Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who won the Collins-Dawkins Debate?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 226 of 279 (382933)
02-06-2007 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by truthlover
02-06-2007 12:03 PM


Re: bias, again
truthlover writes:
What I grant you, and have granted from the beginning, is that I have not computed the statistical odds, kept track of every instance of prayer (and Percy scoffed and said it would be a waste of time when I suggested it).
Yes, of course I scoffed. But that you raise this as a point in your favor indicates you still don't understand the rationale behind the pointlessness of such an exercise. The digression onto double-blind studies should have made clear to you that your suggested approach could yield only nonsense, and the fact that it hasn't indicates to me that further discussion won't accomplish anything. However, I will leave you with this short excerpt from Sam Harris's The End of Faith (page 19, paperback edition):
Sam Harris writes:
Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.
But Harris is wrong about evidence. It isn't that Christians don't require evidence concerning their faith. It's that their standards for evidence suffer grievously when it concerns their faith. And then, of course, there's the whole question of why faith requires evidence, anyway.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by truthlover, posted 02-06-2007 12:03 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 02-06-2007 1:07 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 229 by truthlover, posted 02-06-2007 1:24 PM Percy has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 227 of 279 (382946)
02-06-2007 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by truthlover
02-06-2007 12:03 PM


Re: bias, again
Truthlover sorry in advance for piling on but I have an additional comment.
truthlover writes:
What I grant you, and have granted from the beginning, is that I have not computed the statistical odds, kept track of every instance of prayer ....
On the other hand, I haven't tried to. This is why I kept repeating things. I'm a real one step at a time person. I think through things step by step, not all in one general thing.
At the coin toss for the Superbowl they noted that the NFC has won the coin toss 10 years straight. That is a probability of 1 out of 1024. Can we conclude from this single sampling that there are more Christians in the NFC than the AFC? (obviously not as the NFC lost )
If this coin toss was very important to you it might lead you to conclude that the god of the NFC is powerful and deserves your devotion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by truthlover, posted 02-06-2007 12:03 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by truthlover, posted 02-06-2007 1:38 PM iceage has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 228 of 279 (382953)
02-06-2007 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Percy
02-06-2007 12:19 PM


Re: bias, again
It isn't that Christians don't require evidence concerning their faith. It's that their standards for evidence suffer grievously when it concerns their faith. And then, of course, there's the whole question of why faith requires evidence, anyway.
I don't understand how this isn't a contradiction. Isn't that exactly what Harris is saying? That if you take a given proposition, even a Christian will probably require evidence commensurate with its improbability to accept it; but if a similar proposition is labeled as something to be taken on faith, suddenly that requirement for evidence is unnecessary?
Indeed, faith doesn't require evidence. Isn't that Harris's point? I mean, why should we allow faith to be an exception to the requirement that extraordinary claims (like "God exists) require extraordinary evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 02-06-2007 12:19 PM Percy has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 229 of 279 (382955)
02-06-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Percy
02-06-2007 12:19 PM


Re: bias, again
But that you raise this as a point in your favor indicates you still don't understand the rationale behind the pointlessness of such an exercise.
You're right in that I don't think such an exercise would be pointless. And why should I? You've asserted that it's pointless, but the only reason you've given me as to why is because only double blind studies are the only useful data there is, an argument I do not think you have come close to backing up.
In the end, the idea of keeping track, in order to see all the negative occurrences I was missing due to human bias, was suggested to me by those who disagreed with me. So it's them you're disagreeing with, anyway.
The digression onto double-blind studies should have made clear to you that your suggested approach could yield only nonsense, and the fact that it hasn't indicates to me that further discussion won't accomplish anything.
Here's what I heard on double-blind studies, from both you and Kader:
Conversation:
Percy: Only double blind studies are valid
TL: What about this or that observational study, can't you draw this conclusion from those?
Percy: yes
TL: Well, then it's not only double blind studies that are valid
Percy: Yeah, but your data is worthless
TL: Why?
Percy: Because only double blind studies are valid.
If that's not the conversation we had--more than once, maybe you can tell me what was, because I sure can't get anything out of that one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 02-06-2007 12:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by GDR, posted 02-06-2007 2:03 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 232 by Kader, posted 02-06-2007 2:12 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 234 by Percy, posted 02-06-2007 2:56 PM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 230 of 279 (382961)
02-06-2007 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by iceage
02-06-2007 12:56 PM


Re: bias, again
If this coin toss was very important to you it might lead you to conclude that the god of the NFC is powerful and deserves your devotion.
No, it wouldn't. Why do you accuse me of such things? You can accuse me of being subject to unavoidable human bias. You can accuse me of deluding myself by picking all the "positive instances" in my experiences and thus misreading reality. However, you can't accurately accuse me of becoming convinced of anything because some one in a thousand occurrence happened one time.
I am a numbers fanatic. I love numbers. While I didn't finish college, statistics was going to be my major. I got a perfect score on both the ACT and SAT math exams. I like to play dice baseball games. Thus, I am well aware of the kind of incredible deviations from the norm that can happen with the roll of a dice or the toss of a coin, even over a baseball season of 600 trips to the plate. I am aware that if you have a thousand acquaintances over twenty years, it's pretty likely that several of them will have correctly predicted boy or girl when a baby is born five times or more and some of those will think they have psychic powers to do so.
I think my experiences are far more unlikely than 10 coin tosses in a row. You can doubt my assessment of that "likelihood," and even make fun of it if you want, but if you think I'm the kind of person who gets convinced of something as major as the life I choose to live over some minor coincidence that happened, you're very mistaken.
Truthlover sorry in advance for piling on but I have an additional comment.
You can pile on all you want, but I wish it were actually about something I think or said.
Weren't you the one who asked why God doesn't restore limbs? It was a valid point against what I was saying, but I'm saying nothing that ten coin tosses in a row applies to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by iceage, posted 02-06-2007 12:56 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Kader, posted 02-06-2007 2:21 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 236 by iceage, posted 02-06-2007 7:05 PM truthlover has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 231 of 279 (382968)
02-06-2007 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by truthlover
02-06-2007 1:24 PM


Prayer and reason
Just a couple of general thoughts on this.
Firstly it seems to me that trying to compile statistics on prayer makes a mockery of the whole idea of prayer. A prayer can't be just about saying or thinking the words and then waiting to see what the result is. It isn’t just a magic formula to get what we want.
Secondly I don’t agree that everything that can’t be confirmed scientifically is just simply faith. Not all evidence is scientific. The Bible is evidence that isn’t scientific. The fact that there is something rather than nothing is evidence that isn’t scientific. Our moral code is evidence that isn’t scientific.
With wisdom, we then apply reason to all that we know and come to our own conclusions. Actually the fact that I can come to one conclusion and Crashfrog to another is in my view evidence in itself.
At some point in time though being a Christian does require a leap of faith, but in my view that leap of faith is reasonable but not scientific. I have read Collin’s book “The Language of God” and that is certainly the approach that he has taken. His science is part of the evidence to which he has applied his reason to come to the conclusions that he has.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by truthlover, posted 02-06-2007 1:24 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 232 of 279 (382971)
02-06-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by truthlover
02-06-2007 1:24 PM


Re: bias, again
Conversation:
Percy: Only double blind studies are valid
TL: What about this or that observational study, can't you draw this conclusion from those?
Percy: yes
TL: Well, then it's not only double blind studies that are valid
Percy: Yeah, but your data is worthless
TL: Why?
Percy: Because only double blind studies are valid.
If that's not the conversation we had--more than once, maybe you can tell me what was, because I sure can't get anything out of that one.
I can give you my version
You : there is evidence for the power of prayer
Percy :No there is no evidence (scientific) for the power of prayer
You : Well Here's is my experience [examples given]
Percy : Humkay, well that's nice but your experience isn't proof of evidence
You : yes it is
Me : No it isn't, it isn't scientific proof anyways
everyone else who isn't a christian : No it isn't
And I think we explained many times.
Basically whatever you did (your own personal calculation) the people who made the double blind studies did it better. So whatever conclusion you might find with your non scientific method doesn't even compare to the accuracy of the double blind studies.
IE : You could claim that to you,. and all your community, the ground under your feet doesn't budge, and you refuse to believe people that say that the earth is rotating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by truthlover, posted 02-06-2007 1:24 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 233 of 279 (382974)
02-06-2007 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by truthlover
02-06-2007 1:38 PM


Re: bias, again
I think my experiences are far more unlikely than 10 coin tosses in a row. You can doubt my assessment of that "likelihood," and even make fun of it if you want, but if you think I'm the kind of person who gets convinced of something as major as the life I choose to live over some minor coincidence that happened, you're very mistaken.
Well, you might think what you want, but it happens a lot that we get proven wrong about things we though almost 100% sure.
And note that there is even MORE INCREDIBLE stories of prayer recovery, your storie isn't even out of the ordinary if I compare them to what I heard in the past. And they might be all true, though still, on the larger picture, tehre is no evidence for the power of prayer.
As an analogy..
A kid that sends a letter to santa clause every year with his wishlist, and everyyear at he gets all he wrote. To him evidence point strongly that santa clause exist.
Well your that Kid. You do not understand all the variable in play, you do not consider everything, because your not perfect. And when differents teams of people carried on there study, better prepeared, better equiped, and better trained then you, you disagree with them based on what ? Personal experience...
You would like to still believe that santa clause is bringing you thoses gifts....
Edited by Kader, : No reason given.
Edited by Kader, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by truthlover, posted 02-06-2007 1:38 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 234 of 279 (382987)
02-06-2007 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by truthlover
02-06-2007 1:24 PM


Re: bias, again
Hi Truthlover,
I really was only interested in correcting the misstatement where my name was mentioned, and not in resuming discussion in this thread, but it is important to correct this:
truthlover writes:
In the end, the idea of keeping track, in order to see all the negative occurrences I was missing due to human bias, was suggested to me by those who disagreed with me. So it's them you're disagreeing with, anyway.
Even though you said this, you probably realize that there's not really any disagreement on our side. The reason that your proposed experimental approach is invalid is because it fails to address in any way the elimination of your personal biases. Whether the outcome of your prayers is good or bad is merely a function of whether you judge them good or bad, rather than being determined by pre-defined objective standards or criteria. Whether there's even a relationship between a prayer and subsequent events is again up to your sole judgement and not a function of any pre-defined objective standards or criteria.
The definition of a valid experiment is one where it doesn't matter who the experimenter is, the results are always the same. For scientific areas like physics, double-blind studies aren't necessary because experimenter bias cannot possibly influence how much time has elapsed and how much something weighs, and because you never ask the object of the experiment, "And how are we feeling today?" But in medicine it's a completely different story. Without double blind studies where neither subject nor experimenter knows who has received the real medicine or not, there is no way to eliminate bias.
Just because you meticulously write down your prayer experiences in a notebook doesn't suddenly remove their anecdotal character. What you'll have is an anecdotal list of experiences because you haven't established any objective experimental procedures or criteria whatsoever.
Percy: Only double blind studies are valid
TL: What about this or that observational study, can't you draw this conclusion from those?
Percy: yes
TL: Well, then it's not only double blind studies that are valid
Percy: Yeah, but your data is worthless
TL: Why?
Percy: Because only double blind studies are valid.
Hopefully what I wrote above will help you see why this is such an inaccurate summary of our conversation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by truthlover, posted 02-06-2007 1:24 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by truthlover, posted 02-06-2007 3:13 PM Percy has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 235 of 279 (382991)
02-06-2007 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Percy
02-06-2007 2:56 PM


Re: bias, again
Even though you said this, you probably realize that there's not really any disagreement on our side.
I was assuming that probably there wasn't, but no, I definitely didn't "realize" there wasn't. I really didn't know.
and not in resuming discussion in this thread
And you don't have to, I'm not going to extend our debate. However, thank you for answering, because I wasn't just jerking your chain about what I heard you saying. There was specific answers I was looking for (because I was indeed asking questions as well as arguing), and I wasn't getting them. It was VERY frustrating.
This was much better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Percy, posted 02-06-2007 2:56 PM Percy has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 236 of 279 (383037)
02-06-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by truthlover
02-06-2007 1:38 PM


Re: bias, again
iceage writes:
If this coin toss was very important to you it might lead you to conclude that the god of the NFC is powerful and deserves your devotion.
truthlover writes:
No, it wouldn't. Why do you accuse me of such things?
Because that is what you have really been saying all along!
Your perceived prayer success and amazing coincidences have lead you to believe that you are on the right path. As support for you position you provided all sorts of anecdotal evidence, like people getting out the military early, houses being sold, people being healed and a verse containing names of people relevant to a situation.
Somewhere in this thread you also claimed you had tried other Christian paths that "did not work" so you gave up and tried another. I can only assume that "did not work" means that you did not have experiences which you subjectively conclude are of a remote probability.
In summary you have been using highly improbable events as justifications for your faith and the supernatural.
Along these lines.....
There is a story of Carl Jung interviewing a woman, who was describing a dream with a beetle and during the interview he looked out the window and saw a beetle just like the woman was describing. It is an amazing circumstance!
The question is, how many opportunities for synchronous coincidences occur endlessly while we are conscious?
Also, if you are hyper-sensitive, you will recognize many more incredible events, which others might not. I know, I have been associated with charismatic style groups for a long time and they are *very* sensitive to such things. Your story about the names in the verse is a typical example.
I would suspect that if we started a thread asking people to relate amazing coincidences in their lives you might be surprised the stories of incredible improbability - from people of an agnostic or atheistic background.
One side point is that I have read of some of the dialog between mujadeen fighting the Americans in Iraq. Their dialog sounds a lot like charismatic Christians with claims of amazing physical experiences confirming God's grace and interaction in their lives.
In addition, I read about a person being highlighted in the local paper. She was a tarot card reader and has studied the "healing arts". I bet a short discussion with her and you would hear all sorts of wonderful healing incidents. Her experiences is just as valid as yours and both are invalid by statistical sampling theory.
truthlover writes:
I think my experiences are far more unlikely than 10 coin tosses in a row.
So just what it is the improbability threshold that classifies an event as being a miracle versus just run-of-mill statistics?
If you won the lottery today with chances of 1 in several million would you not immediately attribute that success to God? Would you moderate your perception, knowing that people of all strips win lotteries?
truthlover writes:
Weren't you the one who asked why God doesn't restore limbs?
Yes. And maybe when this thread is done we should start a thread on that question. I think it is an important question with interesting implications.
The implication is that if God does heal, then apparently God is limited in the things he can or will heal. So by claiming God does heal you are also saying the God is not omnipotent. Of course, you could cop out and say that God does not want to create a miracle that is readily and objectively measurable which would, i guess, destroy faith.
You then have to say that God works in the margins of the aether only and mountains are not moved.
One interesting storying on healing of limbs. When I was younger a preacher came to the indian village in northern Canada where I lived. He lined us kids all up and told us that he was going create a miracle in each one of us.
He told us that we all have one leg shorter than the other, to varying degrees. He prayed with a lot of force and vigor and at the end of the night claimed that we now all have equal length legs. To this day I do walk a pretty straight line.
This experience is the source of my question. I reasoned that if God could add a millimeter to one of my legs why could not also restore a limb or cure a medical condition where the leg was several inches short.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by truthlover, posted 02-06-2007 1:38 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by truthlover, posted 02-07-2007 2:55 PM iceage has not replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 237 of 279 (383176)
02-07-2007 10:49 AM


I was reading some prayer studies when it strike me.
IF there would be a positive correlation with prayer and patient health christian everywhere would be going crazy.
But when all we find is a lack of evidence all we hear is :
"God doesn't want to be tested pfffttt"
"I will have to tell you that my God isn't prone to such investigation by mere mortal!!!"
Can't you even see that it is a cop-out ?!?!?
More like, "What I have been thaught all my life cannot be wrong, all thoses incredible experience, all thoses prayer answered cannot be purely chance, I refuse to believe so, there must be a reason why theses studies doens't agree with me............."
That's when you create a cop-out
Edited by Kader, : No reason given.

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 238 of 279 (383243)
02-07-2007 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by iceage
02-06-2007 7:05 PM


Very good questions:
In summary you have been using highly improbable events as justifications for your faith and the supernatural.
True, but not just one.
Your story about the names in the verse is a typical example.
Of something that could happen to anyone. True enough. That story wouldn't prove anything, even to me, unless it happened every day for a year.
Other things don't have to happen every day for a year for me to start thinking there's a trend that tells me something.
Her experiences is just as valid as yours and both are invalid by statistical sampling theory.
I do know one of the arguments being validly argued is that my anecdotes are statistically invalid no matter how many of them there are. I don't think that's true, but that's all been argued already.
I would agree her experiences are just as valid as mine. I would attribute some validity to her "healing" experiences if the stories seemed unlikely/amazing enough and there were enough of them.
If you won the lottery today with chances of 1 in several million would you not immediately attribute that success to God? Would you moderate your perception, knowing that people of all strips win lotteries?
If I never bought lottery tickets, and I felt like God told me to go buy a lottery ticket today, and I won the lottery, I would immediately attribute that success to God. If I decided on my own to go buy lottery tickets and I won the first day or the 500th day, I'd attribute it to chance.
If some guy won $10,000 against 100,000 to 1 odds in the lottery, I'd consider him lucky. If he won $10,000 ten times in a year against those odds, I'd ask him to buy my lottery tickets, too.
Yes. And maybe when this thread is done we should start a thread on that question. I think it is an important question with interesting implications.
I realize the implications.
Of course, you could cop out and say that God does not want to create a miracle that is readily and objectively measurable which would, i guess, destroy faith.
Nope, won't cop out at all. Troubling question you asked. Troubled me before you asked it.
Obviously, it hasn't troubled me enough to make me forsake the way I'm on, because maybe the problem's me (or us), and not that it doesn't or can't happen.
know, I have been associated with charismatic style groups for a long time and they are *very* sensitive to such things. Your story about the names in the verse is a typical example.
I was a charismatic. I did the name it, claim it thing ("I'm healed no matter how my back looks") after a car accident. I ignored the pain, the swelling, and the doctors' advice. It worked out pretty well, despite the stupidity involved, and I made a very rapid recovery from pretty serious back trauma, but there was no divine intervention.
Later, I did the name it, claim it thing praying that my next military assignment would be warmer than the panhandle of Florida. I got Alaska. What a horror, but it turned out to be a great assignment, anyway.
That wasn't why I left the charismatic movement. I could have attributed the Alaska assignment to the will of God for me (in fact, I do). I left the charismatic movement, because most of their healing stories were just like my back "healing" story. Lots of claiming, lots of faith, very little results of any substance.
So just what it is the improbability threshold that classifies an event as being a miracle versus just run-of-mill statistics?
{...conducting serious grilling session with myself to try very hard to answer honestly what really moves me to say "wow, this was not chance"}
This is a silly way of putting it, because life is not like this, but something to the effect of 1 in 100 five times in a row, but if and only if every time was preceded by some sort of foreknowledge that the event was going to happen.
That would convince me, and what's that, 1 in 10 billion chance? Maybe three times would, if I knew in advance each time that it would happen, and that's only 1 in a million.
I guess my answer to that is that I attribute a lot to "God told me" and then it happened, if that happens consistently (most of the time), and it's not just stuff that's likely to happen anyway.
You can answer that how you wish, but let me save you one argument, in case you think I'm ignoring it.
Percy, you, Schraf, etc. would say that my judgment of what's 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, unlikely, likely, almost impossible, how unlikely, etc. is all statistically invalid, pure conjecture and meaningless; it's completely invalid, not only influenced by bias, but also subject to judgment that cannot be reliable.
Maybe you're right.
Sure keeps working, though .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by iceage, posted 02-06-2007 7:05 PM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Percy, posted 02-07-2007 3:16 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 241 by nator, posted 02-07-2007 8:08 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 239 of 279 (383256)
02-07-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by truthlover
02-07-2007 2:55 PM


Hi Truthlover,
Though I have to say I think you're completely deluded, I admire you for sticking with this discussion and giving us some insights into your thinking. If at some point you're find you're willing to give up on the "God won't be tested" premise I'd probably be interested in pursuing this more.
It's interesting to see your two minds at work on this. You know on some level that what we're telling you about reliably demonstrating a cause/effect relationship is true, and you know on some other level that the God you believe in is real and has the qualities you think he has. It reminds me of the joke at the end of the Woodie Allen movie, "Annie Hall". It's an old joke, you'll recognize it, goes like this
Man goes to a psychiatrist with his brother and says to the psychiastrist, "Doc, can you help me, my brother thinks he's a chicken." "Well," the doctor replied, "have you tried telling him he's not a chicken?" "I would," says the man, "but I need the eggs."
I'm not that different from you, actually, though my conclusions have come to rest in a different place. I know on a rational level that there is no room in this universe for the God of my belief, yet I believe anyway. Religion is not a rational choice.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by truthlover, posted 02-07-2007 2:55 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by truthlover, posted 02-07-2007 5:27 PM Percy has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 240 of 279 (383308)
02-07-2007 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Percy
02-07-2007 3:16 PM


you're find you're willing to give up on the "God won't be tested" premise
Can't. I could well be wrong about this premise, but saying "I might be wrong" wouldn't do any good. If we ran some test on God and he didn't show up (hope you're ok with my terminology there), I'd have to at least allow "he may not have wanted to be tested in this way."
I know on a rational level that there is no room in this universe for the God of my belief, yet I believe anyway.
On a chatty level, I've been there in a much different way than you. I had been a Christian for 13 years, and I'd been looking everywhere I could for something that looked to me like a deep unity based on love. I just couldn't find anything like that.
Jesus had prayed a prayer, "Father, make them one, just as you and I are one, so that the world will know that you sent me."
I used to ask myself, "Why do I still believe? He said that the unity of his disciples would let you know that God sent him. He either has no real disciples or he can't make them one. Either way, what's the difference. I personally have no obligation to believe in him, because he's unable to produce even what he said he would offer as proof."
I still believed, and I used to wonder why.
One more chatty point, mostly off topic for this thread, but very on topic for this web site:
When I went from YEC to evolutionist, it didn't rock my beliefs even a little. When I found out that there was no worldwide flood, no problem at all. When I found out that there were contradictions in the Bible, no big deal. All of those things, I knew intuitively would end up being true, even when I didn't want them to be true.
However, when I found out that there was no exodus (unless it was much, much smaller than the Bible describes), that rocked me pretty badly. Then, I had a discussion on this board about suffering in the earth vs. a loving God, and that rocked me pretty badly, too.
Another argument that stuck with me was from Schraf. She said, let us give you a frontal lobotomy, and let's see how well your soul works then. I sat in a ditch next to a trail in the woods at some point back then and debated becoming an agnostic. (I could stay at Rose Creek Village as an agnostic, though it would be awkward.)
I found when I quit having to defend all those things, I found my belief (what others would call my delusion) was firmly and completely settled. I wasn't troubled by doubts at all anymore. The fact is, when I didn't have to deal with all that history stuff, the present seemed kind of obvious to me. That was a surprise.
Those aren't arguments or defenses. Just being chatty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Percy, posted 02-07-2007 3:16 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by nator, posted 02-07-2007 8:15 PM truthlover has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024