|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What is the appeal of Christianity?
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
...the events of the everyday world never show any god stepping in to save any murder victim
Really? I swear I am not making this up, but I have met literally thousands, probably tens of thousands, of people who have never been murdered. How do you know God isn't stepping in?
Which is a facile way of saying: you have no proof either way. "Thieves didn't break into a Manchester house today and didn't murder the owner" hardly makes good news.
But, anyway, we could turn to the brain-in-a-jar hypothesis: you have no objective way of proving that you are not a brain in a jar being fed sensory inputs by some scientist, which only feel to you like real life. There is no way for you to prove one way or the other because your reality, your frame of reference, is part of the simulation.
What is to say that your reality is not a living construct of God? What if prayer really works, and really does heal people, but God, being outside of time, changes the whole course of history back to the beginning of time itself in order to answer your prayer? You'd have no way of knowing because your frame of reference is part of the simulation.
Of course that sounds irrational and ridiculous, but you can't disprove it. It could be happening all the time. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossymole
Apprentice
# 17339
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief
I am not a Christian because I find Christianity to be appealing. I am a Christian because I think it is true.
Me too. It seemed to me that Christianity should be a repeatable experiment and I found it to be so and am convinced.
Posts: 43 | From: Derbyshire UK | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
I surmise that people have already heard about your mate Jesus and what they've heard makes them not want to get to know him better.
Actually Jesus doesn't sound like a bad bloke - it's some of the ones who claim to be his mate that are the problem.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
But if you're not living in the presence of God you're missing out on something extra.
OK, but what is that something extra? Can it be described?
I mean, if someone tells me I'm missing out by not knowing their mate John, I can ask why and be told that he's a really funny chap, always stands his round in the pub, happy to help if you've got a DIY problem at home, and so on. And based on those descriptions I can decide if John really is a chap I want to get to know. So what can we tell people about 'our mate Jesus' that might make them want to get to know Him better?
Some sort of random thoughts.
The problem is I can say what I've experienced of him (and I do), but that's no guarantee that other people are going to have the exact same experience. And this problem doesn't usually come up when I'm talking to nonChristians, but among Christians, sometimes I get hostility or envy or disbelief as a response. Or accused of somehow making it up, or showing off, or whatever. And I hesitate to say very much, for that reason, and because a lot of it is intensely personal.
And it's all in the Bible, anyway. I mean stuff like "he's faithful." (deep breath) My experience is that he is the only person in my life never to let me down. And before someone jumps on that, I am NOT saying that I never feel abandoned, or that he's absent, or that I'm angry with him. I have those experiences. But in the end it comes out that I realize he really was and is there, even when I was yelling at him, and he did not turn me away.
He is patient. He doesn't make fun of broken people who come to him, either behind their back or to their face. He is courteous, gentle, and kind. I never feel like I have to guard my words with him, like he's going to take offense at some stupid thing I said, or like I have to censor what I'm thinking or feeling. (And I do have to do this with other people in my life--it's a rare person who can put up with me all the time.)
He's good to talk to. He can shut up and be quiet when you need him to, when you just need to talk. He can communicate (though it takes some practice I think, hearing him) and he doesn't waste words. He also doesn't flatter or lie to me, even when I want him to (ouch). But at least that means there's someone who will tell me when I'm going badly off the rails.
He's not into gossip, backstabbing, nasty digs at people, or running people down. If you are (and aren't we all, to some extent?) then you will feel uncomfortable in his presence when you do that shit. But it will be the kind of silence that makes you want to do better--not the kind that rejects you as a worthless piece of crap.
He believes in me (and all his people). He knows I can do x difficult scary challenge, even when I believe I can't, and he is willing to lend me a hand. Not without a lot of hard work and oh crap oh crap oh CRAP moments. But he sees me through. And when I fail, he is patient and picks me up and tells me to try again. And puts up with my hissy fits when I just.don't.want.to.
He LIKES me. Which is vanishingly rare in real life, or at least in my gut I secretly believe it is, or ought to be. I haven't a clue why he should get any pleasure out of having me around, but he clearly DOES (freaking weird idea) and it's nice to be wanted. Much better than being tolerated by someone who secretly wishes you'd go away. (But it took me years to realize for real that mere tolerance isn't how he feels about me.)
He is not comprehensible, that's the downside. He will do things, and allow things, that I would never do or allow (at least with the understanding I currently have) and he doesn't have to explain himself to me. And he won't. Okay, occasionally something will happen after the fact that makes me glad it turned out that way, after all--but there's no guarantee of that, and he feels no responsibility to satisfy my curiosity. When I complain he says "trust me" and occasionally "that's not your business, get on with what you're supposed to be focusing on." That annoys the hell out of me.
He also has a painful habit of seeming to vanish when you want him most--when some disaster has happened, or you are having painful doubts, or something. If you hang on long enough he comes back (actually, you realize he never left, was just very very quiet), but even though I admit the theoretical benefit of teaching me to walk by faith and not by emotions, whenever it happens I feel abandoned. And I worry that this time he'll not come back.
He is not predictable in that way. (In other ways, yes) And you can't manipulate him, however you try. That is ffrustrating.
But in the end, I'm happier that he is a God who is bigger than I am, even though it has all the downsides mentioned above.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think that without the facts which would obviate the need for faith, then how can Christianity be better than the scientific reality which can be accessed on TV, radio and the internet? Those who prefer to have faith that God and Jesus are providing support are underestimating the power, strength and resourcefulness , as well as the imagination, of our human evolved brains.
You fall into the same fallacy as many who argue this: you assume Christianity is about assent to a set of propositions which, if falsified, would falsify Christianity.
No, I do not assume that it is an 'assent to a set of propositions', I can see from the knowledge we now have and from past and present history that christianity is a religion based on a belief that there is a God and that one particular man is believed to have lived, died and then to have been resurrected. This is the one aspect about it that requires faith without evidence.
quote:
The problem with that logic is that the premise is flawed. Christianity is not about assent to a set of propositions.
What do you say are those 'propositions'?
quote:
Scientific understanding is marvellous. I am awed by our expanding knowledge of the universe and by the clever bods who provide me with my weekly digest in New Scientist. I've read and understood original research on evolution and consider it an exemplary way to describe the descent of species. I've argued creationists to silence on why their beliefs are untenable. I'm not a scientist, but I am a very well-educated lay person.
Okay, no argument there! I listen to the audio New Scientist and continue to learn a lot.
quote:
None of that has any bearing on my Christianity.
But why not? How can you keep your Christianity separate from everything else, from the one piece of information that would remove it from a faith-without-evidence position?
quote:
For many reasons I consider myself one of the most reluctant Christians on the planet but I find that my life is better when I spend it with my perceived God than without.
How would your life be even slightly worse if you simply accepted that the God you perceive is a wholly human idea?
quote:
I echo C.S. Lewis: I love Christ the way I love the sun; not because I can see it, but because by it every thing else can be seen more clearly.
Unsuprisingly, I disagree! To add an unnecessarycomplexity blurs clarity.
quote:
Anyone can be nice to people: we should all aspire to be humanists. But if you're not living in the presence of God you're missing out on something extra.
whatever you think it is that non-believers are missing out on, why do you think that it cannot be articulated clearly enough to convince?
quote:
Unfortunately that's a hard thing to sell to the man on the street.
That's because it is the only thing that is required to be believed with faith only.
I think my great joy in life is knowing that I'm doing the best I can, but that I am responsible for all I do. If I need help, it is other humans who provide it, and in spite of all its ups and downs, I'm so very glad I've had - fortunately, 'still having' - a life.! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
...". All I know is that it's very different from my other feelings of peace and joy.
****
I have a blind friend, blind since birth. She gets along just fine with her senses as they are - she goes to towns she doesn't know, finds her way to rock concerts, publishes books. She doesn't know what she's missing because she doesn't miss it.
But if I try to describe stars to her, she simply doesn't have the frame of reference to get what I'm on about: she can understand the theory, she can get the concept, but she can't grasp how you can see something that is far, far away. Her senses extend to the reach of her arms and the limit of her hearing. To imagine seeing something 6 billion light years away is, quite literally, beyond her ken.
The difference is that she cannot imagine it in the same way that a sighted person can. she will imagine it in her own way, but she knows from other sources that what you are saying is true and evidenced. She does not need faith to accept what you say.
quote:
Same with being in relationship with God.
Except that all those who consider themselves to be in a relationship with God cannot say with certainty that they are experiencing it in the same way as any other person.
How about trying to be a reluctant humanist instead?!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossymole:
It seemed to me that Christianity should be a repeatable experiment and I found it to be so and am convinced.
Whereas I have found it to be very much not repeatable.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
Susan D wrote
quote:
Except that all those who consider themselves to be in a relationship with God cannot say with certainty that they are experiencing it in the same way as any other person.
As a matter of interest, how do you know you experience reality in the same way as any other person?
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
As a matter of interest, how do you know you experience reality in the same way as any other person?
"See how happy the fish are", said Chung Tzu, looking into the stream.
"Since you aren't a fish, you can't tell if they are happy", said the disciple.
"Since you aren't me, you can't tell whether of not I know the fish are happy", said Chung Tzu.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
As a matter of interest, how do you know you experience reality in the same way as any other person?
"See how happy the fish are", said Chung Tzu, looking into the stream.
"Since you aren't a fish, you can't tell if they are happy", said the disciple.
"Since you aren't me, you can't tell whether of not I know the fish are happy", said Chung Tzu.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Some sort of random thoughts.
The problem is I can say what I've experienced of him (and I do), but that's no guarantee that other people are going to have the exact same experience. And this problem doesn't usually come up when I'm talking to nonChristians, but among Christians, sometimes I get hostility or envy or disbelief as a response. Or accused of somehow making it up, or showing off, or whatever. And I hesitate to say very much, for that reason, and because a lot of it is intensely personal.
And it's all in the Bible, anyway. I mean stuff like "he's faithful." (deep breath) My experience is that he is the only person in my life never to let me down. And before someone jumps on that, I am NOT saying that I never feel abandoned, or that he's absent, or that I'm angry with him. I have those experiences. But in the end it comes out that I realize he really was and is there, even when I was yelling at him, and he did not turn me away.
He is patient. He doesn't make fun of broken people who come to him, either behind their back or to their face. He is courteous, gentle, and kind. I never feel like I have to guard my words with him, like he's going to take offense at some stupid thing I said, or like I have to censor what I'm thinking or feeling. (And I do have to do this with other people in my life--it's a rare person who can put up with me all the time.)
He's good to talk to. He can shut up and be quiet when you need him to, when you just need to talk. He can communicate (though it takes some practice I think, hearing him) and he doesn't waste words. He also doesn't flatter or lie to me, even when I want him to (ouch). But at least that means there's someone who will tell me when I'm going badly off the rails.
He's not into gossip, backstabbing, nasty digs at people, or running people down. If you are (and aren't we all, to some extent?) then you will feel uncomfortable in his presence when you do that shit. But it will be the kind of silence that makes you want to do better--not the kind that rejects you as a worthless piece of crap.
He believes in me (and all his people). He knows I can do x difficult scary challenge, even when I believe I can't, and he is willing to lend me a hand. Not without a lot of hard work and oh crap oh crap oh CRAP moments. But he sees me through. And when I fail, he is patient and picks me up and tells me to try again. And puts up with my hissy fits when I just.don't.want.to.
He LIKES me. Which is vanishingly rare in real life, or at least in my gut I secretly believe it is, or ought to be. I haven't a clue why he should get any pleasure out of having me around, but he clearly DOES (freaking weird idea) and it's nice to be wanted. Much better than being tolerated by someone who secretly wishes you'd go away. (But it took me years to realize for real that mere tolerance isn't how he feels about me.)
He is not comprehensible, that's the downside. He will do things, and allow things, that I would never do or allow (at least with the understanding I currently have) and he doesn't have to explain himself to me. And he won't. Okay, occasionally something will happen after the fact that makes me glad it turned out that way, after all--but there's no guarantee of that, and he feels no responsibility to satisfy my curiosity. When I complain he says "trust me" and occasionally "that's not your business, get on with what you're supposed to be focusing on." That annoys the hell out of me.
He also has a painful habit of seeming to vanish when you want him most--when some disaster has happened, or you are having painful doubts, or something. If you hang on long enough he comes back (actually, you realize he never left, was just very very quiet), but even though I admit the theoretical benefit of teaching me to walk by faith and not by emotions, whenever it happens I feel abandoned. And I worry that this time he'll not come back.
He is not predictable in that way. (In other ways, yes) And you can't manipulate him, however you try. That is ffrustrating.
But in the end, I'm happier that he is a God who is bigger than I am, even though it has all the downsides mentioned above.
Thank you, I find your posts very affirming as you so often describe what I experience.
It's only the paragraph about seeming to vanish when you want him the most that I would tweak. I agree that he does, and that at those times I do feel abandoned. When I realise that he was there all the time, I fall in that he wasn't being quiet, but I wasn't listening as I was so full of myself that I had shut him out.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
That can happen. But a lot of times it seems that one of the steps on the way to spiritual maturity is getting that "shut out, nobody home" feeling and managing to make it through. Which hurts like hell.
I'm sort of thinking for no particular reason about the way I took my kid shopping today and asked him (mid-store) to go fetch three limes from the produce section and meet me at the far end of the building. Which is about the size of a football stadium (okay, maybe not quite, but still...)
He was scared, mostly due to some anxiety issues in other parts of his life. I told him to go on anyway.
I was scared too, but mainly because of some extremely high profile kidnapping stuff that has gone on in my town during the past couple years. But it'll only harm the kid if I don't encourage him to work past his fears.
So I asked him to go, and then stood there for what seemed like a zillion years at the meeting place. He turned up, of course. And I did my best to act like I wasn't worried about why it took him so bloody long.
I imagine it must feel like that to God when he has to let go our hands at times in order to help us grow.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think that without the facts which would obviate the need for faith, then how can Christianity be better than the scientific reality which can be accessed on TV, radio and the internet? Those who prefer to have faith that God and Jesus are providing support are underestimating the power, strength and resourcefulness , as well as the imagination, of our human evolved brains.
You fall into the same fallacy as many who argue this: you assume Christianity is about assent to a set of propositions which, if falsified, would falsify Christianity.
No, I do not assume that it is an 'assent to a set of propositions'
Ok, maybe I read too much into your text:
quote:
how can Christianity be better than the scientific reality which can be accessed...
I read that as a tacit "scientific reality has shown Christian facts to be false or limited", hence my treating it as though you were counterpointing Christianity with science.
I think scientific reality is beautiful and complete (or at least, having the potential to be complete) in its description of the universe. I see no gaps into which God needs inserting. However I think God created the frame of reference in which science works to describe. I have no evidence for this.
quote:
quote:
None of that has any bearing on my Christianity.
But why not? How can you keep your Christianity separate from everything else, from the one piece of information that would remove it from a faith-without-evidence position?
What is this 'information' of which you speak?
My Christianity isn't based in evidence, hence the reluctance of this otherwise rational chap, but in subjective experience.
quote:
How would your life be even slightly worse if you simply accepted that the God you perceive is a wholly human idea?
How would your life be worse if you realised and accepted you were actually hooked into the Matrix? Would you not want to break out of your false, yet comforting, 'reality' and see life as it really is, warts and all?
My life would likely be considerably easier if I didn't believe in God. For one thing, my wife and I would not be about to give up two higher-tax-bracket jobs to volunteer for a charity in Africa for three years with two young kids...
"Better" and "worse" are subjective concepts and depend upon where you place your value and priority.
quote:
To add an unnecessary complexity blurs clarity.
Me and Occam are old mates. But why is God complex? If we get away from thinking of God as some sort of answer to anything, then it's not complex at all.
quote:
How about trying to be a reluctant humanist instead?!
Oh, I'm a whole-hearted, sold-out, shout-it-from-the-rooftops humanist. It's the bizarre God bit I am reluctant about...
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Susan D wrote
quote:
Except that all those who consider themselves to be in a relationship with God cannot say with certainty that they are experiencing it in the same way as any other person.
As a matter of interest, how do you know you experience reality in the same way as any other person?
It is true that I cannot say that I experience reality in exactly the same way, but reality can be seen, measured, analysed, tested, etc etc and I think that makes it objective.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
What is this 'information' of which you speak?
One piece of objective evidence!
quote:
My Christianity isn't based in evidence, hence the reluctance of this otherwise rational chap, but in subjective experience.
What other thing in your life do you base on an entirely subjective view?
quote:
How would your life be worse if you realised and accepted you were actually hooked into the Matrix? Would you not want to break out of your false, yet comforting, 'reality' and see life as it really is, warts and all?
It was the erasing of the god idea from the very small space it occupied in my brain that removed any false idea of reality. In fact, I have always been one for facing reality, warts and all, and will continue to do so. I do not delude myself into thinking there is some 'comforting' alternative reality. I realise I am very lucky to have been born and lived in the time and the circumstances I have.
quote:
My life would likely be considerably easier if I didn't believe in God. For one thing, my wife and I would not be about to give up two higher-tax-bracket jobs to volunteer for a charity in Africa for three years with two young kids...
I much admire your decision and hope that all works out well. I wouldlike to ask, however, Do you think it is belief in God that has helped you make this decision? Do you think the God you believe in knows what you are doing and why? How would you know this?
From a non-believer point of view, I would also be interested to know, if the job is definitely a Christian-religion-based one and, if so, are the children already believers in the Christian God? If they are not, would you try to 'guide/lead/ them to believe? And the crunch question for me: Would you tell them that God is true? How would you justify this?
And I'l understand if you choose not to answer.
quote:
Me and Occam are old mates. But why is God complex? If we get away from thinking of God as some sort of answer to anything, then it's not complex at all.
But all believers think they know what God thinks, wants, doesn't like, etc. They have to work these things out for themselves, based on words in books. This brings us to the infinite regression question - if God can do, think, help, etc, then who created god? No need to answer that one either!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Susan D wrote
quote:
Except that all those who consider themselves to be in a relationship with God cannot say with certainty that they are experiencing it in the same way as any other person.
As a matter of interest, how do you know you experience reality in the same way as any other person?
I don't. This is self-evident. But I experience it in a close enough way that words have meanings we can share, and we can even discuss what the differences are in the way we experience realty.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
What is this 'information' of which you speak?
One piece of objective evidence!
Then we are back to thinking about some set of propositions which are provable or disprovable. The God hypothesis isn't provable or disprovable. OK, you can disprove a lot of crap which a lot of the religious hold dear, like young-earth creation, but as for God: it's in principle unprovable. Hence subjective.
quote:
I do not delude myself into thinking there is some 'comforting' alternative reality.
What's comforting about it? I find it extremely discomfiting. I'm not in Christianity for the comfort (see next point).
quote:
I much admire your decision [to do charity work] and hope that all works out well. I would like to ask, however, Do you think it is belief in God that has helped you make this decision?
It is belief in God which has catalysed this decision. I'm not sure I would have the impetus or would care enough to do it otherwise. And I think God is smoothing the way: for example, in what other situation could you generate £75,000 without trying or asking anyone for money?
quote:
are [your] children already believers in the Christian God? If they are not, would you try to 'guide/lead/ them to believe? And the crunch question for me: Would you tell them that God is true? How would you justify this?
They are believers in God in the same way they are supporters of the Labour party: their parents are and so they get swept up in it. Do I tell them God is true? I tell them I believe God is true, but I am making every attempt to bring them up as critical thinkers so they can make their own minds up once they are sophisticated enough.
quote:
all believers think they know what God thinks, wants, doesn't like, etc. They have to work these things out for themselves, based on words in books.
I don't have the faintest clue what God wants or likes or thinks. If I did I would be God. I take a basically humanist view and use my critical faculties in assessing what other people think God thinks. Anyone who claims to know what God thinks about a particular subject should be treated with the utmost suspicion, and possibly as an idolater.
I don't think the bible is the word of God, but it is a useful records of man's evolving relationship with God (Old Testament) and a fairly plausible historical account of the spread of the followers of Christ (New Testament).
quote:
This brings us to the infinite regression question - if God can do, think, help, etc, then who created god?
I don't see how this brings us to the infinite regression question, but since you ask...
Why does God need to have been made? You're thinking in a reductionist manner. Why does God need a beginning? We only think that because we can't properly comprehend the infinite.
Space, time, and matter were created at the moment of the big bang but they were created into a pre-existing medium. Does that medium have to have been created? If the answer to this is no (and that is Stephen Hawking's opinion) then why is God a special case of something needing creating?
It's turtles all the way down.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
IntellectByProxy
Very good post. The stuff about 'objective evidence' comes up again and again like a rash. It always amazes me, as it is asking for naturalistic evidence for something which has never been claimed to be naturalistic.
How can atheists keep asking for objective evidence? Presumably, they have in mind some kind of physical entity, which is God? Or God is an item in the universe?
The only theists who argue for that, as far as I can see, are Mormons. Yet atheists seem stuck in that groove; I guess it is confirmation bias!
The odd thing about the infinite regress idea - who creates God - is that materialists and naturalists seem quite happy with a universe which exists as a brute fact. In other words, it has no source.
[ 24. October 2012, 14:32: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
IBP
Sorry, just realized that you had already said that, about the infinite regress!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Intellect By Proxy
Many thanks for your thoughtful and interesting response; much appreciated.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
IntellectByProxy
Very good post. The stuff about 'objective evidence' comes up again and again like a rash.
Well, that's because there is zero testable, call it whatever you choose, evidence for the Abrahamic God or any others. All of us have a varietyh of experiences throughout our lives and those who believe in God attribute some of them to something that god has done, or given, etc.
quote:
It always amazes me, as it is asking for naturalistic evidence for something which has never been claimed to be naturalistic.
that is an interesting idea - if it has not been claimed to be naturalistic, I'm not quite sure what it has been claimed to be. Okay, I should probably know the answer to this, but can't think of it at the moment!
quote:
How can atheists keep asking for objective evidence? Presumably, they have in mind some kind of physical entity, which is God? Or God is an item in the universe?
Would you accept that it is the only thing which you, i.e. all believers, cannot explain to non-believers other than by personal, subjective testimony?
quote:
In other words, it has no source.
I don't think atheists say there is no source, only that at the point when the universe(s) began, it is impossible to say what there was before. The probability of it being any god, let alone the Christian one, is surely 0.0+a million 0s and then a 1?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
How can atheists keep asking for objective evidence? Presumably, they have in mind some kind of physical entity, which is God? Or God is an item in the universe?
Would you accept that it is the only thing which you, i.e. all believers, cannot explain to non-believers other than by personal, subjective testimony?
Well, I wouldn't. There are quite a few things for which we have no evidence other than our experiences and observations as humans and our personal, subjective testimony, and which I think defy testing by the scientific method. Love comes to mind as one example.
quote:
quote:
In other words, it has no source.
I don't think atheists say there is no source, only that at the point when the universe(s) began, it is impossible to say what there was before. The probability of it being any god, let alone the Christian one, is surely 0.0+a million 0s and then a 1?
Why surely? Why is that less likely than the probability that all of the necessary conditions for life as we know it to exist on this planet happened by accident?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
My point was simply that if atheists raise the question of an infinite regress (who made God?), then how do they get out of it in relation to the universe? Does that have a source? Well, what made that?
In other words, atheists tend to accept the universe as a brute fact, which may in fact, be uncaused. Or the cause of the universe may be uncaused.
Or is there an infinite regress here?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
SusanDoris wrote:
if it has not been claimed to be naturalistic, I'm not quite sure what it has been claimed to be. Okay, I should probably know the answer to this, but can't think of it at the moment!
But seriously, do atheists ask for evidence because they think that God is a material thing, or an item in the universe? I can't believe this.
Surely, most atheists are aware that God has been seen as immaterial - without body, parts or passions?
Or am I living in a strange upside down world, where atheists see God as a very large bloke with a cape?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
Quetzalcoat: for the point of clarity, I'm not comfortable with the the idea that "atheists think the universe is a brute fact". As far as I know, the universe being a brute fact isn't part of the Atheist Required Belief Set. Moreover I, as a theist, think the universe is a brute fact, so there shouldn't be an implied dichotomy here.
The fact of the universe being brute is not what divides theists from atheists...
As to subjective experience: one's whole world view is subjective; I refer the honourable lady to the previous brain-in-a-jar hypothesis.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Quetzalcoat: for the point of clarity, I'm not comfortable with the the idea that "atheists think the universe is a brute fact". As far as I know, the universe being a brute fact isn't part of the Atheist Required Belief Set. Moreover I, as a theist, think the universe is a brute fact, so there shouldn't be an implied dichotomy here.
The fact of the universe being brute is not what divides theists from atheists...
As to subjective experience: one's whole world view is subjective; I refer the honourable lady to the previous brain-in-a-jar hypothesis.
Well, you are quote-mining me a bit there, aren't you, since I said that 'atheists tend to see the universe as a brute fact, which may in fact, be uncaused. Or the cause of the universe may be uncaused'.
I think the subordinate clauses which you stripped out do affect the meaning. Well, subordinate clauses usually do.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
((Took me a while to get all the bits that should be in bold to be in bold! )
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Well, I wouldn't. There are quite a few things for which we have no evidence other than our experiences and observations as humans and our personal, subjective testimony, and which I think defy testing by the scientific method. Love comes to mind as one example.
There is a Richard Dawkins book, mainly aimed at younger people, called 'The Magic of Reality'. I have started listening to it, and one of the earliest things he mentions is love and how it is not only subjective, but can be explained in terms of our biology etc. This does not lessen its wonder and value, but makes it more amazing really, in my opinion.
quote:
quote:
In other words, it has no source.
I don't think atheists say there is no source, only that at the point when the universe(s) began, it is impossible to say what there was before. The probability of it being any god, let alone the Christian one, is surely 0.0+a million 0s and then a 1?
quote:
Why surely? Why is that less likely than the probability that all of the necessary conditions for life as we know it to exist on this planet happened by accident?
If, and that is a huge if of course, you suppose there was God before it all, then you have to say that 'he' chose one little planet somewhere, set up a system which after millions of years would come to a point where the evolutionary process produced a branch of the ape family which, having acquired language, decided eventually to call itself homo sapiens sapiens .... well, that's why!! The conclusion that it happened by chance and that humans, because of their evolved capacity for working out reasons for things chose to decide that it must have been gods, is the most probable?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The conclusion that it happened by chance and that humans, because of their evolved capacity for working out reasons for things chose to decide that it must have been gods, is the most probable?
Both seem equally probable to me. Millions of years wouldn't be the big deal for God that it is for us, would it?
And the problem of 'chance' will always be 'why'? It's very hard to see all this as having no purpose.
Back to the OP. I can be a Christian (A follower of Christ and his teachings) without being sure of any of the cosmic stuff, can I not?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
SusanDoris wrote:
if it has not been claimed to be naturalistic, I'm not quite sure what it has been claimed to be. Okay, I should probably know the answer to this, but can't think of it at the moment!
But seriously, do atheists ask for evidence because they think that God is a material thing, or an item in the universe? I can't believe this.
No, I think most atheists simply do not think of God as anything, since they totally lack belief in its existence, or need for its existence. I certainly used to believe firmly in a God/force/power somewhere 'out there' but this faded and lessened and finally vanished.
In my opinion, there must have been atheists right from the very first time someone said that because fire and noise had come from the mountain, said mountain must be angry. From then on, the idea of gods has answered questions of natural events. Those ancient atheists must have thought, 'Hmm, that doesn't sound quite right....'
Since then, each civilisation has thought of such unexplainable powers in different ways and sought to placate them with worship etc. This has obviously been a strongly important element in human development and because of its long, long history, will always be - and must be seen to be free to be - a part of our lives.
quote:
Surely, most atheists are aware that God has been seen as immaterial - without body, parts or passions?
Yes, I agree.
quote:
Or am I living in a strange upside down world, where atheists see God as a very large bloke with a cape?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) That's probably where we all are! However, I think I am fairly safe in saying that atheists in general understand that all gods are human creations.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
If of course, you suppose there was God before it all, then you have to say that 'he' chose one little planet somewhere, set up a system which after millions of years would come to a point where the evolutionary process produced a branch of the ape family which, having acquired language, decided eventually to call itself homo sapiens sapiens .... well, that's why!! The conclusion that it happened by chance and that humans, because of their evolved capacity for working out reasons for things chose to decide that it must have been gods, is the most probable?
Some thing or some condition set things up so that over billions of years this universe evolved life. I suspect that life has arisen countless times on countless planets throughout this universe.
The processes that arrive at life are anything but random. Evolution isn't random, and, as far as I know, evolutionary biologist get very sniffy when it is described as such: evolution is constrained by input conditions and is therefore not random.
The input conditions, therefore, are important. I think we can agree that there is some pre-existing rule set which has set our universe up to enable life. What you choose to call that rule set is up to you. I choose to call it God.
If you don't invoke intelligence behind it then you have to invoke infinity: an infinite number of universes have existed and it just so happens that we live in the one that happened to have conditions favourable to life.
Doesn't Occam's razor lead you to choose one agent (God) over an infinity of agents (chance)? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Personally, I think quantum mechanics is the study of the ongoing work of God. In quantum experiments things work differently depending on whether an intelligence is observing the task or not: e.g. in the double slit experiment, if you try to determine which slit the photon is going to go through the interference pattern immediately breaks down and you get a classical result. That happens regardless of how cunningly the observation is made. Current experiments are suggesting that that happens in a time-independent manner (i.e. an observation in the future can affect the result in the past).
Kinda makes me think that God only works when humans are looking the other way...
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There is a Richard Dawkins book, mainly aimed at younger people, called 'The Magic of Reality'. I have started listening to it, and one of the earliest things he mentions is love and how it is not only subjective, but can be explained in terms of our biology etc. This does not lessen its wonder and value, but makes it more amazing really, in my opinion.
That rather avoids the question, though, I think. That explains love -- the biological and other things going on the brain that "produce" what we call love. But that's not what I was talking about. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could be, but I was talking about the existence, in specific instances, of love.
The question you posed and to which I was responding, was whether believers would "accept that [the existence of God] is the only thing which [we] cannot explain to non-believers other than by personal, subjective testimony?"
My response is that I ask you accept that my wife loves me. I can only offer you personal, subjective testimony on that, but I know it to be true. Yes, there is "hard evidence" that might be seen as supporting my statement -- gifts, things she does for me, etc. -- but those could have other explanations. Perhaps it's all a good act for my money. (And that's a mjor hypothetical there. ) We've all known relationships that appeared to be loving when in fact they really weren't.
So when it boils down to it, the only real evidence I can offer is simply that I know she does. Dawkins may explain what is going on biologically. But the more basic question can only be answered by my personal, subjective testimony.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The conclusion that it happened by chance and that humans, because of their evolved capacity for working out reasons for things chose to decide that it must have been gods, is the most probable?
Both seem equally probable to me. Millions of years wouldn't be the big deal for God that it is for us, would it?
Exactly. Both scenarios -- creation by God or happening by chance -- have their probablity challenges. I recall hearing one scientist on NPR (sorry, I can't remember who, but I do remember that while a Christian he was not a creationist -- I pay little head to them) pegging the probablity of all conditions for life developing as we know it on Earth actually occuring at <.01%. Hence my quibble with the suggestion that it is "surely" more probable that it all happened by chance without a God.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
IntellectByProxy
Very good post. The stuff about 'objective evidence' comes up again and again like a rash. It always amazes me, as it is asking for naturalistic evidence for something which has never been claimed to be naturalistic.
How can atheists keep asking for objective evidence? Presumably, they have in mind some kind of physical entity, which is God? Or God is an item in the universe?
The only theists who argue for that, as far as I can see, are Mormons. Yet atheists seem stuck in that groove; I guess it is confirmation bias!
The odd thing about the infinite regress idea - who creates God - is that materialists and naturalists seem quite happy with a universe which exists as a brute fact. In other words, it has no source.
This is an ahistorical claim and attempt to deny that a long running argument has been lost catastrophically. Aquinas believed that God could be demonstrated by "the argument from motion", "the nature of the efficient cause", "possibility and necessity", "gradation" - the idea that some things are better than others, and "the governance of the world". The idea that you can find God in nature and objective evidence for God is a long-standing Christian one and only really was undermined by Darwin*.
Atheists therefore keep asking for objective evidence for the same reason Christians claimed to have some for a millenium and a half. Because God's existance is important and would have serious consequences for the universe. And the modern Christian insistance that God's existance is so practically meaningless there is no objective evidence that can be presented for it sounds like nothing more than "We know we lost that argument. So now we're going to claim it doesn't mean anything. You may have beaten us but it now means nothing. Because we say so."
* No, not Galilleo. He was just an all-round git who called the Pope an idiot in print when the Pope was his only patron.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
IntellectByProxy
Very good post. The stuff about 'objective evidence' comes up again and again like a rash. It always amazes me, as it is asking for naturalistic evidence for something which has never been claimed to be naturalistic.
How can atheists keep asking for objective evidence? Presumably, they have in mind some kind of physical entity, which is God? Or God is an item in the universe?
The only theists who argue for that, as far as I can see, are Mormons. Yet atheists seem stuck in that groove; I guess it is confirmation bias!
The odd thing about the infinite regress idea - who creates God - is that materialists and naturalists seem quite happy with a universe which exists as a brute fact. In other words, it has no source.
This is an ahistorical claim and attempt to deny that a long running argument has been lost catastrophically. Aquinas believed that God could be demonstrated by "the argument from motion", "the nature of the efficient cause", "possibility and necessity", "gradation" - the idea that some things are better than others, and "the governance of the world". The idea that you can find God in nature and objective evidence for God is a long-standing Christian one and only really was undermined by Darwin*.
Atheists therefore keep asking for objective evidence for the same reason Christians claimed to have some for a millenium and a half. Because God's existance is important and would have serious consequences for the universe. And the modern Christian insistance that God's existance is so practically meaningless there is no objective evidence that can be presented for it sounds like nothing more than "We know we lost that argument. So now we're going to claim it doesn't mean anything. You may have beaten us but it now means nothing. Because we say so."
* No, not Galilleo. He was just an all-round git who called the Pope an idiot in print when the Pope was his only patron.
I think your points are true of some versions of theistic personalism. My understanding is that classical theism was not based on evidential grounds in the same way, and is still not.
I would say that some atheists, at any rate, ask for evidence, including scientific evidence, because they haven't got a clue what they are talking about. In fact, if you ask some of them, what they mean by 'evidence', they get quite bashful, as they begin to see their own presuppositions looming up like an iceberg in the mist.
However, must pause, in the middle of din-dins.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Justinian
Your stuff about the various arguments for God is biting off too much, to my mind. Going down that road is to embark on a whole historical survey.
My view is that many atheists are imprisoned within naturalistic (and in many cases, materialist) ideas, and therefore can only discuss religion from within those 'mind forg'd manacles'.
Hence, the request for 'objective evidence', which treats God as a natural phenomenon, or an item in the universe.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Justinian
Your stuff about the various arguments for God is biting off too much, to my mind. Going down that road is to embark on a whole historical survey.
My view is that many atheists are imprisoned within naturalistic (and in many cases, materialist) ideas, and therefore can only discuss religion from within those 'mind forg'd manacles'.
Hence, the request for 'objective evidence', which treats God as a natural phenomenon, or an item in the universe.
And mine is that the approach you suggest is nothing more than special pleading.
The request for objective evidence doesn't treat God as a natural phenomenon. It assumes that God actually does something. We can test whether prayer actually heals by comparing patients being prayed for and those not (outcome: it doesn't help those who don't know they are being prayed for and hurts those who do). We can see when something moves or any physical force.
The request for objective evidence is a request to show that God isn't completely irrelevant for anything in this world. Or that the next world exists and isn't the sort of pie in the sky fantasy (or revenge fantasy) that people might want to think up.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Justinian
Your stuff about the various arguments for God is biting off too much, to my mind. Going down that road is to embark on a whole historical survey.
My view is that many atheists are imprisoned within naturalistic (and in many cases, materialist) ideas, and therefore can only discuss religion from within those 'mind forg'd manacles'.
Hence, the request for 'objective evidence', which treats God as a natural phenomenon, or an item in the universe.
And mine is that the approach you suggest is nothing more than special pleading.
The request for objective evidence doesn't treat God as a natural phenomenon. It assumes that God actually does something. We can test whether prayer actually heals by comparing patients being prayed for and those not (outcome: it doesn't help those who don't know they are being prayed for and hurts those who do). We can see when something moves or any physical force.
The request for objective evidence is a request to show that God isn't completely irrelevant for anything in this world. Or that the next world exists and isn't the sort of pie in the sky fantasy (or revenge fantasy) that people might want to think up.
But your 'God actually does something' seems to mean 'God alters the physical world in some way', does it not?
I would say that God creates and sustains the whole of reality; however, surely God also preserves the integrity of the physical world. Otherwise, if God kept intervening in physical terms, it would be a magical reality, and therefore unintelligible.
The question as to whether God is irrelevant is something that the individual has to decide. For myself, God is present, and that is relevant for me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But your 'God actually does something' seems to mean 'God alters the physical world in some way', does it not?
I would say that God creates and sustains the whole of reality; however, surely God also preserves the integrity of the physical world. Otherwise, if God kept intervening in physical terms, it would be a magical reality, and therefore unintelligible.
The question as to whether God is irrelevant is something that the individual has to decide. For myself, God is present, and that is relevant for me.
So your God is utterly indistinguishable from Snorfl where Snorfl has the property that it is the force that binds the universe together and never does anything else.
I see no difference between you and an out and out deist who says "God set the universe in motion and then wandered off after paying the electricity bill for it". If your beliefs are correct then the Incarnation is contrary to the nature of God.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But your 'God actually does something' seems to mean 'God alters the physical world in some way', does it not?
I would say that God creates and sustains the whole of reality; however, surely God also preserves the integrity of the physical world. Otherwise, if God kept intervening in physical terms, it would be a magical reality, and therefore unintelligible.
The question as to whether God is irrelevant is something that the individual has to decide. For myself, God is present, and that is relevant for me.
So your God is utterly indistinguishable from Snorfl where Snorfl has the property that it is the force that binds the universe together and never does anything else.
I see no difference between you and an out and out deist who says "God set the universe in motion and then wandered off after paying the electricity bill for it". If your beliefs are correct then the Incarnation is contrary to the nature of God.
I don't know much about deism. I don't know if deists see God as present, for example, although that sounds unlikely if he 'wandered off'.
Same with Snorfl. Is she present for you?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
