From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 2:58 PM
To: James Patrick Holding
Subject: RE: Christianity: arguments against; questions for


> > Do you dispute my assertion?
> 
> Absolutely. The notion of physical resurrection is far more
> complex than the idea that one merely ascends as a spirit.

I asked about a physical heaven, and you keep talking about
physical "resurrection".  Am I missing some distinction you're
trying to make?

The notion of a physical heaven indeed *needs* to be far more
complex, because in addition to positing a psychology of
heaven it must also posit a physics and physiology.  (Are you
prepared for detailed questioning about those, or
are you as uninterested in them as you are in my
questions about the psychology of heaven? :-) The fact that
a physical theory of heaven needs to be more complex while
usually instead being simplistic is why I called such
a theory typically "primitive".  If you have a non-simplistic 
physical theory of heaven, I'd like to hear its details.

In response to my heaven questions, one earnest correspondent
sent me a televangelist videotape. The tape described heaven
as a cube-shaped city of gold, 1000 miles on each edge.
Its vision of heaven seemed scraped together from tidbits in
the Old Testament, and sounded pretty simplistic and primitive.

> > Are you asserting they correlate more with later stages,
> > or that there is no correlation at all?
> 
> I see no evidence of any correlation, precisely.

I think such a trend is apparent, but it's not worth 
debating in this forum.

> > here of things like conservation laws, relativity, and
> > quantum uncertainty.
> 
> If God as an infinite source provides the energy, what is
> the problem?

Is God as an infinite energy source the full extent of your
complex theory of physical heaven, or is there more? :-)

> > What if the speculation leads to a contradiction buried
> > in your conception of heaven? 
> 
> My conception of heaven is not so fixed that this would be
> an issue.

If your conception of heaven is *at all* fixed in any way,
then there are implications to explore.  If your conception
is not fixed in any way, how can it be "complex" and not
"primitive"?

> > For example, is my experience in heaven supposed to be
> > perfect happiness?  
> 
> What is "happiness"? La la la all day? Contentment?
> Satisfaction?

You tell me -- you're the one with the complex theory of
heaven.

> A mere realization that all is as it should
> be? The latter is the closest I would adhere to.

First, this opens up issues related to the conventional
promise of heavenly bliss.  "Realization" of a given
state of affairs could for some entail contentment and
satisfaction but for others resignation and despair.  Don't
you want to go further and say that this heavenly realization
will for every person in heaven yield an emotional state
better than the happiest state one can experience on earth?
Or does one have good days and better days in heaven?  For
that matter, does anything in heaven feel as good as an 
orgasm?  Does everything feel better than that?

Second, this opens up issues related to "should".  Can we
on earth know what "should" be?  If so, how?  If not, how
can we know that we'll like how things "should" be?  What
determines what "should" be?  Is the way things "should"
be contingent on God's whim, or is God constrained by
objective criteria of goodness that are beyond his power
to change?

> > be perfectly happy if have any remaining ignorance, and I
> > can't be perfectly happy if I have nothing more to learn.
> > So is  perfect happiness (for me) impossible, or does
> > being sent to heaven change my criteria for happiness?
> 
> This assumes that you will not learn perhaps someday that
> such a pursuit is worthless.

Let me rephrase: ".. or does my heavenly happiness assume
that I will have different criteria for happiness?"  If so,
how different might those criteria be?  For example, am I 
guaranteed not to find "happiness" in everlasting pools of fire?

> > will I have imperfect memory of my life,
> > or will I remember my sins and feel shame?
> 
> My own conception is that our deeds here will pale in
> significance -- shame will be of no issue or moment.

Ah, another case of our psychological makeup being different
in heaven. At what point are our heavenly minds so rewired
that heaven is indistinguishable from a drug-induced stupor?

> > This is the sort of pondering that I'd expect from an
> > open-minded Christian.  Sneering dismissal of
> > "speculation" would be what I'd expect from a 
> > close-minded Christian.
> 
> That is the sort of response I would expect from a
> questioner with an inflated view of his own importance. ;-)

Huh?

> > If my impression is mistaken, please cite at least one
> > such specific discussion.  (Note: "read these Christian 
> > authors" does not count as a citation.)
> 
> Why, I couldn't imagine you actually going to a library
> yourself, now could I?

Note: "go to a library" does not count as a citation, either.

> I have not chapter and verse in hand.

An author and title will do just fine, but you already
knew that...

I know enough for now about what Christians through history
have anticipated about their heavenly experience.  I want
to know what *you* in particular anticipate. If there is some 
Christian thinker whose analysis you agree with, just mention
it. If you haven't thought it through enough to give a 
straight answer, then just say so. :-)

> You may want to write in clearer language instead. I have a
> background in writing and composition -- and if you don't
> mean what you say, make sure you know what you are saying.

What is your evidence that I don't?  I made a point about
a marketplace of ideas "in which truth is 
converged on pretty much asymptotically and monotonically",
and you then misinterpreted this to mean "wide" and proceeded
to insult me.  How does this constitute me not knowing what
I'm saying?

> > monotonically".  Are you saying such convergence
> > characterizes the pre-Renaissance world?  Surely you
> > are "studied" enough to know that the modern idea of
> > progress in knowledge stems from the Renaissance
> 
> That the idea "stemmed" from this time does not mean it did
> not occur to any extent beforehand.

So are you saying that such convergence characterizes the 
pre-Renaissance world, or not?  Are you saying that the
progress in learning was anywhere near as steady before
the Renaissance as after?

> The ancients were respected, but that hardly means 
> they were unquestioned by all.

Of course, since only one questioner in a millenium can
make your trivial thesis true. Now, feel free at any time
to address my point about how ancient Christian authors
would not have had occasion to face questions like:

  What other thesis so important and compelling 
  (e.g. heliocentrism, evolution) defied general consensus 
  for this long? In how many years do you expect there 
  will be a consensus for your position as widespread 
  as that supporting (say) heliocentrism?

> > Are you saying there is nothing different or special
> > about the modern system of peer review and scholarly
> > consensus?
> 
> In practical terms, no -- just more chefs stirring the pot
> and trying to win grant money. That of course increases the
> amount of competetive ideas, but practically there is no
> difference.

My point is that modern scholarly processes encourage
more of a monotonic increase of knowledge and convergence
towards truth than pre-modern processes, and so what is
notable about modernity is not the variety of fringe thinking
but the consensus around mainstream thinking. 

At any rate, I still challenge you to cite a single case of
the ancient authors comparing progress toward a Christian
consensus with progress toward any other scientific or
philosophical thesis.  Either that, or simply address my 
"Compelling Evidence" questions yourself (which would be
more interesting to me).

brian@holtz.org
Knowledge is dangerous
http://humanknowledge.net