Mike

I don't believe these questions are unanswerable.

Ah, there's the trouble: "he could have saved...by showing himself." You actually have to look in the microscope yourself for your evidence. Not even the Holy Ghost can MAKE you believe. Two pre-requisites that drive you atheists nuts are still nevertheless pre-requisites: 1. Ask 2. Believe (expect results). Oh, and then there's that little repentance thing that tends to clear the ears and open the eyes to this sort of evidence. Don't get crazy on me now, I'm not preaching.

This could hold true for religious experience as well. And as for Occam's Razor, although I generally agree with it, it IS an appeal to authority. Who says that the simplest explanation is the best, or the most correct? Has that been scientifically tested? If those "infinite number" of explanations are equally plausible, but not equally simple, why should the simplest be the best? Maybe we're underestimating nature.

Could be both. Why does one have to choose? Who says God can't use natural processes to send a sign? The question isn't about how the sign is sent, its about timing: eg. That day the woman was praying to know if Christ really died for her, it was the first time she had prayed in such a manner. In the time between her prayer and her notice of the cross-shadow, a construction worker shows up next door on what normally was his day off because his flight to Hawaii was cancelled. He starts building the wall, but just at the moment he erects a cross-shaped structure, his cell phone rings. It's the travel agent with some good news. He leaves the project and heads for the airport. What would you conclude when an event is so far out of the realm of statistical probability (based on chance) that you can scarcely count the zeroes, and there are no naturalistic explanations available? The simple answer is staring you in the face, but you decide to hold out for something more complex: Perhaps she suggested to the construction worker on a previous day that she was looking for Jesus, and perhaps his construction of the cross was a sublimation of his desire to help the woman, which leaves only the call from the airport to chance. Better odds, more complicated solution.

Me too. Like not having sex with someone you're attracted to, or not drinking when you feel like drinking.

No, no. APA doesn't make the laws. But they have a great influence over what research gets published in the social sciences (regarding the questions of the influences of genes on homosexuality and alcoholism, and the implications for therapeutic practice). They are among those who "assert the truth" about whether we can or should try to behave in a manner inconsistent with our "instincts" or if we should influence others to do it. They do assert a strong political influence, but that is true of all large scientific associations. And it is political influence based on this scientific authority, I will argue, not research in this case that makes it "OK" to "correct" alcoholism, but not homosexuality (sorry about all the scare quotes, but they are there to make a point).

What's instinct? Who has the authority to define it? Is it a product of the genes? The mind? The spirit? Neonatal experience?

Are you mocking the value of peer-review? This is a foundation in the sciences. I would suggest that we start with a literature review in both science and religion. Once we have a notion of what's been done, we look for our own answers. This common approach to knowing between science and religion is why I have been harping on this notion of authority. But I never suggested that one abandon their beliefs if they are rejected by their peers (or authority), only that one may possibly get a "sense" for truth by examining commonalities among existing theories in both the sciences and in religion.

I'm not arguing that we have the same interpretations, but that we have come to believe what we do by similar processes. I have heard many accusations in this forum that rest on the assumption that theists and atheists are different breeds; eg. one or the other group--but not both-- is closed minded, uneducated, gullable, arrogant, etc. The fact is that there we share all of these traits as well as the corresponding opposites. Both atheists and theists are closed minded about some things and open minded about others. Both are uneducated about some things and educated about others. Both are gullable in some situations and cynical in others. Both are arrogant about some things and humble about others. No, we aren't the same, but we learn in similar ways. I'm arguing that at some point in our learning we sharply diverged in what we accepted as true, and we both had good reasons for it (there are exceptions, of course). You're not better than me, and I'm not better than you (but there's still a God).


Don't have it. I accepted that on authority. But it's falsifiable.

Well, I think it IS testable, but only on an individual basis (until, of course, he comes again--but even then Kind Bud will just think he's an alien with mind-altering perfume). My understanding of scripture is that at the end of the requisite tests we will be invited with the apostles to "feel the prints" of the nails in his hands and in his side. And know that "a spirit hath not flesh and bone" as we will see him have. The simplest explanation will be that "He is risen." That test may take a life-time to complete, but it doesn't change the truth of it (if indeed it is true). But until that day I am content to know that God is real as I know that oxygen is real. I haven't personally seen an oxygen molecule--it may take a life-time for me to gain the experience and access the necessary equipment to do so--but I have felt the wind, and seen its effects. Similarly I have felt the presence of God and seen His effects. You may call it something else: hallucination (this possibility might be reduced by the fact that I'm clean and sober and always have been), indigestion, chance, etc. If it is hallucination, indigestion, or chance, it has been certainly so well timed for me that it goes beyond the realm of probability. If I feel the wind on my face and at the same time the tree in front of me sways in the same direction the simplest explanation would be that the wind is blowing. I'm not an unreasonable person, neither are you. Who is correct?

I believe that God does use natural processes just as we do. I manipulate paint and canvas to make a sign, He manipulates other elements as well. I've learned how to mix pigment and oil, but I haven't yet learned how to mix molecules in such a way as to make water into wine. Our mixture of gasoline and oxygen in automobiles may have seemed miraculous to our great-great grandparents, does the fact that it is a natural process make the leap from wagons to cars any narrower? We know that sound waves can disorganize the structure of a dinner glass. We know that every formula can be reversed in theory. Miracles generally have an acoustic element (eg. God spoke and the world was organized). If sound can cause dis-organization why shouldn't it be able to be harnessed in such a way as to cause organization? The wind blew all night when the red sea parted. Perhaps it was a tornado. That part isn't as important, what is more important is the timing. The one tornado ever to cross the red sea just happened to correspond with the life or death dilemma of the Israelites.

Sorry to pigeon-hole you. The mission statement of this web-site does seem to imply a movement, however.

phlebas

The problem with using an intelligent designer as an answer to anything is that it only opens more unanswerable questions. Where did this designer come from? Why did something this powerful design anything at all? Why did he go through such trouble to make it look natural? (And, for Christians, why does this designer have to be the one in the Bible?)

I don't believe these questions are unanswerable.

Whenever you're ready.

If that were true, there would be a lot fewer atheists. Not all of us were always atheists, you know. If the Holy Ghost wanted me to be a Christian, he could have saved us both a lot of trouble by showing himself when I was 16.

Ah, there's the trouble: "he could have saved...by showing himself." You actually have to look in the microscope yourself for your evidence. Not even the Holy Ghost can MAKE you believe.

I *did* believe. I *wanted* to believe. I had questions and no answers came my way. So I concluded there was either nothing to give the answers or nothing that cared whether I had the answers or not. Since the price of not believing is high, according to Christians, that struck me as odd.

Two pre-requisites that drive you atheists nuts are still nevertheless pre-requisites: 1. Ask 2. Believe (expect results).

One thing you theists cannot accept or demonstrate to be false: you cannot choose your beliefs. At least, I cannot.

Oh, and then there's that little repentance thing that tends to clear the ears and open the eyes to this sort of evidence.

For what should I be sorry?

Who says that the simplest explanation is the best, or the most correct?

It doesn't have to be.

Has that been scientifically tested? If those "infinite number" of explanations are equally plausible, but not equally simple, why should the simplest be the best?

Why adopt a more complicated one? If you're really looking for truth, aren't you skewing the results if you pick the explanation that fits your preconceived notions?

Maybe we're underestimating nature.

Not me. I know deep inside that nature has brought about all this amazing stuff around us. I think it's the theists who underestimate nature by saying it can't possibly do all this on its own.

Who says God can't use natural processes to send a sign?

How would you know? Are all shadows messages?

The question isn't about how the sign is sent, its about timing: eg. That day the woman was praying to know if Christ really died for her, it was the first time she had prayed in such a manner. In the time between her prayer and her notice of the cross-shadow, a construction worker shows up next door on what normally was his day off because his flight to Hawaii was cancelled. He starts building the wall, but just at the moment he erects a cross-shaped structure, his cell phone rings. It's the travel agent with some good news. He leaves the project and heads for the airport.

Could be.

What would you conclude when an event is so far out of the realm of statistical probability (based on chance) that you can scarcely count the zeroes, and there are no naturalistic explanations available?

What of the above is impossible in nature?

If a cross appeared every time someone prayed, you might have something. One occurence out of possibly millions a day is not statistically worth worrying about.

The simple answer is staring you in the face, but you decide to hold out for something more complex: Perhaps she suggested to the construction worker on a previous day that she was looking for Jesus, and perhaps his construction of the cross was a sublimation of his desire to help the woman, which leaves only the call from the airport to chance. Better odds, more complicated solution.

Perhaps the cross had been there for a month, but she didn't notice it until she started thinking about Jesus.

If that's the best God can do to show himself, he's useless as a creator.

What's instinct? Who has the authority to define it? Is it a product of the genes? The mind? The spirit? Neonatal experience?

It's a product of the genes. dictionary.com is ready when you are.

Are you mocking the value of peer-review?

Nope. Mocking the silly notion that you find God via the scientific method.

You're not better than me, and I'm not better than you (but there's still a God).

Who's worse than all of us if he sends even one person to hell forever.

Secondly, point me to any scientific study of God's existence? The existence of God is outside the realm of science, since it is not testable, falsifiable, etc etc.

Well, I think it IS testable, but only on an individual basis

Which is NOT what I'm talking about. You cannot gather data from a subjective revelation and have it reviewed by your peers.

(until, of course, he comes again--but even then Kind Bud will just think he's an alien with mind-altering perfume).

Presumably, God would be able to convince our puny little minds.

My understanding of scripture is that at the end of the requisite tests we will be invited with the apostles to "feel the prints" of the nails in his hands and in his side. And know that "a spirit hath not flesh and bone" as we will see him have. The simplest explanation will be that "He is risen." That test may take a life-time to complete, but it doesn't change the truth of it (if indeed it is true).

Shame you have to waste your whole life on it, then. You're gonna be pissed if the Muslims are right.

But until that day I am content to know that God is real as I know that oxygen is real. I haven't personally seen an oxygen molecule--it may take a life-time for me to gain the experience and access the necessary equipment to do so--but I have felt the wind, and seen its effects. Similarly I have felt the presence of God and seen His effects.

To a Christian, I'm sure it's the same thing. But the wind can be seen by everyone, even those who don't believe in oxygen -- even they know that SOMETHING is moving. You can only see God's effects if you already believe there is a God.

You may call it something else: hallucination (this possibility might be reduced by the fact that I'm clean and sober and always have been),

Ditto.

If it is hallucination, indigestion, or chance, it has been certainly so well timed for me that it goes beyond the realm of probability.

I doubt that, but there will be no convincing you. The human brain is a pattern-seeking organ -- you would remember those things that fit a pattern you recognize or are looking for, and forget the billions of other times. Like people who think they have clairvoyance because they reach for the phone before it rings -- they forget the thousands of other times they did not reach for the phone before it rang.

If I feel the wind on my face and at the same time the tree in front of me sways in the same direction the simplest explanation would be that the wind is blowing. I'm not an unreasonable person, neither are you. Who is correct?

I would agree with you there. But why would you adopt that explanation? Why isn't it God blowing on your face?

I believe that God does use natural processes just as we do. I manipulate paint and canvas to make a sign, He manipulates other elements as well.

There's an example of looking at nature to fit your beliefs, instead of being objective.

I've learned how to mix pigment and oil, but I haven't yet learned how to mix molecules in such a way as to make water into wine.

It's easier with grapes.

Our mixture of gasoline and oxygen in automobiles may have seemed miraculous to our great-great grandparents, does the fact that it is a natural process make the leap from wagons to cars any narrower?

Nope. But did your grandparents think that God made gas?

We know that sound waves can disorganize the structure of a dinner glass. We know that every formula can be reversed in theory. Miracles generally have an acoustic element (eg. God spoke and the world was organized). If sound can cause dis-organization why shouldn't it be able to be harnessed in such a way as to cause organization?

Because it's never been observed and it violates everything we know about sound?

The wind blew all night when the red sea parted. Perhaps it was a tornado.

Or a fib.

That part isn't as important, what is more important is the timing. The one tornado ever to cross the red sea just happened to correspond with the life or death dilemma of the Israelites.

Assuming that happened I don't think Moses was much of a documentary writer.

ANy need to continue this?

Autonemesis

Testimony, testimony, testimony. You "gleaned" the truth from these other books by comparing them to this other book over here. It's a foregone conclusion that you wouldn't "glean" something that contradicted your standard tome. The 8th article of faith is very convenient for this purpose.

Well that's very, ummm... accommodating. I'm not really trying to get you to believe anything as I am to get you to disbelieve. Faith may move mountains, but doubt will put 'em right back where they belong.

You need to disabuse yourself of this confusion between religious authority and scientific authority. They are not much alike, and you seem to not be able to see this, even though it's been explained. The Book of Mormon did not supercede the Bible or the Quran in the same way that evolution superceded Lamarckianism, or the big bang superceded steady state. They just aren't comparable in the way you attempt to do.

Autonemesis

Yes, yes! I'm glad to see you ridicule my alien scenario. Now you understand exactly how I regard Mormonism. That's why I argue about it here, and avoid it like the plague with family. Thanks Mike, it's been great!

Mike

Kind Bud, Phlebas. I have also enjoyed our discussions. If you hadn't noticed I wasn't trying to convince you that there is a God so much as I was trying to argue that you and I aren't fundamentally, biologically, categorically different. Yes, there are differences between the claims of science and religion. But the adherents to each are not fundamentally different in their ways of knowing. But as long as this commonality is denied, the battles will rage on with words, politics, and perhaps even more (as in the past). I'm just looking for a little harmony here. Common ground not only allows for rational discussion of the implications of a philosophy (independent of historical movements), it allows for political stability and peace (see, I'm not so far off topic). But we couldn't even get to an examination of the implications of the fundamental philosophies, because you could not even acknowledge that our methods of examination were comparable. And that is what you will find on page after page of this forum. We are speaking different languages only because we think we are. This denial of common ground by both camps is an illusion. Deny it if you want, but you sometimes use something like religious faith, and I sometimes use something like scientific cynicism. People are people. But I can't say I didn't try....

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Mike ]</p>

Autonemesis

This is very aggravating. No, I do not use anything resembling religious faith. Never have, and I have no reason to expect that I ever will. That you - and my family, and other Mormons, and Christians in general - refuse to take me seriously is the source of a lot of acrimony. How am I supposed to react when you dismiss the central issue that matters, claiming I don't really hold to it?

I have never experienced religious faith, or used it, Mike. Never. I faked it when I was a minor, because the parents expected it, and because I really did want to fit in with peers at church. But I was conscious of the fakery all along, and despite my hope - and assurances from everyone in the church - that going through the motions would eventually bring me to faith, it never happened. And years later I have no expectation that it ever will. I imagine my experience in this is very much like what other infidels here have gone through.

So if you're looking for some harmony, start taking us seriously when we say we have no faith. NO FAITH.

Mike

I seem to have touched a nerve. I do take you very seriously Kind Bud, or else I wouldn't spend so much time and energy here. Phlebas claimed to have exercised faith, and said it didn't work. Now Phlebas apparently rejects faith. So if you have never used faith your experience may not be comparable to Phlebas' and other atheists who claim to have tried it the "Christian way."

But there are at least three possible implications that arise from your assertion. 1. You are correct, and thus have never even tried to find the Christian God in the way prescribed by the Christian God; which means that any positive denial by you of the possibility that I have found him is based on a belief (not experience) that He cannot be found through faith. This believe that has no basis in your own personal experience has some resemblance to faith. I know you hate the terminology, and I apologize, but there is some subjective decision on your part to believe in your philosophy. 2. You may have experienced faith, and now disbelieve, like Phlebas, that it was profitable. If this were true, then taking you seriously may be a mistake. But more importantly, it calls into question the definition of faith. Faith implies belief in something that has not yet been seen. It is therefore not dependent on whether it "works" or not by bringing about the desired results. When your faith has brought you concrete evidence, you no longer are reliant upon faith, you now have knowledge. But if you abandon your faith because you have not had concrete evidence, then either faith IS dependent on concrete evidence, or you did not have faith. So when Phlebas says that faith did not work, I am left to conclude that either his faith was improperly defined, or he did not have faith. His abandonment of faith based on the lack of results negates the very premise upon which faith rests. His definition of "faith" disappears along with his faith. 3. We are in fact defining faith differently.

This last possibility may be the more correct of the three. My definition of faith rests on the assumption that a person sees some evidence (not the actual source of the evidence), and makes an attribution about the source of the evidence even though the source remains unseen. Thus, while no one has "seen" gravity, we all have seen it in action. While no one has "seen" the wind, we all have seen it in action. This is something LIKE faith. Gravity, though it works every time, is still a construct, and is still dependent on a circular definition or an operational definition (What is gravity? The attraction between two objects of mass. What explains the attraction between two objects of mass? Gravity.) So you and I have both seen evidence for forces that have not yet been clearly defined, but only described and labeled. You make one attribution as to the cause, I make another. Our belief in our relative attributions can be called faith. The most fundamental of these forces that has not yet been explained or defined is the existence of life. You make attributions to some as yet undefined force of nature that resulted in the spontaneous eruption of life from dead matter, I choose to attribute the existence of life to a never ending cycle of procreation. My explanation presupposes that there was no beginning--that may seem problematic to you--but your explanation has provided no observed or defined mechanism, or even observed instances--and that is problematic for me. So which attribution relies on faith? Shall we throw the word "faith" out and just talk about attributions? It doesn't matter to me. Our processes by which we made our conclusions are similar--even though our attributions are diverse. You can't bring yourself to believe in God, and I can't bring my self to believe in spontaneous and random generation of life from non-life (by the way, Stanley Miller's published experiment was both subject to a retraction by the journal that published it, and dependent on manipulation by an intelligent designer [Miller himself]). There remains no evidence for your apparent beliefs about the beginnings of life.

Respectfully,

Mike.

P.S. Were you a Mormon? Or are you just related to some Mormons?

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Mike ]

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Mike ]</p>

Autonemesis

Yes, you did hit a nerve. My Mom does the same thing ("Oh, you're not really an atheist, you're just a questioning soul..."), only she's Mom and so I cut her a lot of slack. You, on the other hand...

Wasn't it Mark Twain who wrote "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." I think so. Google thinks so.

We really don't have a good explanation for gravity, if I understand the current state of affairs. We have a model that lets us predict its effects to a high degree of accuracy, but where originates or how it is transmitted it is still a mystery with little physical evidence to go on.

Well, if you want to muddy up what the word faith means, I suppose so. A speculative working assumption about the cause of gravity would be very tentative at this stage. In order to be useful at such an early stage, it would have to make a clear prediction about effects that can be observed and tested. That isn't what I have understood religious faith to mean. While a theoretical conjecture might require setting aside doubt to explore the implications, religious faith wants to never look back.


My name is still on the rolls, if that's what you mean.

Mike

You're description of the interaction with your mom reminded me of a conversation I had with my cousin. We were best friends growing up, and I still love him like a brother. In late adolescence he defined himself as a homosexual and left the church. We were talking one day and he said of the extended family "they still say 'oh he's just questioning his faith,' but if anyone asks, Mike, tell them I've APOSTATIZED!"

My office partner also left her husband and the church at about the same time. We've had a friendly religious discussion where we agreed more than disagreed. We seem to be getting along nicely.

I guess my point is that when we understand where the other is coming from, there's no need for anger, resentment, tension, etc. I respect your right to disbelieve, I only question the implication (not necessarily given by you, but often given by others in this forum--christian and non-christian alike) that one or the other of us possesses superior reasoning power.

But I don't think my use of the word "faith" muddies it up. Mark Twain's definition obviously doesn't resonate with christians. So to define "religious" or "christian" faith, I think a biblical definition would be best: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Note the use of the words "substance" and "evidence" this is no appeal to blindness. I think Joseph Smith defined faith as mental exertion, or work accomplished by mental exertion rather than by physical force. But faith also often involves physical work, because without faith that our efforts will bring fruit, we would not make the effort. J.S. also described this process, as well as James in the Bible: "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." And "faith without works is dead."

But is it possible that someone could move a mountain by mental exertion, and through a simple command? I've never seen it done, but there are a lot of things that have been done that I've never witnessed myself. But suppose someone did move a mountain by mental exertion. The movement of the mountain would first be seen in the mind's eye, this would be the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. Then when the mountain physically moved, faith would become dormant (to use the words of Alma), and knowledge would replace it.

But someone on here said that if faith moves mountains, doubt puts them right back where they were (or something to that effect). I agree, doubt and faith can't exist in the same mind at the same time. So if the mountain isn't moving, perhaps faith isn't really there. Perhaps that sounds like a cop-out, but let me give a concrete example of how I think "faith" works more often:

If the Wright brothers hadn't been able to first mentally take flight, they wouldn't have been able to realize it physically.

Remember how no one believed that a 4 minute mile was humanly possible? Then someone ran it, and all of a sudden, people were breaking the 4 minute barrier right and left. But it had never been done up until that time, because no one believed it could be done. Same principle, but what if mental exertion could accomplish things as well?
That seems to be what the Bible suggests.

Anyway, I think one of the most important distinctions between Atheism and Theism is what I mentioned in my previous post: The question of the beginning of life.... I say there's no evidence for it. To me the fossil record is like discovering evidence of a diverse scattering of seeds. When we realize, for example, that a tree began as a seed, we can either hypothesize that the seed can be further deconstructed by going back in time until we find that it was zapped into existence by some cosmic lightning, evolved into a seed and then further developed into a tree, or we can simply conclude that it dropped from another tree somewhere and leave it at that. One of the strongest arguments of evolutionists is the similarities in neonatal development across species. We look the same at a few days of development as a neonatal fish, then later we look like a neonatal frog, etc. But the whole set of instructions were already there from day one, we had no choice but to continue to develop until we popped out at nine months as a human.

Similarly, it seems to me when looking at the fossil record, as well as at genetic evidence, that the instrucions were already written in the DNA from the beginning. The fossil record suggests that all of the phylum appeared on earth in distinct rudimentary forms. There is no evidence that fish became mammals, but we have evidence of primative fish types and primitive mammal types and primitive bird types, etc. etc. The fossil record, to me, is consistent with the Genesis assertion that God placed SEEDS in the earth. Whether those seeds were primative forms that were to develop into more complex forms, or whether they were intact and timed to "spring forth" at the right moment in earth's development, I don't know. But the seed hypothesis seems more consistent with observation then cosmic lightning striking a primordial swamp.

Anyway,

over and out.

Starboy

WJ what are you trying to accomplish here?