quote:And while I don't usually use the word 'bigot', I find it extremely insulting that you would compare atheism versus theism to grade school versus college.
Good heavens, we wouldn't want anyone to be insulting around here, would we?
quote:The illusion of having knowledge about an afterlife is nothing but a crutch for the weak of mind; such happiness is worth about as much as that of a heroin addict.
quote:I think it would still be pretty pointless if the universe ended up collapsing in on itself and destorying everything in it.
I really, really disagree with this. It wouldn't be pointless at all. We're part of the fabric of the universe and that's pretty cool. If it ultimately just sort of ends, that's fine. At least we got to be part of it. I don't understand why you need the universe to have a "point." It's enough that it is.
Added: That is to say, the universe's existence is its own point. Er...
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know these all sound like unfounded arguements but I wrote them because they are often used to discredit people who say they have seen God and understand his will through personal experience.
So are you saying that you believe everyone who says they've seen God and understand his will, or that you only believe the Mormons who say this? Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: How in tune was his wife REALLY to his beliefs.
Well, I imagine she was a bit more in tune than you or I. I am not willing to accept the "well we just can't know" aspect of what you've written about Carl Sagan. If there is any doubt at this point about what he believed on his death bed, it seems pretty obvious to me that it was started by liars and continued by people who are more concerned with scoring political points than in finding out if what they spout has any grain of truth. Forgive me if I sound harsh, but what you are engaging in is pure rumor-mongering. Sure Anne Druyan might be delusional, but the "might" in her case is the exact same "might" that applies to everyone equally and therefore has NO BEARING on her qualification as a witness. Can you name a source or witness for your belief that Carl Sagan became a believer? Any source at all? If so, in what way is that source a better witness than his wife? What doubt can you cast on his wife that doesn't apply to your own source doubly so?
quote: I admit I was alittle disapointed that the only thing that caught interest was an apparent misunderstanding about the beliefs of Karl Sagan.
I didn't show interest because:
1. Your two enumerated point only served to show that you had no idea what the conversation was about at this point. Specifically we've already established that a personal experience is by definition subjective.
2. I didn't see the point in responding to the following paragraph because when I first read it, it sounded insulting and when I re-read it, giving you the benefit of the doubt, it sounded pointless. If God spoke to every person except me and told them the same thing I would have to be pretty pig-headed indeed not to lend it some credence. So if the "YOU" in that paragraph was personal, it's annoying. If it's the impersonal "you" I disagree with the paragraph entirely.
3. Your final paragraph just shows that you have no idea of my feelings on this subject. I have often stated that if God wants someone to know something it's up to him to communicate it properly. As far as "forgetting" to mention it, I don't see how the point applies at all to what you've quoted.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know these all sound like unfounded arguements but I wrote them because they are often used to discredit people who say they have seen God and understand his will through personal experience.
So are you saying that you believe everyone who says they've seen God and understand his will, or that you only believe the Mormons who say this?
Neither. Merely that if somebody DID see God thats what people would say to him/her.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its seems that I have annoyed you KarlED, and I apologize if I have.
You seem to misunderstand that I am not arguing that you are wrong in regards to Karl Sagan. I personally have no firm foundation to stand on when I said what I did about him. I was ignorant to the fact that I might be wrong in that regard. I thought I made it clear that I only said those things because it illustrates how somebody could 100% know there is a God, speak to him on a regular basis and yet down the road people still doubt.
As for sounding like I am insulting. I would encourage you to realize that when I attempt to insult you, you will not have any questions as to whether or not I am doing it. If I clearly have NO idea what the conversation is about then I invite you to either A: respond to my comments as if they were what we were talking about B: inform me as to what I am missing for clearly I am missing something.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:you don't need to present evidence when you are using occam's razor as a logical guide to supposition
quote:im saying "real" evidence, not individual's delusions of divine experience).
You are arguing a tautology: the individual's experience is delusional because God satisfy Occam's razor, and God doesn't satisfy Occam's razor because God is delusional.
what im saying is that to INTERPRET an experience such as a vision or some sort of supposedly supernatural occurence as proof that god exists is irrational. i am isolating this example from all others. pretend we knew nothing about god, there were no atheists or religious people. you then had an experience you could not immediately explain. what would be more rational, to attribute it to a divine being, or to some sort of physical occurence that affected you alone? one requires a vast number of assumptions that affect all of humanity and existence. the other requires 1 assumption, being that you misinterpreted your expereince, or are delusional. which is more likely? that's it, i never said god was delusional, or anything similar to that.
and btw, why do you have such a problem with my non-use of caps? i find it sames time when i am writing informally, and i dont feel as though it affects the clarity of the writing one bit (just as i dont use " ' " unless its necessary when posting on online forums). maybe if this were en essay competition, your Capital elitism would be justified, but since it's not, why dont ya just chill out a little
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:what im saying is that to INTERPRET an experience such as a vision or some sort of supposedly supernatural occurence as proof that god exists is irrational. i am isolating this example from all others. pretend we knew nothing about god, there were no atheists or religious people. you then had an experience you could not immediately explain.
So this guy sees a burning bush. He gets told to go free his people from slavery. Along the way, things that he is told will happen actually happen. A staff turns into a snake in his hand. The sea parts just as they reach it, and unparts just when it will catch the pursuing army.
What requires more assumptions? That Moses was the luckiest leader who ever lived, or that the voice that talked to him was actually God's?
Sure, these experiences aren't like that. But there's a continuum of experiences between a feeling God is near and actually seeing the seas part and fire descend from the sky. You're drawing the cutoff point for number of assumptions very arbitrarily.
quote:and btw, why do you have such a problem with my non-use of caps?
Because it makes it much harder to read your posts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I took your reply as an arguement because you didn't concede, but went on to say how we already have lost the truth of the matter about Carl Sagan . . . etc. I feel it imperative to note that we have not lost the truth of what Carl Sagan believed, but we might very well lose it if we allow unfounded rumors to be proffered as truth unchallenged.
I in turn apologize to you if I come across harshly. My only defense is that you have hit a hot button of mine.
As for using misconceptions about Carl Sagan as an illustration of the current state of belief about Jesus, I think you're arguement needs reworking. (or placement in a different thread) The arguement sounds to me like "We can't even agree on what Carl Sagan believed, so it's no wonder we can't agree about what Jesus taught." I don't see how that applies to the discussion at all. First, this arguement hasn't even risen to something as theologically complex as a savior. We're still basically discussing the nature of knowledge and the possibility of divine communication and the nature of faith. I wouldn't say that much of what we've talked about is even specifically Christian at all, though many other participants may not have noticed that either. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jacare, first, thank you for continuing this discussion with me. You are one believer who really makes me think hard about what I am trying to say. You also always seem to really read what I'm saying and not just dismiss my comments out of hand. I respect and appreciate that.
I am sure that I enjoy the discussion as much as you. You are a thoughtful fellow and one who shares a similar background, though you have arrived at quite different conclusions than I have. That in itself makes your opinion worth listening to.
quote: My issue with that is with God himself. You see, I've been there. I've had the crisis point where I've sought God until I felt my soul would break. I had an experience in that moment that I have only been able to interpret two ways. Either God touched me and let me know that the parts of myself that are directly contrary to the teachings of my former religion are in fact perfectly OK in his eyes, or I was able, at that crucial moment, to save myself by throwing off all the dead baggage of the religious dogma I had picked up and realize that God, if there was one, didn't give a whit about what we puny humans on our tiny planet in our remote corner of an average galaxy do with our lives.
Knowing what I do of your background, I think I can understand what brought on the crisis, and I recognize that it must have been very trying for you. I obviously cannot say anything at all about your conclusions, as this experience was wholly your own, though that won't stop me from throwing out some of my own ideas on the matter.
I think that we humans have a tendency to both over- and under-estimate the importance of the things of this life in the grand scheme of things. In the first case, most religious folks I know seem to think that God is exceedingly interested in what line of work we pursue, how big a house we live in and so on. I personally believe that such trivialities matter not one whit in God's eyes, except with the possible caveat that it may make a difference in which people we come into contact with and how we treat those people. Also tangentially related to such issues is how each one of us develops as a person, but I think that this factor is also much different than most people view it, as I think that it is much more weighted with the question of how much we learn with regards to eternal law instead of how much schooling and what level of society we reach. To use an analogy, it is precisely like when my daughters excitedly jabber to me about a rock they have found or the horse they would like to own etc. I am happy that they like to share such things with me, and I smile at the things they place importance on, but I am much more concerned about issues regarding them which probably never even pass through their heads (such as safety from strangers and how best to teach them mathematics) than I am about the rock they dropped in the grass and can't find.
On the other hand, even these trivialities may become important if, for example, the rock is dropped in the street and so one of them wanders around in the middle of the road to look for it.
Of course there are much more weighty matters which they will also face, such as the person they choose to marry and so on, but obviously there will be a lot of change between now and the time when such a decision will be made.
My point in mentioning all of this is that there are human decisions which are very important and others which are trivial and others which are trivial but tied to ones of great moment, and we humans are likely fairly poor at distinguishing one from another.
And all of this can be said without even reflecting on the clear existence of exceptions to the general guidelines which God provides us.
I find it saddening that the very difficult position you found yourself led to your loss of faith in God, and I hope that someday experience leads you to find that faith again. Though you and I have come to different conclusions, in the end all I think that any one of us can really do is try our best to do what we think is right and trust that we will gain greater understanding someday. For me that involves trusting that after I die God will show me my mistakes and set me on the path to correcting them, so long as I am willing to recognize that I likely err frequently and egregiously and am not nearly so wise as I would like to deceive myself into believing.
quote: Though I'm not at all sure that "All" human experience is delusion-like, I like your comments as they pertain to love, and I agree with them. And truthfully I haven't thought about the issue from that angle before.
Perhaps "all" is a bit hyperbolic; but I do believe that much of human experience could fall into this category.
quote: But really that only underscores the importance of including rational, clear-headed, non-stress induced experience to counter-balance the feelings you are experiencing in "the moment", or to at least review some of those experiences carefully when the emotion has passed. Or to put it more succinctly, it is probably foolish to base life choices on emotional experience in light of evidence to the contrary. (NOTE: "evidence" here being personal evidence, not objective.)
I absolutely agree. In love, for example, it is probably a pretty bad idea to make important, life-changing decisions while in the deepest throes of (at least partially) chemically induced haze which allows one to gloss over the shortcomings of the object of passion. As I have heard it stated before: keep your eyes wide open when dating, and then half-closed after marriage.I would say the same thing to one looking at a new religion or other important decision.
quote: Exactly. I think we're on the same page, Jacare. I hope it's clear that I haven't implied that I can know what is happening in someone elses head. But by the same token, everyone therefore owes it to him- or herself to really find out what they believe and not rely on "well, everyone else believes it so it must be true". Unfortunately, I think the world, to date, is built on that notion and that notion is probably the biggest impediment to real progress modern man faces.
Definitely. There are two real problems involved in this idea- the first is, to quote Paul- we see as if through a glass darkly. There is a haze of interpreted experience, upbringing, preconceived notions, brain chemical balance etc. through which anything we view is seen. Further (and really only an extension of the first point), as "herd" animals, humans have a tendency both to look for a "herd leader" for guidance as well as to follow the other proximate animals as they mill in the same general direction. This could act for either good or ill, because I suppose it is just as likely that the herd leader perceives things more clearly as it is that a given member of the herd perceives things best, but it is probably wise to keep these things in mind when we make important decisions.
Nonetheless, in the end all one really knows is what occurs in one's own mind and what oneself has experienced, and if one is trust in anything it must begin in trusting oneself.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jacare- I disagree with the statement that "he can" know what's happening inside his head. Using the example of a man whose family just died and hears a voice tell him that his life is worth living, all the man KNOWS is that he heard this voice. If he interprets that as being God, then that is an interpretation based on faith. Which doesn't mean that interpretation is incorrect, but even for that individual it is not absolute proof of God.
This is something that I commonly encounter in conversion type stories. People feel great comfort or a moment of clarity and they attribute it to God. The event itself does not actually constitute any proof- only their interpretations of the event do.
Here is the issue, whatever the interpretation, the only one who really knows him or her-self, however imperfectly, is that person. One can watch from the outside for a lifetime and identify patterns of behavior etc., but you can still never know what goes on inside that person's head. In the end each man must be his own judge, for no one else is capable of performing that function.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: [QUOTE]I really, really disagree with this. It wouldn't be pointless at all. We're part of the fabric of the universe and that's pretty cool. If it ultimately just sort of ends, that's fine. At least we got to be part of it. I don't understand why you need the universe to have a "point." It's enough that it is.
Added: That is to say, the universe's existence is its own point. Er...
I guess it just seems like it should have some type of point to it. Perhaps some chemical inbalance in my brain is making me look for an answer that isn't there or for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. I don't know. Call it a gut feeling.
And I guess that if the universe does just end, whether it be by collapsing in on itself, expanding into infinity, or freezing into inactivity, whatever the outcome it doesn't really have an impact on my life now because there's a really good chance that I won't be around to see it anyway.
I can say, however, that I am really fascinated with what science is discovering. I would love to know if strings are the foundation of everything we see today, or if we do live in some type of multiverse, or what exists outside of our universe, and so on. And my perspective regarding science is that the knowledge that science gives us lets us peer into the handiwork of God, not a replacement for God. But that's just my perspective.
Ultimately, I don't think religion should really change a person's life, just a person's perspective. There are certain standards and rules of conduct that a person should live by regardless of his beliefs.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So this guy sees a burning bush. He gets told to go free his people from slavery. Along the way, things that he is told will happen actually happen. A staff turns into a snake in his hand. The sea parts just as they reach it, and unparts just when it will catch the pursuing army.
What requires more assumptions? That Moses was the luckiest leader who ever lived, or that the voice that talked to him was actually God's?
Sure, these experiences aren't like that. But there's a continuum of experiences between a feeling God is near and actually seeing the seas part and fire descend from the sky. You're drawing the cutoff point for number of assumptions very arbitrarily.
Yeah.... Moses... I shouldn't have to say this, but the Bible (genesis and all) *cannot* be interpreted literally in the way you did. Genesis represents an oral tradition, which was then passed down trough 40 generations (according to it), and then translated and copied thousands of times before it got to what you are reading today. Never mind the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for, nor anything whatsoever to validate a literal interpretation (or even whether they happened at all) of Moses' actions or experiences thousands of years ago, and simly the scope of the transformation that genesis has gone through dismisses any literal interpretations. I was unaware that you meant to reference a fictional story and fictional experiences and actions when you were speaking about experiences explaining god's existence. I would be much more inclined to consider modern and personal experiences as an even remotely valid argument, but when you start to bring in ancient people's ancient and academically contested experiences into the debate, you are just being ridiculous.
When you see fire fall from the sky, and the seas part, give me a call, but until then, your "experiences" are far from providing even a shread of evidence for the existence of god, or any type of higher (active) power.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was unaware that you meant to reference a fictional story and fictional experiences and actions when you were speaking about experiences explaining god's existence.
Wow. You know they're fictional? What evidence and reasoning are you basing this on?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess it just seems like it should have some type of point to it. Perhaps some chemical inbalance in my brain is making me look for an answer that isn't there or for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. I don't know. Call it a gut feeling.
It's fine for you to want there to be a purpose. I think a lot of people feel that way. I just don't think it's necessary is all.
quote:And my perspective regarding science is that the knowledge that science gives us lets us peer into the handiwork of God, not a replacement for God. But that's just my perspective.
Peering into the handiwork of god, absolutely. But for those of us who don't believe, it isn't a "replacement" for god, it just is. There's a difference. There's no god-shaped hole in my life or in my worldview that needs to be filled.
quote:Ultimately, I don't think religion should really change a person's life, just a person's perspective. There are certain standards and rules of conduct that a person should live by regardless of his beliefs.
Sure, I'd agree with that. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare- I wrote this before I saw your entry, but I think it addresses your post even though it doesn’t reference it.
quote: 1: have you ever heard a voice in your head? If not how could you possibly try to judge the man's experience either one way or the other?
In my childhood, I was quite religious. And yes, there were times when I believed that the Spirit spoke to me. Not in words, but in feelings of great comfort or clarity. However, when I look back on it I see many other possibile interpretations for what I was feeling. When I feel emotionally moved, I still feel those same emotions- the "burning of the bosom" and other feelings of comfort. It could very well be that it is God communicating with me. However, I am not convinced of that. I have felt extremely moved by things that would be offensive to many religious people. I think it's very possible that when I felt the Spirit in my childhood, I was simply feeling moved and interpreted those feeling in a way that I had been taught to. I am not trying to judge other people's experiences and I am very open to the possibility that God is indeed communicating with me. However, I stand by the statement that the man only knows he is hearing voices. Attributing them to God is an act of faith.
quote:A favorite analogy of this principle is "Assuming that I have never tasted salt before, please tell me what it tastes like"
I don't know. It is very possible that I have never tasted the salt or that I have tasted it and fail to recognize it as salt. But I also think it is equally possible that all of us taste the salt, but some of us call it "salt" and some of us don't.
quote:If God spoke and we were incapable of hearing he wouldnt be much of a God would he?
I don't know that that would say much about God, but more about humans. If God spoke to somebody who was patiently awaiting the voice of the Purple Unicorn, then they would take that as proof of the Purple Unicorn. I don't doubt that God, if He exists, is capable of speaking to us. I do doubt our ability to know that it is Him.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What evidence are you basing their verity on? The Burden of proof is on you here.
You flat out asserted their invalidity. You didn't say "most likely." You didn't say "I believe." You said they were works of fiction.
I have no burden of proof, because I'm not asserting anything at this point (though I happen to believe they are true). I merely noted the range of possible interactions one might have with God, and asked why you arbitrarily drew your Occam's razor line where you did.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amanecer- what you are essentially saying is that our feelings and/or other senses are unreliable guides into determining whether or not God exists.
Obviously it is accurate to say that people reinterpret their feelings all the time, as your experience from your childhood indicates. The same is also true of sensory inputs such as sight and sound. We often see what we expect to see and hear what we expect to hear, independent of what we actually saw and heard.
But none of this can be seen as evidence for or against God. It is simply the way the game is played, and all human activities are subject to the same uncertainty. As we live and grow we are constantly re-interpreting things which have happened to us based on our current understanding of how things work, but never is there any guarantee that a particular interpretation is correct- whether it be atheistic, shamanistic, deistic or what have you. As all humans are equally subject to this phenomenon, outside observers are even less reliable than oneself, and that is because they interpret your actions through their own filters. That is why I say that only one being knows the self (outside of the possibility of an omnipotent God, of course).
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has everything to do with the existance of God. I have tried to illustrate the inherent difficulty of describing even a 100% genuine experience with God. And how the truth through the natural distortion of time often becomes twisted as to be almost entirely bereft of the original fact.
So if say God spoke to a man, throughout his entire life, he would be hard pressed to convince anybody with his own abilities. So it is left to us to confirm that what a man or woman says about God is true or false. A God who exists and wants us to have the truth would likely be willing to although not appear directly communicate his presence with us on an individual basis.
So I guess my point is I can prove to myself that there is a God. I have done so (we will leave it at that) I cannot prove it to you, neither can you prove to me that my own experience is false. But you are free to try the different philosophies that dictate how a man may grow near to God, and through that find out which one, if any, is the most correct. As unlikely as it is, I happened to luck out on my first try.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: So this guy sees a burning bush. He gets told to go free his people from slavery. Along the way, things that he is told will happen actually happen. A staff turns into a snake in his hand. The sea parts just as they reach it, and unparts just when it will catch the pursuing army.
What requires more assumptions? That Moses was the luckiest leader who ever lived, or that the voice that talked to him was actually God's?
If the first paragraph is true and it describes things that really happened, your reasoning using Occam's razor seems correct to me. It is more likely that all these are part of a "plan" (God's plan, maybe) than a sheer thread of coincidences.
But we have no proof for any of those. I prefer not to believe the stories of the Bible until I see a proof. The Bible should be taken allegorically. One learns a lot of morale teachings from it, as well as some of the history of the Jews. But not more.
Thus, I say bushes might burn because of a summer hot day (see the 700 forest fires going on this very moment in Quebec). I state that the probability that a sea split so that humans could pass through it is so slim, ti means 10 to the power of - 20 or 30 or 100. I state that even Jesus' returning to life is very unlikely. He might have been in a coma. He might have been in asleep and never on a cross in the first place. Or his body was simply stolen and people lead to think he came back to life and left on his own feet. Thus, the believers are the ones that have the burden of proof on their side. Believers just choose to believe without having proof. Moreover, Noah's flood was a very severe flood, maybe a tsunami in the Mediterranean. Even the Greeks wrote about it a few centuries before Christ.
You ask us to prove that Jesus never actually came to life or that the sea did not split. I was not there to tell, but you were not either. I claim that you and I will never know the truth about these stories (at least during our life on Earth). That does not stop us from believing. You believe it did happened. I believe it did not happen.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But we have no proof for any of those. I prefer not to believe the stories of the Bible until I see a proof.
This and everything that follows might be true, but it's not relevant to the point for which I brought this up. I was illustrating the range of possible divine experiences someone could experience, and asking where in that continuum Occam's razor stopped suggesting mental hallucinations and started suggesting divine intervention to the person experiencing the events.
I can and have gone on at great length about testimonial forms of evidence. But I wasn't citing that as evidence; I was citing it as illustration for the range described above.
quote:You ask us to prove that Jesus never actually came to life or that the sea did not split.
I have not asked this. I said that the person making the definitive statement ("this story is fiction") had better qualify the statement or come up with proof. "You believe it did happened. I believe it did not happen." is very different than what angio was saying.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like i said, if fire starts falling and seas start parting, then i might start to believe you about god (unless there was another more sensible reason for this happening), but until then, the only evidence you present is personal experiences with god, which have no physical manifestation. Those do not pass the "occam's razor" bar in my opinion. The others could potentially, but so far as we know, they didn't happen.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, as I understand it, Occam's razor says nothing about truth, it says you shouldn't complicate things more than they need to be complicated in order to find the truth.
If you've run out of things to explore along the simpler path and still haven't found your answer, you're still required to go back and examine the other proposition, if you want to be rigorous.
In the context of this thread, the "burden of proof" argument (Antony Flew's version) goes something like this:
Theist: There is a God.
Atheist: I don't believe that.
Theist: Then prove there is no God.
Atheist: I don't have to, you said there's a God, I just said I don't believe that's true. If you want me to believe, you have to provide evidence (or proof), so the burden of proof is on you.
This is pretty cut and dried, especially since the theist made an assertion, and then demanded the atheist accept that assertion.
This goes back to my argument several pages ago with KoM about axioms requiring the acceptance of both parties. If you can accept certain axioms, and work exclusively from those axioms, then you can procede with civility. But you can't demand that someone accept your assertions as axioms.
Essentially this is the crux (pardon) of the argument here, for both sides.
1. A divine experience that one person experiences, but is not transferable to another, can't be treated as an axiom by that person, without acceptance by the party he's arguing with.
(I think everybody accepts that. The divine experience argument is for rationality of an individual's belief, not for the purpose of convincing someone else.)
2. Introducing the bible as axiomatic evidence is also not acceptable.
But here Angiomorphism is pre-emptively introducing the Bible as a strawman (it wasn't introduced by his opponent, as far as I can tell), and at the same time claiming that it is a work of fiction. Interesting wording, because he's making a positive claim when he could so easily make a negative one.
Then he goes a step further and makes the burden of proof demand. Nope, that doesn't work here.
The sad thing is there is quite a bit of archaeological evidence that the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan didn't happen as described.
But that's an entirely different argument. The upshot here is that unless you have first person access to another person's divine experience, you can't know whether they are being rational or not.
This reminds me of John Nash's explanation of why he believed his psychotic delusions about extraterrestrials sending him secret messages: "Because the ideas I had about supernatural beings came to me the same way my mathematical ideas did, so I took them seriously."
Ultimately Nash used rational thought to distinguish between the two, effectively negating the effects of his psychosis. He still has the delusions, but he can choose to ignore them now.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Bible was introduced by my "opponent" when he made reference to Moses' experiences as proof that a belief in god can be rational, if based on experiences like those Moses supposedly had. I was not refuting his conclusion, but rather his premise, that Moses' experiences represent actual historical fact. My "opponent" disagreed with me about the verity of Moses' supposed actions, and since I really didnt feel like getting into a long and prolongued argument about historical accuracy and what we do and don't know, so I used the "Burden of Proof" (which i knew neither of us could fulfill completely without hours of work) as a means to change the topic.
I'm not quite sure what you mean that it is altogether different to call the bible a work of fiction, rather than to say that it is not a work of non-fiction (positive vs. negative).
As for the whole rationality thing, here's my point, as simply as i can put it. Occam's razor is a method employed to attempt to find a reasonable answer to something we do not know. So, by using Occam's Razor, you are ensuring that you conduct your search as rationaly as possible (i never said it would discover the absolute truth, but it would be the rational way to go about it). Soooooo, if you are not using Occam's Razor, and you are asserting right off the bat that because of your spiritual experience, God exists, i think that the belief you are affirming in this case is irrational. Whether God actually exists or not (the truth) is not in question here, but rather the means by which one uses to find said truth, and if their beliefs are based in reason.
In my opinon, whether God does really exist or not, there are no rational means by which to confirm his/her existence, so we shouldnt believe, or come to terms with the fact that our belief isnt rational.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm not quite sure what you mean that it is altogether different to call the bible a work of fiction, rather than to say that it is not a work of non-fiction (positive vs. negative)."
The negative statement would be to say that the existence of the bible does not prove the existence of Moses' evidence.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Soooooo, if you are not using Occam's Razor, and you are asserting right off the bat that because of your spiritual experience, God exists, i think that the belief you are affirming in this case is irrational. Whether God actually exists or not (the truth) is not in question here, but rather the means by which one uses to find said truth, and if their beliefs are based in reason."
You're drawing your system to close. None of this occurs in a vacuum. The evidence for and against god belief is far too complicated to say that because of an apparent divine experience that this leads to an assertion "right off the bat."
I think both you and KoM have used an argument that theistic belief exists in an individual because they have been conditioned to believe it by their parents, and since birth. They've developed schema that easily incorporate evidence FOR the existence of God, so they easily see coincidences as divine experience.
A couple of example:
1. I picked up a hitchhiker, who said immediately as he got in the car: "I knew you were going to pick me up. I just prayed." (very ironic, I thought) Obviously, he makes opportunities for this coincidence to occur a lot, and reinforces his schema.
2. I was playing a Beatles record, and at one point, I looked at the floor in front of my fireplace, and thought "this needs to be swept." at exactly the same moment Harrison sings "I look at the floor and I see it needs sweeping." Really stunning coincidence with no theistic implications whatsoever. But if I'd been looking for a sign from god, I might have interpreted it as such.
Are either of these delusions?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Bible was introduced by my "opponent" when he made reference to Moses' experiences as proof that a belief in god can be rational
Ah, I see. Yes, Dagonee introduced Moses' evidence axiomatically. Yeah, bad form, but his argument is still valid because he's using it as an example of the kind of evidence one might have that isn't transferable.
This is the paragraph that makes his argument work, and it's the third paragraph, so it's easy to miss.
quote:Sure, these experiences aren't like that. But there's a continuum of experiences between a feeling God is near and actually seeing the seas part and fire descend from the sky. You're drawing the cutoff point for number of assumptions very arbitrarily.
posted
I don't think anyone is disputing that there could be genuine evidence for the existence of the Christian god. I seem to recall someone saying, a few pages back 'If God exists, why doesn't he make it clear by telling me about it, un-ambiguously?' At any rate, this is a fairly common srgument in such discussions as this. What's under dispute is whether the actual evidence that people present is good enough. And when you look at it, it comes down to
a) Internal, state-of-mind experiences b) Second-hand stories, ie the Bible.
I wouldn't take either one as sufficient for the efficacy of a cough mixture, and I suspect most theists wouldn't either. Yet they accept a really momentuous, gargantuan fact on such a basis. I think there's an argument to be made that this level of doublethink is indeed delusional. (If anyone can think of a better word than doublethink, please tell me. What I mean is that the believers seem to be applying way looser criteria to their religious beliefs than to anything else in their lives.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes, i agree KoM, and also , i do not think that drawing a cutoff point between falling fire (and parting seas), and modern personal visions or experiences is all to arbitrary.
And no, your experiences are (EDIT)not delusions, but if you interpreted those experiences as proof in the existence of god, then i think you would be commiting a fallacy in reasoning. The reason i was using Occam's Razor is because the argument *was* set up in a vaccum when it was first presented, and in a vaccum, it isnt rational in my opinion.
posted
I think you missed a 'not' there, which rather changes the meaning. I suggest you start proofreading your posts. And while your capitalisation has improved, it needs a bit more polish, along with your spelling. You evidently have absolutely no idea how much brighter it makes you look to have posts properly spelled and capitalised; it's well worth the extra effort when you want to get a point across. And besides, it's just common courtesy. Why should we bother to read a post that you dashed off in the greatest possible hurry?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that if you just can't reconcile it that God would want you to be an Atheist.
I don't think that God would want anyone to be an Atheist. I think that God would want a person to search harder for their own answer, and even moreso, I think that God would want a believer to feel obligated to try and help a nonbeliever understand.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I think the Invisible Pink Unicorn (May Her Hooves Never Be Shod) would want me to subject believers to electroshock therapy, so they can realise Her Greatness better. Plainly, they just haven't been looking hard enough; helping them is nothing but my duty.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is the Unicorn both Invisible and Pink? This raises interesting questions on the nature of color. Can something still be pink if it cannot be seen? Is "pinkness" part of the Unicorn's inherent nature, even though we can't see it? Is it taken on faith that the Unicorn is pink, or is she sometimes actually visible?
--Enigmatic (just as interested in this as the rest of the thread)
Posts: 2715 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I think you missed a 'not' there, which rather changes the meaning. I suggest you start proofreading your posts. And while your capitalisation has improved, it needs a bit more polish, along with your spelling. You evidently have absolutely no idea how much brighter it makes you look to have posts properly spelled and capitalised; it's well worth the extra effort when you want to get a point across. And besides, it's just common courtesy. Why should we bother to read a post that you dashed off in the greatest possible hurry?
Yeah, I did miss a "not" in there, thanks. My posts aren't made in any particular hurry though, and I have to disagree with you in regards to the whole capitalization and spelling thing. I'm sure you saw that email floating around a while ago that was writen entirely with the letters in words mixed around (except for the first and last one) "taht was erinetly raedalbe". Spelling isn't as important as you make it out to be when it comes to conveying your message, and shouldn't that be what posting is about? I feel that if someone wrote a really interesting idea, then it wouldn't matter how said idea was gramatically structured.
But if it really means something to all you guys, I will use correct form. I personally just hate capitalizing "I", i feel like it's a supreme waste of time (as well as apostraphies).
quote:The Bible was introduced by my "opponent" when he made reference to Moses' experiences as proof that a belief in god can be rational, if based on experiences like those Moses supposedly had. I was not refuting his conclusion, but rather his premise, that Moses' experiences represent actual historical fact.
Since your "opponent" did not rely on the premise that Moses's experience represents actual historical fact, your opponent wonders why you brought the veracity of Moses's experience up at all. Especially since you seemed, in the preceeding sentence, to understand exactly what I was getting at: "The Bible was introduced by my "opponent" when he made reference to Moses' experiences as proof that a belief in god can be rational, if based on experiences like those Moses supposedly had."
Your "opponent" was presenting an experience that would make it rational to believe in God, and asking how you decided where on the continuum of experiences ranging from a feeling of God's presence to parting the Reed Sea you think the line should be drawn where Occam's razor is no longer appropriate.
Your opponent still awaits an answer to this.
In other words, yeah, what Glenn said:
quote:Ah, I see. Yes, Dagonee introduced Moses' evidence axiomatically. Yeah, bad form, but his argument is still valid because he's using it as an example of the kind of evidence one might have that isn't transferable.
This is the paragraph that makes his argument work, and it's the third paragraph, so it's easy to miss.
It's kind of like picking the ticking nuclear bomb in the middle of New York when discussing when torture is permissible. It's not that this proves it's acceptable in all cases if it's acceptable in this one, but the example does serve to immediately clarify whether we're drawing a line or making an absolute exclusion.
I'm not sure why it's bad form, though.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may be 'erinetly raedalbe', but it takes an effort. You shouldn't be imposing effort on the reader to decipher the form of your message; you want him to concentrate on content. After more than a single sentence of 'erinetly raedalbe' text, I find myself skipping; it just isn't worth the effort - particularly since bad spelling usually goes together with vacuous content. Even where this isn't the case, it's just plain rude. If you can't be bothered to hit the shift key once in a while, which really isn't much effort, why should we bother to go to the considerably greater effort of reading your missives?
Enigmatic, the worship of the IPU is, like all religions, based partly in logic and partly in faith. We logically know that She is invisible, because we can't see Her; and we have faith that She is Pink, because it is revealed to us by Her prophets. And, dropping out of my worshiper persona for a moment, the contradictory traits of invisibility and pinkness were chosen precisely because they are contradictory, as a parody of the many paradoxical aspects of various faiths, "which we'll understand in Heaven." Trinity in a theoretically monotheistic religion, and omniscience plus free will, are obvious examples.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It may be 'erinetly raedalbe', but it takes an effort. You shouldn't be imposing effort on the reader to decipher the form of your message; you want him to concentrate on content. After more than a single sentence of 'erinetly raedalbe' text, I find myself skipping; it just isn't worth the effort - particularly since bad spelling usually goes together with vacuous content. Even where this isn't the case, it's just plain rude. If you can't be bothered to hit the shift key once in a while, which really isn't much effort, why should we bother to go to the considerably greater effort of reading your missives?
Enigmatic, the worship of the IPU is, like all religions, based partly in logic and partly in faith. We logically know that She is invisible, because we can't see Her; and we have faith that She is Pink, because it is revealed to us by Her prophets. And, dropping out of my worshiper persona for a moment, the contradictory traits of invisibility and pinkness were chosen precisely because they are contradictory, as a parody of the many paradoxical aspects of various faiths, "which we'll understand in Heaven." Trinity in a theoretically monotheistic religion, and omniscience plus free will, are obvious examples.
What inherent contradictions are there in the paradoxical aspects of various faiths? Maybe the many ideas that men have created and called God are different. You chose to point out the docterine of the trinity within a monotheistic religion. Not every christian believes that the trinity is one entity. Just as the reincarnation the hindus believe in isnt EXACTLY the same as the buddhist one.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I phrased it badly; I meant that each faith has paradoxical aspects within itself, not that they are paradoxical because they contradict each other; though that aspect has been parodied too, in the attempted schism of the Very Stealthy Maroon Unicorn.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please state a specific example of a paradox within a religion. And dont use the tired old "god of the old testament was cruel, new testament was merciful"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already did. The Christian god is held to be Three and One. It is also held to be omniscient, yet humans still have free will.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
as I said NOT ever christian (mormons for example) do not believe in 3 in 1. Omniscient is a knowledge of all things, how does that contradict with humans having free will.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
