What If There Is a God?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

He hangs part of his conviction of God's reality on his belief these supernatural events happened. That belief then becomes part of his experience of God. God seems more real to him because he believes God did these "miracles". He doesn't realize he has settled for a degraded vision of god in order to satisfy his penchant for magical miracles.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, you were the one who Promoted the word "unlikely". If you look back at the conversation and the post of mine which you responded to, you will see that a good deal of my post was giving exactly those reasons you now say should be given. You responded by saying basically, No, that's not enough. You have to show the Events are "unlikely". What was your point in that reply? I think it's because you want the connotations of the word "unlikely" that imply some kind of certainty about probability. There is no such certainty about this as a probability. The best you can say is that the reasons convince most people. The reasons are persuasive to most people.

I think this is important to realize if you are going to use the term. Using the term "unlikely" does not pump up the authority of your position.

The mistake Atheists make is overstating their case. They have the reasons I presented. Why waste your credibility by overstating the case? The thing is, it doesn't really matter to the believer anyway. If these supernatural events actually happened who cares if they were "unlikely" or whatever. They happened. He knows he looks foolish to people by sticking to his story. But it's his story and he's sticking to it because he thinks it's necessary to defend his religion's validity. You've got to convince him it's not.

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]


The thing is, you were the one who Promoted the word "unlikely". If you look back at the conversation and the post of mine which you responded to, you will see that a good deal of my post was giving exactly those reasons you now say should be given. You responded by saying basically, No, that's not enough. You have to show the Events are "unlikely". What was your point in that reply? I think it's because you want the connotations of the word "unlikely" that imply some kind of certainty about probability. There is no such certainty about this as a probability. The best you can say is that the reasons convince most people. The reasons are persuasive to most people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just think you're downplaying the importance of the science and scholarship behind it all. It is essential, in my view, to educate believers about what we have learned through our science and history. I think part of the reason they discount all the research and scholarship in the various disciplines that has been done is that they don't have a full understanding of those fields. If you don't understand the methods behind the work it just seems like an opinion to you.

[ QUOTE ]

I think this is important to realize if you are going to use the term. Using the term "unlikely" does not pump up the authority of your position.

The mistake Atheists make is overstating their case. They have the reasons I presented. Why waste your credibility by overstating the case? The thing is, it doesn't really matter to the believer anyway. If these supernatural events actually happened who cares if they were "unlikely" or whatever. They happened. He knows he looks foolish to people by sticking to his story. But it's his story and he's sticking to it because he thinks it's necessary to defend his religion's validity. You've got to convince him it's not.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're giving the fundamentalist believer a bit too much credit here. They often try to attack the science behind these things (see: evolution) and they end up looking ridiculous.

The part I bolded in your post is huge in my view. I agree that it is vital that we realize this.

That's why I said you were being nitpicky in my previous post. I agree with everything you said, but it seemed like you were saying that it is useless to teach them about the science, history, etc behind it all. Maybe I misunderstood you.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

He hangs part of his conviction of God's reality on his belief these supernatural events happened. That belief then becomes part of his experience of God. God seems more real to him because he believes God did these "miracles". He doesn't realize he has settled for a degraded vision of god in order to satisfy his penchant for magical miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I misunderstood what you meant by experience then. I was talking about the actual 'conversations with God' that are involved in contemplative and meditative experiences. I think you're talking about their religious experience in a more general sense.

What I was saying is that they read and are told A, B, and C by the Bible and their pastor. They have a numinous experience which confirms A, but then they go on to believe B and C as well.

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I understand that my phrasing sucked. That's what I said before. You could say that in order to believe something I need to have scientifical proof but that belief in science has no proof itself.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I just think you're downplaying the importance of the science and scholarship behind it all. It is essential, in my view, to educate believers about what we have learned through our science and history. I think part of the reason they discount all the research and scholarship in the various disciplines that has been done is that they don't have a full understanding of those fields. If you don't understand the methods behind the work it just seems like an opinion to you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Both sides need to understand what the science is doing and saying better. It is counterproductive for the Atheist to misrepresent science to himself or the Believer. It just muddles the converstation. The Atheist often overstates the case that science makes for him. He misstates it in an attempt to coerce rather than persuade. Believers are not necessarily Dumb about this. They know something's fishy in the Atheist presentation.

State the case of science without overstatement. Be sure you understand what science does and says well enough to actually present it correctly. If you do you will realize the case is not strong enough to Force a Conclusion on the believer - except in cases where the believer is promoting religious views as science.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
What I was saying is that they read and are told A, B, and C by the Bible and their pastor. They have a numinous experience which confirms A, but then they go on to believe B and C as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something like that yes. B and C often satisfy a supersitious penchant in the believer which heightens his sense of reality for A. It's an archaic thing that used to be taken for granted as the norm. It becomes an A-B-C Religion with A at its core. It's not an easy process for a religous establishment to step away from the B-C. A lot of its memebers remain entrenched in an archaic mindscape. It's no like they're carrying B-C like a couple of pieces of worn out luggage they can just throw away. B-C are more like functioning organs in their bodies.

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Both sides need to understand what the science is doing and saying better. It is counterproductive for the Atheist to misrepresent science to himself or the Believer. It just muddles the converstation. The Atheist often overstates the case that science makes for him. He misstates it in an attempt to coerce rather than persuade. Believers are not necessarily Dumb about this. They know something's fishy in the Atheist presentation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I would like to think that I rail against the rabid atheists as much as I do against the rabid theists.

[ QUOTE ]

State the case of science without overstatement. Be sure you understand what science does and says well enough to actually present it correctly. If you do you will realize the case is not strong enough to Force a Conclusion on the believer - except in cases where the believer is promoting religious views as science.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that last part is why so many atheists are so opposed to religion in general. They hear someone spouting nonsense and they think that all religious people think that way.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Something like that yes. B and C often satisfy a supersitious penchant in the believer which heightens his sense of reality for A.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny because B and C diminish the sense of reality for a lot of people.

[ QUOTE ]
It's an archaic thing that used to be taken for granted as the norm. It becomes an A-B-C Religion with A at its core. It's not an easy process for a religous establishment to step away from the B-C. A lot of its memebers remain entrenched in an archaic mindscape. It's no like they're carrying B-C like a couple of pieces of worn out luggage they can just throw away. B-C are more like functioning organs in their bodies.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you propose that we wean them off of the B and C? It's a tough endeavor.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

State the case of science without overstatement. Be sure you understand what science does and says well enough to actually present it correctly. If you do you will realize the case is not strong enough to Force a Conclusion on the believer - except in cases where the believer is promoting religious views as science.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that last part is why so many atheists are so opposed to religion in general. They hear someone spouting nonsense and they think that all religious people think that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

"all" comes pretty close. Even some of the more spiritual eastern ones, for example the Dali Lama commented that his religion should change it's claims if science contradicts it. Still, that means up until it is butted down it makes empirical claims.

Christians, even the most moderate one, are up to their balls in claims. The important point is not the wackiness of the claim, it's that it 'truth' is from the same source as the craziest YE fundie. The "it is true because ..." part.

We're just quibbling about the price. ( sleep with me for a million. yes. for ten bucks? no.)

luckyme