“I have seen things from my experience that are very difficult to rationalise away or put down to mass delusion. However I realise I can not expect people to take my word for it either. One thing I am sure of though, is it is easy for people to say “oh you must be deluded” than actually explore a particular phenomenon.”

But there have been plenty of scientific studies on all sorts of phenomena. They all seem to come up either negative or inconclusive. A scientist can’t be expected to come to any other conclusion really, but I don’t think they have as closed minds as you are saying.

“I am actually quite a sceptical person and like to check things out for myself before making any conclusions, and I know alot of my friends are the same, so it is not fair to say all christians are prone to mass hysteria or delusions by default.”

The problem is that this is an easier explanation than the alternative, even if it seems unfair.

“I accept it is difficult to use the scientific method to test “spiritual” experiences yet surely the subject deserves more than out right dismissal by scientists . From my understanding the scientific method does have limitations in its aplication, so shouldn’t that afford christians a little more leway with the scientific community due to the unknown nature of some of these experiences?”

I’m not sure what limitations you’re referring to, but consider this as well. A la Hume, the explanation for something shouldn’t need even more explanation that then original thing needing to be explained. If you’ve had some mysterious experiences and posit god as the answer, it just means we have to shift our focus from the experience to god and try to explain that. Suddenly the problem is a trillion times harder, so if you want this explanation taken seriously, you better have a heap of good reasons why. In the case of the mysterious experience, it is not difficult to come up with hypotheses based on our knowledge to explain it. With god, we’ve suddenly got nothing to work with in a scientific sense. I’m afraid you’ll always come up against this brick wall.

“Anyway it is time for bed,my brain hurts, I have learnt a few things today and enjoyed being challenged by you guys, and just quietly its been alot more productive than some discussions I have had with young earth creationists.”

Thanks, I imagine its tough going with creationists. Nothing like adding a bit of logic to the mix to really make progress.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I don’t “believe-disbelieve” in the sense of unquestioning acceptance of or denial of some unobservable and untestable conjecture. I use the scientific method. It is as best I can determine, the most survival-positive means of discriminating between truth and fiction. I accept theories or reject them and I allow myself uncertainty in almost everything. “Belief” in the sense most religious people use it, is anathema to me.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“QED, disbelief in anything must, by it’s very nature, be “a belief”?”

No worries, unless you insist that all beliefs are equally valid.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

kevyn,
almost absolutly correct; you are incorrect on one minor account.
That is, in the words of descartes, “cogito ergo sum” or in poorly translated english “I think therefore I am”.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

-””Atheism is a belief” Er, actually it isn’t.”

Er, actually it is. So are you, so am I, so is the universe and everything in it.

Can you absolutely prove that you exist, that I exist, that the internet exists, that the pub exists and that any of these things are other than just a construct of your psyche?

Current scientific knowledge can’t absolutely disprove the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, pixies or anything else that may exist in a fifth or greater dimension.

QED, disbelief in anything must, by it’s very nature, be “a belief”?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Valis, I think what you have said is valid but there is much more to the argument from experience than those examples. I am talking about consistant common experience’s that many christians have, that are not easy to explain.
I have seen things from my experience that are very difficult to rationalise away or put down to mass delusion. However I realise I can not expect people to take my word for it either. One thing I am sure of though, is it is easy for people to say “oh you must be deluded” than actually explore a particular phenomenon.
I am actually quite a sceptical person and like to check things out for myself before making any conclusions, and I know alot of my friends are the same, so it is not fair to say all christians are prone to mass hysteria or delusions by default.
I accept it is difficult to use the scientific method to test “spiritual” experiences yet surely the subject deserves more than out right dismissal by scientists . From my understanding the scientific method does have limitations in its aplication, so shouldn’t that afford christians a little more leway with the scientific community due to the unknown nature of some of these experiences?
Anyway it is time for bed,my brain hurts, I have learnt a few things today and enjoyed being challenged by you guys, and just quietly its been alot more productive than some discussions I have had with young earth creationists.
cheers

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“pp 87-92 of the UK paperback version for your ref ”

That’s in The God Delusion.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Spot on, Valis. Great post.”

Thanks BP, high praise coming from you.

I must say I’ve had fun today on my sick day off. Who’d have thought a Green Party campaign launch video would lead to a discussion on metaphysics.

Cheers all and good night.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Yes valis you are correct, however if the argument from experience was allowed it could make things very interesting.
Why does Dawkins not allow this? (its a serious question I really don’t know)”

Happy to oblige Shunda! My own observation is simply that it is so easy to be wrong about what one experiences. At any rate, while an experience can and is a great basis for a hypothesis for science to validate or invalidate, in can never constitute scientific evidence by itself.

Dawkins says much the same and goes into how the brain works and is such a good pattern and model builder that it even discovers patterns that are not there. He gives various examples of optical illusions where the brain cannot accurately recreate objective reality. And he also deals with some difficult examples like mass witnessed miracles. He quotes Hume: “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish”. Occam rules, in other words. He says about the 1917 Fatima miracle in Portugal where seventy thousand saw the sun “tear itself from the heavens and some crashing down upon the multitude’:

“It may seem improbable that seventy thousand people could simultaneously be deluded, or could simultaneously collude in a mass lie. Or that history is mistaken in recording that seventy thousand people claimed to see the sun dance. Or that they all simultaneously saw a mirage (they had been persuaded to stare at the sun, which can’t have done much for their eyesight). But any of those apparent improbabilities is far more probable than the alternative: that the Earth was suddenly yanked sideways in its orbit, and the solar system destroyed, with nobody outside Fatima noticing. I mean, Portugal is just not that isolated”

pp 87-92 of the UK paperback version for your ref

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Spot on, Valis. Great post.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“I have often thought that tribalism is the world’s greatest evil and that religion is the most evil form of tribalism, in that it is righteous tribalism.”

No particular problems with that.

“Everyone has belief.
Atheism is a belief.
God(s) is/are a belief.
…
I despise all religions, including The Church of Atheism.”

samiam, the English language fails us here, as “belief” means slightly different things depending on context. To say that the “beliefs” of someone who believes contrary to all evidence is equivalent to the “beliefs” of someone who believes precisely because of the evidence is highly illogical thinking.

There is no church of atheism. Churches are dogmatic in that they are not open to the factual falsification of their beliefs. Atheists, at least those that reach that conclusion due to scientific knowledge like Dawkins, are precisely the opposite. They simply insist not to be asked to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

It is important to note here again, that their “belief” in no god is not absolute, but based on probability. If the evidence shows a vanishingly small probability of something, it should be safe to say you don’t “believe” in it without being accused of dogmatism.

“Society should treat belief like masturbation; personal, gratifying and no-one else’s business!”

If it stays in social circles, fine. When it affects public policy, we all have a stake in the result.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

wat,
you know full well i was refering to the monotheistic Yahweh/God of the abrahamic faiths.
the polytheistic systems are alot more rational and atleast alittle plausable, compared to the monotheistic systems that is. lol.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Yes valis you are correct, however if the argument from experience was allowed it could make things very interesting.
Why does Dawkins not allow this? (its a serious question I really don’t know)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Its the same as the theory of evolution, no one knows how abiogenesis occured yet they have “faith” that it did through an as yet undetermined process, oh but its not God!!!!! everyone knows thats impossible!!!”

Shunda, please don’t do this. Within the scientific world, its as good as impossible because there is no evidence that god exists in the first place. There are lots of things we don’t know. The hypotheses put forward to explain them are developed based on what *is* known. Just suddenly postulating a god because we don’t understand something is the height of logical fallacy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“In its most basic form evolution is a change is the distribution of genes within a population or environment.”

Yes but that is not macro evolution, even the more nutty creationists believe what you guys just said.
Unless you can show me a selectively bred half cat half dog or “catwawa”

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Valis I posted above before I saw your 2 lengthy posts.
I would love to engage in a discussion of origins with you and my own personal beliefs on spirituality, as I can see you are at least respectful of your opponent, however I don’t think frog blog is the place to do it.”

I agree and would enjoy that too.

“But sugesting that science and faith are incompatable is a little premature. I have always had an interest in science and have no trouble relating my faith in this area, although initially I had trouble with some popular creation beliefs.”

Then you are already doing as I suggest. I do personally find the two incompatible, but as I say, it is when people use their religious beliefs to explain the physical world that things go horribly wrong. You seem to agree with this re creationism at least.

“You say that Christians can’t prove God exists, but neither can Dawkins prove he dosen’t…”

Which he fully admits. But that doesn’t make the two positions equivalent. Take Bertrand Russell’s teapot example. That we can’t prove there is not a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere doesn’t lead us to believe there is one. Why is that? Its because we make a judgment about the probability of something being true based on the available evidence. In this case, we’d all admit we can’t prove it doesn’t exist, but would say the likelihood is so small as to be comfortable believing it doesn’t. God is a more complex idea, but as there is the same level of physical proof, many of us reach the same conclusion.

“…if the creationists hadn’t given him the creation evolution debate he wouldn’t occupy the supposed high ground you guys keep refering to.”

Maybe, but irrelevant.

“Some how proving God became about disproving the theory of evolution which is not really necessary, there are ways to tie in scripture that don’t conflict with much of the current theory at all.”

That’s good for you then, but I predict it will become harder and harder as more knowledge mounts.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Apollo, Zeus, Yahweh, Rah…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Samiam,
42 is an error code!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

wat,
how did we get to mythology? i dont beleive i mentioned apollo anywhere, though i remmbmer you mentioned zeus.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient; Gee and I thought the answer was 42.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)