Do you believe in evolution?

[Yosarian2]

2. God guided evolution, and the Story of the Garden of Eden was never meant to be taken so literally

Well, it's not necessary to think that God specifically guided evolution; one could just as easily say that God knew when he created the Universe that we would evolve.

[vollkan]

Well, it's not necessary to think that God specifically guided evolution; one could just as easily say that God knew when he created the Universe that we would evolve.

So a perfect being creates a universe where life develops based on the brutal struggle of natural selection? It doesn't make sense at all. But I suppose "God works in mysterious ways"

[Yosarian2]

Well, it's not necessary to think that God specifically guided evolution; one could just as easily say that God knew when he created the Universe that we would evolve.

So a perfect being creates a universe where life develops based on the brutal struggle of natural selection? It doesn't make sense at all. But I suppose "God works in mysterious ways"

(shrug) Would you prefer to live in a universe where everything was created flawless and nothing ever changed? Sounds kind of boring to me. Life is change; that's what makes it so interesting.

[vollkan]

(shrug) Would you prefer to live in a universe where everything was created flawless and nothing ever changed? Sounds kind of boring to me. Life is change; that's what makes it so interesting.

Absolutely I agree with you. Are you actually suggesting that the entire universe was made to be so wonderful

just

to please tiny lifeforms such as ourselves that appreciate diversity? That's very anthropocentric.

I personally find the idea that there is no creator and that our universe came about by some fantastic scientific process we don't yet know about to be far more exciting, interesting and beautiful than the notion that it was created by some invisible hand.

[Mastermind of Sin]

(shrug) Would you prefer to live in a universe where everything was created flawless and nothing ever changed? Sounds kind of boring to me. Life is change; that's what makes it so interesting.

Absolutely I agree with you. Are you actually suggesting that the entire universe was made to be so wonderful

just

to please tiny lifeforms such as ourselves that appreciate diversity? That's very anthropocentric.

I personally find the idea that there is no creator and that our universe came about by some fantastic scientific process we don't yet know about to be far more exciting, interesting and beautiful than the notion that it was created by some invisible hand.

QFT

[Yosarian2]

Absolutely I agree with you. Are you actually suggesting that the entire universe was made to be so wonderful

just

to please tiny lifeforms such as ourselves that appreciate diversity? That's very anthropocentric.

Your whole objection was antropocentric, or at least Earth-life-centric; you were suggesting that a perfect God wouldn't have made a universe where life on Earth developed through natural means like natural selection and such because you think that's "brutal". So, I disagree with your objection, and now you're trying to say that our preference about such things shouldn't matter? You are contradicting yourself.

I personally find the idea that there is no creator and that our universe came about by some fantastic scientific process we don't yet know about to be far more exciting, interesting and beautiful than the notion that it was created by some invisible hand.

Ok. What does your aesthetic preference have to do with anything, though?

[Mastermind of Sin]

Well, it's not necessary to think that God specifically guided evolution; one could just as easily say that God knew when he created the Universe that we would evolve.

So a perfect being creates a universe where life develops based on the brutal struggle of natural selection? It doesn't make sense at all. But I suppose "God works in mysterious ways"

(shrug) Would you prefer to live in a universe where everything was created flawless and nothing ever changed? Sounds kind of boring to me. Life is change; that's what makes it so interesting.

Indeed, what does preference have to do with anything? You can't debunk his argument talking about preferences and then turn around and say that his preference means nothing.

[vollkan]

Your whole objection was antropocentric, or at least Earth-life-centric; you were suggesting that a perfect God wouldn't have made a universe where life on Earth developed through natural means like natural selection and such because you think that's "brutal". So, I disagree with your objection, and now you're trying to say that our preference about such things shouldn't matter? You are contradicting yourself.

*blink* If God is perfect, God would not rely on natural selection

anywhere

. Natural selection is the brutal struggle of death and survival. There is nothing anthropocentric about this at all.

Ok. What does your aesthetic preference have to do with anything, though?

You were talking about how awful it would be to live in a static universe. I agreed with you and elaborated by talking about the beauty and wonder which I find in godless science. You raised the issue of a boring universe, I was merely pointing out that science is anything but boring.

[Sarcastro]

2. The real beauty of evolution is that despite its simplicity as a concept, it is responsible for the diversity of life. The idea that evolution was "guided" destroys the beauty of evolution in my opinion and it undermines the notion that evolution is the result of random mutations being inherited over generations and naturally selected. This view is "less wrong" than 1, but I think it ignores the most wonderful aspects of evolution.

Option two is not incorrect because it leaves out "wonderful aspects of evolution", but simply because it is factually incorrect. Whether things are favourable or unfavourable has absolutely no place in objective science, and it makes you look hypocritical to talk about how beautiful evolution is. To do so is to sink to the religious level of "God is real because the universe is better that way".

[vollkan]

Option two is not incorrect because it leaves out "wonderful aspects of evolution", but simply because it is factually incorrect. Whether things are favourable or unfavourable has absolutely no place in objective science, and it makes you look hypocritical to talk about how beautiful evolution is. To do so is to sink to the religious level of "God is real because the universe is better that way".

I was definitely not making this a debate about personal favorableness. What I meant was that the most fascinating thing about evolution is that it works without any guidance as a fact. In that regard, I see the idea of it being guided as factually incorrect and ignoring one of the most interesting things about evolution.

I realise that what I said could be mis-read, so thanks for making me clarify.

[TBuG]

I believe in divine intervention; that God is responsible for evolution's beginnings.

[Yosarian2]

Indeed, what does preference have to do with anything? You can't debunk his argument talking about preferences and then turn around and say that his preference means nothing.

His whole argument was about HIS preference; he was arguing that a perfect God couldn't exist, because he thinks a perfect God wouldn't want to rely on natural selction, because he feels natural selection is brutal. In other words, he questions the existance of God simply because he feels the universe would be "better" if it wasn't for natural selection. That's an interesting argument, I suppose, but it's entierly based on his own personal preference for a less "brutal" way to create advanced life.

*blink* If God is perfect, God would not rely on natural selection

anywhere

. Natural selection is the brutal struggle of death and survival. There is nothing anthropocentric about this at all.

Why wouldn't God create a universe that would then continue based on natural principles such as natural selection? Why would you assume that God wouldn't want to create a universe where life would develop on it's own? Didn't you just agree with me that that kind of universe is simply more interesting then a universe where everything is unchanging?

[Yosarian2]

You were talking about how awful it would be to live in a static universe. I agreed with you and elaborated by talking about the beauty and wonder which I find in godless science. You raised the issue of a boring universe, I was merely pointing out that science is anything but boring.

Of course science is not boring. But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand here. Your whole argument was just that "God wouldn't do it that way", and I disagreed, I don't see any reason that God wouldn't.

[vollkan]

His whole argument was about HIS preference; he was arguing that a perfect God couldn't exist, because he thinks a perfect God wouldn't want to rely on natural selction, because he feels natural selection is brutal. In other words, he

questions the existance of God simply because he feels the universe would be "better" if it wasn't for natural selection.

That's an interesting argument, I suppose, but it's entierly based on his own personal preference for a less "brutal" way to create advanced life.

I see what you meant by my "preference" now, but I was never once talking about my own opinion of what God should or should not do. Furthermore, the bolded bit is completely untrue of me.

Let me reiterate more clearly:
I reject the idea that God guided evolution on the grounds that evolution is inherently dependent on randomness and survival. The most fundamental thing to evolution is that it is the result of unguided random mutations. Evolution occurs at the genetic level through replication and mutation of DNA and RNA. Now, in terms of how DNA and RNA replicating lifeforms formed initially, I favour either the primordial soup model or the Cairns-Smith inorganic model, though they aren't mutually incompatible. I won't detail them here, but the latter of these actually relies on a form of inorganic evolution.

All of this sounds terribly improbable, but remember this is a very large universe. Even something immensely improbable is very likely given the sheer number of opportunities this universe provides.

So then, where does God "guiding" evolution come into it? We have a system which is inherently dependent on the natural selection of purely random mutations. Therefore, the notion that God guided evolution makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, you are saying "God could have done it by evolution", but evolution by its very nature doesn't require God to do

anything

. There is absolutely no room here for God to "guide" evolution.

This is what I was trying to say when I was talking about it being "brutal". My point is that this is a process which occurs purely by the brutal struggle of nature. It requires no divine hand, so therefore there is no point invoking one.

Suppose science determines precisely how the universe is created without any divine intervention. Extending the logic of "guiding evolution" argument would then equate to "God allowed the universe to come into being without his involvement."

Why wouldn't God create a universe that would then continue based on natural principles such as natural selection? Why would you assume that God wouldn't want to create a universe where life would develop on it's own? Didn't you just agree with me that that kind of universe is simply more interesting then a universe where everything is unchanging?

Well, first up, if this is God "creating" a universe then we are moving beyond God "guiding" evolution. In fact, this is a deist position you are presenting in this question. But whatever, I love discussing this stuff.

I see no reason why God should make a universe with evolution just because it is more interesting to our primitive little minds.

There is no reason why a God could not make an evolutionary universe, but there are things that go against this idea. I find it impossible to fathom a divine being choosing to create a universe where life has to develop by death and struggle for survival. A God is entirely capable of creating a perfect universe where there is no need for natural selection, which is such a wasteful and destructive process.

The God model in this regard is simply an unproveable and undisprovable answer for how the universe came to be. It is immediately rendered false by Occam's Razor and fails to provide any evidence for its truth. Since it is an invokation beyond science, it bears the onus of proof. Until it presents such proof, it is only as valid as the tooth fairy. (Though this is a matter for another thread which seems to be overlapping with this one).

[Adele]

[I'm] interested in reconciling how evolution fits into a spiritual belief that the Bible is the word of God...

Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches, such as Anglicans and Lutherans, reject reading the Bible as though it could shed light on the physics of creation instead of the spiritual meaning of creation.

[Thesp]

Sorry, but that's a different definition of faith from the one I'm used to. I'm using a definition along the lines of "firm belief in something for which there is no proof", of which the Christian God or any other supernatural being is a great example.

I'm intrigued by what you mean by "proof". There is evidence that suggests God exists - while it might not rise to your standards of "proof", I am uncertain that any such experience would.

The religious use of revelation is unscientific - it doesn't depend upon reason but upon subjective experience.

The a-religious use of revelation depends on subjective experience as well.

It is also incorrect to say that reason and subjective experience are mutually exclusive, whether in a religious context or not.

If I see a burning bush that isn't consumed by the fire, yes, I might be tempted to draw a lot of conclusions from that, and I wouldn't want to discard it entirely. But should I theoretically discard it entirely? If I can't repeat it, and if the evidence shows me that it's impossible that such a thing could happen, then yes, I should. One cannot base one's understanding of the world on a unconfirmable miracle.

I disagree that you should discard it,

especially

when there are other reports of experiences which point towards the existence of God. Does that mean that such an experience is accurate? I couldn't tell you for sure - but it is certainly prudent to examine and compare this experience with others. (After all, some (most, I'd say) people who claim to be possessed by demons are having a mental malfunction, rather than actual possession.)

Of course, that nicely avoids the more important point, which is that miracles never have and never will happen (using the traditional "impossible happening" definition, not the lame "everything kind of nice" definition).

What is this traditional "impossible happening" definition? I am unfamiliar with it.

Now, I obviously can't prove that they've never happened, but the burden of proof is on you and our entire understanding of the world is pretty good evidence against you, so I suppose that's where faith comes in.

I agree the burden of proof is on me. I disagree strongly that "our entire understand of the world is pretty good evidence against [me]", and I'm not sure where it comes from.

In any case, I'm still not sure where Collins' use of the world "revelation" fits in here. Is he saying that to have faith, one must have seen a miracle?

Since I'm not really sure what your definition of miracle is, I can't answer you precisely. I do indeed say that informed faith involves revelation of God to a person - whether direct experience or indirect experience.

I think it's important to make it clear that that's all faith is. People like to talk about it as if it's some admirable thing to "have faith", but I don't understand why irrationality is considered a virtue.

This is what I don't understand. I agree that irrationality is far from a virtue - it's scary! However, a full, robust faith does not involve irrationality and a Kierkegaardian leap of faith against reason - quite the opposite - it goes hand and hand

with

reason! Why try to pigeonhole all religious people as irrational?

I did notice that you completely avoided my questions about why you have faith in the things you have faith in, though.

Sorry, I missed it. Here's where I'm thoroughly Methodist. I believe, because of personal experiences and encounters I have had with God, combined with similar experiences I have seen from people in my community, and from similar experiences shared by people throughout history, combined with rational, contemplative introspection and examination of the universe I am situated in, I believe God not only exists, but has significant interaction with the world we all live in. I know that's brief, I could go into greater detail at some other time if you like. I hope that helps.

No, faith is belief despite or in spite of evidence. Acknowledging that you don't have total control over the phenoma has nothing to do with anything.

Why?

I think you're on a smear campaign here. I agree that people misappropriate "faith" to be flying against all things rational, but this is dangerous and misguided. I'm one of many people working on all fronts trying to correct this terrible intellectual path I've seen some people take. Again, I'm on your side in saying irrationality is not virtuous - it ought to be scorned. What I don't want, however, is the concept that

all

religious people

must

fly against reason and rationality.

Care to give any examples of these phenomena?

I'll give you a couple - I thought very hard about sharing this - so please understand this is a moment of vulnerability here in some real respect. I have heard God speak to me on a number of occasions, especially in prayer - let me refer specifically to one instance. The language was particularly clear, obtrusive and unmistakable, and it was giving me direct guidance in my life. I have thought long and hard about such instances, as it very well could be that I have some sort of mental imbalance (or even just occasional malfunctions), and that indeed I have not heard (or perhaps more accurately, perceived) God's voice at all. Yet my mental faculties otherwise function perfectly normally and I have no reason to doubt that I am fully sane. My overall experience of God is remarkably consistent with those of my fellow Christian community, both contemporary and throughout history. (The Bible speaks of people's encounters of God thoughout history (i.e. the burning bush in Exodus), and is not the only record of people's experiences of God.)

Also, I don't think your personal experience can be used to argue anything. The human mind is a wonderful and very powerful thing.

This is a particularly unique stance you are taking. After all, I'd like to see how you could tell the volume of a chemical in an experiment you are performing if you are unwilling to allow for personal experience.

Beyond that, why shouldn't personal experience be a factor in things? Why must we throw out all of such evidence simply because it has the potential for fault? That doesn't seem wise at all. Won't you risk excluding a great number of things you might not otherwise be able to account for? That seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The argument that the Bible needs to be taken in "historical context" is nonsense and equates to "The Bible has a lot of things which aren't right for us now, so let's just ignore them".

Why shouldn't we take the Bible in historical context? It would be absurd not to! (I suspect what you're driving at is that a number of people who insist that the Bible is strictly the inerrant words of God spoken once and for all time also try to give it historical context, which creates a large number of interpretation problems.)

Well, it's not necessary to think that God specifically guided evolution; one could just as easily say that God knew when he created the Universe that we would evolve.

Part of the importance of the creation story is that God is a conscious decision maker in the process, and did not simply let things take their course. I do not think the concept of a guided evolution would have been terribly problematic to early believers - I

do

think a hands-off God would have been inconsistent with their (and my) understanding of God.

[vollkan]

The a-religious use of revelation depends on subjective experience as well. It is also incorrect to say that reason and subjective experience are mutually exclusive, whether in a religious context or not.

By subjective experience in the a-religious sense, what are you referring to specifically?

If you mean the scientific experience of results and data, then I must disagree with you. The difference is that the experiences of individuals, even if they are "similar" are not verifiable and can more readily be explained by the extraordinary ability of the mind to trick itself.

Why is it that religious "experiences" are confined to large numbers of individuals rather than large groups of people? Why is it that no large groups of people ever hear God speaking to them all at once?

Of course, any field of study depends on you encountering and experiencing data or research, but that experience can be replicated by anyone else who conducts the same study. If I want to, I can devote years of my life to studying the human genome to prove to myself that it can be done. However, the religious "experience" is not something that can be replicated in that regard and is far more sensibly explained by a combination of natural phenomena and the brain tricking itself.

Of course, a lot of people then give the trite response "God doesn't reveal himself unless you open yourself". That stems from the same thinking as the "God is a mystery" argument.

I disagree that you should discard it, especially when there are other reports of experiences which point towards the existence of God. Does that mean that such an experience is accurate? I couldn't tell you for sure - but it is certainly prudent to examine and compare this experience with others. (After all, some (most, I'd say) people who claim to be possessed by demons are having a mental malfunction, rather than actual possession.)

I fail to see why all alleged "possessions" cannot be attributed to mental phenomena. Indeed, attributing it to demons is utterly medieval and has been so harmful to the mentally ill for so long that this notion should not be even entertained.

As I have already said, the experiences of individuals cannot be taken as evidence of anything beyond mental phenomena where there is nothing which can be perceived by another person at the same time and which cannot be replicated.

What is this traditional "impossible happening" definition? I am unfamiliar with it.

A "miracle" in the religious sense is something which defies the laws of nature. We may consider it a miracle if we win the lottery twice in a row and get struck by lightning after winning each time. However, that is still statistically

possible

. It does not point to divine intervention.

The fact that many people have subjective religious experiences does not point to the existence of god, so much as it does the ubiquity of mental illusions.

This is what I don't understand. I agree that irrationality is far from a virtue - it's scary! However, a full, robust faith does not involve irrationality and a Kierkegaardian leap of faith against reason - quite the opposite - it goes hand and hand with reason! Why try to pigeonhole all religious people as irrational?

But faith in itself depends on taking a belief despite or in spite of evidence. Even if you base it on some scientific basis like "complexity" (which is not evidence for God, as you probably well know) faith requires a belief to be taken without evidence.

There is no point in a reasoning process where you can reasonably conclude a supernatural phenomena. You may not have an answer, but bewilderment is not evidence for god.

Sorry, I missed it. Here's where I'm thoroughly Methodist. I believe, because of personal experiences and encounters I have had with God, combined with similar experiences I have seen from people in my community, and from similar experiences shared by people throughout history, combined with rational, contemplative introspection and examination of the universe I am situated in, I believe God not only exists, but has significant interaction with the world we all live in. I know that's brief, I could go into greater detail at some other time if you like. I hope that helps.

Similar experiences by many individuals throughout history and individual contemplation following your experience. The "experience" is what I see as the skyhook of the reasoning process. That is the problem with faith.

I'll give you a couple - I thought very hard about sharing this - so please understand this is a moment of vulnerability here in some real respect. I have heard God speak to me on a number of occasions, especially in prayer - let me refer specifically to one instance. The language was particularly clear, obtrusive and unmistakable, and it was giving me direct guidance in my life. I have thought long and hard about such instances, as it very well could be that I have some sort of mental imbalance (or even just occasional malfunctions), and that indeed I have not heard (or perhaps more accurately, perceived) God's voice at all. Yet my mental faculties otherwise function perfectly normally and I have no reason to doubt that I am fully sane. My overall experience of God is remarkably consistent with those of my fellow Christian community, both contemporary and throughout history. (The Bible speaks of people's encounters of God thoughout history (i.e. the burning bush in Exodus), and is not the only record of people's experiences of God.)

Thankyou for that; it's good to debate with someone who is honest about this.

As you say yourself, it could just be a mental malfunction. Let's take that possibility and compare it with the experience of God one. Now, why is God more likely than your brain contemporaneously malfunctioning?

Why is God more likely than those people throughout history having their brains malfunctioning?

Remember, the proportion of people who have these experiences is still relatively small. I see no reason why you can conclude it is God.

This is a particularly unique stance you are taking. After all, I'd like to see how you could tell the volume of a chemical in an experiment you are performing if you are unwilling to allow for personal experience.

Reproducability and verifiability. If I want, I can call every other person in the lab over to look at the test tube with me. I can take photographs of the tube. It is wholly different from me individually hearing voices/believing I am abducted by aliens/seeing santa.

Beyond that, why shouldn't personal experience be a factor in things? Why must we throw out all of such evidence simply because it has the potential for fault? That doesn't seem wise at all. Won't you risk excluding a great number of things you might not otherwise be able to account for? That seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

No. I am not dismissing this at all. I am simply saying that the only sensible explanation is mental malfunction. I fail to see why these experiences point to a divine being. Here's a thought: Is it possible that our brain may have the capacity for this hearing voices thing as an evolutionary product, given how frequently people have these experiences in times of despair? My point is simple: Where there is a logical, natural explanation, it is wrong to invoke the supernatural.

Why shouldn't we take the Bible in historical context? It would be absurd not to! (I suspect what you're driving at is that a number of people who insist that the Bible is strictly the inerrant words of God spoken once and for all time also try to give it historical context, which creates a large number of interpretation problems.)

I attended a Catholic school where they adopted this contextualist approach very rigorously.

My problem with the contextualist approach is this: At some level all Christians assert that some element of the Bible is true (ie. Jesus's resurrection, or even Jesus's historical existence). Now, most Christians also reject other elements as historical anachronisms or purely symbolic (ie. Adam and Eve).

My problem is that I can see no basis for asserting that some parts can be disregarded other than centrality to faith. Why should Adam and Eve be purely symbolic but not Jesus, other than for modern convenience?

[pickemgenius]

There is evidence that suggests God exists - while it might not rise to your standards of "proof", I am uncertain that any such experience would.

keep the dumb ass god shit in the god thread. both of you.



thesp i can has ? go to god thread....

[vollkan]

keep the dumb ass god shit in the god thread. both of you.

Amen *pun* to that.

[Sarcastro]

Sorry, but that's a different definition of faith from the one I'm used to. I'm using a definition along the lines of "firm belief in something for which there is no proof", of which the Christian God or any other supernatural being is a great example.

I'm intrigued by what you mean by "proof". There is evidence that suggests God exists - while it might not rise to your standards of "proof", I am uncertain that any such experience would.

Well, I'm not sure I want to get into specific arguments for the existence or non-existence of God. There really is no scientific evidence for God's existence, though, and Occam's Razor and the burden of proof both point towards assuming that God doesn't exist.

The religious use of revelation is unscientific - it doesn't depend upon reason but upon subjective experience.

The a-religious use of revelation depends on subjective experience as well.

It is also incorrect to say that reason and subjective experience are mutually exclusive, whether in a religious context or not.

The generic meaning of revelation is just "the act of revealing" or "something that is revealed". While I suppose it's true to say that it's not necessarily scientific, neither is it expressly un-scientific the way that accepting a subjective experience as proof of God is.

If I see a burning bush that isn't consumed by the fire, yes, I might be tempted to draw a lot of conclusions from that, and I wouldn't want to discard it entirely. But should I theoretically discard it entirely? If I can't repeat it, and if the evidence shows me that it's impossible that such a thing could happen, then yes, I should. One cannot base one's understanding of the world on a unconfirmable miracle.

I disagree that you should discard it,

especially

when there are other reports of experiences which point towards the existence of God. Does that mean that such an experience is accurate? I couldn't tell you for sure - but it is certainly prudent to examine and compare this experience with others. (After all, some (most, I'd say) people who claim to be possessed by demons are having a mental malfunction, rather than actual possession.)

Well if you're making the argument that there are lots of experiences so God is real, that's pretty different from just taking your experience as proof, which is how I originally understood your use of the word "revelation". However, now you're just getting into taking lots of anecdotal evidence. I personally haven't heard of many of these other "experiences", but what exactly is there to separate them from stories of ghosts or aliens or any other phenomenon in which many people believe without any solid proof?

You're right, it is prudent to examine and compare the experience, and I won't lie: if something like that happened to me, I'd be likely be tempted to create a supernatural explanation for it. I certainly hope, however, that my rational mind would prevail: if these experiences can't even be satisfactorally documented, let alone repeated and tested, how can I possibly accept them as evidence for the supernatural?

That's not even getting to the issue of why a burning bush would cause me to specifically believe in God - a more likely explanation in my mind is that I've stumbled across a really awesome magic bush.

Of course, that nicely avoids the more important point, which is that miracles never have and never will happen (using the traditional "impossible happening" definition, not the lame "everything kind of nice" definition).

What is this traditional "impossible happening" definition? I am unfamiliar with it.

My understanding of the concept of miracles is that they're supposed to be an impossible event caused through some kind of divine intervention - your burning bush example, water into wine, parting the Red Sea, etc. This is simply opposed to the casual "childbirth is a miracle" kind of usage that some people like to use. My contention is simply that no miracle of the former sort has ever happened, on account of them being impossible and all.

Now, I obviously can't prove that they've never happened, but the burden of proof is on you and our entire understanding of the world is pretty good evidence against you, so I suppose that's where faith comes in.

I agree the burden of proof is on me. I disagree strongly that "our entire understand of the world is pretty good evidence against [me]", and I'm not sure where it comes from.

I'm not sure how you could disagree that our entire understanding of the world is against miracles happening. That's almost what they are by definition. It certainly wouldn't be impressive if God set a bush on fire, only to have it actually burn, would it? If you're going to claim that things that by definition go against our whole scientific understanding of the world, you need proof.

In any case, I'm still not sure where Collins' use of the world "revelation" fits in here. Is he saying that to have faith, one must have seen a miracle?

Since I'm not really sure what your definition of miracle is, I can't answer you precisely. I do indeed say that informed faith involves revelation of God to a person - whether direct experience or indirect experience.

I don't have much to say about this - I'm not really in a position to give an alternate opinion of what "informed faith" requires, seeing as how it's a nonsensical concept to me.

I think it's important to make it clear that that's all faith is. People like to talk about it as if it's some admirable thing to "have faith", but I don't understand why irrationality is considered a virtue.

This is what I don't understand. I agree that irrationality is far from a virtue - it's scary! However, a full, robust faith does not involve irrationality and a Kierkegaardian leap of faith against reason - quite the opposite - it goes hand and hand

with

reason! Why try to pigeonhole all religious people as irrational?

How can faith not involve irrationality? Do you have another definition of irrationality? As far as I can see, choosing to believe something against all scientific evidence - even if you think you've seen a miracle - is irrational. To say it goes hand-in-hand with reason, well, I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Do you think the scientific method leads us to believe that God exists? Do you have a different method that you believe is more rational than the scientific method?

I'm not trying to pigeonhole people as anything. I simply have never been given an example of rational religious belief, and I contend that it is by definition impossible. You really haven't done anything to change my mind; as intelligently as you argue, you've haven't really given me a good, rational reason for your beliefs. Why do you believe in God?

I did notice that you completely avoided my questions about why you have faith in the things you have faith in, though.

Sorry, I missed it. Here's where I'm thoroughly Methodist. I believe, because of personal experiences and encounters I have had with God, combined with similar experiences I have seen from people in my community, and from similar experiences shared by people throughout history, combined with rational, contemplative introspection and examination of the universe I am situated in, I believe God not only exists, but has significant interaction with the world we all live in. I know that's brief, I could go into greater detail at some other time if you like. I hope that helps.

Well, I suppose that's something of an answer to that last question. (though not really what my original question was asking for - I'll get to that in a second). Obviously I can't say much about any encounters with God, though I'd defy you to show me how believing in subjective experience over scientific knowledge is rational. As for the similar experiences - well, people lie, people are crazy, and, most commonly, people are inclined to interpret things to mean what they want them to mean. Again, I don't really know what sorts of experiences we're talking about here, but I strongly doubt that they lack scientific explanations. As for your contemplative introspection, I don't really see any reason to take your word for it when you say that it's rational. Your conclusions are your own, but unless you give me a good reason to accept them, I don't know why I should believe that they're rational conclusions.

In any case, all this doesn't quite address my original question, which I can rephrase now that I know exactly what denomination you are. Why are you a Methodist as opposed to, say, a Baptist? An Anglican? A Catholic? A Muslim? A Jew? A Buddhist? A Hindu? A Zoroastrian? A Norse Pagan? A Shintoist? A Rastafarian? A Pastafarian? And so on and so forth. Further, I'm assuming that you were born into a Methodist family and/or community. If I'm correct in assuming that, don't you think it's a bit of a coincidence that you happened to born where you were, rather than, say, India? If you were born in India, do you think you would have still become a Methodist? I'm assuming that you think being born in India would not actually have changed the reality of the world, so if you'd been born in India, Methodism would still have been the correct religion, right? Do you believe that you are favoured by God, and that is why you were born into a place where Methodism is frequently practiced? In any of your encounters with God, did he explicitly say that you were to be a Methodist? Do you know for sure that they were encounters with a Methodist/Christian/Monotheistic god and not, say, Shiva or Loki or Ra or Sun Wukong or Veles or Belobog or Athena or Amaterasu or Anansi? I apologise if any of these questions sound stupid or patronising, but I'm seriously just trying to understand exactly why you believe what you believe and not something else. I've never gotten a straight answer out of a Christian with these sorts of questions ("It's just faith" being the most popular), so I'd appreciate it if I finally got one now.

[Thesp]

The difference is that the experiences of individuals, even if they are "similar" are not verifiable and can more readily be explained by the extraordinary ability of the mind to trick itself.

You've needlessly precluded a lot of potentially useful data (as well as a lot of crap). That's not scientifically rigorous/epistemologically virtuous at all.

However, the religious "experience" is not something that can be replicated in that regard and is far more sensibly explained by a combination of natural phenomena and the brain tricking itself.

It seems we're stuck, then. I disagree that this is the assessment we must take, and I'm a little uncertain as to how you could be convinced if this is how God presents God's self, if you're throwing away data willy-nilly because it has the potential to be wrong. The bit about "not being in control of the subject" is significant, because replication is indeed more difficult, but it cannot invalidate the possibility. (It sure does make it harder to "prove", though.)

We may consider it a miracle if we win the lottery twice in a row and get struck by lightning after winning each time. However, that is still statistically possible . It does not point to divine intervention.

The fact that many people have subjective religious experiences does not point to the existence of god, so much as it does the ubiquity of mental illusions.

I agree with you on this first paragraph, and am curious as to how you concluded the second.

But faith in itself depends on taking a belief despite or in spite of evidence. Even if you base it on some scientific basis like "complexity" (which is not evidence for God, as you probably well know) faith requires a belief to be taken without evidence.

There is no point in a reasoning process where you can reasonably conclude a supernatural phenomena. You may not have an answer, but bewilderment is not evidence for god.

I really, really think you're not listening to what I'm saying, then.

I'm asserting that

because of

the evidence I've experience, belief in God is not only warranted, it is

proper

. You keep asserting that I must be believing in God despite of or in spite of evidence. There is clearly some contradiction going on here.

As you say yourself, it could just be a mental malfunction. Let's take that possibility and compare it with the experience of God one. Now, why is God more likely than your brain contemporaneously malfunctioning?

Why is God more likely than those people throughout history having their brains malfunctioning?

Remember, the proportion of people who have these experiences is still relatively small. I see no reason why you can conclude it is God.

I'm not certain this proportion is as small as you think it is. In fact, there are Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, Christians, etc. that have perceived God,

and continue to perceive God on a daily basis

, contemporaneously and throughout history. I'm really not certain why I

ought

to conclude this is widespread mental defect. It seems terribly consistent with what I see, read, and hear. I've genuinely considered the alternatives, and I don't find them compelling.

Reproducability and verifiability. If I want, I can call every other person in the lab over to look at the test tube with me. I can take photographs of the tube. It is wholly different from me individually hearing voices/believing I am abducted by aliens/seeing santa.

I suspect you will have trouble fitting Jesus on the Xerox.

No. I am not dismissing this at all. I am simply saying that the only sensible explanation is mental malfunction. I fail to see why these experiences point to a divine being. Here's a thought: Is it possible that our brain may have the capacity for this hearing voices thing as an evolutionary product, given how frequently people have these experiences in times of despair? My point is simple: Where there is a logical, natural explanation, it is wrong to invoke the supernatural.

I'm still having trouble as to why I must adopt your conclusion as "the only sensible explanation". You seem to have concluded there is no God already, then interpreted the data in light of this conclusion.

My problem with the contextualist approach is this: At some level all Christians assert that some element of the Bible is true (ie. Jesus's resurrection, or even Jesus's historical existence). Now, most Christians also reject other elements as historical anachronisms or purely symbolic (ie. Adam and Eve).

My problem is that I can see no basis for asserting that some parts can be disregarded other than centrality to faith. Why should Adam and Eve be purely symbolic but not Jesus, other than for modern convenience?

Excellent question! I think it revolves centrally upon the misconception (spread largely by Christians) that the Bible is a dingle, unified unit. I'm sure you've seen examples of how Revelations has been taken quite literally, when it's literary style would never have been taken literally by the original reader. Imagine you read a text, and it begins, "Once upon a time...". You will understand it in a different way than a piece which begins "Houston, Texas (AP) - A fire began...", and rightly so. There are some things which are absolutely critical as literal to the Christian faith, which includes the literal existence, death and bodily resurrection of Jesus the Christ as God. There are other things which are perceived as such, but really aren't.

Well if you're making the argument that there are lots of experiences so God is real, that's pretty different from just taking your experience as proof, which is how I originally understood your use of the word "revelation". However, now you're just getting into taking lots of anecdotal evidence.

I object to your use of the word "just" here. I'm talking about lots of experience - anecdotal or otherwise. In some sense, what other experience could we work from? Suppose Jesus walked into Times Square, spoke of Heaven, raised someone from the dead, then ascended back into heaven in the course of an hour. What evidence are we working from? Will it prove or disprove God's existence? I assert it wouldn't do either, but it would be part of the entire body of evidence to consider.

My contention is simply that no miracle of the former sort has ever happened, on account of them being impossible and all.

That's rather semantic. I'd agree that nothing impossible has ever happened, too! Of course, I think things like changing water into wine are perfectly possible, because I don't believe in a closed system, I believe there is a God who intervenes in this world.

As far as I can see, choosing to believe something against all scientific evidence - even if you think you've seen a miracle - is irrational. To say it goes hand-in-hand with reason, well, I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Do you think the scientific method leads us to believe that God exists?

I agree that believing in something against reason is irrational. I do think that a scientific approach

on the whole

can (and often does) lead to belief in God. I cannot say it always leads to belief in God, as I've seen instances where people are not led to belief in God. I suspect science isn't the end-all-be-all that it's being made out to be - but please don't take this as me discounting the necessity for an intellectually rigorous approach. (I've already expressed numerous times my displeasure for people who argue against reason.)

I'm not trying to pigeonhole people as anything. I simply have never been given an example of rational religious belief, and I contend that it is by definition impossible. You really haven't done anything to change my mind; as intelligently as you argue, you've haven't really given me a good, rational reason for your beliefs. Why do you believe in God?

I gave a small slice of this earlier:

I'll give you a couple - I thought very hard about sharing this - so please understand this is a moment of vulnerability here in some real respect. I have heard God speak to me on a number of occasions, especially in prayer - let me refer specifically to one instance. The language was particularly clear, obtrusive and unmistakable, and it was giving me direct guidance in my life. I have thought long and hard about such instances, as it very well could be that I have some sort of mental imbalance (or even just occasional malfunctions), and that indeed I have not heard (or perhaps more accurately, perceived) God's voice at all. Yet my mental faculties otherwise function perfectly normally and I have no reason to doubt that I am fully sane. My overall experience of God is remarkably consistent with those of my fellow Christian community, both contemporary and throughout history. (The Bible speaks of people's encounters of God thoughout history (i.e. the burning bush in Exodus), and is not the only record of people's experiences of God.)

I apologize if I am being overly abstract, I can be more specific if necessary (though perhaps at a later time, I need t catch up with some mafia games!). I further believe that my belief in God has come from, to borrow from Alvin Plantinga, "cognitive processes or faculties that are functioning properly, in a cognitive environment that is propitious for that exercise of cognitive powers, according to a design plan that is successfully aimed at the production of true belief".

Obviously I can't say much about any encounters with God, though I'd defy you to show me how believing in subjective experience over scientific knowledge is rational.

Science involves subjective experience. Science takes that experience, compares it with similar experiences over time, and often has the luxury of being able to reproduce experiments to test variables. God comes across as very difficult to test, as God just won't stay under the slide in the microscope. So, given that we are forced to work with our unreproducible experiences if we are to piece together anything about who God is, if God should exist, what do we do? We share them and piece them together. I think there is enough shared experience throughout our world over a long history of time continuing to the present day to suggest it's worth examining,

at the least

.

As for the similar experiences - well, people lie, people are crazy, and, most commonly, people are inclined to interpret things to mean what they want them to mean.

Yes, it makes it much more difficult to wade through them. It seems, though, that you must explain away

each and every one

of these experiences in such a way. If you want to employ Occam's Razor here, it seems a simpler explanation is that there might be something there. It's not the

easiest

explanation, but it's the simplest.

Why are you a Methodist as opposed to, say, a Baptist? An Anglican? A Catholic? A Muslim? A Jew? A Buddhist? A Hindu? A Zoroastrian? A Norse Pagan? A Shintoist? A Rastafarian? A Pastafarian? And so on and so forth.

A strict behaviorist would say it's because I'm a product of my environment. I say it's because Methodism (specifically United Methodism) aligns so very closely with my epistemological approach and belief in who God is.

Further, I'm assuming that you were born into a Methodist family and/or community. If I'm correct in assuming that, don't you think it's a bit of a coincidence that you happened to born where you were, rather than, say, India? If you were born in India, do you think you would have still become a Methodist? I'm assuming that you think being born in India would not actually have changed the reality of the world, so if you'd been born in India, Methodism would still have been the correct religion, right? Do you believe that you are favoured by God, and that is why you were born into a place where Methodism is frequently practiced? In any of your encounters with God, did he explicitly say that you were to be a Methodist? Do you know for sure that they were encounters with a Methodist/Christian/Monotheistic god and not, say, Shiva or Loki or Ra or Sun Wukong or Veles or Belobog or Athena or Amaterasu or Anansi?

I was raised in the Baptist church by Baptist parents. I found Methodism to make more sense and have a much more sensical approach towards tradition (appreciation without fear or strict adherence), the scriptures (as sacred texts that aren't rigid words), and reason (as a foundation and bedrock). I have known others who grew up Baptist and became atheist, some agnostic, some Baptist, some Methodist, some other things entirely. I am indeed aware of my cultural situation, and understand that were I born in an area where other religions are dominant, it's entirely possible I would be more familiar with other faith traditions. (However, there's a certain presupposition to this I'm not sure I can go all the way on - if I'm substantially different, then I'm substantially different, possibly to the point of not being me - whatever that is.) I don't believe I particularly was favored by God to be born in an area that Methodism is prevalent, though I do consider myself fortunate. I don't recall God ever telling me to be Methodist, though. While I could not say with 100% certainty that my encounters have been with the God of Christian faith, they have been consistent with my understanding from others of who that God is. Admittedly, I believe that others who have encountered God (such as the Hindu in India, to continue the example given) have actually experienced YHWH, and have interpreted their revelation incorrectly. I have done some substantive research into other religions, and found them either not meshing with my experience of God, and/or having internal rational problems I could not see answers to. From the abstract, this is why I believe in God. I acknowledge I might be wrong, but I think I'm right. (It's sort of how I play mafia. )

I hope this helps answer your question. I've seen a lot of a-rational or irrational Christians out there, and it always worries me, because while their hearts are in the right place, their minds might be leading people astray. I think there is plenty of room for a rational, robust faith in God.

[vollkan]

You've needlessly precluded a lot of potentially useful data (as well as a lot of crap). That's not scientifically rigorous/epistemologically virtuous at all.

It seems we're stuck, then. I disagree that this is the assessment we must take, and I'm a little uncertain as to how you could be convinced if this is how God presents God's self, if you're throwing away data willy-nilly because it has the potential to be wrong. The bit about "not being in control of the subject" is significant, because replication is indeed more difficult, but it cannot invalidate the possibility. (It sure does make it harder to "prove", though.)

I'm asserting that because of the evidence I've experience, belief in God is not only warranted, it is proper. You keep asserting that I must be believing in God despite of or in spite of evidence. There is clearly some contradiction going on here.

Right. These three points are relate to the one issue: Is subjective experience evidence? You clearly think that it should not be ignored as evidence, and I disagree.

My point is that they are not evidence for God. They are evidence for the ubiquity of such mental illusions. What I mean by that is this:
The fact that many people have these experiences does not in any way suggest God's existence any more than if one person has the experiences. These experiences have a rational explanation as tricks of the mind. The very fact that people have these experiences attests to the fact that they are not such a freak occurence. You might call that God speaking to them, I just take it as evidence that our minds commonly mess up.

In other words, it is not that I am dismissing these things, I am simply taking them as evidence of a natural phenomena, which is the most correct conclusion given Occam's Razor.

You say that this experience makes it "proper" for you to believe in God. I think what we have here is the case that the experience has deeply affected you in an emotional way, in the sense that the experience means more to you than it would to a hypothetical objective bystander.

The proper scientific way to approach this is evidence is to view it objectively. Clearly, there is a mental phenomena akin to a form of hallucination which is occurring. That is all the evidence suggests. Nothing about these experiences points to God more than it does to a mental phenomena.

I'm not certain this proportion is as small as you think it is. In fact, there are Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, Christians, etc. that have perceived God, and continue to perceive God on a daily basis, contemporaneously and throughout history. I'm really not certain why I ought to conclude this is widespread mental defect. It seems terribly consistent with what I see, read, and hear. I've genuinely considered the alternatives, and I don't find them compelling.

An excellent point and I am glad you raise it.
All religions have an experiential dimension, some ritualised activity which seeks to invoke an experience. Buddhism's is meditation obviously. I would argue that such activities, which deliberately seek to invoke certain feelings in the brain, are the cause of perceived experiences. Once a person encounters this phenomena enough subjectively, I think it very likely that would imagine they "perceive" God far more often owing to a subjective emotional "feeling" (not the best word, but I am sure you understand).

I suspect you will have trouble fitting Jesus on the Xerox.

I assume this little foray with Biblical infallibality is a joke from you.

I'm still having trouble as to why I must adopt your conclusion as "the only sensible explanation [is mental malfunction]". You seem to have concluded there is no God already, then interpreted the data in light of this conclusion.

No. My assumption is that if there is a natural explanation, that should be taken. Why? If there is a natural explanation then it is not a miracle and Occam's Razor and all that jazz.

I approach it with no conclusion other than "What is the logical explanation for this?" I don't conclude God because I find a natural one that satisfies me.

In the case of the universe's origins, I know science cannot explain that yet, but that still does not make it any more justified to reach for a religious one.

Excellent question! I think it revolves centrally upon the misconception (spread largely by Christians) that the Bible is a dingle, unified unit. I'm sure you've seen examples of how Revelations has been taken quite literally, when it's literary style would never have been taken literally by the original reader. Imagine you read a text, and it begins, "Once upon a time...". You will understand it in a different way than a piece which begins "Houston, Texas (AP) - A fire began...", and rightly so.

There are some things which are absolutely critical as literal to the Christian faith, which includes the literal existence, death and bodily resurrection of Jesus the Christ as God. There are other things which are perceived as such, but really aren't.

But this is just my point. Why is it only the fundamental stuff which is

not

symbolic? Is it not possible that, for instance, you have it completely the wrong way round. That Jesus's death and resurrection were purely symbolic whilst the prediction of the world burning at Armageddon is meant to be literal?

I realise the style of writing is different, but that in and of itself doesn't prove anything.

I know of professed Christians, Bishop John Spong of the Episcopalian Church, for instance, who take this contextual approach to the total extent, rather than cherry-picking the fundamental stuff.

[Yosarian2]

Well, it's not necessary to think that God specifically guided evolution; one could just as easily say that God knew when he created the Universe that we would evolve.

Part of the importance of the creation story is that God is a conscious decision maker in the process, and did not simply let things take their course. I do not think the concept of a guided evolution would have been terribly problematic to early believers - I

do

think a hands-off God would have been inconsistent with their (and my) understanding of God.

So, what's the difference between God guiding evolution on a day-to-day basis, and God specifically designing the Universe in such a way that, in his omniscience, he knew that we would evolve and come into existance exactally the way we did?

That's not to say that God is "hands-off" necessarally, I don't believe in a God that just started the Universe and then walked away, but when it comes to natural processes such as the development of stars from dust clouds and the evolution of life and all that, I don't really see a theological distintion between God designing the natural laws of the universe in such a way that those things would all happen, and a God who specifically caused them to happen one at a time. And, just from a scientific point of view, there's no reason to think the evolution needed direct guidence in order to work.

[Thesp]

Right. These three points are relate to the one issue: Is subjective experience evidence? You clearly think that it should not be ignored as evidence, and I disagree.

My point is that they are not evidence for God. They are evidence for the ubiquity of such mental illusions. What I mean by that is this:
The fact that many people have these experiences does not in any way suggest God's existence any more than if one person has the experiences. These experiences have a rational explanation as tricks of the mind. The very fact that people have these experiences attests to the fact that they are not such a freak occurence. You might call that God speaking to them, I just take it as evidence that our minds commonly mess up.

In other words, it is not that I am dismissing these things, I am simply taking them as evidence of a natural phenomena, which is the most correct conclusion given Occam's Razor.

I guess I just don't see why we must conclude what you are trying to conlcude,

especially

given Occam's Razor. It feels like you're trying to explain away God, much in the same way you accuse fundamentalists of trying to explain away science. I'm clearly not saying that all of what people say is experience of God actually

is

such experience, but I think simply dismissing it as you are is an absurd way to approach it as a scientist. A good scientist considers outliers and other things that doesn't fit his data, and considers models that would include all the data. A poor scientist jams the data in ways they don't fit into a model that doesn't work.

No. My assumption is that if there is a natural explanation, that should be taken. Why? If there is a natural explanation then it is not a miracle and Occam's Razor and all that jazz.

I approach it with no conclusion other than "What is the logical explanation for this?" I don't conclude God because I find a natural one that satisfies me.

Here's the thing - I'm

also

suggesting a natural explanation for all these events. You're just presupposing a nature that is much

smaller

.

But this is just my point. Why is it only the fundamental stuff which is not symbolic? Is it not possible that, for instance, you have it completely the wrong way round. That Jesus's death and resurrection were purely symbolic whilst the prediction of the world burning at Armageddon is meant to be literal?

I realise the style of writing is different, but that in and of itself doesn't prove anything.

I know of professed Christians, Bishop John Spong of the Episcopalian Church, for instance, who take this contextual approach to the total extent, rather than cherry-picking the fundamental stuff.

The texts when studied don't lend themselves to that reading. The Revelation According to John is from a genre of writing called

apocalypse

, and it's form is substantially different from that of gospel writings, from proverbs or psalms, or eve from the Letters (both Pauline, Deutero-Pauline, and others). Let's not confuse "contextual" with "removing the false stuff" - there's something siginificant about the texts we as a church have selected throughout history and held in higher regards than other texts. (And heck, even the canon isn't universally accepted - there are at least three different "Bibles" - Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox.) Each text ought to be given critical study - it opens up a wealth of knowledge not otherwise seen!

The part I underlined in your quote is where I think the problem is. Style

is

important. (Consider this - would it be important to discover whether the same John that wronte the gospel of John wrote the Revelation According to John? Would that affect the reading?) It's naive to think otherwise. (I understand that well meaning Christians have promulgated the opposite, and have done grave damage to proper understandings of the canonical texts.) I can go into longer discussions as to what apocalyptic literature is and what gospel literature is, but I suspect that's not what you want.

So, what's the difference between God guiding evolution on a day-to-day basis, and God specifically designing the Universe in such a way that, in his omniscience, he knew that we would evolve and come into existance exactally the way we did?

If you impinge upon free will, I guess there's no problem.

[Kelly Chen]

Wow. Calling out people who think Revelation wasn't written by the same guy as wrote the fourth gospel. That's hardcore.