religious debate

[Guest]

If you have no desire to listen to my answers because I believe on faith and am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints then what is the point of this discussion continuing? Why try to speak to someone with a different view if you are just going to shut them down solely because of that view?

And I have one question Can you PROVE there is no God?

To answer your question. No I can't. But then I never claimed there are no gods. All I claim is that I have seen no good reason to believe in such a thing.

But to play that game: Can you PROVE there are no Fairies?

But Noa, I did listen to your answers didn't I? And I responded to every single one of them, point by point.

I mentioned a little on my opinion on Faith, and have explained it i earlier in this thread. (Here for example)

All I said was that I can't take your church/religious sect seriously - not even compared to the other more mainstream ones (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism). It just seems to ridiculous for words - But Okay you do beat out Scientology, alright?

But then I even "listened to" and discussed the quote you gave from that religion. Hardly "Shutting you out".

If anything, it was you who failed to listen to me. You certainly did not bother responding to my points at all, let alone in any depth, as I gave your's.

Please; do not play the hurt card, I engaged you fairly and fully. Don't try to claim otherwise just because you may like the answers you receive.

[Guest]

Looks like the theists are getting increasingly outnumbered here, maybe we should decide the whole question of God's existence democratically . Whoever called in the cavalry from richarddawkins.net was being very unsporting. That said, many thanks to ADParker for the link to logicalfallacies.info. What a treat! They should teach that stuff in school.

Right! Back to the debate. The discussion on magic was quite interesting...

But what if the magician did something that was extraordinarily beyond what we accept as likely to be within the realm of natural causes? What if you personally stood next to him and saw and felt him dissolve into the air and re-materialize 100 meters away a second later? Would it then make sense for you to say "I'm not worried about how he did that, since I don't believe in magic."?

That got me thinking. Could I ever be convinced that a magical display was real magic? To be honest, the answer is "no", no matter how convincing the display. This is not because I have fixed beliefs, but because "magic" is not an explanation. If I saw something like what you described, and could reliably rule out any form of trickery, I may be forced to accept that there is more to the world than I know. I may even have to change my understanding of physics. But "magic" is not an answer, because it is just a way of saying "impossible things happen", or "there is no explanation". It's not an explanation, it's a cop-out. This abandonment of reason is nothing more than weak-mindedness, giving up on the challenge of understanding.

Please note that this has nothing to do with establishing the validity of evidence for God.

On the contrary, I think it is quite relevant. What I just stated about magic goes for any belief in the supernatural. The term "supernatural" is just a call to abandon reason. The influence of religion has caused many people to accept this as a valid idea (like it has with "faith"), but it is just a means of excluding certain subjects from enquiry. If God exists then God is a part of reality, a part of nature. The term "supernatural" is used to give theists permission to apply reason to the subject of God as far as it suits their desired conclusions, then consider reason irrelevant when it does not (such as God's existence without cause being far more improbable than the existence of life, the universe and everything else without cause).

My sole point in responding to your illustration of magic was to show that non-belief is not an end-all answer. It doesn't free you from ever having to provide an explanation.

I think a point that has been quite well made in this topic is simply that the God explanation doesn't work. The alternative explanation could simply be that the universe happens to be the way it is by an incredibly unlikely chance, and that would work better than the God explanation. There are of course much better explanations, but the flaws in religious logic are the point that needs to be driven home here, and an examination of various rationalist theories would only distract from that. Nevertheless, it does help to have explanations for things, and I intend to start a new topic to accomodate that.

If you don't believe in magic, then you believe in natural explanations, and if you are unable in any fashion to provide a naturalistic explanation, then you can't just sit back and idly invoke non-belief.

Belief in magic or the supernatural is an abandonment of reason, a permanent surrender to ignorance. Sitting back and idly invoking non-belief is an admission of a temporary state of ignorance. Not having explanations is far better than pretending that irrational ones make sense.

T: Ok, but then how to we ever resolve this disagreement? My argument for intelligent design rests upon showing that natural causes are insufficient. You argue that it is not necessary to show such causes are insufficient to reject my argument. Any suggestions on how we can move forward?

I propose we start a new topic to discuss rational explanations for things which are commonly attributed to God (though I may have to think of a snappier title). I think that discussion needs to be carried on elsewhere. Atheists including myself are unwilling to discuss those matters here lest they be mistaken for a canon of "atheist belief" which needs only to be disbelieved in order to justify belief in God.

[Guest]

Okay octopuppy, you got me hooked into those posts from Duh Puck.

By the way that Logical fallacies page is a good one eh? It was used as a link source by someone else and I have since used it many times in argument. I agree this, or something very much like it, should be taught in schools, and from a very young age. A little critical thinking is never a bad thing; we need a hell of a lot more of it, and we need to teach our children those skills as early as possible.

I heartily recommend that everyone read through all of the fallacies therein.

Would it then make sense for you to say "I'm not worried about how he did that, since I don't believe in magic."?

No it would make sense to say "Hmm, I have no idea how he did that, I wonder how he did it?" Rather than simply jumping to supernatural conclusions. Which ARE of the Argument-from-Ignorance type through and through "I cannot figure out how he did that or even how it would be possible to do that....Therefore it's magic!"

Please note that this has nothing to do with establishing the validity of evidence for God. My sole point in responding to your illustration of magic was to show that non-belief is not an end-all answer.

Non-belief isn't an answer at all! All it is is not accepting any (or any specific offered) answer. The only "answer" non-belief is, is the answer "I don't accept your, or that, answer. It does not satisfy me."

It doesn't free you from ever having to provide an explanation.

No, that is what GODDIDIT, and all of those argument-from-ignorance answers do, like "It's supernatural!", "It's Magic!". Worse still when "it's a matter of faith" is added into the mix.

Non-belief is not accepting offered answers, and preferring to admit that one doesn't know until a viable solution comes along. From others or your own further investigations.

If you don't believe in magic, then you believe in natural explanations, and if you are unable in any fashion to provide a naturalistic explanation, then you can't just sit back and idly invoke non-belief.

Rubbish.

If you don't believe in magic that is because you find such an answer unsatisfactory - It says nothing of what one does actually believe in. But in a way you are correct, since "Magic" is just (as octopuppy has just stated) another cop-out word, an abandonment of reason, and a demonstration of the childish need for an answer even when there are none available -

* No rational answer?

But I really want to believe in some answer!

No problem, invoke magic or the supernatural, it doesn't actually mean anything, but should make you feel better

Why can't people just accept "We don't know" as an answer? Not accept "We don't know" and therefore stop trying, quite the contrary! But accept that there is no worthwhile answer to certain questions at the moment. It is not an answer so much as an acceptance that we don't have one just yet.

Throwing in the "natural explanations" canard is just sad, and getting extremely tiresome (I hear it a lot). What do you mean by "natural"? All I see is either ACTUAL explanations, derived from observation, experience, evidence and the like - which can all be termed "natural" if you must. And answers derived from "the arse" basically; silly little terms like Supernatural, magic, gods, mystery... which amount to nothing at all, besides being founded entirely on ignorance. It amounts to: Can't find an actual explanation? Make some s*** up that can be claimed to explain it.

To play a little game we play elsewhere, I will "fix" your statement:

If you are unable in any fashion to provide a naturalistic explanation, then you can't just sit back and idly invoke non-belief make any old s*** up, or invoke the mysterious to fill in the gaps.

If you reject supernatural causes, you accept natural causes. It really is that simple.

Oh please, you have it all twisted back to front (an all too common theistic argumentation technique I have found).

If you can't find a "natural" explanation/cause, then it does no good, offers nothing of any worth at all, to just invoke the supernatural and mysterious to explain it away!

"Natural causes and explanations" mean no more or less than that which we can figure out ourselves (through reason and scientific endeavour etc.). If for example we increase the range of what we can scientifically investigate and study to include that which is beyond the universe (in terms of prior to it's origin and/or the multiverse), into the inner workings of our minds, or even into other "realms", let's even say into those of heaven and hell for arguments sake. Then all of that study. all of the resulting discoveries of causes and all explanations would me entirely "natural". Because all that implies is "that which we can investigate". By correlation "supernatural" is that which is beyond that which we can investigate. It is in short a label covering that which we are entirety IGNORANT of!

[Personal note: That may well have been the first time that I have spelt "Endeavour" correctly on the first go! ]

It doesn't mean you have to be able to provide naturalistic explanations for all the phenomenon that the theist attributes to God, but it does mean that you have something to defend. Non-belief is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Anyhow, it seems to me that most atheists, including yourself, seem quite up to the task.

Ah, so it's the "Turn the burden of proof onto the atheist" game is it?!

"Non-belief" is not intended to be a "get-out-of-jail-free card". It is nothing more than not accepting a given answer - in almost all of the cases of theism vs. atheism it is not accepting the repeated slapping down of the augment-from-ignorance "supernatural" card.

Where is our Burden of Proof?!

All we do is fail to accept your claims, there are no counter-claims made by us at all.

What we have to defend is reason and logic against the barrage of logical fallacies thrown at us and the unsuspecting public at large.

I am alway brought back to a comic strip that I once built in my mind (should actually put it to paper one of these days):

I see in the first frame: A Missionary (stereotypical white-man jungle garb, pith helmet and all, priest collar and big black bible)

declaring to a native (pygmy type, crude hut village etc,) that "God is real!"

Next frame: The Native saying "I don't believe you, prove it"

Next frame: Missionary with smug "gotcha" look on his face "No YOU prove that he doesn't"

Final Frame" Native looking toward 'camera' with big "Huh?" expression and big question mark over his head.

I think it's possible, yes, but by default, I assume that they are simply illusions. If I encountered magic as I described above, I would attribute it to supernatural causes.

While we would first accept our ignorance. And if all efforts to find the answer failed we would not resort to the ignorant "supernatural" card, we would just accept for the time being we just don't know. We would act like grown-ups and accept the uncertainty for what it is, we don't HAVE to know or have an answer for everything.

Would we like to? Sure, but we refuse to fill in the gaps with any old rubbish, or "the unknown" dressed up as if it where an actual known thing. That leaves us an understanding of what gaps exist, and thus where the work still needs to be done. Filling in the gaps just hides the flaws, it does not repair them. Worse; it hides the very need for that repair!

Ok, but then how to we ever resolve this disagreement? My argument for intelligent design rests upon showing that natural causes are insufficient. You argue that it is not necessary to show such causes are insufficient to reject my argument. Any suggestions on how we can move forward?

Pure Argument from Ignorance.

If we can find no "natural" causes, that tells us two things:

1. We simply have not found the cause (yet).

2. We have more work to do.

All that the "natural" does in"natural causes" is show that we are talking about those causes that we can ascertain with our current level of knowledge and reasoning and investigating tools. As opposed to "causes" which are ALL causes whether beyond our (current or ultimate) capacity to ascertain.

If it were to ultimately turn out that there is no "natural cause" for some particular thing, that would mean one of two things:

1. The cause is beyond our capacity to discover and ascertain - It's too hard or to far away or whatever may be the reason for that. Or

2. There is no cause for it after all.

Those two are all that "supernatural" could actually ever mean. which really simply amounts to "I don't know" or "It's imaginary"

[Guest]

* No rational answer?

But I really want to believe in some answer!

No problem, invoke magic or the supernatural, it doesn't actually mean anything, but should make you feel better

Why can't people just accept "We don't know" as an answer? Not accept "We don't know" and therefore stop trying, quite the contrary! But accept that there is no worthwhile answer to certain questions at the moment. It is not an answer so much as an acceptance that we don't have one just yet.

Ah, but we have so many answers! We can do better than just discredit the God hypothesis, as DP has said. I've kicked off another topic (New! Improved! Less aimless rambling in the intro!) to discuss those sorts of things. Didn't want to do it here lest it detract from the important point that alternative explanations are not necessary to discredit GODDIDIT as an explanation. Before Darwin, nobody really had a good handle on why so many wonderful species existed. Did that make God any more real then? Only in people's minds. If some person had said "well, I don't know why these species are the way they are but I'm sure someone will figure it out some day" they would have been absolutely right. The same goes for whatever little mysteries remain today. But while we're waiting for science to explain absolutely everything, there's no harm in a little speculation. It may even serve to convince a few theists that God is running out of gaps.

[Guest]

Ah, but we have so many answers! We can do better than just discredit the God hypothesis, as DP has said. I've kicked off another topic (New! Improved! Less aimless rambling in the intro!) to discuss those sorts of things.

I like Octopuppy's idea and will continue the guts of the evidence-for-god discussion in that new topic, aptly named "Atheist Beliefs, An Explanation of Everything according to the Doctrine of Atheism."

After reading the recent comments I realize I need to either clarify or revise my usage of terms like natural, supernatural, and magic, since I would agree that they seem to fall into the category of made up s*** when used as an "explanation" for unexplained phenomenon. This is not the way I've been thinking about it in my mind, but I wasn't conveying it clearly.

ADParker helped make it clearer by this statement:

If it were to ultimately turn out that there is no "natural cause" for some particular thing, that would mean one of two things:

1. The cause is beyond our capacity to discover and ascertain - It's too hard or to far away or whatever may be the reason for that. Or

2. There is no cause for it after all.

Those two are all that "supernatural" could actually ever mean. which really simply amounts to "I don't know" or "It's imaginary"

By that definition, I would say that there is nothing which is not natural, since God, heaven, and any sort of spirit realm would all be potentially explainable, and, with the possible exception of a "first cause," everything would have causes. However, I was using the term more like the following definition:

8. having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.

If there were a spirit realm independent of our physical universe, and not bound by the laws upon which the observable universe operates (as you might note, I'm using "physical" and "observable" interchangeably), then any interaction between the realms would not be explainable by the laws of the physical universe. Put simply, if God, or an angel, or any entity from the spirit realm were able to manipulate the physical realm, then the action could be deemed "supernatural." Of course, that's simply a matter of perspective, because it may be perfectly natural and explainable to a spirit creature, and perhaps it could be explained to us as well, but from the standpoint of attempting to obtain answers and explanations via the scientific method, such phenomenon would be unexplainable (the creation event itself would fall into that category). Science relies on a foundation of repeatable and testable patterns which enables a continual expansion of knowledge, always growing on top of previous experience, and forming a system we can describe as "natural". Any phenomenon which, by its very nature, could not be explained within that framework is what I refer to as "supernatural," whether or not is actually explainable.

As a side point, I don't think positing such a "spirit realm" is much of a stretch from what has already been suggested. After all, if there were a first cause that created the universe, it would obviously have had to exist in a realm independent of the one we observe.

[Guest]

1. The cause is beyond our capacity to discover and ascertain - It's too hard or to far away or whatever may be the reason for that. Or

2. There is no cause for it after all.

By that definition, I would say that there is nothing which is not natural, since God, heaven, and any sort of spirit realm would all be potentially explainable,

Could we be getting somewhere?

By the definition; not necessarily of course; "1." could be true, there may indeed be some things that are "beyond us", beyond our capacity to examine. Maybe even those things you mention. BUT if that is the case then; what's the point? If we can't experience them then they can mean nothing to us. More below.

and, with the possible exception of a "first cause," everything would have causes.

Again, not necessarily important; did you read my quote by Victor Stenger?

In it he argues (quite well I think, enough to demonstrate conclusively that any Theistic claims that these arguments - Cosmological and Something-from-northing, are not as solid as may be assumed) that The universe may not have needed to be caused at all, and that something, including the universe could have come about simply out of nothing! Not only that but that the "nonboundary scenario" (A strong piece of work I understand) calculates the probability for there being something rather than nothing at over 60 percent!

Everything could have a cause, but that need not be the case, as was once so readily assumed.

However, I was using the term more like the following definition:

8. having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.

Dictionary.com?

I like how "fictitious" is in there In that sense Mickey mouse is "Supernatural"

And "intellectual" suggests "simply as an idea, not an actual thing", in that sense someone's imaginary friend (whether recognised as such or not) is "Supernatural"

That only leaves us with "Spiritual", and what does that mean really?! That is an open question isn't it? Well by a number of the definitions offered by Dictionary.com it can be much like "intellectual" really. In fact most of them describe an idea, felling, emotion, way of looking at things etc.

All in all, even this dictionary definition predominantly agrees with my assessment that "Supernatural" or not-natural means "unreal", in any way except as nothing more than ideas in the human mind.

If there were a spirit realm independent of our physical universe, and not bound by the laws upon which the observable universe operates (as you might note, I'm using "physical" and "observable" interchangeably), then any interaction between the realms would not be explainable by the laws of the physical universe.

The problem is how would one define "Spirit"? There is no real need I think, as it is an unnecessary complication, an attempt to bring in religious terminology where not required (not accusing you of dishonesty or anything). Another "Realm" in scientific terms would simply be another universe (good old multiverse theory), Calling the residents "Spirits" is somewhat redundant, they are extra-dimensional beings (like ETs but another universe, not just planet [Just to be clear, I am humouring for the sake of this point of the argument that "beings" is accptable, it need not be, these could be nothing more than "natural" forces from that universe that interect with ours in some manner). Their nature would be most likely indescribable and incomprehensible to us. That is unless, they just happened to live in the same, and only the same, dimensions (the same Four) as we do. Improbable, especially if they can interact with us and not us with them, pretty much defining them as far different.

The interactions would not be explainable, no. But here you touch on a key point from the atheists: If God (or any possible extra-dimensional beings) do actually "interact" with our universe, where is the evidence for this? If there is none, why ever believe it to be at all true or probable? If he/they did interact, and the interactions could not be explained by our physical laws That would represent a violation of those natural/physical laws!

Something "we" have been asking for evidence of for a very long time. In the form of "If god does interfere with the universe (from beyond it), and breaks, alters, defies the natural laws to do so, where is the evidence for this?"

The answer is there are no reported examples of Natural Law violations, because if there were they wouldn't BE laws. These laws are ascertained by the evidence of constant conjunction of events, X always has this effect. And all these laws can be explained quite naturally.

We could not explain the effects these interactions would have, but we could "see" those effects and record them, they would be recorded with a big question mark over how they occurred, what caused them etc. Do we have any such recorded events? No. So no evidence whatsoever of extra-dimensional interactions.

You have actually offered a fairly decent test for the "Extra-dimensional interference" hypothesis (not enough to be called a God-Hypothesis itself) Are there any such events, unexplainable by the natural laws? Unfortunately it has two drawbacks as it stands:

1. It is not falsifiable; this seeks evidence for, but against, which would falsify it - Such would be invaluable.

2. "Unexplainable" gets us no further than we already are really - To a point of not knowing how something occurred. Claiming further, be it "God" or "some extra-dimensional cause" is once again Argument-from-ignorance material. Oh well. The idea is interesting and worth pondering anyway.

Put simply, if God, or an angel, or any entity from the spirit realm were able to manipulate the physical realm, then the action could be deemed "supernatural."

If these entities exist somewhere beyond our (current or eternal) capability to examine? Precisely. And as such (beyond our capability) they remain to us not "God, Angels, Spirits", but "events of Unknown origin". And that is all they should be categorised as; things we don't (yet?) understand. Nothing more, nothing less. Calling their unknown cause or origin "God" or whatever, unavoidably dragging with those loaded terms all their baggage, does not help at all, it fact it is far more likely to hinder, as we have seen far too often. I am not thinking of horrible consequences here (although there are bound to have been many) but the simple observation that in an argument, including such a loaded word often results in other habitually-connected-to-that-word concepts slipping in "under the radar". A simple example is that which I gave regarding the cosmological argument, where calling the first cause "God" is seen as enough to prove that God (who intentionally created us and loves us) exists There are far more subtle examples or course.

Of course, that's simply a matter of perspective, because it may be perfectly natural and explainable to a spirit creature, and perhaps it could be explained to us as well, but from the standpoint of attempting to obtain answers and explanations via the scientific method, such phenomenon would be unexplainable (the creation event itself would fall into that category).

And if so it (whatever "it" may be) should (and rationally Must) be classified as such; "Unknowable/Unexplainable" or as we in all probability can only get so far even in that direction; "Unknown/Unexplained" (Accepting that we don't know, but who knows what "tomorrow" could bring?) Most certainly not as "God" let alone "YHWH, ALLAH, BAAL, ZEUS, ODIN...". That would be a clear case of God-Of-The-Gaps wouldn't it?

Science relies on a foundation of repeatable and testable patterns which enables a continual expansion of knowledge, always growing on top of previous experience, and forming a system we can describe as "natural". Any phenomenon which, by its very nature, could not be explained within that framework is what I refer to as "supernatural," whether or not is actually explainable.

Well there is of course more tentative, and cutting-edge areas in science that work on less solid foundations, but they are as a result necessarily seen as less solid and certain.

But going by this definition; what could actually count as both "Supernatural" and explainable? As you allude might be a possibility.

Are there any such things at present - Anything Supernatural and explained?

The question is; How could there be?! By what criteria would they be explained? Not by Science or Reason, they are "Natural". No, Even after all this we come back to "Supernatural" = beyond our understanding and examination, thus "Unknown".

As a side point, I don't think positing such a "spirit realm" is much of a stretch from what has already been suggested. After all, if there were a first cause that created the universe, it would obviously have had to exist in a realm independent of the one we observe.

Well of course, as already explained, the first cause argument fails miserably, so it is far from a given. Nor is the assumption that there need be a "cause" at all! As counter-intuitive as I freely admit that might be.

And "Created" should not be used here, as it is another "clobber" word, liable to bring in dangerous and unjustified assumptions.

This too follows for the "Spirit" in "Spirit Realm", too much baggage with this word, and it is not justified. "Other Dimension or Universe" covers it without such potentially erroneous religious connotations.

Without any need for any of those religious terms and connotations this is an interesting thought experiment. But it ultimately leads nowhere, at least as it stands. We are left with:

There may be another universe (Realm), but there is no evidence, and thus no reason to "believe" it to be so.

It is conceivable that "life" from another universe could interact with our own, but there is no evidence, and thus no reason to "believe" it to be so.

These could even be God(s), angels, spirits, but there is no evidence, and thus no reason to "believe" it to be so. None at all, as these extra postulations come from nowhere but the beliefs of the religious - as such their postulation here constitutes nothing short of circular reasoning.

Oh well At least it brings up some rather cool ideas and such.

[Guest]

By the definition; not necessarily of course; "1." could be true, there may indeed be some things that are "beyond us", beyond our capacity to examine. Maybe even those things you mention. BUT if that is the case then; what's the point? If we can't experience them then they can mean nothing to us.

Sure, but if that which is outside the bounds of our natural world can interact with our world, then it can of course be meaningful. Anyone who believes in a god believes there is some level of "supernatural" interaction, even if only at the time of creation. Most religious people believe there is a significant amount of such, and that it is quite meaningful.

Did you read my quote by Victor Stenger?

Yes, and I plan on responding. Just short on time lately. Let's just say I didn't find his claims quite as convincing as you did.

All in all, even this dictionary definition predominantly agrees with my assessment that "Supernatural" or not-natural means "unreal", in any way except as nothing more than ideas in the human mind.

Yeah, I was in a hurry when I grabbed that one. It wasn't really what I had in mind. I was looking for something that contrasted the physical, observable order of things with, well, anything else. My following explanation was hopefully a better reflection of what I was thinking.

The problem is how would one define "Spirit"? There is no real need I think, as it is an unnecessary complication, an attempt to bring in religious terminology where not required (not accusing you of dishonesty or anything). Another "Realm" in scientific terms would simply be another universe (good old multiverse theory)

I partly agree with you there, but your conclusion that another "realm" would be just another universe is precisely what I was trying to steer away from, due to the connotation. When we talk of multiverses which may have different dimensions, properties, and laws, we're still generally talking about something that's physical, involving matter and energy. However, if our physical universe were created by a designer (switching gears from the "first cause" verbiage back to the reasoning I posed in post 374), this entity would logically exist in a world which might very well bear no resemblance to ours, and thus it would be meaningless to describe this environment as another "universe".

Calling the residents "Spirits" is somewhat redundant, they are extra-dimensional beings ... Their nature would be most likely indescribable and incomprehensible to us. That is unless, they just happened to live in the same, and only the same, dimensions (the same Four) as we do. Improbable, especially if they can interact with us and not us with them, pretty much defining them as far different.

Agreed. My use of the term "spirit" naturally has has religious connotation, but I figured it served as a simple and useful way of identifying posited intelligent creatures that exist outside the bounds of our observable universe. However, since the existence of such creatures is not central to my argument, I will dispense with the use of "spirit" for now.

The interactions would not be explainable, no. But here you touch on a key point from the atheists: If God (or any possible extra-dimensional beings) do actually "interact" with our universe, where is the evidence for this? If there is none, why ever believe it to be at all true or probable? If he/they did interact, and the interactions could not be explained by our physical laws That would represent a violation of those natural/physical laws!

I agree with that, but here's the problem: Such evidence is either 1) Observed by one or a small number of humans, and such anecdotal evidence is deemed unreliable (do you need to see stats on how many people feel they have had a "supernatural" experience?) or 2) The evidence takes the form of "this couldn't have happened naturally," and we've come full circle. Of course, if a supernatural being with the ability to create the universe wanted to verify his existence in an irrefutable manner, I'm assuming that could probably be accomplished (e.g., simultaneously writing messages in the sky all around the world), and no, we obviously don't have evidence like that, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Any theist who is serious about their belief will have to grapple with questions like "why doesn't God manifest himself more clearly," and "why does he permit suffering?" and "if he's actually the source of one these religious texts, why couldn't he have been a whole lot clearer, and why are there so many conflicting interpretations?" To the atheist, all these questions just lend support to the idea that it was a foolish supposition to begin with, but the theist should be able to provide reasonable explanations, or at least show how such explanations could be plausible (to steal some wording ).

As I've stated before, our interpretation of the evidence is greatly affected by our prior conclusions, our "starting point". If I start with "It seems to me like our observed world gives evidence of an intelligent designer," then I'm not going to presume that a failure to have independently verifiable evidence of supernatural phenomenon (other than "this couldn't happen naturally") is a deathblow to the God hypothesis. I'm going to require more concrete proof that my first inclination is wrong. The atheist, on the other hand, not being convinced that positing a creator is even a reasonable starting point, is going to require concrete evidence of phenomenon that could not be explained by natural phenomenon. After all, when you ask us to provide "evidence" of God, that is what you're asking for, right?

The answer is there are no reported examples of Natural Law violations, because if there were they wouldn't BE laws. These laws are ascertained by the evidence of constant conjunction of events, X always has this effect. And all these laws can be explained quite naturally.

Of course there are reported examples. Thousands upon thousands of them, but none of them hold up to scientific scrutiny because they're not repeatable, and the resultant state after any reported phenomenon can usually be easily explained by other natural causes. This highlights the limitation of science. You establish laws based on "the evidence of constant conjunction of events, X always has this effect," but that means your laws can only explain things that resulted from X. The scientific method, by its very design, can only identify natural causes. As you've already said, if something that appeared to be magic happened right before your eyes, you would assume there had to be a natural cause. If you were going to try to use science to explain it, you would be required to assume that, and rightly so. Therefore, you would never be able to explain it.

You have actually offered a fairly decent test for the "Extra-dimensional interference" hypothesis (not enough to be called a God-Hypothesis itself) Are there any such events, unexplainable by the natural laws? Unfortunately it has two drawbacks as it stands:

1. It is not falsifiable; this seeks evidence for, but against, which would falsify it - Such would be invaluable.

2. "Unexplainable" gets us no further than we already are really - To a point of not knowing how something occurred.

...

And if so it (whatever "it" may be) should (and rationally Must) be classified as such; "Unknowable/Unexplainable" or as we in all probability can only get so far even in that direction; "Unknown/Unexplained" (Accepting that we don't know, but who knows what "tomorrow" could bring?) Most certainly not as "God" let alone "YHWH, ALLAH, BAAL, ZEUS, ODIN...". That would be a clear case of God-Of-The-Gaps wouldn't it?

That would only be true if there was no revelation. If science is our only means of examination, then we are indeed stuck. If God reveals himself, then your assertion doesn't hold, and we have a completely different means of classifying the "it".

"Other Dimension or Universe" covers it without such potentially erroneous religious connotations.

I appreciate your desire to keep the discussion free of irrational terminology, but I can't entirely agree with the total abandonment of any word or phrase that smells bad to you. I'll try to do a better job of keeping the terms relevant to the topic at hand, but this is a debate about the existence of God, and all of the baggage that inherently carries. I'm not here because it's important to me to show that there's an indescribable first cause. I'm here because I believe that God exists, that he's a loving being who has revealed himself through the Bible and has shown us the way to have a personal relationship with him, that our response will affect our eternal salvation, and ... that I have a rational basis for this belief. Now, I know full well that when I state it that way it makes you roll you eyes and think "how can a rational person really believe that?," but the reason I'm here is to test out the last part, and to engage others in thinking critically about the conclusions they've already drawn. I will try to use the terminology that best describes the point at hand, and avoid bringing in unrelated topics, and I certainly don't mind a bit of correction and clarification now and then, but I just don't see how replacing "spirit creature" with "extra-dimensional being" and "spirit realm" with "Other Dimension or Universe" helps to make things any clearer.

Wow, that was much longer than I realized ... there's quite a bit more to respond to in previous posts, but I'm out of time for tonight. As always, I look forward to the response.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Duh Puck

[Guest]

Sure, but if that which is outside the bounds of our natural world can interact with our world, then it can of course be meaningful.

Yes, that is why I added the last two words of that paragraph which you chose not to quote "More below". I knew full well that there was more to it, in particular the concept of interactions. But then the interactions - the effects "felt" in our universe or by us would be "meaningful", they would mean something to us. But the Unknown, the events which we have zero access to would not. That is all I meant, for anything more; I left that for later in the post.

Anyone who believes in a god believes there is some level of "supernatural" interaction, even if only at the time of creation. Most religious people believe there is a significant amount of such, and that it is quite meaningful.

Yes, but "I believe" such and such is of no rational use to anyone, so who cares? And this is dangerously close to begging the question. Also to Equivocation of the word "Meaningful"; Your last alludes to "it feels special to me in some way". Again I fail to see anything special in this use of the word "supernatural" beyond meaning "of unknown origin". A lot of religious people put a lot of extra baggage on these ideas, making it all seem so special and personal, with zero justification. I am endeavouring to divorce ourselves from those associations-by-loaded-terms, only allowing any of them back in, IF the evidence or line of reasoning warrants, nay; demands, it.

Yes, and I plan on responding. Just short on time lately. Let's just say I didn't find his claims quite as convincing as you did.

Cool, I'll await that then.

Yeah, I was in a hurry when I grabbed that one. It wasn't really what I had in mind. I was looking for something that contrasted the physical, observable order of things with, well, anything else. My following explanation was hopefully a better reflection of what I was thinking.

Not really, everything seemed to come back to "The unknown" really. Even this here does that : "Observable". And "Natural" includes more than what may be assumed to be "the physical"; it includes, matter, energy, forces, and interactions and functions of them all. Anything we can observe in some way basically.

I partly agree with you there, but your conclusion that another "realm" would be just another universe is precisely what I was trying to steer away from, due to the connotation.

I guess there can be assumed connotations in any word or term really. I tried to use "another universe" in a strict scientific manner, as connotation free as possible. There are for instance Four levels of Multiverse theories (not just four theories, but types of theories), it is as such a rather loose term to use, any "Realm" could be inclusive within it, including Heaven, Hell, Asgard, Olympus, Hades, The one where I am Rich and handsome , one with 37 dimensions and no matter at all... anything.

What connotations were you afraid of? And if you realised the possibility of assumed connotations slipping in why use such a loaded term as "Spirit Realm"? It is as if you were only trying to avoid certain connotations yet welcoming-with-open-arms those connotations you personally like.

When we talk of multiverses which may have different dimensions, properties, and laws, we're still generally talking about something that's physical, involving matter and energy.

Perhaps. Although as matter and energy are the same thing, this includes pure energy ones. And the Multiverse(s) is a huge hypothetical space (that is it could include any damn thing imaginable, and unimaginable) such as pure energy or forces (which I guess could only have any effect on other, energy/matter laden, universes as there would be nothing within their on to act upon.

This brings up the question of what could it be that comprises a "spiritual Realm" or the Christian Heaven? Is there Matter? Energy? IF not then how could there be any internal interactions at all, as there is assumed to be - We continue on and interact with one another and God, it is claimed. The whole idea of Dualism, of there being something other than energy yet still real and capable of interacting with energy and matter, has yet to be explained to any degree at all! The more we learn, the less sense it seems to make

However, if our physical universe were created by a designer (switching gears from the "first cause" verbiage back to the reasoning I posed in post 374), this entity would logically exist in a world which might very well bear no resemblance to ours, and thus it would be meaningless to describe this environment as another "universe".

1. "Designer" is not "switching gears" as much as adding a great deal (the rest of the watch? ) of other stuff to the "first cause" concept. It is entirely dependant on the first cause argument being established, then a whole lot more needs to be established as well - i.e. the claimed nature and attributes of this first cause needs to be justified.

2. No, another "universe" is just the right term to use, what else would you call "a world which might very well bear no resemblance to ours"? That is unless we want to sneak in certain religious connotations "under the radar" as that is the only way they are likely to be accepted. But that would be intellectually dishonest.

Agreed. My use of the term "spirit" naturally has has religious connotation, but I figured it served as a simple and useful way of identifying posited intelligent creatures that exist outside the bounds of our observable universe. However, since the existence of such creatures is not central to my argument, I will dispense with the use of "spirit" for now.

Cool

I agree with that, but here's the problem: Such evidence is either 1) Observed by one or a small number of humans, and such anecdotal evidence is deemed unreliable (do you need to see stats on how many people feel they have had a "supernatural" experience?)

As it is. Personal experience is scientifically and rationally worthless. Even to the one who has the experience. There is always the possibility of being mistaken, through illusion, wishful-thinking, tricks of the mind, indoctrinated interpretations, delusional states and so on. Even as the one who has had the experience, one should not just ("blindly") accept it as how one initially interpreted it without seeking external confirmation. And the more extraordinary the experience seems to be the more extraordinary the evidence to support it needs to be. That phrase crops up again:

Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Evidence

This is true even "internally."

It is of note that many people have had many of the same experiences as the most devout, and believed as they did. Then later came to realise their folly.

or 2) The evidence takes the form of "this couldn't have happened naturally," and we've come full circle.

We have. That is not evidence, it is a personal opinion, that amounts to "I do not know how that could have happened." It is beyond anyone to go beyond this point, as such it is an error to then assume that "it therefore didn't happen naturally." That is an assumption of colossal proportions! One people make all the time, but then Leaping-to-Conclusions is one of those things we are prone to do. Without the erroneous leap in logic (beyond logic to Faith) what we have is "I have no idea how that happened!"

But on a scientific, not personal, scale; I am saying that we have none of this, no evidence of it anyway. Not one verifiable instance of the laws of the universe being bent, broken, or circumvented. Nothing that we can come close to saying "This defies the laws of nature!" And therefore that there is reason to postulate that there is something, somewhere, that is capable of doing that. Of course, even that is a leap, why not simply that the "laws" aren't exactly as we thought they were? They are simply our interpretations on how the universe seems to operate based on current observations and measurements anyway.

Continued... (as this forum limits the number of quotes allowed)

[Guest]

Part 2

Of course, if a supernatural being with the ability to create the universe wanted to verify his existence in an irrefutable manner, I'm assuming that could probably be accomplished (e.g., simultaneously writing messages in the sky all around the world), and no, we obviously don't have evidence like that, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

No. But that is hardly needed for our argument, that adds another common theistic assumption, as of yet far from where we have reached here; the assumption that this entity, this God, gives a damn about what we do or do not believe. We are only at the interaction in the universe from beyond it stage.

Any theist who is serious about their belief will have to grapple with questions like "why doesn't God manifest himself more clearly," and "why does he permit suffering?" and "if he's actually the source of one these religious texts, why couldn't he have been a whole lot clearer, and why are there so many conflicting interpretations?" To the atheist, all these questions just lend support to the idea that it was a foolish supposition to begin with, but the theist should be able to provide reasonable explanations, or at least show how such explanations could be plausible (to steal some wording ).

To the atheist all these questions raise one more: Why are they assuming that this "God" is real in all these questions? The "argument from evil" is considered a good one, a serious challenge to theism. But to be honest it interests me little. It is one to be used on theists who for one reason or another won't argue or examine the more fundamental question; Is there any reason to believe in god(s) in the first place. It is a case of "Okay assuming for now that your god does exist; why is there evil in the world?"

All fine questions I am sure. But we all have different angles from which we prefer to look at things from.

As I've stated before, our interpretation of the evidence is greatly affected by our prior conclusions, our "starting point". If I start with "It seems to me like our observed world gives evidence of an intelligent designer," then I'm not going to presume that a failure to have independently verifiable evidence of supernatural phenomenon (other than "this couldn't happen naturally") is a deathblow to the God hypothesis. I'm going to require more concrete proof that my first inclination is wrong.

And therein lies a fundamental error in the way "the theist" thinks. She has an inclination, a conclusion; God exists. Then just accepts that it is true?! Unless extraordinary evidence comes along to disprove it?! NO that is all back to front! Does a scientist do that?! I think not! We wouldn't (or shouldn't at least) respect her if she did!:

"I came up with this hypothesis, it just came to me; Things that burn do so because they contain a substance I call Phlogiston, which is released on burning. This I take as true until someone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not!"

"What, you say you did extensive tests and found that burnt things are slightly HEAVIER than pre-burnt? And you suggest that this is because something is added to make it burn rather than removed?"

"Not good enough; I therefore conclude that Phlogiston has a negative weight. I win. My assertion stands!"

This is just an attempt to transfer the burden of proof off of the shoulders of those who make the claim! "I consider my claim correct until you can prove otherwise!" - No! 'You' made the claim, you back it up, justify it, or accept that the hypothesis is insufficient. And not something that should be "believed."

The atheist, on the other hand, not being convinced that positing a creator is even a reasonable starting point, is going to require concrete evidence of phenomenon that could not be explained by natural phenomenon. After all, when you ask us to provide "evidence" of God, that is what you're asking for, right?

Let's see:

"You" Claim that a God exists and interacts with the world/universe from beyond it (somehow, and what ever other details may be included). The Claim is yours. Then we have the cheek to ask you to back that extraordinary claim up with some evidence. Is that what you are saying? How silly of us

What should we do then? Just accept it, and any old claim, unchallenged?

But, no, this is not what I have been saying at all. I am saying that to ask that would be pointless because "not explainable by natural science" means nothing less than "the unknown" or "that which we know nothing about". Not us atheists, and not you theists either! All "Supernatural" talk is just a smoke screen for the mother of all Arguments from Ignorance.

So what "we" are asking is; Please provide evidence to support your claim. And as it is an extraordinary one, the evidence needs to be as well. If you cannot, be that because you can't find it, or that it "could not be explained by natural phenomenon" then it is something no-one should believe in, as it is something we are all IGNORANT of.

Of course there are reported examples. Thousands upon thousands of them, but none of them hold up to scientific scrutiny because they're not repeatable, and the resultant state after any reported phenomenon can usually be easily explained by other natural causes.

Thus, not really acceptable examples at all, just claims of examples. I may have worded that poorly, but I meant "know recorded (and confirmed) examples." Yes there have been thousands (at least) of claimed miracles, but people claim all sorts of s*** [HEY this forum Censors words like That?! Seems childish, but I quess this is a forum likely to be frequented by younger folk, from an Informationa systems perspective though, it is a clever little feature ], like thousands of UFO visits complete with probings and the like, and meetings with every damn imagined "supernatural" entity ever conceived.

This highlights the limitation of science. You establish laws based on "the evidence of constant conjunction of events, X always has this effect," but that means your laws can only explain things that resulted from X. The scientific method, by its very design, can only identify natural causes. As you've already said, if something that appeared to be magic happened right before your eyes, you would assume there had to be a natural cause.

"Assume" is a bit strong, and it implies personal bias. But yes, as should everyone, as "natural causes" are by far the most common, and most rational explanation, that should be the first expectation. The alternative is to "assume" that it was Magic. And as I have been saying; If we can't find a "natural cause" then what that means is; we can't find a "cause." It's "Natural cause found" or "no cause found" - There is no third option of "Supernatural cause found",only "Supernatural cause ASSUMED."

Daniel Dennett discusses this idea in "Breaking the Spell". Have you read it? You should, it is excellent and very even handed. He argues that the first rational recourse should always be to look for the "natural" explanation for anything. Not due to a "Naturalistic Bias" but because this is where we have the best resources available (I would say the only real resources), the tools of science and reason are best suited for examining the "natural". He argues that his should be done, IF ONLY for the reason that if the answer to the problem/experience is not "natural" after all, the only real way we can ever be sure of this is by first ruling out all natural explanations. Otherwise what you are doing is MERELY ASSUMING that it is "supernatural".

It does not "Highlight" a limitation of science, there may well be such limitations, but I think those limitations are simply OUR limitations. Our limits of reasoning, of experience, and of our position in the universe and inability to truly explore much of it. These limits not only limit "science" but our ability to know and understand, in otherwords "Our" limits are "Your" limits as well.

In otherwords; If "Science" (in it's broadest definition) can't find it, then WE can't find it. If it finds no evidence for God, then we have no evidence for God. It's really that simple.

If you were going to try to use science to explain it, you would be required to assume that, and rightly so. Therefore, you would never be able to explain it.

It always come back to this (all these arguments, not just ours); If Science can't explain it, THEN WHAT CAN?!

That would only be true if there was no revelation. If science is our only means of examination, then we are indeed stuck. If God reveals himself, then your assertion doesn't hold, and we have a completely different means of classifying the "it".

"Revelation"! Oh brother!

That is no better than "Personal Experience". Okay perhaps, just perhaps one could have a revelation that is sufficient to reasonably convince them of God's existence (or whatever it may be, really). But that is where it ends, unless the "revelation" can be externally verified in some way, then all we have is your word for it and hearsay. Revelation is easily dismissed as insufficient and rationally worthless by the simple observation that there are false and contradictory claims of revelation, and that people are quite capable of making s*** up and claiming it as a "Revelation":

Abu l-Qasim Muhammad ibn 'Abd All-h al-Hashimi al-Qurash ("Mohammad") Claimed a revelation which spawned Islam. Joseph Smith, Jr., the same, giving us Mormonism. And they seemed to have convenient revelations whenever the law comes into conflict with their dogmas - such as for Polygamy and Racism, both revealed as "The Law" through revelation, and later rescinded through yet another revelation! And we could go on and on, including damn near, if not literally, every religious sect known to man. Are they therefore ALL true?! Or can we dismiss the value of these Revelations? If for them, there is NO excuse in hesitating to do the same for your own cherished one as well.

"Personal Revelation" fails as a substitute for science, as a source of evidence. Because CLAIMS of revelation are just that; Merely Claims.

If YOU have had such a revelation than perhaps you KNOW it to be true - Or do you? What if you suffered from a delusion in some way? For any number of Reasons from Drugs to a random-one-off "Brain Fart". Or your bias (indoctrination, Faith, wishful thinking...) made you interpret something as far more than it was, and in that particular direction? Even if it was a real being giving the revelation, who is to say that it was entirely honest? The bottom line is that there are far too many variables for one to reasonably conclude such a thing as GODDIDIT. In all my arguments, and those I have watched from the sidelines,the only plausible answer to why someones believes this is that they "Have Faith" in some way, to some degree. In other words they have willfully abandoned Reason at some point in order to believe it.

I appreciate your desire to keep the discussion free of irrational terminology, but I can't entirely agree with the total abandonment of any word or phrase that smells bad to you. I'll try to do a better job of keeping the terms relevant to the topic at hand, but this is a debate about the existence of God, and all of the baggage that inherently carries. I'm not here because it's important to me to show that there's an indescribable first cause. I'm here because I believe that God exists, that he's a loving being who has revealed himself through the Bible and has shown us the way to have a personal relationship with him, that our response will affect our eternal salvation, and ... that I have a rational basis for this belief. Now, I know full well that when I state it that way it makes you roll you eyes and think "how can a rational person really believe that?," but the reason I'm here is to test out the last part, and to engage others in thinking critically about the conclusions they've already drawn. I will try to use the terminology that best describes the point at hand, and avoid bringing in unrelated topics, and I certainly don't mind a bit of correction and clarification now and then, but I just don't see how replacing "spirit creature" with "extra-dimensional being" and "spirit realm" with "Other Dimension or Universe" helps to make things any clearer.

What it does, or at least the intention it seeks, is avoids the all too easy lumping in of concepts that are not reached through reason at all. It is to avoid errors in reasoning. You will argue as you will, and use terms of your own choosing, fair enough. But be aware that in using such loaded and often emotionally and religiously charged terms there is the very real danger that you will make a rational slip and allow other associated aspects of the terms to slip in along with those which do honestly follow from the arguments - without being aware of it yourself; I am not suggesting intention to mislead on your part.

When, for example you use "Spirit Realm" can you do so without assuming on some level more than "someplace beyond the known universe"? And if so, is there no danger that such assumptions might just slip in subconsciously at any number of points along the way?

[Guest]

...another troubling question... Do you have a fear of death? Can you imagine life being over? The inability to breath, think, create, illaborate?

I have a healthy fear of death, which helps me to avoid it in certain situations. Though of course it will catch up with me in the end. What you have written reveals a pretty morbid outlook, I fear. Being dead would not be an unpleasant experience, because it is not an experience. Your capacity to experience dies with you. But perhaps I'm missing the point, because death is not the point at all. Death is not really a thing in itself, only the end of a thing (life!). Life, and the experiences it enables us to have, is truly remarkable. Being alive, we must either remain alive for ever, or die at some point, and perhaps it's as well that we don't have the choice. Living forever would be pretty grim, as I explained in a previous post. Death is the only alternative. The fact that we will die, and we don't know when, gives us a valuable incentive to live for today.

We should also beware us using fear of death (or fear of fear of death) as a reason to be religious. Watch out for appeals to consequences!

Faith in God is very wise because you never lose sight of the world.

Faith is belief that disregards the need for evidence. Faith discourages genuine questioning, which is why religions condition us to consider it a virtue. That is one of the big problems with religion. Faith inhibits your capacity to reason and to see things as they are. Furthermore, religion causes us to cling to faith as a security blanket which protects us from the harsh world-view that might assault us if we opened our minds. But truth is nothing to be afraid of. I have been on the other side of this fence, I'm slightly embarrassed to say (many years ago), and I can tell you that in my experience the grass is a lot greener over here. And we can look at it as critically as we want.

Pain hurts for all of humanity... Do you ever wonder why?

It's part of the bitter-sweet banquet of experience we call life. Bring it on! (only go easy on the pain)

Do you ever think that it would be the most likely thing for God to be here.

Oh boy are you in the right topic for that. I'd just read the last 15 pages or so if I were you. The only thing I'll add is that it seems to me very likely, that if God were not here, that religions would exist and people would believe the same stuff regardless. In fact the world would be pretty much the way it is.

Anyway, faith is a part of every human body as well, and how can you not believe in spirituality when that very spirit is the one causing you to protest? Tell me.

Good question. Really! I try to base what I believe only on available evidence. In doing so I have to question the extent to which my own feelings and experiences are valid evidence. In my experience I am a person/mind/consciousness or whatever you want to call it (you might call it a "soul" or "spirit"). I am aware, and aware of my own existence. I use the word "I". This awareness of self creates a feeling that I exist in some sense other than the physical, and I might be tempted to conclude that I have a non-physical aspect to my existence. But there are two problems with that:

1) If "I" am not physical, what am I? Supernatural? Spiritual? These terms are used as firewalls to keep rational thinking out. If spirits exist, they exist. Whatever "realm" they exist in is clearly connected to our own (or else it would be irrelevant to us), and we can therefore interact with it. If we can interact, we can study, test, understand. Behaviour of things in the spirit world must follow some general laws or principles, otherwise it would be completely random and without structure. We may find that the spirit world does not obey the laws of physics as we know them, so we may have to expand our understanding of physics to include the spiritual. So why has this important work not been undertaken? It's not for lack of trying, it's just that we cannot find any shred of evidence that the spirit world exists, other than our tendency to believe it does. Terms like "supernatural" and "spiritual" only refer to that which we may believe, but have no evidence for. If evidence existed, we could use it to expand our knowledge and expand our concept of the "natural", or "physical" to include these other things.

2) I'd be basing my belief on a feeling, which may be deceptive. The way we perceive the world is necessarily simplified. We cannot perceive all things exactly as they are, and have to use mental short-cuts to categorise things and process information more efficiently. This is functional in everyday situations, but sometimes it can lead us to incorrect conclusions. If a person was entirely physical, they would still require a sense of self in order to function and think as we do. It is useful to consider a "person" as a non-physical entity, with many attributes that you would not normally ascribe to physical objects, such as intent, personality, opinions, feelings, rights, and so on. We perceive ourselves and others in different ways from how we perceive objects, so we have an inbuilt tendency to feel that we do not belong in the same class of things. Hence, we feel that we are "beyond" the physical world.

[Guest]

Being a bit of a trainspotter here.

Now I'm wondering if this is really an appeal to consequences:

(1) We fear death

(2) If the spiritual world exists then we do not really die

(3) The spiritual world exists

Obviously that's a fallacy, but what sort of fallacy? The dying or not dying is not presented as a consequence of the belief (compare with "you'll go to hell if you don't believe in God"). The only consequence is the belief that you will die or not die, in other words you choose the belief that makes you feel better. You might say that feeling better is the consequence but it isn't expressed as part of the appeal. What sort of fallacy is it then?

Is it a naturalistic fallacy? Something else? Suggestions welcome...

[Guest]

Being a bit of a trainspotter here.

Now I'm wondering if this is really an appeal to consequences:

(1) We fear death

(2) If the spiritual world exists then we do not really die

(3) The spiritual world exists

Obviously that's a fallacy, but what sort of fallacy? The dying or not dying is not presented as a consequence of the belief (compare with "you'll go to hell if you don't believe in God"). The only consequence is the belief that you will die or not die, in other words you choose the belief that makes you feel better. You might say that feeling better is the consequence but it isn't expressed as part of the appeal. What sort of fallacy is it then?

Is it a naturalistic fallacy? Something else? Suggestions welcome...

I would say it's a form of Appeal to Emotion, which wikipedia describes as a type of red herring. That we associate a negative emotion with death doesn't have much logical relevance with regard to the existence of life after death. I think most animals avoid death and seem to have a fear of it. Does this mean they will all have spiritual lives to follow?

[Guest]

Oh very good! And it's a much better example than any of the ones the Nizkor project came up with!

[Guest]

Please don't quote another's posts from another thread in this one.

[unreality]

Hey Duh Puck (btw, sorry that you seem to be one of the only theists in the debate, I always feel sorry for you cuz that) can I ask you a question?

Are you 100%, without a doubt, 1/1, completely, positively sure that there's a God? I mean, are you for-sure sure in your belief? Just curious- I know it's a personal and faith-related question, so you don't have to answer if you don't want to

and, another question:

What if you're wrong?

[Guest]

Hey Duh Puck (btw, sorry that you seem to be one of the only theists in the debate, I always feel sorry for you cuz that) can I ask you a question?

Are you 100%, without a doubt, 1/1, completely, positively sure that there's a God? I mean, are you for-sure sure in your belief? Just curious- I know it's a personal and faith-related question, so you don't have to answer if you don't want to

and, another question:

What if you're wrong?

Fair question ... 100% sure? That's a tough one. My gut response is "Yes, I am 100% certain that there is a God," but I feel like it needs explanation. It reminds me of an illustration I was thinking about a while back, but which never made its way into a post ...

-----------------

Tony is an average guy, of average intelligence, and pretty much unconcerned with religious affairs; he's neither religious nor atheist. His friend Antony is a reasonable fellow, rather skeptical by nature, who leans toward atheism. His other friend Phil is a likable guy who is very trusting.

One day, Tony wakes up in the middle of the night and thinks he hears a voice. He asks "Who's there?" and the voice answers, "It's your grandfather. Don't you recognize my voice?" His grandpa has been dead for years. The voice continues, "Be careful, young man. You will soon encounter great ridicule and be faced with difficult choices, but if you act wisely you will make us proud." Tony cries out "What do you mean?" and the voice simply answers "I must go, but I will return. Have patience." "When?" he begs, but there's no response.

The next day he tells Phil, who asks, wide-eyed, "Do you really think it was him? Wow. That's really cool. Let me know when he comes back! This is exciting."

He then tells Antony. As expected, his friend is skeptical. "Don't you think it's possible you were dreaming?"

"No, I'm pretty sure I didn't just make that up. It's all crystal clear to me."

"The mind is capable of some pretty amazing stuff, you know. Tell you what. The voice said it would return, right? Why don't you put a tape recorder next to your bed. The next time you hear the voice, be sure to start the tape recorder, and then we'll know for sure."

Tony agrees this is a good idea and does so. One week later he is again awakened by the voice. He immediately starts recording, and they begin to converse. He is given some additional guidance as to what to look for, how to act wisely, and the voice, presumably of his grandpa, confirms his love for and pride in his grandson.

The next day he rewinds the tape and plays it back. All he hears is his own voice, apparently talking to nobody. Now he's very concerned. He knows Antony won't believe him, but he's certain he's not crazy. Or is he? Is it possible he's simply gone off the deep end? He starts researching delusional disorders, paranoia, experiences other people have had with the paranormal. Was it real or is he sick? There seem to be plenty of sources that would guide him either way. What does he really believe? He knows Phil will believe him, but is it a good idea to tell him?

-----------------

This is of course a stereotypical plot of many mysteries and explorations of the human mind, the typical stuff of The Twilight Zone, but it does touch on many of the issues underlying "belief." There's belief which arises from personal experience, and belief that we form based on information we receive from others. The former is generally the stronger of the two ("I know because I saw it with my own eyes!") while the latter is easier to subject to objective and logical scrutiny. The degree of certainty in either source is affected by many factors, including one's own inclination to believe, and the degree of trust of the source. In our scenario, is Antony necessarily correct because he does believe? Is Phil right to accept Tony's report? Is Tony right to believe his own thoughts in view of the information (received from others) which indicates it's more likely a figment of his imagination? Wouldn't that depend on the degree of trust he places in each source? Is there a single, correct way to prioritize the sources of information used to form belief, and even if there is, will it always lead to the correct conclusion?

We can take the above example further in analyzing what conclusions can be drawn from the information presented. If Tony concludes that the voice was real, he must also conclude that there are intelligent supernatural beings which can communicate with his mind without making physical sound. Would it also be reasonable to conclude that the voice was in fact the spirit of his grandpa? What else could it be? Why would his grandpa communicate in such a manner? Had he previously been in heaven, hell, somewhere in between, or is the whole religious belief system he was taught as a child (but never really cared for) totally wrong? Would this experience necessarily lead him to belief in God? Should it?

One of the reasons I used this illustration is that it is similar to what many, many people have reported experiencing. Supposed communication with the dead is one of the most common cited paranormal experiences. With regard to drawing a conclusion about the existence of God, or anything "supernatural," would it be reasonable to ignore these experiences? Would it be reasonable to accept them at face value? While it may seem obvious that it is better to be skeptical, would Antony's conclusion have been the right one?

So, getting back to your question to me ... am I 100% sure? I have never had a personal experience which was completely unexplainable by other means. I have never seen or heard firsthand an experience of another person that was likewise unexplainable. I have not read scripture or seen scientific evidence that is completely beyond the reach of other explanations, no matter how far fetched or implausible I may think those explanations to be. But when I consider it all together, yes, it seems to me beyond reasonable doubt that there must be a God, and that his actions are observable in our lives.

Oh, and if I'm wrong? I would be a pretty pitiful fool, I suppose, but I'd also just be dead.

[Guest]

Faith is belief that disregards the need for evidence.

I know it's a bit off track, but as long as we're talking about fallacies, I can't let your comment above go unanswered. It looks to me like you've got a strawman here. Your definition of "faith" is the one that atheists use to describe religious belief, and perhaps that's what some religions encourage, but it is certainly not what most Christians mean when they say "you have to have faith." In general, we are using it the way it's defined in the Bible (Hebrews 11:1):

"Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (NIV), or "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (KJV)

We hope for eternal life and cannot see God. Thus any belief in God or life after death would require faith, according to this definition. Most religious people (at least in Judeo-Christian religions) do not accept that this means you are supposed to hold such belief without evidence. To the contrary, as described in the Bible, faith is directly connected with "evidence" of what we can't see. That doesn't mean the evidence will appeal equally to everyone (as described in my previous post), but it does involve establishing a basis for the implicit trust. A simplistic example of this is the "faith" that a farmer has that the seed he plants in spring will sprout and result in harvest in the fall. What basis does he have for his belief? That's the way it happened before. He could be wrong; perhaps a spring frost will kill the crop before it grows, and his belief will have to be adjusted to take into consideration additional factors, but that doesn't mean he never had a reason for his belief. (Incidentally, Scraff rejected this analogy when I used it long ago, but it seems to me his response was simply a case of rigidly adhering to his own definition of faith; it was merely a failure to agree on terminology).

Please understand that I'm not defending those who use the term in the way you define it. Too often a layperson receives the answer "you just have to have faith" from his priest in reply to questions such as "Why does god allow suffering?" or "How is it just to eternally burn people in fire as punishment for a few short years of sinning?" When used in that fashion, "faith" is nothing more than credulity. But there are other questions for which faith is an appropriate answer. For example, while the Bible is clear that there will be a resurrection from the dead, exactly who would be resurrected, what the criteria would be, and when it would happen are somewhat more fuzzy, so a statement such as "we have to have faith that God will be a fair judge" is a reasonable response to questions regarding the details. In this case, such faith is based upon an understanding of God's personality as revealed in scripture, where we see him portrayed both as a strict judge and executioner, and as a tender and merciful father. Of course, since the "evidence" that underlies the belief is the Bible itself, a trust in the Bible would first have to be established (a different topic, of course).

Why is this idea of faith pushed so much by religion? Why did Jesus talk about it so often? It kinda makes sense to me that belief has to be deeply rooted in order to move a person to action. Jesus willingly accepted a martyr's death, as did many of his followers. That doesn't necessarily validate their belief, since many people throughout history have been willing to die for causes that were important to them (e.g., Japanese kamikaze pilots, Buddhist monks protesting abuses, etc.), but it does give evidence that a deeply held conviction moves to action. Hence, if religion is to be a genuinely motivating force for good in people's lives, faith would be a necessary component. Unfortunately, ill-founded faith based on fear and misinformation has too often been used by religion as a motivating force to keep people in line and increase the power of the church (particularly prior to the Enlightenment), and that's clearly not the motivating force I'm talking about. However, hypocrisy in religion is no reason to reject the fine examples of people who actually try to live in harmony with Biblical morals. People who are honest, loving, generous, hard-working, trustworthy, caring, humble, and merciful are the kind of people that build better families and stronger communities. Of course, just because the Bible promotes those values doesn't mean that religions instill them in their members.

Faith discourages genuine questioning, which is why religions condition us to consider it a virtue. That is one of the big problems with religion. Faith inhibits your capacity to reason and to see things as they are. Furthermore, religion causes us to cling to faith as a security blanket which protects us from the harsh world-view that might assault us if we opened our minds. But truth is nothing to be afraid of.

Now, in view of my description of faith, can you understand why I so strongly disagree with these statements? Why would faith discourage questioning? Whether or not I see things as they are would certainly depend on whether or not my accepted premises are correct, but how would belief in the unseen inherently inhibit my capacity to see things correctly? On the flip-side, if there were in fact a God, then a lack of faith would necessarily entail an unwillingness to consider evidence, and would therefore hinder one from seeing things correctly. You say religious belief acts as a security blanket, but I'm not sure how the atheist's world-view is any less harsh than that of religions that preach eternal torment, (or required human sacrifice, for that matter) and the notion that there is nothing to fear beyond death is far less intimidating than the underworlds described in Greek mythology or Dante's Inferno. I certainly agree that people and churches are guilty of misusing belief and clinging to hope without reason, but I don't think it's fair to equate that irrational behavior with faith. At least not the "faith" encouraged in the Bible.

On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement: "Truth is nothing to be afraid of." Of course, the Bible naturally links truth with faith, as well. The apostle Paul wrote regarding himself (1 Ti 2:7): "For the purpose of this witness I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—a teacher of nations in the matter of faith and truth."

Sorry to ramble on so long, but your words against faith were pretty harsh, and I just want you to clearly understand why I reject your broad-sweeping application of your own terminology to all religious belief.

[Guest]

Oh yay! Let's do faith

I know it's a bit off track, but as long as we're talking about fallacies, I can't let your comment above go unanswered. It looks to me like you've got a strawman here. Your definition of "faith" is the one that atheists use to describe religious belief, and perhaps that's what some religions encourage, but it is certainly not what most Christians mean when they say "you have to have faith." In general, we are using it the way it's defined in the Bible (Hebrews 11:1):

"Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (NIV), or "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (KJV)

!?! !?!

"Being sure of what we hope for" - otherwise known as wishful thinking or just plain old delusion. I hope I win the national lottery. Being sure of it would be a matter of faith.

"being certain of what we do not see" - otherwise known as making assumptions, though I'm not taking the word "see" literally. I'm certain I'm sitting on a chair even though I don't see it right now. Is that faith? I think "see" was meant there in a more general sense of "have reliable evidence for". The ambiguity is useful in that it enables you to take "see" literally when arguing that faith is a virtue (sounds reasonable that visual evidence is not the only reliable kind), while in practice using it to condone absolute belief based on flimsy evidence or just taking the Bible's word for it.

All things considered I thought my definition was a lot more generous.

That doesn't mean the evidence will appeal equally to everyone (as described in my previous post), but it does involve establishing a basis for the implicit trust. A simplistic example of this is the "faith" that a farmer has that the seed he plants in spring will sprout and result in harvest in the fall. What basis does he have for his belief? That's the way it happened before. He could be wrong; perhaps a spring frost will kill the crop before it grows, and his belief will have to be adjusted to take into consideration additional factors, but that doesn't mean he never had a reason for his belief.

The farmer has pretty good reason to think that seeds will sprout next spring. I can see why terminology would be an issue. I would say he has reliable evidence for his belief, and his willingness to adjust that belief in the light of further evidence means that he embraces rationality and is not deluded. Whether or not you think faith is the same thing is indeed a matter of terminology (it could come down to that word "see"). But in practice to use "faith" interchangably with "opinion based on evidence" is unrealistic. In practice, "faith" is used to justify belief based on trust, hope, blind assumption, feelings, loyalty, doctrine, custom, authority, anything but reliable evidence really. I make a point of attacking the concept at every available opportunity because our society has historically conditioned us to respect faith in all its forms, however unreasonable, as if it were self-justifying.

The quality of evidence matters.

That's the problem with faith, since it generally is used to condone the unquestioning acceptance of any old evidence. That is, very much, the point of faith. Let's not dress it up as something else.

Why is this idea of faith pushed so much by religion? Why did Jesus talk about it so often? It kinda makes sense to me that belief has to be deeply rooted in order to move a person to action. Jesus willingly accepted a martyr's death, as did many of his followers. That doesn't necessarily validate their belief, since many people throughout history have been willing to die for causes that were important to them (e.g., Japanese kamikaze pilots, Buddhist monks protesting abuses, etc.), but it does give evidence that a deeply held conviction moves to action. Hence, if religion is to be a genuinely motivating force for good in people's lives, faith would be a necessary component.

I would put it more simply than that. A religion cannot survive without faith. Over the years religions have come and gone and the ones that have survived have been the ones that encompass the right combination of compelling motivations to believe (and spread the word). These are often combined with concepts and terminology that reinforce belief. Faith is one of the key concepts underpinning Christianity. It makes it seem like a good idea to make your belief absolute and undoubting. Good for religion, bad for you. Ain't selection processes wonderful?

People who are honest, loving, generous, hard-working, trustworthy, caring, humble, and merciful are the kind of people that build better families and stronger communities. Of course, just because the Bible promotes those values doesn't mean that religions instill them in their members.

The Bible promotes all sorts of values, some good, some http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=703ZJSzyyOA. It's people who choose the values they take from it.

Why would faith discourage questioning? Whether or not I see things as they are would certainly depend on whether or not my accepted premises are correct, but how would belief in the unseen inherently inhibit my capacity to see things correctly?

It's fine to acknowledge non-visual evidence as being valid, but acceptance of faith does more than this. With faith, belief comes first and evidence is then viewed selectively (unless you interpret the terminology so as to ignore this aspect of faith).

On the flip-side, if there were in fact a God, then a lack of faith would necessarily entail an unwillingness to consider evidence, and would therefore hinder one from seeing things correctly.

You don't need faith in order to consider evidence.

You say religious belief acts as a security blanket, but I'm not sure how the atheist's world-view is any less harsh than that of religions that preach eternal torment, (or required human sacrifice, for that matter) and the notion that there is nothing to fear beyond death is far less intimidating than the underworlds described in Greek mythology or Dante's Inferno.

Well, yes. But I think a lot of religious people do see the atheist world view as cold and harsh, and therefore undesirable (an appeal to emotion!). I was making the point that it isn't really.

On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement: "Truth is nothing to be afraid of." Of course, the Bible naturally links truth with faith, as well.

Naturally. By equating Christianity and faith with goodness and truth, a lot of dodgy concepts get sneaked in by the back door. That's part of the cultural inheritance I would love to overturn.

Sorry to ramble on so long, but your words against faith were pretty harsh, and I just want you to clearly understand why I reject your broad-sweeping application of your own terminology to all religious belief.

Belief based on evidence is one thing. But even the word "belief" carries with it connotations of absolute confidence without evidence, which is why I prefer not to apply it to my own opinions. As for faith, it's a human failing. The whole idea of faith subverts rationality and promotes unreason. Yes, there is ambiguity which can be used to justify faith in some form. Ambiguities are always useful when defending irrationality. Religion has been strengthening its position for millenia, and its effect is seen throughout our language and culture, so it is no surprise that such ambiguities exist. But faith, in its usual form, is one of the greatest evils in our society.

[Guest]

Speaking of evidence, here's my take on the area of personal experience.

Of course it's an extremely bad idea to form a belief based on someone else's reported experience, since you cannot know how accurate it is, even if the person reporting it is 100% honest in their intentions. But what about your own experiences? I have had a religious experience that convinced me of the existence of God for a while, which I could not explain for years, long after I had abandoned the religion itself for the codswallop it so obviously was. Only much later, when acquainted with the workings of hypnotism could I really appreciate the capacity the human mind has for making "real", "physical" experiences out of nothing. I think the vast majority of people have no idea of the extent to which the mind can play tricks and have tricks played on it. Your interface to the "real" world is NOT a reliable one. You have to rely on it because it's all you have, but there is always the chance of being deluded, and you have to be aware of that.

It's a good idea to look at the circumstances surrounding "supernatural" experiences. They often happen in a half-waking state where the brain's capability to visualise in dreams may be playing games on you. In the story you wrote in the previous post, it was typical of many people's experiences up to the point where Tony recorded the conversation.

Religious experiences while awake are different, and I think more like hypnosis. I'll put this in a spoiler in case awareness of these things compromises your ability to be hypnotised. So don't read it if you've never been hypnotised and you really want to be.

1) Comfortable. Relaxed. Willing. You need to be comfortable and ready for the experience, you have to want it.

2) Trust. Have complete faith in the hypnotist / preacher / Jesus.

3) (this is the tricky part) Belief. The key thing about being hypnotised is to believe that you are hypnotised. The hypnotist uses all sorts of tricks to convince you of this. In the case of a religious experience you need to believe that it can and will happen. That's not easy, and that's why this is in a spoiler.

When all that is acheived, your suggestibility and capacity to role-play and imagine is greatly enhanced. A hypnotist makes suggestions directly. In a religious "trance" you have to make it up yourself. To some extent you choose subconsciously based on what you want or require, or feel is appropriate. You might feel that speaking in tongues is OK, but getting on all fours and barking like a dog would be something of a faux pas. In any case, the compulsions seem truly compelling, as if from an external (or internal) force, and the experiences real, physical and tangible.

That's my experience of it anyway, for what it's worth. Such religious "trance" experiences can be euphoric and, to all intents and purposes, absolutely real. But still just a product of the mind. Perhaps you can see why I'm a little dubious of that kind of thing as evidence for God, though I don't doubt that some people are 100% convinced by it. I was.

[Guest]

"Being sure of what we hope for" - otherwise known as wishful thinking or just plain old delusion.

Once again, you're imposing your own meaning. "Being sure of what we hope fore" is only wishful thinking if it is unfounded or misguided, not if there is a reasonable basis for the belief. Faith, as used in the Bible, denotes trust in something unseen, specifically in connection with hope (and I don't know why you would take this to mean anything other than a literal definition of "see"; stuff like God, spirits, heaven, etc., are things which we cannot see with our eyes [or in any other way sense], and thus belief in them would require trust in the source describing them). In contrast, while we might trust our biochemistry textbook regarding molecular composition, that wouldn't really be faith in the biblical sense since it has nothing to do with our hope for the future.

Here's what one reference work says on the subject:

“Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Heb 11:1) “Assured expectation” translates the Greek word hy·po′sta·sis. This term is common in ancient papyrus business documents. It conveys the idea of something that underlies visible conditions and guarantees a future possession. In view of this, Moulton and Milligan suggest the rendering: “Faith is the title deed of things hoped for.” (Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 1963, p. 660) The Greek word e′leg·khos, rendered “evident demonstration,” conveys the idea of bringing forth evidence that demonstrates something, particularly something contrary to what appears to be the case. Thereby this evidence makes clear what has not been discerned before and so refutes what has only appeared to be the case. “The evident demonstration,” or evidence for conviction, is so positive or powerful that faith is said to be it.

Faith is, therefore, the basis for hope and the evidence for conviction concerning unseen realities.

The ambiguity is useful in that it enables you to take "see" literally when arguing that faith is a virtue (sounds reasonable that visual evidence is not the only reliable kind), while in practice using it to condone absolute belief based on flimsy evidence or just taking the Bible's word for it.

If one is convinced based on their study of the Bible that it is inspired by God (and not convinced due to flimsy trust in some authoritative preacher figure), can they be faulted for using it as a basis for their belief? You may argue that the premise (Bible is from God) is flawed, and therefore the conclusion (I believe X because the Bible says so) is likewise flawed, and that's fine, but someone who accepts that premise can't be called irrational for following it through to its logical conclusion.

One thing it's important to keep in mind is that I'm not in any way trying to defend "religion." I believe the great majority of religion is guilty of promoting the irrational thinking that you understandably find so anathema. Just yesterday I read a revealing article in Rolling Stone magazine about a reporter who went incognito to an Evangelical weekend revival in Texas which was promoted by one of the larger mainstream churches in the U.S. I've heard plenty of experiences in the past about "holy rollers" speaking in tongues and casting out demons, but I always assumed that was kinda on the fringes, not something practiced by mainstream churches (in this case the same one that GW Bush belonged to). The article candidly exposed the blatant charlatanry and absurdity of the leaders of the church, as well as how the members bought into the act and played along. While the members of that church clearly had a form of faith, it was obviously hollow, and I'm just as critical of such codswallop (thanks for the new word!) as you.

So, to be clear, when I talk about faith, I'm talking about belief in the unseen, connected with hope, which should be based on evidence in order to be meaningful, but which can be worthless if unsubstantiated. Perhaps I'm being too generous to assume that's what most churches teach, so I'll just stick to what's taught in my religion. As an irrelevant side point ... I'm curious if any of the readers in this forum are familiar enough with different religions to pick out which one I belong to. While I highly value individual critical analysis, I don't by any stretch claim to have arrived at my beliefs on my own, and I do closely follow the teachings of a particular religious group. Any guesses?

It makes it seem like a good idea to make your belief absolute and undoubting. Good for religion, bad for you.

Conviction leads to action, doubt to inaction. If you believe that a charitable organization is trustworthy and beneficial, you may contribute money or volunteer time. If you are convinced they're a sham, you may publicly protest. But if you simply doubt their motive, reliability, or efficacy, you'll just do nothing. Belief which is strong enough to move one to action is only bad for you (and for others) if it's wrong or misguided.

The Bible promotes all sorts of values, some good, some http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=703ZJSzyyOA. It's people who choose the values they take from it.

I understand that many of the accounts in the Bible raise questions about the values that appear to be promoted, but I think it's a great oversimplification to take the account where God ordered Joshua to execute judgment against a nation of people and conclude that the Bible is 'promoting' genocide, as though the basis for such action is analogous to Hitler's attack against Jews. Dawkins chose to quote ridiculous explanations that revealed a serious lack of critical thinking ability on the part of dumb religious people, which is a very typical strawman tactic he seems to like using. It's not that the people of Canaan simply belonged to a "different" religion. They were violent, practiced immoral orgiastic rituals, and sacrificed their own children to tribal gods. God judged their entire society to be worthy of destruction, and used the one nation that actually worshiped him to carry out the sentence. It should also be noted that this action against the nation as a group wouldn't have prevented God from reading individual hearts and deciding justly with respect to their future prospects for life.

The above example is of course only one of many found in the Bible that raise such difficult issues. However, they are almost always found in the Hebrew scriptures, or Old Testament, which dealt with the history of a nation of people specifically chosen by God and given laws and commands which seem strange and occasionally questionable. The Greek scriptures, or New Testament, contains a new code taught by Jesus which was to replace the old law, and most people find the nature of morals taught therein to be far less perplexing or open to disagreement. Through my study of both I've come to reconcile the apparent differences, but I admit that doing so involves a measure of "faith" that God was able to see details that are not recorded and that I don't comprehend.

It seems like you reason as such:

1) Either the Bible is not inspired by God or else God is depicted as a malevolent dictator.

2) Most people who accept the Bible do not accept that God is the latter.

3) The Bible is not inspired by God.

This is similar to reasoning such as "If God is all powerful and can stop suffering, but suffering continues, then either God doesn't exist or doesn't care." It seems rather like a false dilemma. The description of God as either non-existent or as malevolent and uncaring is based on a superficial interpretation of the evidence, and doesn't take into account that there could be more complicated explanations involved.

You don't need faith in order to consider evidence.

Certainly not, but we're not really just talking about considering evidence, are we? We're talking about drawing conclusions from evidence. If you are overly skeptical and doubt without sufficient reason, then you will prevent yourself from seeing the reality. On the other hand, if you have faith without evidence, you will be similarly blind.

Such religious "trance" experiences can be euphoric and, to all intents and purposes, absolutely real. But still just a product of the mind. Perhaps you can see why I'm a little dubious of that kind of thing as evidence for God, though I don't doubt that some people are 100% convinced by it. I was.

Your observations on hypnotism and "trance" experiences are quite interesting, and seem to fit well with what I read in that magazine article. I agree that there's a danger in trusting one's personal experiences without question, but in reality this has to do more with how one interprets the experience, rather than how they remember it. For example, in my illustration, Tony might conclude that the voice was not a figment of his imagination, but neither was it the voice of his grandfather, Antony might conclude Tony was nuts, and Phil might believe it was Tony's grandfather. Three different conclusions, and only one (or none) can be right. How do you decide?

Just one more thought regarding your observations. You have to be careful not to draw a hasty generalization. Just because some "religious experiences" (including your own) are fakes does not mean that they all are, or that everyone who claims to have had a supernatural experience was either delusional or hypnotized. While it's possible that's the case, it's a pretty sweeping claim, so I imagine you'd want to be pretty sure about that before disregarding all such reports as worthless.

[Guest]

Once again, you're imposing your own meaning. "Being sure of what we hope fore" is only wishful thinking if it is unfounded or misguided, not if there is a reasonable basis for the belief. Faith, as used in the Bible, denotes trust in something unseen, specifically in connection with hope

Trusting in the existence of something "unseen" is fine as long as there is reliable (non-visual) evidence for the thing itself. It makes sense that the extent of trust be determined by the strength of evidence. But in practice "hope" is also used as justification for trust. You hope for something. Therefore you are sure it will happen. That's wishful thinking. That's what "Being sure of what we hope for" means! What you're talking about is "being sure and hoping for that which is supported by evidence". You might interpret faith that way, but millions don't.

Also note how the common terminology is specifically geared to lead you astray. Why all this talk of trust? Either a thing is true, or it is not, and the evidence will tell. We sometimes need trust because we cannot practically test the evidence ourselves, so in the end you need to take somebody's word for it. This is of true of science as it is of religion. The main difference is that in scientific study, every effort is made to cross-check results and ensure that only correct information makes it into the public domain (in general at least though I don't doubt that there are failures). In religion, there is no means of verifying the available information. You just take it on trust, and since there is a lack of evidence, assumptions and trust in those assumptions are all you have.

(and I don't know why you would take this to mean anything other than a literal definition of "see"; stuff like God, spirits, heaven, etc., are things which we cannot see with our eyes [or in any other way sense], and thus belief in them would require trust in the source describing them).

Your example with the farmer suggested that "being certain of what we do not see" means the same as "visual evidence is not the only valid kind". The farmer has non-visual evidence for the effectiveness of his method, so he justifiably thinks it will work.

But it means so much more than that. First, there is the word "certain". Should the farmer be certain that his crops will not fail? Absolutely not. That would be jumping to conclusions. Being absolutely certain of anything is a mistake because it blinds you to the possibility that you could be wrong, and that is always possible.

But worse, even if we do take the word "see" literally, you could interpret the statement to suggest that the "unseen" nature of something is a reason to be certain of it. You cannot see God. Therefore you can be certain of God. You cannot see fairies. So you can be certain of them too. You may say that this is wrong and that all it really means to say is "you may be certain of something you cannot see", but that's just one interpretation of an ambiguous concept.

As for the word "see", it is often used figuratively, as in "I see what you mean". And since allegory is a central part of religious language, it is no stretch to interpret the phrase as "being certain of what you do not experience", or "being certain of what you cannot prove". Again, just another interpretation.

So why do we need faith? Why not just rely on evidence? What are the differences?

The differences could be taken as follows:

1) believing something because you hope for it

2) believing something because you trust a source of information (without examining the credentials of the source too closely, since that doesn't work in a religious context) - admittedly this isn't directly implied by your earlier definitions, but I think it's a fairly common interpretation

3) accepting that there are forms of evidence other than visual which can be relied upon

4) being certain of your beliefs (irrespective of strength of evidence)

5) considering anything which you cannot see to be likely to exist just because you can't see it

6) not requiring reliable evidence for your beliefs

You may not agree with all of these. You might say that point (3) (the only sensible one) is the only correct one. But the other inferences are there for anybody to make. Ambiguous terminology such as "faith" allows a grain of common sense to be used as justification for the acceptance of all kinds of nonsense. If all you are asserting is that non-visual evidence can be valid, you don't need to advocate faith, and all its accompanying baggage, in order to do so.

If one is convinced based on their study of the Bible that it is inspired by God (and not convinced due to flimsy trust in some authoritative preacher figure), can they be faulted for using it as a basis for their belief?

Depends entirely on why they are convinced. Being convinced of something doesn't make you right.

You may argue that the premise (Bible is from God) is flawed, and therefore the conclusion (I believe X because the Bible says so) is likewise flawed, and that's fine, but someone who accepts that premise can't be called irrational for following it through to its logical conclusion.

They could be called irrational if they don't recognise that an assumed premise can only imply assumed conclusions.

So, to be clear, when I talk about faith, I'm talking about belief in the unseen, connected with hope, which should be based on evidence in order to be meaningful, but which can be worthless if unsubstantiated. Perhaps I'm being too generous to assume that's what most churches teach, so I'll just stick to what's taught in my religion. As an irrelevant side point ... I'm curious if any of the readers in this forum are familiar enough with different religions to pick out which one I belong to. While I highly value individual critical analysis, I don't by any stretch claim to have arrived at my beliefs on my own, and I do closely follow the teachings of a particular religious group. Any guesses?

No, but I'd like to know! I agree with all you said here, I just don't think that's what most people mean by faith. Also "based on evidence" might not mean it's based on good reliable evidence. The strength of your conviction shouldn't be greater than the strength of your evidence, and that's where faith leads people astray.

Conviction leads to action, doubt to inaction... Belief which is strong enough to move one to action is only bad for you (and for others) if it's wrong or misguided.

How would you know you're wrong or misguided if you have faith? Your conviction would not allow you to see your error. Whether you're dying on a cross or flying a plane into the world trade center, excessive conviction can be very bad for you.

[Guest]

...continued

I understand that many of the accounts in the Bible raise questions about the values that appear to be promoted, but I think it's a great oversimplification to take the account where God ordered Joshua to execute judgment against a nation of people and conclude that the Bible is 'promoting' genocide, as though the basis for such action is analogous to Hitler's attack against Jews. Dawkins chose to quote ridiculous explanations that revealed a serious lack of critical thinking ability on the part of dumb religious people, which is a very typical strawman tactic he seems to like using. It's not that the people of Canaan simply belonged to a "different" religion. They were violent, practiced immoral orgiastic rituals, and sacrificed their own children to tribal gods. God judged their entire society to be worthy of destruction, and used the one nation that actually worshiped him to carry out the sentence. It should also be noted that this action against the nation as a group wouldn't have prevented God from reading individual hearts and deciding justly with respect to their future prospects for life.

You don't really know what the people of Canaan were like. The first casualty of war is the truth, and the history of war is always written by the victors (excuse the cliches). So is genocide OK if the people you're killing are a rotten lot and you've got God on your side?

Through my study of both I've come to reconcile the apparent differences, but I admit that doing so involves a measure of "faith" that God was able to see details that are not recorded and that I don't comprehend.

Hmm. Sounds like a leap of faith to me.

It seems like you reason as such:

1) Either the Bible is not inspired by God or else God is depicted as a malevolent dictator.

2) Most people who accept the Bible do not accept that God is the latter.

3) The Bible is not inspired by God.

The only point I was making was that the Bible is a poor guide to morality. There is good material in there and bad. You take what you want from it based on your own morality, if you have any sense at all. Or better still, don't use it as a guide to morality at all.

Certainly not, but we're not really just talking about considering evidence, are we? We're talking about drawing conclusions from evidence. If you are overly skeptical and doubt without sufficient reason, then you will prevent yourself from seeing the reality. On the other hand, if you have faith without evidence, you will be similarly blind.

You can draw conclusions from uncertain evidence and recognise them as uncertain conclusions. They still might be worth acting on.

Being overly skeptical would mean that you believe things to be untrue as a matter of principle (rather than merely doubting them). That's another form of dogma, and yes it can make you blind. But you don't need a reason to doubt something. You need reasons to be certain of things.

Your observations on hypnotism and "trance" experiences are quite interesting, and seem to fit well with what I read in that magazine article. I agree that there's a danger in trusting one's personal experiences without question, but in reality this has to do more with how one interprets the experience, rather than how they remember it. For example, in my illustration, Tony might conclude that the voice was not a figment of his imagination, but neither was it the voice of his grandfather, Antony might conclude Tony was nuts, and Phil might believe it was Tony's grandfather. Three different conclusions, and only one (or none) can be right. How do you decide?

Typically, with "supernatural" experiences, I don't decide. They could be valid, but I have no reason to think so. So they are not a good reason to form any opinion.

Just one more thought regarding your observations. You have to be careful not to draw a hasty generalization. Just because some "religious experiences" (including your own) are fakes does not mean that they all are, or that everyone who claims to have had a supernatural experience was either delusional or hypnotized. While it's possible that's the case, it's a pretty sweeping claim, so I imagine you'd want to be pretty sure about that before disregarding all such reports as worthless.

I never made that claim. I am merely casting doubt. Those who have faith could use a little more doubt.

[Guest]

To elaborate a bit more (sorry I'm going on a bit) on that last point, I can see why you read my comments on religious experiences as applying generally, though I was careful to point out that these just reflected my personal experience of the matter.

Obviously I cannot possibly invalidate every single religious experience that has ever been had, without being personally acquainted with all of them. But the fact that a person can have such an experience and that it can be completely convincing without involving God in any way (and that many people do exactly that) sheds significant doubt on this body of "evidence" as a whole.

People reading it would fall into 3 categories:

1) Never had a religious experience. In that case you should know that the word of others on this subject should be treated with skepticism, no matter how deep their conviction.

2) Had a religious experience in circumstances similar to those I described. In that case you have every reason to doubt the veracity of it.

3) Had a religious experience of a completely different kind. In that case you should be encouraged to think critically about it and be aware of the mind's capacity for self-deception. But I'd like to hear about it too, it would be interesting to look at the circumstances. Naturally I won't be inclined to believe you, because the nature of the evidence you are presenting to me would be intrinsically unreliable unless it can be verified or tested in some way. But it would still be interesting.

[Guest]

I know I said I didn't want to get involved too much, but i couldn't help it.

and, another question:

What if you're wrong?

If we're wrong, than oh well. Big whoop. We were wrong. Personally, not much would change in my mind, especially because we wont find out until we're dead, so it wouldn't matter.

But more importantly, if we are right, then all of you will die and go to hell and burn for all eternity. (sorry for the harshness)

[itachi-san]

But more importantly, if we are right, then all of you will die and go to hell and burn for all eternity. (sorry for the harshness)

Don't you think that believing the above statement is hate-filled, nonsensical and/or unforgiving and hence it is not compassionate and therefore should not be preached by any religious organization?

Personally, I have a huge moral problem with the idea that Hell exists, that this idea is heavily preached and that people actually believe it. I believe it to be religious terrorism forcing people to do and believe out of fear. I also believe it to be in direct contrast with the moral goodness I'd expect people of faith to derive from their religion.