I don't think atheists care about evidence. Evidence just means that one has something to reason from. What atheists demand is absolute proof, and at a level that can't be given for anything. I would bet that if for some reason atheists didn't like science, no amount of scientific "proof" wood suffice to prove to them that science works; because they would demand absolute proof, which can't be gotten.
In thinking about the two other threads I initiative over the last few days, and the atheist take on my arguments and their 'dicing' of my thought processes, and their refusal to acknowledge standard resiances that I give all the time, I find the following state of affairs to be a good description of the current state of dialectic between atheists and theists on the boards:
(1) Theists have a vast array of knowledge and argumentation built up over 2000 years, which basically amounts to a ton evidence for the existence of God. It's not absolute proof, because true, sure enough, actual absolute proof is just damn hard to come by on anything--even most scientific things; which is why they invented inductive reasoning. Science accepts correlation's as signs of caudal relationships, it doesn't ever actually observe causality at work. But that kind of indicative relationship is not good for atheists when a God argument is involved. Then it must be absolute demonstration and direct observation.
(2) This double standard always works in favor of the atheist and never in favor of the theist. I suspect that's because Theists are trying to persuade atheists that a certain state of affairs is the case, and at the same time we are apt to be less critical of our own reasons for believing that. Atheists make a habit of denial and pride themselves on it.
Why is it a double standard? Because when it works to establish a unified system of naturalistic observation the atheist is only too happy to appeal to "we never see" "we always see" and "there is a strong correlation." We never see a man raised from the dead. We never see a severed limb restored. The correlation's between naturalistic cause and effect are rock solid and always work, so science gives us truth, and religion doesn't. But when those same kinds of correlation's are used to support a God argument, they are just no darn good. to wit: we never see anything pop out of absolute noting, we never even see absolute nothing, even QM particles seem to emerge from prior conditions such as Vacuum flux, so they are not really proof of something form nothing. But O tisg tosh, that doesn't prove anything and certainly QM proves that the universe could just pop up out of nothing!
(3) "laws of physics" are not real laws, they are only descriptions, aggregates of our observations. So they can't be used to argue for God in any way. But, when it comes to miraculous claims, the observations of such must always be discounted because they violate our standard norm for observation, and we must always assume they are wrong no matter how well documented or how inexplicable. We must always assume that only naturalistic events can happen, even though the whole concept of a naturalism can only be nothing more than an aggregate of our observations about the world; and surely they are anything but exhaustive. Thus one wood think that since our observations are not enough to establish immutable laws of the universe, they would not be enough to establish a metaphysics which says that only material realms exist and only materially caused events can happen! But guess again...!
(4) The Theistic panoply of argumentation is a going concern. Quentin Smith, the top atheist philosopher says that 80% of philosophers today are theists. But when one uses philosophy in a God argument, it's just some left over junk from the middle ages; even though my God arguments are based upon S 5 modal logic which didn't exist even before the 1960s and most of the major God arguers are still living.
(5) They pooh pooh philosophy because it doesn't' produce objective concrete results. But they can't produce any scientific evidence to answer the most basic philosophical questions, and the more adept atheists will admit that it isn't the job of science to answer those questions anyway. Scientific evidence cannot give us answers on the most basic philosophical questions, rather than seeing this as a failing in science (or better yet, evidence of differing magister) they rather just chalice it up to the failing of the question! The question is no good because our methods dot' answer it!
(6) What it appears to me is the case is this; some methods are better tailed for philosophy. Those methods are more likely to yield a God argument and even a rational warrant for belief, because God is a philosophical question and not a scientific one. God is a matter of faint, after all, and in matters of faith a rational warrant is the best one should even hope for. But that's not good enough for atheists, they disparage the whole idea of a philosophical question (at least the scientistic ones do--that's not all of them, but some) yet they want an open ended universe with no hard and fast truth and no hard and fast morality!
(7)So it seems that if one accepts certain methods one can prove God within the nature of that language game. now of course one can reject those language games and choose others that are not quite as cozy with the divine and that's OK too. Neither approach is indicative of one's intelligence or one's morality. But, it does mean that since it may be just as rational given the choice of axioms and methodologies, then what that taps out to is belief in God is rationally warranted--it may not be only rational conclusion but it is one rational conclusion Now I know some of the more intelligent atheists will say "hey I'm fine with that." But then when push comes to shove they will be back again insisting that the lack of absolute proof leaves the method that yields God arguments in doubt, rather than the other way around. I don't see why either should be privileged. Why can't we just say that one method is better suited for one kind of question, the other for the other?
and if one of them says 'why should I ask those questions?' I say 'why shouldn't we leave the choice of questions to the questioner?
42 comments:
"Why can't we just say that one method is better suited for one kind of question, the other for the other?"
That might be fine, except the God arguments are so often presented as if they are indeed empirical assertions; along the lines of "God exists and you should live your life in accordance with that fact."
When a Christian tells me that God really exists and that my life would be better if I believed in God, while my own experience tells me otherwise, is it unreasonable of me to demand some evidence?
That might be fine, except the God arguments are so often presented as if they are indeed empirical assertions; along the lines of "God exists and you should live your life in accordance with that fact."
Not when I do them!
When a Christian tells me that God really exists and that my life would be better if I believed in God, while my own experience tells me otherwise, is it unreasonable of me to demand some evidence?
what can I say? My experinces tell me that's true. So obviously you didn't go in the same I did or something. I've found something in it you didn't.
you want that negate the reality of God so you can dismiss it as something anamorphic, like my insanity or something, but I don't see any reason to assume that's not the fault with your experience.
what's the difference in your Christian experience and mine?
where you a charismatic? did you have baptism of the holy spirit? did you speak in tongues?
"Not when I do them!"
Not always, but you;re not most Christians.
"you want that negate the reality of God so you can dismiss it as something anamorphic, like my insanity or something..."
Not at all, but when you assert that the consequence of my unbelief must be negative (which you frequently do) I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask you to prove it.
"what's the difference in your Christian experience and mine?"
That's the big question isn't it? We can't access other people's experiences, so if you're going to go around asserting something like th existence of God you're going to need something more than your own personal, internalized experience. Hence the atheists demand for some kind of objective (ie mutually accessible) evidence.
"where you a charismatic? did you have baptism of the holy spirit? did you speak in tongues?"
Are you saying that anyone who doesn't experience those things as you have isn't a "real Christian?" My Grandfather (Rev. Abe as he was know to his parishoners) would not have been impressed...
"Not when I do them!"
Not always, but you;re not most Christians.
I'm not trying to persuade you to be a general christian, I'm trying persuade you to be my kind of Christian.;-)
really that's an anecdotal argument. show me what percentage of Christians believe, show me what creed its in. What does it matter if a bunch pew sitters bleieve something,that's not going tom make it the essence of the faith.
"you want that negate the reality of God so you can dismiss it as something anamorphic, like my insanity or something..."
Not at all, but when you assert that the consequence of my unbelief must be negative (which you frequently do) I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask you to prove it.
I assert nothing about the consequences of YOUR beliefs or unbelief. I have quoted the studies, but they are statistical sample they are not about you. we are talking about averages not specific personalities.
"what's the difference in your Christian experience and mine?"
That's the big question isn't it? We can't access other people's experiences, so if you're going to go around asserting something like the existence of God you're going to need something more than your own personal, internalized experience.
yea like 200 studies! which I have.
Hence the atheists demand for some kind of objective (ie mutually accessible) evidence.
hello! 200 studies from academic journals! you call that subjective and not accessible? you are not helpless, go look one up.
what is this thing about atheists they all act like cripples, not one of then can look up a study. I found the studies. I went and found the, why can't you?
"where you a charismatic? did you have baptism of the holy spirit? did you speak in tongues?"
Are you saying that anyone who doesn't experience those things as you have isn't a "real Christian?"
O did we define a set of experiences as the nature of Christianity? when did we do that? I never said having these experiences is the definition of being a Christian, but they do show that the experiences are possible within Christian belief and that said belief is better in that way than un-belief.
I'm so sick of atheists being unable to think in social scinece terms. I've have proved that belief can produce a certain kind of experience that leads to a certain kind of life, and that not having such beliefs tends to mean one doesn't have have that kind of life. That's all it proves.
now go think about words like 'tends to." you not stupid you can figure this out.
My Grandfather (Rev. Abe as he was know to his parishioners) would not have been impressed...
I'm sure Reverend Abe was a find gentleman, someday perhaps I'll get to meet him and he'll probably kick my ass in heaven.
"I assert nothing about the consequences of YOUR beliefs or unbelief."
You've forgotten the long conversation we had about Hell; you told me you believe that not seeking God means that I will cease to exist when I die, whereas you, as a believer, will live on. I'd call that judgement on the consequences of my belief...
"yea like 200 studies! which I have."
The meaning of which you overstate, it seems to me...and to a lot of others who have had this discussion with you. (I read some of the exchange you had with quantum Troll on this point, he makes some excellent points...)
"what is this thing about atheists they all act like cripples, not one of then can look up a study. I found the studies. I went and found the, why can't you?"
The ones we have been able to find don't seem to be saying what you keep claiming they are saying. The conclusions you draw from them are not as indisputable as you like to make them out to be, and I think you know it, so can we dispense with the insults (cripples? really?) and try to have a grown up conversation again?
"O did we define a set of experiences as the nature of Christianity? when did we do that? I never said having these experiences is the definition of being a Christian, but they do show that the experiences are possible within Christian belief and that said belief is better in that way than un-belief."
Why "better?" What's "better" about speaking in tongues? That charismatic stuff always just creeped me out. I found being around charismatics to be very uncomfortable and disturbing, (and not in the good way that shakes you up and makes you re-examine your beliefs or leads to new insights.) It simply didn't feel healthy for me, regardless of whether it was good for you or for anyone else.
That kind of thing was never part of the Mennonite tradition I grew up in, by the way, which is why I mention my Grandfather.
'I'm so sick of atheists being unable to think in social scinece terms."
I'm so sick of the way you dodge legitimate questions with that kind of smug condescension.
"I've have proved that belief can produce a certain kind of experience that leads to a certain kind of life, and that not having such beliefs tends to mean one doesn't have have that kind of life. That's all it proves."
What "kind of life" do you mean exactly? One without charismatic experiences? Why do you assume that such a life is better for everyone? That sounds like a subjective value judgement, not an empirical conclusion...
Meta said:O "did we define a set of experiences as the nature of Christianity? when did we do that? I never said having these experiences is the definition of being a Christian, but they do show that the experiences are possible within Christian belief and that said belief is better in that way than un-belief."
Why "better?" What's "better" about speaking in tongues? That charismatic stuff always just creeped me out.
I was not referring to tongues as better but to the result of having mystical experience; the transformative power.
I found being around charismatics to be very uncomfortable and disturbing, (and not in the good way that shakes you up and makes you re-examine your beliefs or leads to new insights.) It simply didn't feel healthy for me, regardless of whether it was good for you or for anyone else.
prejudice, bigotry. I felt that way at first and that feeling never left entirely but that's a lot going on. Partly its from their lack of education, partly from their difference in culture (most of the pentecostal types are very rural) I can still feel that way sometimes (partly their politics).
Charismatic churches are live wires, they can have all kinds of things going on. It's a spiritual battle and they are not always on the right side. It's an emotionally charged atmosphere and that can be scary.
That kind of thing was never part of the Mennonite tradition I grew up in, by the way, which is why I mention my Grandfather.
Mennonite! O my God. I didn't know you were Mennonite, maybe I forgot if you told me. That's cool I love the Mennonite thing. The reasonable end of the radical wing of the reformation.
'I'm so sick of atheists being unable to think in social scinece terms."
I'm so sick of the way you dodge legitimate questions with that kind of smug condescension.
fair enough, what am I dodging?
"I've have proved that belief can produce a certain kind of experience that leads to a certain kind of life, and that not having such beliefs tends to mean one doesn't have have that kind of life. That's all it proves."
What "kind of life" do you mean exactly? One without charismatic experiences?
life transformation, self actualization, the things in the studies. Those experiences are not the same as the charismatic deal but some studies show the charismatic type of experience also yield the same experiences I talk about and their results. so the charismatic thing is part of the mix when I speak of "RE--religious experience."
that's not to say you have to have the charismatic experiences to have the benefits of RE.
Why do you assume that such a life is better for everyone? That sounds like a subjective value judgement, not an empirical conclusion...
what does the word "tendency" mean? go look it up. When a sociologist says "X% of some type of person tends to be this way or that way is he saying every single person in category does this?
I use these terms with scientific precision you need to figure out what they mean.
Meta: before"I assert nothing about the consequences of YOUR beliefs or unbelief."
Hermit:
You've forgotten the long conversation we had about Hell; you told me you believe that not seeking God means that I will cease to exist when I die, whereas you, as a believer, will live on. I'd call that judgement on the consequences of my belief...
(1) any such statement is hypothetical since I am not given to be your judge, that is God's department I'm only speaking generally about what I believe.
(2) you are glossing over my actual statement and changing the meaning in a small but important way: I say anyone why dies in enmity with God, not just "not seeking, although not seeking might be construed as an effect of enmity that something God alone can know.
Meta before:"yea like 200 studies! which I have."
Hermit
The meaning of which you overstate, it seems to me...
having not read even a summary of a single one. I've talked to the major researcher a hundred times.
and to a lot of others who have had this discussion with you. (I read some of the exchange you had with quantum Troll on this point, he makes some excellent points...)
Sure he does. He's a very bright guy, I consider him a friend. But hes' wrong.
"what is this thing about atheists they all act like cripples, not one of then can look up a study. I found the studies. I went and found the, why can't you?"
The ones we have been able to find don't seem to be saying what you keep claiming they are saying.
thta's total bull shit. firs tof all who is "we?" Did you actually find any yourself? Secondly, the one's people on carm have found are not really in the 200 or not major studies.
thirdly they are not lining up my statements about specific studies. studies. For example let's say they find the Wuthnow study, which they have not and I've put the source up for them every time but never look for it. I've told over and over again it was the first major one. they never look for it.
so let's say I say Wuthnow does x, y, and z but not p, d, or q.
then I say in general "I have t200 studies." they don't go "O let's he's W does x,y, z they look at it's part of the 200 it doesn't' God exists so it must say what he thinks it does.
they do not look at what I say THAT PARTICULAR STUDY SAYS!
Of cousre I'm speakig in generalizations when say I have 200 studies. I have 300 I have a bunch more, I'm making a conservative estimate and generalizing.
I have studies that say exactly what I said they say.They do't all say the very same things, but in general they back my conclusions. not every one of them backs the same conclusion in the same way.
The conclusions you draw from them are not as indisputable as you like to make them out to be, and I think you know it, so can we dispense with the insults (cripples? really?) and try to have a grown up conversation again?
yes they are. no atheist on the net is willing to argue with them point for point and go study by study. no one is willing to do the research I've done bu they all want want to tell me what the things they have never read say.
Meta: before"I assert nothing about the consequences of YOUR beliefs or unbelief."
Hermit:
You've forgotten the long conversation we had about Hell; you told me you believe that not seeking God means that I will cease to exist when I die, whereas you, as a believer, will live on. I'd call that judgement on the consequences of my belief...
(1) any such statement is hypothetical since I am not given to be your judge, that is God's department I'm only speaking generally about what I believe.
(2) you are glossing over my actual statement and changing the meaning in a small but important way: I say anyone why dies in enmity with God, not just "not seeking, although not seeking might be construed as an effect of enmity that something God alone can know.
Meta before:"yea like 200 studies! which I have."
Hermit
The meaning of which you overstate, it seems to me...
having not read even a summary of a single one. I've talked to the major researcher a hundred times.
and to a lot of others who have had this discussion with you. (I read some of the exchange you had with quantum Troll on this point, he makes some excellent points...)
Sure he does. He's a very bright guy, I consider him a friend. But hes' wrong.
"what is this thing about atheists they all act like cripples, not one of then can look up a study. I found the studies. I went and found the, why can't you?"
The ones we have been able to find don't seem to be saying what you keep claiming they are saying.
thta's total bull shit. firs tof all who is "we?" Did you actually find any yourself? Secondly, the one's people on carm have found are not really in the 200 or not major studies.
thirdly they are not lining up my statements about specific studies. studies. For example let's say they find the Wuthnow study, which they have not and I've put the source up for them every time but never look for it. I've told over and over again it was the first major one. they never look for it.
so let's say I say Wuthnow does x, y, and z but not p, d, or q.
then I say in general "I have t200 studies." they don't go "O let's he's W does x,y, z they look at it's part of the 200 it doesn't' God exists so it must say what he thinks it does.
they do not look at what I say THAT PARTICULAR STUDY SAYS!
Of cousre I'm speakig in generalizations when say I have 200 studies. I have 300 I have a bunch more, I'm making a conservative estimate and generalizing.
I have studies that say exactly what I said they say.They do't all say the very same things, but in general they back my conclusions. not every one of them backs the same conclusion in the same way.
The conclusions you draw from them are not as indisputable as you like to make them out to be, and I think you know it, so can we dispense with the insults (cripples? really?) and try to have a grown up conversation again?
yes they are. no atheist on the net is willing to argue with them point for point and go study by study. no one is willing to do the research I've done bu they all want want to tell me what the things they have never read say.
Meta: before"I assert nothing about the consequences of YOUR beliefs or unbelief."
Hermit:
You've forgotten the long conversation we had about Hell; you told me you believe that not seeking God means that I will cease to exist when I die, whereas you, as a believer, will live on. I'd call that judgement on the consequences of my belief...
(1) any such statement is hypothetical since I am not given to be your judge, that is God's department I'm only speaking generally about what I believe.
(2) you are glossing over my actual statement and changing the meaning in a small but important way: I say anyone why dies in enmity with God, not just "not seeking, although not seeking might be construed as an effect of enmity that something God alone can know.
Meta before:"yea like 200 studies! which I have."
Hermit
The meaning of which you overstate, it seems to me...
having not read even a summary of a single one. I've talked to the major researcher a hundred times.
and to a lot of others who have had this discussion with you. (I read some of the exchange you had with quantum Troll on this point, he makes some excellent points...)
Sure he does. He's a very bright guy, I consider him a friend. But hes' wrong.
"what is this thing about atheists they all act like cripples, not one of then can look up a study. I found the studies. I went and found the, why can't you?"
The ones we have been able to find don't seem to be saying what you keep claiming they are saying.
thta's total bull shit. firs tof all who is "we?" Did you actually find any yourself? Secondly, the one's people on carm have found are not really in the 200 or not major studies.
thirdly they are not lining up my statements about specific studies. studies. For example let's say they find the Wuthnow study, which they have not and I've put the source up for them every time but never look for it. I've told over and over again it was the first major one. they never look for it.
so let's say I say Wuthnow does x, y, and z but not p, d, or q.
then I say in general "I have t200 studies." they don't go "O let's he's W does x,y, z they look at it's part of the 200 it doesn't' God exists so it must say what he thinks it does.
they do not look at what I say THAT PARTICULAR STUDY SAYS!
Of cousre I'm speakig in generalizations when say I have 200 studies. I have 300 I have a bunch more, I'm making a conservative estimate and generalizing.
I have studies that say exactly what I said they say.They do't all say the very same things, but in general they back my conclusions. not every one of them backs the same conclusion in the same way.
The conclusions you draw from them are not as indisputable as you like to make them out to be, and I think you know it, so can we dispense with the insults (cripples? really?) and try to have a grown up conversation again?
yes they are. no atheist on the net is willing to argue with them point for point and go study by study. no one is willing to do the research I've done bu they all want want to tell me what the things they have never read say.
"prejudice, bigotry"
How so? I said that regardless of whether or not it's good for you or anyone else it just didn't feel good for me, personally.
And that's kind of the point; if all you can appeal to in the end is the kind of evidence that remains open to interpretation and personal, subjective, internal meaning then you shouldn't be surprised that other people interpret that evidence differently from you.
Jesus told us to go into our closet and pray in private and not to put on public displays of piety, so for the stricter Mennonites all that charismatic stuff is evidence of human vanity, not of anything divine. For them Gods' voice s still and small and can't be heard in all that shouting...
I won't be sidedtracked into a debate about your famous studies, by the way, you're much too volatile on that subject. (Believe it or not I did look up one or two of them a while ago (they really aren't as easy to find as you like to pretend they are by the way, apart from synopses.) But then you don't claim they constitute a scientific proof of God's existence anyway, do you? Maslow obviously didn't thinks so or he wouldn't have been an atheist...
prejudice, bigotry"
How so? I said that regardless of whether or not it's good for you or anyone else it just didn't feel good for me, personally.
sorry. A lot of people have problems with it because its not what they know. They problems expressing emotions with others and suddenly they are in a group where everyone is expressing emotions, and probably emotions they don't feel, that can be very disorientating and uncomfortable.
And that's kind of the point; if all you can appeal to in the end is the kind of evidence that remains open to interpretation and personal, subjective, internal meaning then you shouldn't be surprised that other people interpret that evidence differently from you.
you shouldn't be afraid of emotions and subjectivity becuase that's all we have. Objectivity is pretense. You can't be objective, it's not possible. humans do not have objectivity.
the subject/object dichotomy is a mistake.
Jesus told us to go into our closet and pray in private and not to put on public displays of piety, so for the stricter Mennonites all that charismatic stuff is evidence of human vanity, not of anything divine. For them Gods' voice s still and small and can't be heard in all that shouting...
missing specific context. Pentecostals thought their way through all of that way way back. The extrovertive kind of worship is as old as the hills. David did it.
I won't be sidedtracked into a debate about your famous studies, by the way, you're much too volatile on that subject.
too late, we already hd it. ;-)
you haven't read a single age of one of them. I know that stuff better than anyone. I'm the worlds leading expert on my book. Not the expert on the subject but on the book I wrote. I'm the only expert on that.
(Believe it or not I did look up one or two of them a while ago (they really aren't as easy to find as you like to pretend they are by the way, apart from synopses.)
I don't pretend they are easy to find. That's the whole point. The carm atheists wont easy so they don't bother. I know they aren't easy or they would be on line and I'd link to them.
but which one's did you look at? As I recall from some discussion you didn't actually look at one's I list.
But then you don't claim they constitute a scientific proof of God's existence anyway, do you? Maslow obviously didn't thinks so or he wouldn't have been an atheist...
but Maslow knew they doesn't have to. my arguments aren't based on that. Demanding proof of God is just a childish mistake. that's the big problem that atheists get into. that's why the mistaken fallacy of atheism exists in the first place. There are people who don't understand knowledge an who think the form of knowing is scientific empiricism.
you still refuse to look for or understand Maslow's statment "the religious bleiever and the atheist can go quite a ways down the path together" and "I have found enough evidenc ein my work to prove that the man who can't see the symbolic or hte supernatual is blind to an aspect of life."
prejudice, bigotry"
How so? I said that regardless of whether or not it's good for you or anyone else it just didn't feel good for me, personally.
sorry. A lot of people have problems with it because its not what they know. They problems expressing emotions with others and suddenly they are in a group where everyone is expressing emotions, and probably emotions they don't feel, that can be very disorientating and uncomfortable.
And that's kind of the point; if all you can appeal to in the end is the kind of evidence that remains open to interpretation and personal, subjective, internal meaning then you shouldn't be surprised that other people interpret that evidence differently from you.
you shouldn't be afraid of emotions and subjectivity becuase that's all we have. Objectivity is pretense. You can't be objective, it's not possible. humans do not have objectivity.
the subject/object dichotomy is a mistake.
Jesus told us to go into our closet and pray in private and not to put on public displays of piety, so for the stricter Mennonites all that charismatic stuff is evidence of human vanity, not of anything divine. For them Gods' voice s still and small and can't be heard in all that shouting...
missing specific context. Pentecostals thought their way through all of that way way back. The extrovertive kind of worship is as old as the hills. David did it.
I won't be sidedtracked into a debate about your famous studies, by the way, you're much too volatile on that subject.
too late, we already hd it. ;-)
you haven't read a single age of one of them. I know that stuff better than anyone. I'm the worlds leading expert on my book. Not the expert on the subject but on the book I wrote. I'm the only expert on that.
(Believe it or not I did look up one or two of them a while ago (they really aren't as easy to find as you like to pretend they are by the way, apart from synopses.)
I don't pretend they are easy to find. That's the whole point. The carm atheists wont easy so they don't bother. I know they aren't easy or they would be on line and I'd link to them.
but which one's did you look at? As I recall from some discussion you didn't actually look at one's I list.
But then you don't claim they constitute a scientific proof of God's existence anyway, do you? Maslow obviously didn't thinks so or he wouldn't have been an atheist...
but Maslow knew they doesn't have to. my arguments aren't based on that. Demanding proof of God is just a childish mistake. that's the big problem that atheists get into. that's why the mistaken fallacy of atheism exists in the first place. There are people who don't understand knowledge an who think the form of knowing is scientific empiricism.
you still refuse to look for or understand Maslow's statment "the religious bleiever and the atheist can go quite a ways down the path together" and "I have found enough evidenc ein my work to prove that the man who can't see the symbolic or hte supernatual is blind to an aspect of life."
prejudice, bigotry"
How so? I said that regardless of whether or not it's good for you or anyone else it just didn't feel good for me, personally.
sorry. A lot of people have problems with it because its not what they know. They problems expressing emotions with others and suddenly they are in a group where everyone is expressing emotions, and probably emotions they don't feel, that can be very disorientating and uncomfortable.
And that's kind of the point; if all you can appeal to in the end is the kind of evidence that remains open to interpretation and personal, subjective, internal meaning then you shouldn't be surprised that other people interpret that evidence differently from you.
you shouldn't be afraid of emotions and subjectivity becuase that's all we have. Objectivity is pretense. You can't be objective, it's not possible. humans do not have objectivity.
the subject/object dichotomy is a mistake.
Jesus told us to go into our closet and pray in private and not to put on public displays of piety, so for the stricter Mennonites all that charismatic stuff is evidence of human vanity, not of anything divine. For them Gods' voice s still and small and can't be heard in all that shouting...
missing specific context. Pentecostals thought their way through all of that way way back. The extrovertive kind of worship is as old as the hills. David did it.
I won't be sidedtracked into a debate about your famous studies, by the way, you're much too volatile on that subject.
too late, we already hd it. ;-)
you haven't read a single age of one of them. I know that stuff better than anyone. I'm the worlds leading expert on my book. Not the expert on the subject but on the book I wrote. I'm the only expert on that.
(Believe it or not I did look up one or two of them a while ago (they really aren't as easy to find as you like to pretend they are by the way, apart from synopses.)
I don't pretend they are easy to find. That's the whole point. The carm atheists wont easy so they don't bother. I know they aren't easy or they would be on line and I'd link to them.
but which one's did you look at? As I recall from some discussion you didn't actually look at one's I list.
But then you don't claim they constitute a scientific proof of God's existence anyway, do you? Maslow obviously didn't thinks so or he wouldn't have been an atheist...
but Maslow knew they doesn't have to. my arguments aren't based on that. Demanding proof of God is just a childish mistake. that's the big problem that atheists get into. that's why the mistaken fallacy of atheism exists in the first place. There are people who don't understand knowledge an who think the form of knowing is scientific empiricism.
you still refuse to look for or understand Maslow's statment "the religious bleiever and the atheist can go quite a ways down the path together" and "I have found enough evidenc ein my work to prove that the man who can't see the symbolic or hte supernatual is blind to an aspect of life."
"you shouldn't be afraid of emotions and subjectivity becuase that's all we have."
I'm certainly not afraid of emotions or subjectivity, I'm just saying that if we're going to come to agreement about certain questions we need to have evidence which is accessible to all of us equally. I can't rely on your subjective, emotional experience to inform me reliably about the existence of God.
"which one's did you look at? As I recall from some discussion you didn't actually look at one's I list."
They were from a list you posted on CARM. I don't recall which ones exactly, and I didn't bother to bookmark them. But I did read them.
' Demanding proof of God is just a childish mistake. that's the big problem that atheists get into. that's why the mistaken fallacy of atheism exists in the first place. There are people who don't understand knowledge an who think the form of knowing is scientific empiricism."
Bigotry and prejudice? ;-) Some of us understand knowledge in a different way than you do. Not believing in God does not mean one is blind to symbolism or rejects emotion and subjectivity.
You get upset that people ask for evidence of God, but I think some of them get upset with you and especially with many of your less erudite Christian brethren, who appear to be asserting the objective existence of something called God and in the process telling us we are lost, fallen, going to hell, bound for oblivion, tending to live a less fulfilled life, or however you want to put it. Why shouldn't we ask to some evidence before accepting that kind of judgement of us? Especially those of us who have tried to live by faith in God and find we are actually happier, healthier and more fulfilled having shed that belief...
" A lot of people have problems with it because its not what they know."
I just knew it wasn't for me. The only times I feel close to anything I might consider calling God are when I'm alone, in the woods or immersed in music. All those people shouting seemed like a wedge between me and the infinite.
Different strokes and all that; One of my grandfather's favourite stories was about the guy who dies and goes to heaven where St. Peter takes him on a tour. They are admiring all the beautiful gardens and mansions, when Peter suddenly tells the man to be quiet and stay low. When asked why he replies "See those people having the picnic over there? Those are the Mennonites...they think they are the only one's here..."
You get upset that people ask for evidence of God, but I think some of them get upset with you and especially with many of your less erudite Christian brethren, who appear to be asserting the objective existence of something called God and in the process telling us we are lost, fallen, going to hell, bound for oblivion, tending to live a less fulfilled life, or however you want to put it. Why shouldn't we ask to some evidence before accepting that kind of judgement of us?
there's a ton of evidence, not proof but evidence. it's given all the time. Most of them time the answers atheists give are stupid, self serving, dishonest, ignorant and so on. Very rarely do I see a good argument that's a serious attempt to disprove a God argument. Disprove the argument not God.
Especially those of us who have tried to live by faith in God and find we are actually happier, healthier and more fulfilled having shed that belief...
That depends upon where you are coming from.. you are comparing a spiritual dead chruch experience to living spiritual experience. those apples and oranges.
you are asserting that the spiritual experience wont work because the dead experience didn't work.
I can't rely on your subjective, emotional experience to inform me reliably about the existence of God.
you don't have to, I got studies.
"there's a ton of evidence, not proof but evidence. it's given all the time. Most of them time the answers atheists give are stupid, self serving, dishonest, ignorant and so on."
How open minded of you...I've seen how you react to any serious attempt to answer your arguments...with insults like those above. We're talking about subjective evidence; by definition open to different interpretations and points of view. A different point of view is not necessarily "self serving, dishonest, ignorant..."
"That depends upon where you are coming from.. you are comparing a spiritual dead chruch experience to living spiritual experience. those apples and oranges."
You still completely misunderstand my story; I had spiritual experiences. I interpret them differently from the way you do. You accuse others of dishonesty, yet don't seem to be able to make an honest attempt yourself to appreciate an alternative point of view.
"you are asserting that the spiritual experience wont work because the dead experience didn't work."
On the cont4rary; the experience was NOT dead, it DID work, but God had nothing to do with it.
"I got studies."
Which inform us that people have transcendent experiences, not that God was responsible for those experiences.
there's a ton of evidence, not proof but evidence. it's given all the time. Most of them time the answers atheists give are stupid, self serving, dishonest, ignorant and so on."
How open minded of you...I've seen how you react to any serious attempt to answer your arguments...with insults like those above. We're talking about subjective evidence; by definition open to different interpretations and points of view. A different point of view is not necessarily "self serving, dishonest, ignorant..."
that's bull shit and you know it. Most of the time you and other atheists as well try to muddle your way out of the argument because you can't answer them. There are almost no attempts of atheists don't involve argument incredulity, argument from analogy and muddle.
yes there are some but not that many. Even the "great one" Hans the teacher man guru of carm atheism argues like simple minded snake oil salesman most of the time. He's really gotten bad. In the old days he really put a lot of effort into making the show seem important but now he doesn't even try.
he's probalby as sick of me as I am of him.
"That depends upon where you are coming from.. you are comparing a spiritual dead chruch experience to living spiritual experience. those apples and oranges."
You still completely misunderstand my story; I had spiritual experiences. I interpret them differently from the way you do. You accuse others of dishonesty, yet don't seem to be able to make an honest attempt yourself to appreciate an alternative point of view.
I recognize you probalby had spiritual experiences. I'm talking about chruch. You basically admitted you have never really experienced the charismatic thing in a chruch the way I have. I know you have been to them that's not the same thing.
"you are asserting that the spiritual experience wont work because the dead experience didn't work."
On the cont4rary; the experience was NOT dead, it DID work, but God had nothing to do with it.
that's just bull shit. it could only be God it can't be anything else.
"I got studies."
Which inform us that people have transcendent experiences, not that God was responsible for those experiences.
No, they prove that the results are real and that gives us a good reason to think that it is God.
Whole point of the studies backing Thomas Reid argument is this:
proves the criteria works and that RE fits the criteria that proves we can trust RE.
The point of studies in the the Co determinate argument is that they demonstrate the result of having the experience and that is important because it indicates that the experience is real, thus it is an experience of soemthing real.
(10 the effects are real so the cause must be real.
(2) I disprove the counter causes so it has to be God because that's all that's left.
the only reason you think i have to have a study to say "this is God" instead of extrapolating from the data is because you are so caught up in the atheist ideology of thing hood that you can't understand how to extrapolate form data, you have to have a white lab coat guy to give you permission to think.
"that's bull shit and you know it."
It's not bullshit; it's just inconvenient for you, but your intolerance of people with different opinions is not a very persuasive argument.
"I recognize you probalby had spiritual experiences. I'm talking about chruch. You basically admitted you have never really experienced the charismatic thing in a chruch the way I have."
Exactly; because I'm not you; my experiences have been different from yours and my interpretation of those experiences is also different; not less valid, not "bullshit" just different.
"(10 the effects are real so the cause must be real."
The question then is; what is the cause...
"(2) I disprove the counter causes so it has to be God because that's all that's left."
I don't think you have. Certainly not for my experiences. Quantum Troll answered this better than I can in your Doxa forum.
"the only reason you think i have to have a study to say "this is God" instead of extrapolating from the data is because you are so caught up in the atheist ideology of thing hood that you can't understand how to extrapolate form data, you have to have a white lab coat guy to give you permission to think."
I do understand how to extrapolate, and I'm not demanding a single conclusive proof. But I don't accept your extrapolation as definitive or persuasive enough to convince me that God is the only explanation. There are other possible explanations and it seems to me that you are too quick to dismiss them.
And now that you've once again chosen to become abusive and dismissive instead of thoughtfully considering what I have to say I think it's best to end this here.
I do understand how to extrapolate, and I'm not demanding a single conclusive proof. But I don't accept your extrapolation as definitive or persuasive enough to convince me that God is the only explanation. There are other possible explanations and it seems to me that you are too quick to dismiss them.
Your attitude is totally outrageous and highlight your self centers inability to think fairly while demanding that you are the very soul of tolerance.
Here I have demonstrated, with a huge unprecedented body of scientific work, hundreds of PEER REVIEWED STUDIES do understand how to extrapolate, and I'm not demanding a single conclusive proof. But I don't accept your extrapolation as definitive or persuasive enough to convince me that God is the only explanation. There are other possible explanations and it seems to me that you are too quick to dismiss them. PUBLISHED IN ACADEMIC JOURNALS
THEY ALL PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT RELIGION = TRANSFORMATIVE POWER.
YOU STILL WANT TO PRETEND THAT ITS' JUST MY LITTLE FUCKED UP MIND THAT IS PSYCHING ITSELF INT OT THINKING i HAD A GOOD TIME!
"THEY ALL PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT RELIGION = TRANSFORMATIVE POWER."
But they don't prove that ONLY religion = transformative power OR that religious feeling is a product of anything outside our own humanity.
Are we going to talk like adults or are you going to keep shouting and cursing at me?
they don't have to PROVE it! you keep forgetting Thtat rational warrant thing.
that's why arguments with atheists go in circles. you can't just accept that your rejection of belief is wrong and it's logical and rational to believe. you can't demonstrate it's irrational so you always have to forget the rational warrant clause and move it back to the level of proof because the only one and only thing atheists have going for them is the lack of ABSOLUTE poof.
"they don't have to PROVE it! you keep forgetting Thtat rational warrant thing."
I would be more persuaded by this if you didn't always act as if they DID prove it and throw these hissy fits when someone like me isn't as impressed with that rational warrant as you are. On the one hand you insist that God's existence can't be proved by the scientific method then you turn around and berate me for not accepting your 200 allegedly empirical studies as a good enough reason for me to believe in God. Which is it?
I have rational warrant for my continued suspension of belief in the existence of God. Calling me irrational, accusing me of "bullshit" and insulting my intelligence because I don't blindly accept your interpretation of those studies isn't likely to convince me you're right...
good soldier hermit. He's back against the wall, he's been reminded he doesn't' have an argument now it's to talk about how bad I am.
I've already explained how to deal with the crushing earth shattering dilemma of people with views contrary to may own having their own rational warrant. Read what i said above. you haven ot said anything to refute it.
I think I asked a reasonable question; if you're incapable of answering without resorting to insults I guess that tells us all we really need to know....
But they don't prove that ONLY religion = transformative power OR that religious feeling is a product of anything outside our own humanity.
they have to prove that.I never said religion is the only tranformative thing, but transformation is not just "getting happy" you can't minimize the importance of it by the joys of baseball or apple pie.
Are we going to talk like adults or are you going to keep shouting and cursing at me?
that's so childish. I have answering you right along in about 20 exchanges and I didn't do any of that.That's the kind of bull shit personal attack that God you banned before.
A Hermit said...
"they don't have to PROVE it! you keep forgetting Thtat rational warrant thing."
I would be more persuaded by this if you didn't always act as if they DID prove it and throw these hissy fits when someone like me isn't as impressed with that rational warrant as you are.
you need to distinction what you are talking about.You are just using terms like "proof" as though there's one thing only that needs proving. The studies prove a lot of things. I say the prove this and that you have to be careful about what you claiming they don't prove. they prove a lot.
On the one hand you insist that God's existence can't be proved by the scientific method then you turn around and berate me for not accepting your 200 allegedly empirical studies as a good enough reason for me to believe in God. Which is it?
why are they only "alleged" to be empirical when they are published in academic peer reviewed journals and the journals say they are empirical?
that's the kind of little trick that pisses me off. If we were in high school debate I would say your argument is "greasy."
I have rational warrant for my continued suspension of belief in the existence of God.
Maybe
Calling me irrational, accusing me of "bullshit" and insulting my intelligence because I don't blindly accept your interpretation of those studies isn't likely to convince me you're right...
I called one specific thing bull shit, Saying one of your arugments is irrational is tno the same as saying you are irrational.
I think a lot of these problems are cultural. You just can't understand the way Texans talk.
I meant to say "they DON"T have to prove that (that RE is the on kind of transformational experience). Sorry.
A Hermit said...
I think I asked a reasonable question; if you're incapable of answering without resorting to insults I guess that tells us all we really need to know....
I don't know where it went. Sometimes these comments just disappear.
There was one about natural causes for the phenomena of RE. I don't see where that wound up but it said it was published.
The point is I did argue that just because there's a naturalistic connection to the phenomena doesn't prove that the cause is totally naturalistic.
the atheist assumption is that RE is miraculous, that it can't have any naturalistic connection because its' a miracle. I said:
(1) it is not a miracle, it is natural
(2) God works in nature in a natural way because God created nature
(3) that can only work as an argument if there's still something about the phenomena that nature alone can't produce, but the process does not have to be totally void of naturalistic elements.
that "something" is the results, the effects (not the experience itself but result of having had it) and the inability to explain them by naturism and the extreme improbability of the whole process working by accident.
"you need to distinction what you are talking about.You are just using terms like "proof" as though there's one thing only that needs proving. The studies prove a lot of things. I say the prove this and that you have to be careful about what you claiming they don't prove. they prove a lot."
I think you keep missing the point; I'll try again. We're talking about the demand that atheists make for proof God's existence. Whatever your studies might or might not prove they do not prove God's existence. I think we are in agreement on that point?
"(1) it is not a miracle, it is natural
Exactly.
"(2) God works in nature in a natural way because God created nature"
How does God suddenly come into the picture? Nature works in a natural way; there's no need to posit anything other than nature here.
"(3) that can only work as an argument if there's still something about the phenomena that nature alone can't produce"
I'm not convinced that you have demonstrated that this is the case.
"that "something" is the results, the effects (not the experience itself but result of having had it) and the inability to explain them by naturism and the extreme improbability of the whole process working by accident."
It seems to me that they are quite easily explained by natural processes; certainly my own experiences make more sense to me when understood as emergent from natural interactions. Nature, bu the way, doesn't work purely by "accident," that's an old creationist canard. Undirected is not the same as accidental.
"(1) it is not a miracle, it is natural
Exactly.
Exactly wrong. You have to learn to see God in the natural. you can't continue to deal with the false straw man religious view atheists have concocted you have to learn the real theology that actual theologians use.
"(2) God works in nature in a natural way because God created nature"
How does God suddenly come into the picture? Nature works in a natural way; there's no need to posit anything other than nature here.
it's not a matter of "need to" it's a matter of what is. what is is based upon global understanding of truth not just a reductionistic ideology of atheism.
you are assuming that scinece = absolute knowledge. Science is relative, cultural, discoverable. Science is not epistemology.
categories f natural and supernatural and man made, they not revealed by God in the Bible. The Bible doesn't use them.
Man decided to sweep God out of the picture and designed his vocabulary to fit that ideology.
"(3) that can only work as an argument if there's still something about the phenomena that nature alone can't produce"
exactly, and there is, that's why we can't just leave it at naturism. God is working in nature.
I'm not convinced that you have demonstrated that this is the case.
you have still failed to come up with any explanation for the results or effects of RE.
"that "something" is the results, the effects (not the experience itself but result of having had it) and the inability to explain them by naturism and the extreme improbability of the whole process working by accident."
It seems to me that they are quite easily explained by natural processes;
Have disproved every snigle one of the alternatives.
(1) researchers who claim to produce RE in the lab do not use the M scale so they can't prove they did.
(2) brain chemistry can't be proved to produce RE because without the M scale youc an't prove you produced it.
(3) you are ignori9jng what I said about the total improbability of a misfire or overload in relation to the effects.
certainly my own experiences make more sense to me when understood as emergent from natural interactions. Nature, bu the way, doesn't work purely by "accident," that's an old creationist canard. Undirected is not the same as accidental.
you can't 'show anything that we know that would produce such effects.
(1) it's not a natural agent from outside like egot poisoning.
(2) not mental illness
(3) you can't demonstrate a single ting that produces long term postiive effects in that level of drama universallly in every cutlure with same kinds of experinces, that's un heard of.
It's one a kind, it's an amazing thing. you have no evidence to explain it at all.
your allege explainations are half asses. you find a naturalistic process related to the reviving of an experience and you assert that every single thing about it is just a naturalistic side effect of brain chemistry.
In reality you have not proof of any kind that Brain chemistry alone could produce religious experiences, let alone the effects of them on the individual. you are merely asserting that a naturalistic element in the process has to be proof that everything in it is naturalistic and you don't have that proof at all.
old atheist trick to assert anything natural in any way shape or form proves that the whole thing is natural, BUT it does not.
"In reality you have not proof of any kind that Brain chemistry alone could produce religious experiences, let alone the effects of them on the individual. you are merely asserting that a naturalistic element in the process has to be proof that everything in it is naturalistic and you don't have that proof at all."
There's also no evidence that anything other than natural processes need to be involved.
This is typical of how you misrepresent and then dismiss contrary opinions. I haven't claimed that "brain chemistry alone" produces the experience; I think it's an emergent product of a much more complex interaction of natural processes.
There's also no evidence that anything other than natural processes need to be involved.
I've given ample reason to think so. It's not about proof remember its' about warrant. it's warranted to understand it as the trace of god.
" It's not about proof remember its' about warrant."
Yes, I get that; so why do you get so upset when I agree that it's not proof?
" it's warranted to understand it as the trace of god."
And it's equally warranted to understand it as a product of our humanity.
So where does that leave us?
Yes, I get that; so why do you get so upset when I agree that it's not proof?
when I say it's not proof, I am NOT saying therefore, it's stupid, untrue and you shouldn't believe it.
When you say it's not proof, you are saying those things.
" it's warranted to understand it as the trace of god."
And it's equally warranted to understand it as a product of our humanity.
Not equally. Because you can't beat any of the arguments.
"When you say it's not proof, you are saying those things."
Where have you ever seen me say such a thing? Really? I think you're just projecting your own bad attitude here.
"Not equally. Because you can't beat any of the arguments."
and you ignore or misrepresent or misinterpret all of my arguments...you're too stubborn and blinded by your ideology (you "good little soldier" you...) to give the other point of view fair consideration.
Hypocrite.
"when I say it's not proof, I am NOT saying therefore, it's stupid, untrue and you shouldn't believe it.
When you say it's not proof, you are saying those things."
i think any honest reader of this conversation will find that YOU are the one who continually resorts to ridicule and insults; saying that my opinions (which you never confront directly, preferring to attack straw men) are stupid, the product of an inability to think, "bullshit" etc. etc.
you said earlier "you still refuse to look for or understand Maslow's statment "the religious bleiever and the atheist can go quite a ways down the path together"
Well that's actually what I had hoped to do here. But I can never seem to get past this anger of yours...
Post a Comment