quote:Originally posted by GinaG: If reasonable evidence could be provided that Jesus Christ never resurrected from the dead, I would not be a Christian.
Well, that's not actually very hard: We know that Mohammed explicitly denied this.
quote:But no scientific evidence can ever ascertain whether or not there is a God. As I already said, it's the wrong instrument.
I do not agree, but I want to try to keep the eyes on the ball. Right now the ball is, "Why is phenomenon X not compatible with atheism, but it is compatible with theism?" For X, pick anything you like which you believe is support for your god. Also, if you would, I'd like you to make explicit your agreement or disagreement with the proposition "Events equally likely under two hypotheses are not evidence in favour of either one."
quote:The fact that the universe exists is all the evidence I need that there is a creator,
Then why is the fact of the existence of this creator, not evidence that there is a creator of the creator?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: Sorry, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
I'll take that as an admission that you cannot actually show me how Christianity has anything but the most superficial resemblance to science. Not a very artful dodge.
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: If reasonable evidence could be provided that Jesus Christ never resurrected from the dead, I would not be a Christian.
How ironic. If reasonable evidence could be provided that Jesus Christ DID resurrect from the dead, I might well be a Christian.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
MightyCow, Not a dodge, but feel free to persist in your ignorance (or prejudice). I've tired of the conversation to be honest.
KoM, Same. I don't care to engage in the game. As I said somewhere along the line, I don't have any interest in "proving" God's existence or God's anything, and since I know you can't either, there's really no point, is there?
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hardly unexpected, it's rare for a theist to be brave. In that case, would you please go away and let those of us who find the discussion interesting continue?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And rare for an atheist not to posture and jeer.
I'm just not the sort who gets such jollies out of such debates that I want to spend a great deal of time on them. But "going away" was just what I was doing. I suppose I could have simply ignored you- as I intend now to do- I didn't consider it polite.
Tom, thanks for some decent exchange.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If reasonable evidence could be provided that Jesus Christ never resurrected from the dead, I would not be a Christian.
The religious texts/doctrine of any contradictory religion provide proof against the resurrection to the same degree that the Bible proves it.
Do you apply the same standard to other gods? Do you intend to worship Ganesh until someone can provide reasonable proof that he did not in fact recieve an elephant head from Shiva?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Going to church may be the thing that made BlackBlade feel better, but God's part in going to church could be quite minor. For example, I feel sad, lethargic, uninspired sometimes because I'm not at University, but that's not because I'm lacking God or some supernatural connection with the place, it's because I'm lacking my friends, surroundings that I loved etc.
That is a good observation, however I feel distinctly different when I am out of my element, schedule, community, etc, than I do when I disobey tenets of my religion.
KOM:
quote:That is, indeed, what you should do; stopping at the first answer is a deadly pitfall. But I give you leave to search for only, say, five years; provided that you do genuinely search. And there is another experiment you have not done: Suppose you do all the scripture reading and whatnot, but cease to believe in the god? Jut how does "God exists" follow from "BlackBlade is happy", anyway? It is not as though Joseph Smith had amazing new insights into living the good life; his precepts have been propounded many times, before and since. This is not a hard problem! It does not require that you postulate a whole universe-creator to explain these insights, you just need to postulate that Smith knew something about what makes humans tick.
God existing because BB feels happy does not follow, but when did I say this? A more accurate description would be, "BlackBlade was happy, and then he was instructed to do X, Y, and Z in order to discover God and be more happy." After doing X, Y, and Z he was indeed happier and experienced exactly what he was promised he would experience. After a period of time he grew lazy and ceased doing X, Y, and Z and his happiness decreased and this unique dynamic that He felt was God also disappeared.
As for quitting Mormonism for five years and trying out other religions I don't see that as being a very effective or even feasible experiment. For one thing, I have already covenanted to keep the tenets of God as far as they are revealed to me. Until Mormonism ceases to be true or God relieves me of those oaths I cannot simply relinquish them. Beyond that, shouldn't I be able to remain a Mormon and find identical results by trying out other religions at the same time? I also don't buy that I am subconsciously making myself unhappy when I do certain things as I was raised to think a certain way. By that logic the fact I disagree with my parents on certain tenets of Mormonism must also mean that I should lose my feelings of closeness with God when I don't don't adhere to their interpretations.
Proposition 8 is a very good example of this, (imagine that, I'm getting back to the original topic at hand.) My church declared that it supported it, and after doing alot of thinking and considering for myself I felt that I have certain points of opposition to it, and yet I do not suddenly feel unhappy and distant from God. Very specific things cause me the same effects as, not praying, not reading my scriptures, not attending church. I already know what many of these things are, I don't need to commit sin and find ways to get my conscience to stop screaming to me about them. Were I to do that then I would truly be guilty of what you already say I am doing, programing my mind to subconsciously make me feel a certain way.
As I experience things, I judge what the appropriate response should be. That's no difference than how you run your life. There isn't anything in my religious philosophy that forbids me from enjoying the same happiness you enjoy. It doesn't ask me to ignore science, in fact it encourages me to explore it. I can certainly agree that from your perspective there is a very low chance that the religion I was raised in just happens to be the right one, but that is what I have concluded based on my own experiences, and will live that way unless persuaded by a suitable event. It would be interesting to reset my entire life and see what would happen with 5 years of research and then compare that state with what I have now. But it takes more then a few warm fuzzy feelings to produce strong conviction, at least for me. The difference between you and me is that I am not asking you to discard anything in order to find true happiness, except maybe the sins you already know you commit. In order for me to see if maybe you are right I must first become a liar, and forfeit the welfare of my soul. If I am right KOM you and I both win, if you are wrong we both lose. At best you can only prove to me that the happiness I find in Mormonism can be replicated, at worst I endure misery. If you listen to my advice at best you find something wonderful, at worst you waste a little effort and some time. You do that every time you go to a crappy movie, or read a stupid book.
PS: Until you are familiar with what Joseph Smith said, you can't really make many statements regarding the quality of his teachings. As somebody who has read quite a bit about him I think he did say many interesting things concerning the universe and human nature. Those things are simply virtually unimportant if his statements regarding God and the Book of Mormon are not also true.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:PS: Until you are familiar with what Joseph Smith said, you can't really make many statements regarding the quality of his teachings. As somebody who has read quite a bit about him I think he did say many interesting things concerning the universe and human nature. Those things are simply virtually unimportant if his statements regarding God and the Book of Mormon are not also true.
Interesting they may be, but were they
a) Original? b) True? c) Difficult to articulate? d) Unique?
quote:God existing because BB feels happy does not follow, but when did I say this? A more accurate description would be, "BlackBlade was happy, and then he was instructed to do X, Y, and Z in order to discover God and be more happy." After doing X, Y, and Z he was indeed happier and experienced exactly what he was promised he would experience. After a period of time he grew lazy and ceased doing X, Y, and Z and his happiness decreased and this unique dynamic that he felt was God also disappeared.
I must say I do not see the distinction you are drawing. I will repeat the questions I asked GinaG: First, do you agree that an event equally likely under two hypotheses does not provide evidence in favour of either? Second, why do you think the events you describe are more likely under theism than atheism?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
a) Original? b) True? c) Difficult to articulate? d) Unique?
A and D seem to be very similar but yes to all four. I think it is also important to note that restoring knowledge that was lost accomplishes virtually identical results to being the originator of an idea.
quote:I must say I do not see the distinction you are drawing. I will repeat the questions I asked GinaG: First, do you agree that an event equally likely under two hypotheses does not provide evidence in favour of either?
No. It provides evidence in favor of either hypothesis, it just does not bring us any closer to a conclusion or course of action.
quote:Second, why do you think the events you describe are more likely under theism than atheism?
Because I have not observed the same things in an atheists life as I have in my own. Either I have not met the right atheists, or else there is an alternate means of invoking a force identical to the inspiration I claim to feel from God and we have yet to discover how to do it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. It provides evidence in favor of either hypothesis, it just does not bring us any closer to a conclusion or course of action.
Perhaps I did not define my terms sufficiently. First, 'evidence' means 'increasing the probability that this hypothesis is true'. Second, the hypotheses are assumed to exhaust the space of option, which I think is true for theism and atheism; there are no third alternatives, 'theism' being understood broadly. With these clarifications, do you agree?
quote:Because I have not observed the same things in an atheists life as I have in my own. Either I have not met the right atheists, or else there is an alternate means of invoking a force identical to the inspiration I claim to feel from God and we have yet to discover how to do it.
I think this is, if not orthogonal, at least diagonal to the question I was asking. Let me try to rephrase for clarity. The observed effect is "BlackBlade goes to church and finds happiness in this." Call this 'BCH', for BlackBlade-Church-Happy. The question is this: What is the probability of BCH, given that a god exists? (In formal notation, P(BCH | GOD)). And then given that no god exists? Is the first larger than the second, and if so why?
Please notice that I specify "A god exists", not "LDS theology is correct", so the first probability must also take into account cases like "God exists, but doesn't give a damn about humans."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think he did say many interesting things concerning the universe and human nature. Those things are simply virtually unimportant if his statements regarding God and the Book of Mormon are not also true.
Why? Lots of people have said interesting things about human nature that remain important even though they lied about other stuff, or didn't claim to speak for God.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: My take on this is if your goal is that people practice religion you need two things: 1)belief in the being to be worshiped 2)a reason to worship said being
Having the being be omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good (oopg) provides a pretty good reason. Going out on a limb, prior to the rise of science, perhaps 2) was more of an impediment than 1)?
Well, the thing is- I don't really see that omnipotence, omniscience, or all-goodness is really necessary for either. Our love for our parents changes as we realize their fallibility, but it doesn't (usually) cease. What about gratitude for creation, or for the ability to live on past the physical span of mortal life? Or the possibility of help beyond our means? The willingness and ability to help doesn't necessarily imply a level of goodness or love beyond any on Earth, but that doesn't necessarily make it less worthy of adoration.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hardly unexpected, it's rare for a theist to be brave. In that case, would you please go away and let those of us who find the discussion interesting continue?
What reason do you have to say that theists are rarely brave? Most of our soldiers our theists. For that matter, most people in the world are theists. Perhaps you just mean that bravery is rare in the world in general, but it is not more common among atheists.
...
But more to the point, if your goal in this discussion is either to understand religion better or to convince others to change their opinion about religion or to pursuade people that religion shouldn't intervene in politics, none of these are going to be achieved by the way you are demanding proof. Nobody here can prove God exists to you, especially if you don't want to believe it, and similarly nobody here can prove God doesn't exist. Beyond that, while you are talking about which belief is more "likely", it is also true that nobody here can calculate the probability that God exists or doesn't exist. Science also can't calculate the probability that any of its models are accurate. Probability doesn't work that way.
Religion is very much about evidence, but it isn't about using evidence to prove its validity or using evidence to calculate probability of beliefs. Rather it is about combining evidence, personal judgement, and faith into a belief system that a person can trust and use in their daily lives. For a given person, the evidence might be the Bible combined with personal experiences of God. The personal judgement might be that such evidence seems best explained by God. And then faith comes into play as the person trusts that conclusion, even despite the fact that they can't prove it or calculate that it is the most probable answer.
It may be that you don't agree with that method. It may be that you think people should automatically assume religion is false until there is hard, undeniable, and/or scientific proof that it is true. But that is a fudnamental assumption you are making that you can't prove. And the vast majority of the world does not appear to agree with that assumption.
It's a bit like the philosopher who claims everyone should accept sophism because we can't really prove anything exists. Under his assumptions and the way he thinks he should decide what to believe, that might be reasonable. But under most people's assumptions, it isn't. He could demand proof of the existence of things all day long, but it wouldn't convince anyone.
So, it's not cowardly for Gina to refuse to accept your demands for proof of God. She's suggesting that by approaching the discussion in this way, we'd inevitably miss the point and reasoning behind religion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Well, the thing is- I don't really see that omnipotence, omniscience, or all-goodness is really necessary for either. Our love for our parents changes as we realize their fallibility, but it doesn't (usually) cease. What about gratitude for creation, or for the ability to live on past the physical span of mortal life? Or the possibility of help beyond our means? The willingness and ability to help doesn't necessarily imply a level of goodness or love beyond any on Earth, but that doesn't necessarily make it less worthy of adoration.
I don't think it's necessary, but I think it helps. I love my parents, but when I think they are wrong I have few qualms about acting in accordance with my own (differing) beliefs. Religions generally don't want their adherents to take such liberties. If god is infallible, and you disagree with one of god's commandments, then you must be wrong.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Well, the thing is- I don't really see that omnipotence, omniscience, or all-goodness is really necessary for either. Our love for our parents changes as we realize their fallibility, but it doesn't (usually) cease. What about gratitude for creation, or for the ability to live on past the physical span of mortal life? Or the possibility of help beyond our means? The willingness and ability to help doesn't necessarily imply a level of goodness or love beyond any on Earth, but that doesn't necessarily make it less worthy of adoration.
I don't think it's necessary, but I think it helps. I love my parents, but when I think they are wrong I have few qualms about acting in accordance with my own (differing) beliefs. Religions generally don't want their adherents to take such liberties. If god is infallible, and you disagree with one of god's commandments, then you must be wrong.
One can disagree with a particular religion's (even one's own religion's) interpretation of what God commands without necessarily disagreeing with God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: One can disagree with a particular religion's (even one's own religion's) interpretation of what God commands without necessarily disagreeing with God.
I was speculating about why the decision was made to have god be oopg instead of merely very powerful - and that decision was made a long time ago.
As I understand it, part of the impetus behind the Reformation was that the Catholic Church held to the primacy of the Pope's interpretation of doctrine, while Calvin etc. believed they had the right interpretation. Point being, in the past it was a big deal to differ from orthodoxy, and, at that time, if you differed from the Pope's interpretation you would be regarded as disagreeing with god, given the Pope's official status.
Disclaimer: I'm an electrical engineer, not a historian, so apologies in advance for inaccuracies in the above.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: ... Most of our soldiers our theists. For that matter, most people in the world are theists. Perhaps you just mean that bravery is rare in the world in general, but it is not more common among atheists.
Well, I generally don't accept the proposition that military service is a particularly great way to measure bravery. However, I would note that theists are slightly underrepresented in military service.
quote: There have been indications of increasing religious diversity in the armed forces, including growing numbers of Muslims. However, Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims are underrepresented in the military relative to their share of the civilian population. The number of American military personnel who claimed to be atheists or to have no religion was slightly higher than the GSS estimate for civilians ages 20 to 39, the age range for about 80 percent of military personnel.
posted
I would like to point out that a theist is only risking his body and earthly life when he joins the military. An atheist is risking the only life he's got.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think he did say many interesting things concerning the universe and human nature. Those things are simply virtually unimportant if his statements regarding God and the Book of Mormon are not also true.
Why? Lots of people have said interesting things about human nature that remain important even though they lied about other stuff, or didn't claim to speak for God.
I don't know about you, but I worship Emerson, even though worship of an individual, or the personification of an individual is totally anathema to his philosophical and moral views... oh well.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps I did not define my terms sufficiently. First, 'evidence' means 'increasing the probability that this hypothesis is true'. Second, the hypotheses are assumed to exhaust the space of option, which I think is true for theism and atheism; there are no third alternatives, 'theism' being understood broadly. With these clarifications, do you agree?
I think I can work with those definitions yes.
quote:I think this is, if not orthogonal, at least diagonal to the question I was asking. Let me try to rephrase for clarity. The observed effect is "BlackBlade goes to church and finds happiness in this." Call this 'BCH', for BlackBlade-Church-Happy. The question is this: What is the probability of BCH, given that a god exists? (In formal notation, P(BCH | GOD)). And then given that no god exists? Is the first larger than the second, and if so why?
You will have to bear with me as I am not well versed in discussing concepts in this way. If we simply add or remove a God from the equation I don't think BCH changes much. There should be a percentage change based on the fact that if there is a God, my chances of him rewarding me for seeking him out (can I just say him?) are greater than if he did not exist. Since churches exist to find God, therefore the probability of BCH increases if God in fact exists.
----
Tom:
quote:Why? Lots of people have said interesting things about human nature that remain important even though they lied about other stuff, or didn't claim to speak for God.
I meant more the things he said about God, not that he was incapable of saying interesting things if he was in fact wrong about his most important statements. The fact that he is, if wrong, either grossly mistaken, or intentionally deceitful makes studying his words less likely to be worthwhile in comparison to many other individuals.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You will have to bear with me as I am not well versed in discussing concepts in this way. If we simply add or remove a God from the equation I don't think BCH changes much. There should be a percentage change based on the fact that if there is a God, my chances of him rewarding me for seeking him out (can I just say him?) are greater than if he did not exist. Since churches exist to find God, therefore the probability of BCH increases if God in fact exists.
But you have neglected the possibility that a god exists but punishes people for joining churches, or for joining the wrong church. That will exactly cancel out the chances of reward, since you know nothing of the nature of the god.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You will have to bear with me as I am not well versed in discussing concepts in this way. If we simply add or remove a God from the equation I don't think BCH changes much. There should be a percentage change based on the fact that if there is a God, my chances of him rewarding me for seeking him out (can I just say him?) are greater than if he did not exist. Since churches exist to find God, therefore the probability of BCH increases if God in fact exists.
But you have neglected the possibility that a god exists but punishes people for joining churches, or for joining the wrong church. That will exactly cancel out the chances of reward, since you know nothing of the nature of the god.
You are right. Could you provide some basis for why he would do either of those things logically?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You will have to bear with me as I am not well versed in discussing concepts in this way. If we simply add or remove a God from the equation I don't think BCH changes much. There should be a percentage change based on the fact that if there is a God, my chances of him rewarding me for seeking him out (can I just say him?) are greater than if he did not exist. Since churches exist to find God, therefore the probability of BCH increases if God in fact exists.
But you have neglected the possibility that a god exists but punishes people for joining churches, or for joining the wrong church. That will exactly cancel out the chances of reward, since you know nothing of the nature of the god.
You are right. Could you provide some basis for why he would do either of those things logically?
He might do so based on empirical observation - perhaps he noticed that organized religion is too frequently used to mobilize congregations for/against innocuous measures that have no mal-effect on any of the members of the congregation.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are right. Could you provide some basis for why he would do either of those things logically?
Why shouldn't I be able to postulate god-behaviours as much as you do? Maybe god doesn't actually want you any closer to him, smelly little human that you are. Or joining a church is completely the wrong way of going about it. Or joining a church is really, really bad for your soul for other reasons, not to be revealed to humans. (Just like Teh Dreaded Gay.) And of course no reason is required to punish you for joining the wrong church; that's just common sense.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why shouldn't I be able to postulate god-behaviours as much as you do?
Because I operate under the assumption that we are patterned after God in both form and personality.
If we simply add God to the equation without any discussion of whether he or the universe are connected than no the probability of BCH does not increase with the existence of God.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are right. Could you provide some basis for why he would do either of those things logically?
He set this world up as a test. He provided a capable brain and complex environment and He wants us to exercise the intelligence and curiosity which He provided to us to develop our full intellectual potential. Those who succeed in doing so, who continue to question assumptions and discard flawed reasoning, will have a special place in His kingdom. Aside from setting up the universe in way in which we would eventually evolve, He has no direct contact with the world. Those who believe that He exists are therefore coming to unjustified conclusions based on poor evidence and with such people He is not pleased. Those who worship Him are committing an even greater sin in that they not only believe in Him on insufficent evidence, but they believe they know Him based on insufficent evidence and they are doing things in His name which He objects to.
posted
MattP: I know you came up with that fairly quickly and it's an impressive attempt. I'd point out the holes, but I imagine to you there seem to be fairly obvious holes in my religion as well.
KOM:
quote:I quite agree. This being so, why do you advance BCH as evidence in favour of a god?
Because based on my experiences, the complex system my church says it has received from God matches reality. My existence is better having adopted that philosophy, and until it disappoints I will continue to learn of it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for double posting but this edit was getting too long.
KOM: How about this. Lets say that once a week you have an impulse that was unique from all your other motivations. It told you to do things like bath regularly, be nice to people, find time to improve your mind. On rare occasions it would tell you to do specific things that are out of the ordinary, like call a friend and make sure he/she was doing alright, or to pay off a loan immediately. When you have done those specific things on those rare occasions the result has been better than if you had ignored it. And you find that impulse increases in frequency as it is adhered to. When you stop doing the common things the impulse disappears along with the positive benefits it used to bring.
If somebody said, "there is no scientific proof that your impulse is anything special or even that it won't lead you to do something terrible one day," what would your response be?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know you came up with that fairly quickly and it's an impressive attempt. I'd point out the holes, but I imagine to you there seem to be fairly obvious holes in my religion as well.
Of course there are holes. The 30-second version of any religion is going to, by necessity, contain holes. But since it's a religion I can patch the holes pretty easily. The great thing about such a wholy(holy?) contrived story with no supporting evidence is that I can easily write more story to patch the holes. (see: The Demon Theory of Friction )
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say he was quite right, but in any case that's not the point I am making. I am saying "There is no necessary connection between this phenomenon and the explanation you are giving for it". In particular:
quote:Because based on my experiences, the complex system my church says it has received from God matches reality.
No, stop! When I put the question "Why do you believe BCH is evidence for your church's theology", you cannot say, "because of BCH, I think church's theology is sound".
Edit: Wups, I see MattP's post got in before mine again. I trust it's clear that both this and the last one were responses to the BB posts directly preceding them.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you believe BCH is evidence for your church's theology
I'm not looking at it as, well BCH exists therefore God is for realz! When I do things that create good results I feel happy. In my life a certain force early on began prodding me in certain directions, obeying it has brought me happiness. One of the things this force has lead me to do is to follow the tenets of Mormonism. On the strength of that and after doing alot of research on my own I have remained in that faith. Unless that force leads me elsewhere, or else God gives me further instructions, or I cease to exist, or my perception of reality starts consistently contradicting what that force has lead me to believe and do, I will continue to be a Mormon.
quote:I would say he was quite right
So you would simply discard all that experience at the drop of a hat, the moment you cannot scientifically prove the motives behind an impulse that has always served you well in the past?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you would simply discard all that experience at the drop of a hat, the moment you cannot scientifically prove the motives behind an impulse that has always served you well in the past?
I just wouldn't draw conclusions not supported by the evidence.
For instance, Moroni's challenge - pray about the truth of the book of Mormon and you'll get an answer to that prayer indicating the truth of it. Suppose I pray about the Book of Mormon's thruthfullness and I get an overwhelming sensation that I am wholly unfamiliar with. A burning in the bosom, as it were.
What conclusion can I draw from this? The Book of Mormon is true? Joseph Smith was a prophet? The Church is true? None of these things are indicated by this experience. The only indication is that when performing that act I experience that sensation. There is nothing about the experience which indicates that God is responsible for it, that God is good, that anything written in the book comes from God, etc.
Why couldn't the experiences that you describe just be part of the human condition. A series of natural events and intuitive responses, some coincidental, filtered through your the theology of your upbringing?
quote:So you would simply discard all that experience at the drop of a hat, the moment you cannot scientifically prove the motives behind an impulse that has always served you well in the past?
I just wouldn't draw conclusions not supported by the evidence.
For instance, Moroni's challenge - pray about the truth of the book of Mormon and you'll get an answer to that prayer indicating the truth of ok. Suppose I pray about the book of Mormon's thruthfullness and I get an overwhelming sensation that I am wholly unfamiliar with. A burning in the bosom, as it were.
What conclusion can I draw from this? The Book of Mormon is true? Joseph Smith was a profit? The Church is true? None of these things are indicated by this experience. The only indication is that when performing that act I experience that sensation. There is nothing about the experience which indicates that God is responsible for it, that God is good, that anything written in the book comes from God, etc.
Why couldn't the experiences that you describe just be part of the human condition. A series of natural events and intuitive responses, some coincidental, filtered through your the theology of your upbringing?
That would make sense if the experience was a one time phenomenon.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If somebody said, "there is no scientific proof that your impulse is anything special or even that it won't lead you to do something terrible one day," what would your response be?
More interestingly: if there is a group of people hearing these beneficial voices, would you expect this group to be superior to the general population in a variety of statistically measurable ways?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
So you would simply discard all that experience at the drop of a hat, the moment you cannot scientifically prove the motives behind an impulse that has always served you well in the past?
That is not what I said. I said I would concede that there was no evidence in favour of any particular cause for my 'impulses', and consequently I would keep an open mind on what was causing them. In particular, I would not instantly conclude that <theology of my choice> was responsible.
The point I am trying to make is that there is a distinction - which in spite of your protestations you do not seem to be drawing - between "The Mormon rituals make BlackBlade happy" and "The Mormon theology is correct". It is quite possible that your church has hit upon some ways of organising humans that fit well with our brains, or the brains of some humns at least. It does not follow that these ways were given it by a god, or even a particularly talented individual; after all the church has changed a lot since Smith's day.
Returning to probabilities, why do you assign a higher probability to church rituals fitting the human brain well when they were designed by a god, rather than a human? Bear in mind that divine purposes are not human; consider, for example, what your church's stance on homosexuality is likely to do to gays. Clearly here is a large subset of humanity which would find it very ifficult to follow these teachings, whether or not they are true. Also recall Lisa's complaints about the inconvenience of following her faith's rituals. You cannot conclude, from "These activities are a good fit to my brain", that "these activities were ordained by a god".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why shouldn't I be able to postulate god-behaviours as much as you do?
Because I operate under the assumption that we are patterned after God in both form and personality.
I'm not sure that there is any logical basis for the idea that we are or should be patterned after God in form and personality any more than Windows XP is very similar to Bill Gates or the Model T is a close analog for Henry Ford.
Be that as it may, if we accept for the moment that we can and should derive our notions of God as some sort of perfected or amplified versions of ourselves, then it stands to reason that God would be VERY likely to punish us for joining the wrong church.
If you consider that basic human nature seems to have a strong element of pack mentality, where OUR group is the right one, and we are free to hate/fear/oppress etc. other groups because they're wrong and different, then I would say that there is a very good chance that picking the wrong church is actually WORSE than picking no church.
That rather turns Pascal's wager on its ear. If picking the right church is very good, but picking the wrong church is very bad, and picking no church is somewhat bad, considering the vast number of churches out there, the odds seem to be in favor of not choosing.
Especially if you believe that once dead, we may be given the chance to pick the Right Team with the appropriate knowledge, and it's better to be a later joiner than a converted enemy.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You cannot conclude, from "These activities are a good fit to my brain", that "these activities were ordained by a god".
quote:Why is that? I'm not saying the experiences aren't repeatable or real, just that they don't justify the conclusions being drawn.
Eating a cheesburger makes me feel good, therefore I can conclude that eating one makes me feel good. Keeping the commandments also makes me feel good and it has the added bonus of making my community overall a happier place for others, (yes this is interpretive but it is how I see things). As I keep obeying these commandments, my nature changes into something I think is better than what I already am, and for some reason what used to be just a feeling, becomes a voice that becomes more involved in my life. Ideas it tells me are wrong end up being bad, ideas it tells me are right end up being good. Yes in a sense I am surrendering some of my will to this source. Is what I have described really something to which you would stop listening and allow to just disappear?
Tom:
quote:More interestingly: if there is a group of people hearing these beneficial voices, would you expect this group to be superior to the general population in a variety of statistically measurable ways?
Yes, but I have little confidence that we could scientifically group these people together and devise a correct way to measure whether or not they are better people.
KOM:
quote:That is not what I said. I said I would concede that there was no evidence in favour of any particular cause for my 'impulses', and consequently I would keep an open mind on what was causing them. In particular, I would not instantly conclude that <theology of my choice> was responsible.
When did I say I immediately concluded such a thing? My beliefs on these things are tested constantly, as there are so many things that could happen that would completely invalidate my trust in God.
quote:The point I am trying to make is that there is a distinction - which in spite of your protestations you do not seem to be drawing - between "The Mormon rituals make BlackBlade happy" and "The Mormon theology is correct".
Protestations? I try to agree with you when I can. I understand that I am making a logical leap from the first statement to the second because of an assumption. I'm trying to argue that, "an assumption that states that a source of inspiration that betters the world around it and so far has not been shown to be conclusively wrong is a good thing to listen to."
I understand this is a value judgment, it's not something I can scientifically prove, but just because I cannot fully explain it does not mean I am ready to discard it.
quote:Returning to probabilities, why do you assign a higher probability to church rituals fitting the human brain well when they were designed by a god, rather than a human? Bear in mind that divine purposes are not human; consider,
When did I say church rituals fit the human brain well? edit: (In many instances the logic behind a doctrine in Mormonism is not apparent from the beginning). I think the doctrines of the church require alot of exertion to keep. They go against much that is in our natures. But even you must believe that there is much in human nature that must be controlled and reshaped in order for civilization to exist. Again the assumption being that civilization is better than a feral human existence. The doctrines of Mormonism when continually followed, make people better and ultimately happier. But with that capability of bringing happiness, comes the capability of creating misery.
quote:for example, what your church's stance on homosexuality is likely to do to gays. Clearly here is a large subset of humanity which would find it very difficult to follow these teachings, whether or not they are true.
I wouldn't say homosexuals comprise a "large subset" of humanity, especially when compared to subsets like gender, race, age group, eye color, etc. But I also understand that homosexuality is probably one of the most under reported groups of people when any study concerning them is attempted. As for difficulty, yes it is difficult, and again a person might try very hard to obey and ultimately give up, becoming a shell of who they used to be in the effort. I don't believe anything required in the gospel is impossible. The question is whether we use all the tools available to us, or not. Inspiration, like a rational mind, to me is one of those tools.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When did I say church rituals fit the human brain well?
This is my reformulation of such statements as this one:
quote:As I keep obeying these commandments, my nature changes into something I think is better than what I already am, and for some reason what used to be just a feeling, becomes a voice that becomes more involved in my life.
quote:As for difficulty, yes it is difficult, and again a person might try very hard to obey and ultimately give up, becoming a shell of who they used to be in the effort.
In particular, a large number of people report that they tried very hard and got absolutely none of the effects you mention in the quote above. Their natures were not improved, the little voice did not appear.
quote:When did I say I immediately concluded such a thing? My beliefs on these things are tested constantly, as there are so many things that could happen that would completely invalidate my trust in God.
Feel free to strike out 'immediately'; nevertheless, this is in fact your conclusion, no? It is no more valid for having been arrived at over time.
quote: Ideas it tells me are wrong end up being bad, ideas it tells me are right end up being good. Yes in a sense I am surrendering some of my will to this source. Is what I have described really something to which you would stop listening and allow to just disappear?
No; try to really look at what we are saying, not what you think an atheist ought to say. Nobody is saying "Give up following your conscience/intuition/wisdom". We are saying "Your conscience is not evidence for LDS theology being correct".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:n particular, a large number of people report that they tried very hard and got absolutely none of the effects you mention in the quote above. Their natures were not improved, the little voice did not appear.
Which is why I have said again and again that my personal experiences are not reason enough for anyone else to believe. I leave it to God to explain to each individual why He has dealt with them thus.
quote:Feel free to strike out 'immediately'; nevertheless, this is in fact your conclusion, no? It is no more valid for having been arrived at over time.
Valid? I can agree that there is no direct logical connection, but I do not agree that my belief in these things, when based on years of experience is not any more "valid" than a person who says they see a vision of the blessed virgin and decide then and there to always be a catholic no matter what.
quote:No; try to really look at what we are saying, not what you think an atheist ought to say. Nobody is saying "Give up following your conscience/intuition/wisdom". We are saying "Your conscience is not evidence for LDS theology being correct".
And I'll say again that yes I can see how my experiences do not logically lead to the conclusion that LDS theology is correct. But I have inserted an assumption that I think is a good one and it unifies what logic I do have.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. There we go. You now agree that your belief in the theology is an assumption, which your evidence does not justify.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Eating a cheesburger makes me feel good, therefore I can conclude that eating one makes me feel good.
Correct. But what conclusions have you reached about *why* it makes you feel good? Because there is a hamburger spirit working within you? If I were to prepare a food you'd never tasted before and said "Eat this. If it tastes good, that means anything else I tell is true." and you did indeed enjoy it, would you believe me?
quote:Keeping the commandments also makes me feel good and it has the added bonus of making my community overall a happier place for others, (yes this is interpretive but it is how I see things). As I keep obeying these commandments, my nature changes into something I think is better than what I already am, and for some reason what used to be just a feeling, becomes a voice that becomes more involved in my life. Ideas it tells me are wrong end up being bad, ideas it tells me are right end up being good.
I have very similar experiences, except not with anything I'd characterize as a "voice." I've determined, based on reading the philosophy of others and examining the world on my own, what behaviors I think are "good" and which I think are "bad." Having done so, I attempt to practive the good behaviors and avoid the bad ones. Over time it becomes easier to intuit the good behaviors and I also feel better when I am consistently exercising them.
quote:Yes in a sense I am surrendering some of my will to this source. Is what I have described really something to which you would stop listening and allow to just disappear?
I'm not saying to ignore it, I'm just stating that what you describe has several explanations other than the one you've settled on. What if that voice is Satan, telling you just enough truth that you'll believe the important lies? How would you ever know?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ah. There we go. You now agree that your belief in the theology is an assumption, which your evidence does not justify.
Oh and I suppose you have evidence that shows my assumption is not justified? Your wording seems to indicate that assumptions are to be avoided or are bad. I'd waged you have plenty assumptions of your own that are justified in your own mind.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Your wording seems to indicate that assumptions are to be avoided or are bad.
That's where 99% of human error comes in. People assume that the world is the way they wish it were, and then they bend all the evidence to fit their favorite wishful model.
The best thing is to hold assumptions as lightly as possible, so that one is open to the evidence that will prove them wrong.
Holding close as dearly beloved religion is the opposite of this stance.
And you already proved right here that that's how you are behaving. You've got your scripture telling you everying can be straight, and the evidence of real people saying "No, we can't be. We can act straight, but we've tried, and tried, and had every incentive in the world to be straight, and with every evil consequence imaginable if we aren't, and we can't do it". (Plus the evidence of straight people saying "We couldn't be gay if we tried".)
But this evidence violates your assumption, so rather than dismiss the assumption, you dismiss the evidence, and the reality and experiences of real people.
There are explanations that take all of this evidence into account, but your beloved assumption won't allow you to accept them.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's where 99% of human error comes in. People assume that the world is the way they wish it were, and then they bend all the evidence to fit their favorite wishful model.
Without assumption, no real exchange of ideas could take place. I do understand that an assumption doggedly held to can create alot of misery and unhappiness.
quote:Holding close as dearly beloved religion is the opposite of this stance.
No it isn't, you seem to be confusing the fear one who lacks understanding in their religion feels when challenged by things they cannot refute, with the unwillingness of another believer to easily forfeit what he feels is right.
quote:And you already proved right here that that's how you are behaving.
Exactly how am I behaving? I was under the impression that I was attempting to have a civil discussion on this topic, the fact I haven't changed my mind is not indicative of any inability to do so. I might just as easily say the fact that many of my opponents fail to yield anything in these conversations shows how inflexible they are.
quote:You've got your scripture telling you everyone can be straight, and the evidence of real people saying "No, we can't be. We can act straight, but we've tried, and tried, and had every incentive in the world to be straight, and with every evil consequence imaginable if we aren't, and we can't do it". (Plus the evidence of straight people saying "We couldn't be gay if we tried".)
I've seen that evidence yes, but I have also seen people who insist that they "need" to experience multiple partners, and that they can't limit their sexual forays to one person. Or that they are bisexual and need people from both sexes to feel complete. There are those who are bi-polar and before medication existed for it, they lived out their lives not knowing how to control their emotions and thoughts, and yet they were expected to learn how to do just that as best they could. But I am certain that if some sort of medication was devised that would suppress homosexuality, people would be screaming that if anyone took it, they'd be denying their very humanity.
quote:But this evidence violates your assumption, so rather than dismiss the assumption, you dismiss the evidence, and the reality and experiences of real people.
Dismiss is hardly the term I would use, I'm still listening. Apparently you have dismissed my entire belief system and for what reason? Because your assumptions do not match mine?
quote:There are explanations that take all of this evidence into account, but your beloved assumption won't allow you to accept them.
My explanation takes all this evidence into account. Please don't patronize me, I respect your ability to think for yourself, I don't appreciate you stating that I am incapable of it. What in my words has lead you to believe that I am beyond reasoning with?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
