What If There Is a God?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You could say that I have a belief that is based purely on science,[Insert: But Not Proved] you could say that in order to believe something I need to have scientifical proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can "Believe" that in order to believe something you need to have scientific proof. But you don't have scientific proof for that "Belief". You are contradicting yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed that I have proof for that belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize you are not claiming that. What you don't realize is that you are contradicting yourself in your last statement. Take a close look at it. DUCY?

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

It's a fine point here, but I think science would say they have no evidence that contradicts the assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably no evidence that even casts suspicion on the assumption.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The only evidence pointing to the falsehood of this assumption is in a book written by humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, this is not scientific evidence. It was not observed under scientifically controlled conditions. Now, people can take a look at the Writings using the best methods of objective modern scholarship. Cultural, historical, archealogical, textual, literary, etc. They can offer their best evaluation of the Writings. Under the assumption that supernatural events don't occur their explanations for the writings are going to satisfy most people. And they will probably sway some believers in the supernatural.

But how do you persuade those who won't give up their belief in these supernatural events. I don't think you will do it by telling them they are the only thing that gives their Religion credibility. Especially when they have a deep sense of something real at the core of their religion. My view is that you need to take that deep sense seriously and persuade them the supernatural events are unnecessary for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wholeheartedly agree. But this will involve more than just saying that the supernatural events are unnecessary. Eventually you will need to show that they are both unnecessary and unlikely based on all observable evidence.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think most atheists and secular thinkers are confused as to why theists put so much faith into these stories based on their spiritual experiences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Why do they? I don't think the atheists will ever understand until they take seriously the possibility that there is a legitimate deeper core to the religous experience. Something so vital to believers that they are willing to be a little foolish with things they perceive as protecting it. Show them a better way to protect that core and they will give up the foolish things.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I would agree with you on this point. It's silly to dismiss these beliefs with a wave of a hand and compare them to belief in unicorns.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Why do they? I don't think the atheists will ever understand until they take seriously the possibility that there is a legitimate deeper core to the religous experience. Something so vital to believers that they are willing to be a little foolish with things they perceive as protecting it. Show them a better way to protect that core and they will give up the foolish things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Known in the trade as being disingenuous.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I would agree with you on this point. It's silly to dismiss these beliefs with a wave of a hand and compare them to belief in unicorns.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh,oh, now you've done it. PTB is going to come down and smack you about with the Presumptive whip. Unless of course you have evidence that they don't compare to belief in unicorns.
I'm duckin an runnin'

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
this will involve more than just saying that the supernatural events are unnecessary. Eventually you will need to show that they are both unnecessary and unlikely based on all observable evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here's this ambigous word "unlikely" again. You can give them reasons (show) that will convince (equating likelihood with level of conviction for a belief) most people to believe the supernatural events didn't happen. That's the same thing I said.

Here are the reasons.

1. The data set available to us shows consistency with scientific laws of nature.

2. These supernatural events are virtually impossible by way of scientific laws of nature.

3. Modern scholarship provides reasonable alternate explanations for why these things were written.

That's enough to convince most people to form a belief they didn't happen. That's what "likely" translates to. It does not translate to a mathematical model of probability that computes a small probability for the Events. If you try to form such a model you get into speculative undefinable things like "all possible universes". Science does not know the Measure for that which might be outside the data set Science has available to it.

So all your "likelihood" means is reasons that convince most people. You are left with the problem that they don't convince the believer who is trying to protect something much more vital to him than how foolish he looks disagreeing with most people.

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this will involve more than just saying that the supernatural events are unnecessary. Eventually you will need to show that they are both unnecessary and unlikely based on all observable evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here's this ambigous word "unlikely" again. You can give them reasons (show) that will convince (equating likelihood with level of conviction for a belief) most people to believe the supernatural events didn't happen. That's the same thing I said.

Here are the reasons.

1. The data set available to us shows consistency with scientific laws of nature.

2. These supernatural events are virtually impossible by way of scientific laws of nature.

3. Modern scholarship provides reasonable alternate explanations for why these things were written.

That's enough to convince most people to form a belief they didn't happen. That's what "likely" translates to. It does not translate to a mathematical model of probability that computes a small probability for the Events. If you try to form such a model you get into speculative undefinable things like "all possible universes". Science does not know the Measure for that which might be outside the data set Science has available to it.

So all your "likelihood" means is reasons that convince most people. You are left with the problem that they don't convince the believer who is trying to protect something much more vital to him than how foolish he looks disagreeing with most people.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

#2 on your list was all I meant by unlikely. If certain beliefs are unnecessary and not backed up by any observable phenomenon, then why have them?

I really think you are nitpicking way too much on this point. When most people say that the belief is unlikely they mean exactly what you say. It's not that they don't understand what "unlikely" means, it's that they don't understand why it's not good enough for the believer. All the explaining you do isn't showing them that and it's also not showing them why the data isn't good enough.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if part of the Bible explains their experiences exactly, does that necessarily mean that the rest of the Bible is truth as well?



[/ QUOTE ]

This may be the most difficult issue of all. Part of the problem is that the relationship the believer has to the Bible is part of his experience. So to claim that only part of the Bible is necessary to explain his experience ignores the fact that the rest of the Bible is part of his experience. The fact is that his belief in these supernatural events is part of his experience. So they then become necessary to explain his experience. It's a catch 22 for him. Or for you if you're talking to him.

So you're really asking a lot from him to give up that belief. You're asking him to give up part of his religous experience when you do so. In my opinion the better approach, if you can find it, is to offer him an even richer genuine compelling experience which still protects the core of his faith without the magical supernatural elements. The source of this alternative must remain Biblical or else he will reject it out of hand. And I think you need to find a way to say that the Bible as a whole provides this source rather than just a part of it.

The most Fundamentalist formula for this is the claim that the Bible is the Infallible Word of God. My approach is to make the case that this formula holds without the supernatural events. I point out that the concept of "Word" has deep historical, cultural, and theological roots. It intersects with the Greek term "Logos" and the ancient Jewish cultural concepts whereby a person's Name was in a sense, "who he was". So finding the "Word" of God in the Bible means finding "Who God Is" there. It's on this point I would challenge the believer.

Has he really discovered "Who God Is" with his supernatural interpretation of the stories in the Bible? Or has he been distracted by his penchant for something magically supernatural to hang his conviction on? Has this Penchant distracted him from deeper insights that can be found by reading the book with the aid of scholarly research? Has he missed the Infallible for the sake of the Superstitious?

This challenges him on his own territory. It challenges him to live up to his own directives. It challenges him to live up to his core and enrich it. But it does so without insisting he invalidate himself. In fact, the process becomes a real self validation for him if he can be swayed.

I don't yet know how to simplify this and put it in a few words. But I'm pretty sure, "does that necessarily mean that the rest of the Bible is truth as well?" is not them.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I really think you are nitpicking way too much on this point. When most people say that the belief is unlikely they mean exactly what you say.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, why did you correct what I said could be presented and claim it must be shown to be "unlikely"?

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really think you are nitpicking way too much on this point. When most people say that the belief is unlikely they mean exactly what you say.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, why did you correct what I said could be presented and claim it must be shown to be "unlikely"?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Because just because something is unnecessary doesn't mean that it's not true. In order to live my life as I currently do it is not necessary for me to believe that my parents got married in 1979. That doesn't mean that I'm going to stop believing it.

So all I was saying that we can't just show Christians that some of their beliefs are unnecessary because you're not giving him any reason to abandon that belief.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if part of the Bible explains their experiences exactly, does that necessarily mean that the rest of the Bible is truth as well?



[/ QUOTE ]

This may be the most difficult issue of all. Part of the problem is that the relationship the believer has to the Bible is part of his experience. So to claim that only part of the Bible is necessary to explain his experience ignores the fact that the rest of the Bible is part of his experience. The fact is that his belief in these supernatural events is part of his experience. So they then become necessary to explain his experience. It's a catch 22 for him. Or for you if you're talking to him.

So you're really asking a lot from him to give up that belief. You're asking him to give up part of his religous experience when you do so. In my opinion the better approach, if you can find it, is to offer him an even richer genuine compelling experience which still protects the core of his faith without the magical supernatural elements. The source of this alternative must remain Biblical or else he will reject it out of hand. And I think you need to find a way to say that the Bible as a whole provides this source rather than just a part of it.

The most Fundamentalist formula for this is the claim that the Bible is the Infallible Word of God. My approach is to make the case that this formula holds without the supernatural events. I point out that the concept of "Word" has deep historical, cultural, and theological roots. It intersects with the Greek term "Logos" and the ancient Jewish cultural concepts whereby a person's Name was in a sense, "who he was". So finding the "Word" of God in the Bible means finding "Who God Is" there. It's on this point I would challenge the believer.

Has he really discovered "Who God Is" with his supernatural interpretation of the stories in the Bible? Or has he been distracted by his penchant for something magically supernatural to hang his conviction on? Has this Penchant distracted him from deeper insights that can be found by reading the book with the aid of scholarly research? Has he missed the Infallible for the sake of the Superstitious?

This challenges him on his own territory. It challenges him to live up to his own directives. It challenges him to live up to his core and enrich it. But it does so without insisting he invalidate himself. In fact, the process becomes a real self validation for him if he can be swayed.

I don't yet know how to simplify this and put it in a few words. But I'm pretty sure, "does that necessarily mean that the rest of the Bible is truth as well?" is not them.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

By truth I meant literal truth. As in, the Earth is only 6,000 years old, etc. I pretty much agree with you on this point. It needs to be shown that nothing is lost if you look at many of the passages metaphorically.

I don't quite understand what you mean when you say the supernatural events are part of his experience though. Could you elaborate on that point a bit? I'm talking about spiritual experiences where he 'feels God' or whatever you want to call it. Surely none of the physical miracles of the Bible are necessary for that experience.