on this forum - they are precise and clear in their posts-yours are muddled and nasty with alot of large words and obscure phrases that basically say a whole bunch of nothing.

signed,

Pippi and her magic crayon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From all of these made-up post-hoc justifications for spiritist beliefs, I conclude that Neil really believes he is pretty dang special. If he didn't hammer on about a crappy Twilight Zone episode, and a blacklist that kept him from achieving his due as a fine screenwriter, and if he didn't bang on about his specialness in every other endeavor he has attempted, I would be more inclined to accept his unique special connection with pixie world.

But his entire identity and self-concept is at stake in every challenge to any aspect, so he resists to the point of delusion.

Wow, Bill, I didn't catch that the first time around. What was I thinking when I accepted you as a Facebook friend? :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From all of these made-up post-hoc justifications for spiritist beliefs, I conclude that Neil really believes he is pretty dang special. If he didn't hammer on about a crappy Twilight Zone episode, and a blacklist that kept him from achieving his due as a fine screenwriter, and if he didn't bang on about his specialness in every other endeavor he has attempted, I would be more inclined to accept his unique special connection with pixie world.

But his entire identity and self-concept is at stake in every challenge to any aspect, so he resists to the point of delusion.

Wow, Bill, I didn't catch that the first time around. What was I thinking when I accepted you as a Facebook friend? :-)

Yeah. It sounds mean and overwrought, doesn't it? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to sound mean and overwrought, so I apologize for the tone and the temper -- especially for the personal swipes in the first paragraph above.

I frenzed you on Facebook to winnow out what Steve was responding to in the excerpts he posted up thread.

Anyhow, I don't know what remains to be said in this thread, Neil. I have read your complete book twice online, and I have reviewed your posts here several times. I have put the time in to try to figure you out, to try to figure out how you gained your 'beliefs,' how you came to accept the whole personal cosmology, how you constructed the world you live in, how you defend your 'beliefs' and your stances and yourself.

I strip away the unpleasant, ugly words in the bit you quote, and I can probably sum up my psychological findings. But, you know what? I don't have to share that (not that it's particularly dire).

I do think this, for what it's worth -- I think you are talented, quite talented, and well-married to your pen. In my heart of hearts I think you would be happier writing the fiction that you so obviously love, and that you thrive on.

For what it's worth, I find the hard kernel of your spiritual cosmology appealing in its simplicity -- the god you describe sounds like the lovely man you want to be, a man who looks into other people's hearts and finds goodness, who is not responsible for other people's badness and failures and pains. The god you describe is especially poignant in his human weakness and his wonder at other humans. He doesn't always understand humans; he yearns to do so. In his humanity he wishes to see his creations (and his loved ones) live on forever, and he wishes only the best from this world and its peoples. He is not judgmental, punishing or wrathful, but kind and forgiving and seeking.

That's the kind of god you want to walk with you and incorporate and it is a wonderful thing.

I'd like to leave this thread now, and meet you on other threads of interest, and help make sure that you find within this community great arguments and fellowship and learning. I set aside from here on any considerations of your personal cosmology. It doesn't matter to me, the god business. I set all that to one side, incorporate what I have learned, and move on.

I hope we can have some great and rousing arguments in other places in the OL multiverse.

I leave you the last words in this thread and wish you well in all your ventures, come what may.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"For what it's worth, I find the hard kernel of your spiritual cosmology appealing in its simplicity -- the god you describe sounds like the lovely man you want to be, a man who looks into other people's hearts and finds goodness, who is not responsible for other people's badness and failures and pains. The god you describe is especially poignant in his human weakness and his wonder at other humans. He doesn't always understand humans; he yearns to do so. In his humanity he wishes to see his creations (and his loved ones) live on forever, and he wishes only the best from this world and its peoples. He is not judgmental, punishing or wrathful, but kind and forgiving and seeking.

That's the kind of god you want to walk with you and incorporate and it is a wonderful thing.

I'd like to leave this thread now, and meet you on other threads of interest, and help make sure that you find within this community great arguments and fellowship and learning. I set aside from here on any considerations of your personal cosmology. It doesn't matter to me, the god business. I set all that to one side, incorporate what I have learned, and move on.

I hope we can have some great and rousing arguments in other places in the OL multiverse."

Very well said, Mr. Scherk.

Edited by PDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xray: the trial took too long and the prosecutors were getting schooled way too badly.

Thank you PDS for your assessment. I have not researched the OJ Simpson case in as much detail as I have other criminal cases via the net (where there exist some very good true crime forums), but it looks like ALL evidence points in one direction only: to OJ Simpson as the perpetrator of the crimes.

Also, the prosection failed to introduce some very incriminating evidence against the defendant, with their explanation for deciding not to present this evidence being downright absurd. The sad irony is that who finally profited from the prosecution's wrong tactic was the one they wanted to bring to justice for the murders: OJ Simpson. :angry:

Barry Scheck systematically dismantled the chain of custody leading to that conclusion.

Since it is the defense's job trying to poke holes into the prosecution's case, and since some blunders happen in all criminal cases, one virtually always finds complaints by the defense about police blunders, botched crime scenes, possible lab errors, and so on.

But what the defense team of an obviously guilty client does not want to be seen is the complete picture the totality of the incriminating evidence against their client.

The quantities of blood are too small to conclude O.J. committed the murders.

They were not too small to conclude the blood was Simpson's, were they.

Moreover, O.J.'s DNA would be hard to distinguish from his son Jason's if they weren't tested against each other, which they weren't.

Isn't everyone's DNA (identical twins excepted) unique?

I also discuss half a dozen different ways O.J.'s blood could have been brought or transferred to the Bundy crime scene, including multiple pairs of gloves identical to the ones found on the crime scenes which O.J. and Nicole had given out as Christmas gifts.

Any effort in constructing possible ways of transfer is unnecessary. For we have Simpson's own words where he admitted having bled at the crime scene. Haven't you read the police interview where he was questioned by Vannatter and Lange?

Simpson own words also shoot down any speculations according to which his blood had been "planted" by others to incriminate him.

I've always said there is a reasonable case to be made that O.J. came to the Bundy crime scene, even though the Bruno Magli shoes are not decisive evidence he was there; anyone with access to his shoe closet (like Jason) could have been wearing them.

Again, look at the whole picture and weigh probability against improbability.

The evidence of control wounds prior to her murder suggest that Nicole could have been forced at knife-point to call O.J. there by her murderer, and O.J. arrived right after the murderer left. Or, Simpson could have been called there afterward if the murderer were someone he knew intimately and would want to protect ... like his son Jason.

What "control wounds"?

As for the rest of your scenario - let's use the rationality you stress so often. A murderer forces the victim to call her husband, thus running the immense risk of being identified by the husband as a witness and possibly killed himself by the husband as he is trying to save his wife's life.

Or, Simpson could have been called there afterward if the murderer were someone he knew intimately and would want to protect ... like his son Jason.

And then Simpson "altruistically" cut himself, letting his blood drop down right next to the murder victims. Give me a break!

Bill Dear makes a better case than the one presented in either the criminal or civil trial of O.J. Simpson that Jason committed the murder, and that beyond not wanting to be sent to prison for the murders, O.J. Simpson has been willing to do almost anything to cover up for Jason, including repeatedly flirting with the press to make himself look guilty every time it looked as if the evidence would point to his son.

Bill Dear's absurd allegation that Simpson "could not have committed the murders" says all about his obvious lack of rationality.

Not only did Simpson have a history of domestic violence and a motive, he also had the opportunity to commit the murders in the time frame during which they happened. He was even seen at the crime scene, and his blood and shoeprint have been found in very incriminating locations; in addition, he had bought a disguise kit some weeks before the murders and that disguise kit he took with him in the car during the slow speed chase.

And Bill Dear says Simpson could not have done it. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

It is fascinating to observe what totally absurd theories some of those veteran detectives seeking the limelight can come up with. But I'm afraid that closing their eyes to the obvious does not magically establish its opposite, the absurd, as the real.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now