Do you believe in evolution?

This forum is for discussion about anything else.

Do you believe in Evolution?

Yes, it is how we got to where we are now
125
78%
No, there is no chance of evolution
12
7%
In theory yes, but we didn't come from primates
17
11%
Unsure
7
4%
 
Total votes: 161

User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #35 (isolation #0) » Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:43 pm

Post by Thesp »

ShadowLurker wrote:
Fritzler wrote:No its not on the curriculum. I had a couple of science professors talk about it anyways in 7th grade with his own time, but that was about it. My 9th grade teacher in biology never mentioned it, and after that I took 2 physics and 2 chemistry classes, and never really had an option to talk about it. I do know that a couple teachers talked about it anyways in class (mostly the AP/Honors teachers), and some didn't (mostly for the stupid people). Do people really teach evolution like, to every kid in other states?
Yes.

The only state I'm not sure about is Texas as they have their own textbook for everything and I dunno about the contents of their biology curriculum.
When I was in junior high and high school in Texas, it was taught. (It was presented as, "I'm not telling you to believe this, but you have to know it, as it's important to know.") It would surprise me for it not to be taught - it's a fairly significant theory in science as a whole.
IH wrote:Which brings me back to the main point of this thread, which is talking about teaching it in schools, right? The spin thats getting put on it is that Evolution is right, you're stupid, shut up
This is far from my experience.

I have my suspicions that evolution is an inaccurate understanding of the phenomena we have experienced, but I very well may be wrong on that, and it wouldn't shake the foundations of my world if I was.
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #41 (isolation #1) » Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:14 pm

Post by Thesp »

Nightson wrote:Evolution has been repeatedly tested to the point that the chance of the core concept of evolution (common ancestry, speciation, natural selection) being wrong is effectively zero.
I'm very uncertain that you can assert this.
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #60 (isolation #2) » Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:01 pm

Post by Thesp »

vollkan wrote:Actually, I would "assert" it. There is no actual scientific evidence rebutting to "core concepts" of evolution. Any disagreement is primarily over minor subsidiary things (ie. whether or not genes are mere book-keepers or whether they are causative).

No respectable scientific doubt remains about the fact of evolution itself.
This is a very narrow viewpoint that's not terribly epistemologically virtuous.
Dani Banani wrote:interested in reconciling how evolution fits into a spiritual belief that the Bible is the word of God...
Saying that "the Bible is the word of God" is vague on so many levels. To see evolution and Genesis as mutually exclusive requires a very narrow understanding of what the Bible is in order to believe that the creation story in Genesis 1
must
be
literally
correct, lest we be unable to trust the sacred texts at all. (There are far too many that
do
share that narrow understanding, much to the chagrin of textual and literary criticism which has greatly advanced our understanding of Biblical texts in the last few decades.) It's particularly difficult to maintain a strict literal reading of both creation stories in Genesis, as there are "timing issues" with them. ;) (You won't see them if you read the NIV translation, as the translators there have worked that problem out with some "creative" translating of a verb tense.)

It's not terribly important if the world was created in precisely seven days (despite what some will tell you). What
is
important is that we were
deliberately
created by a God who was intimately involved with the creation of this world.
joost wrote:Theology is a science and I think that is where the evolution vs Creationism/ID should take place, in a theology classroom.

The problem with this debate is that if there is God, anything's possible. God could have made the earth look like it was older than it actually is to fool poor biologists and geologists and physicists. A scientist however should not be bothered with this possibility. He should accept that what he sees is the truth and if he does not believe it he should find another job.
This is a very narrow tailoring of each science and theology. Good theology and good science use the same epistemological principles, only one doesn't have as much control over its subject as the other. ;)
vollkan wrote:By invoking a god, you immediately raise the spectre of who created god, thereby creating an endless procession of things. Usually theists and deists will then say either A: "God is a mystery" or B: "God always existed"

A is basically just an admission of complete bewilderment.
B is mildly more interesting. If you can accept a god always existing, why not the universe? The logic is self-defeating.
I don't agree with your conclusion of "B" here, it is fairly difficult to imagine matter as infinite on the timeline. I must say that an infinite ground of being makes a lot more sense, whether I follow Martin Buber and Paul Tillich the whole way on that or not.
vollkan wrote:Anyway, if you say god did it, you are going to allow for absolutely anything.
A good philosopher does not take this track at all. Pick on me instead of a straw man. ;)
Twomz wrote:I was taught Evolution in Texas... AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT IN CHURCH TOO!!!

Methodism ftw
Wesley in the HOUSE! Woop woop!
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #65 (isolation #3) » Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:56 pm

Post by Thesp »

Sarcastro wrote:Faith is certainly opposed to reason in the sense that one needs to abandon reason to have faith in anything that there is any evidence against (such as the existence of supernatural beings, which your quote is presumably referring to).
This is a terrible misconception, which is seeded by Soren Kierkegaard and promulgated by fundamentalists who wrongly fight to subjugate rationality to their limited understanding of religious revelation. If you believe in something
contra
rationality, it's not "faith", it's lunacy. Faith is, in some real sense, acknowledging you don't have total control of the phenomena you have experienced and believe.
Sarcastro wrote:What the hell does he mean by "revelation", by the way? Last time I checked, that was not a logical term.
Revelation is a crucial part of epistemology (including science), as it is the
experience of phenomena
- in the context Collins speaks of, religious phenomena. (After all, "revelation" carries a context of something being "revealed" to us.) Suppose God speaks to me in a burning bush which is not consumed by the fire. I now have the "revelation", an experience of phenomena which I am not able to reproduce and test. What do I do with this information? I would be a poor scientist to discard it entirely, just as I would be a poor scientist to immediately and wholly believe that the bush is God.
Sarcastro wrote:Faith is nothing more than believing in something simply because you want it to be true, or because for some other reason you are unwilling to admit that you don't actually have any good reason to believe it.
I'm not entirely sure why you think it's important to construe faith this way. I sense much anger in you, young Skywalker.
vollkan, re: theology wrote:Yes, but is no different to studying astrology or anything like that.
I'm not sure where you come up with this conclusion. I suspect it comes from nonfamiliarity with the subject matter.
vollkan wrote:That said, the God theory should be treated as a scientific hypothesis for the purposes of scrutiny and rejection.
I agree, though with the "...and rejection" you've added at the end, I suspect you've come to your conclusion before examining evidence. That's not very scientifically or epistemically virtuous of you. ;)
vollkan wrote:I suppose that it is not terribly important that Genesis is right, but it is terribly important that Jesus was resurrected?
Yes, it is. If it was to be shown that Jesus was not actually resurrected from the dead, it would be a 100% defeater for Christian faith.
vollkan wrote:This whole "taking the Bible as symbolic" thing is just back-pedalling from the bits that modern science has disproved.
This is entirely unfair. When you examine text, you consider the source, literary context,
et cetera
. It is unfair of you to say that I
must
rely on a poor understanding of the tradition's texts because people have used it wrong in the past. It is somewhat dishonest of you to argue like this - I won't follow you here.
vollkan wrote:
Thesp wrote:This is a very narrow tailoring of each science and theology. Good theology and good science use the same epistemological principles, only one doesn't have as much control over its subject as the other.
In the same way I can make a really thorough epistemological study of different beliefs regarding leprechauns.
I'm not looking to study the
beliefs
- I'm looking to study the subject (in this case, God), as any good scientist would.[/strawman dodge]
vollkan wrote:But the God model is completely unnecessary except to achieve an answer in the absence of a clear one from science.
Two things:
Stop this false dichotomy of God and science. It's crap. Science is not here to replace God, nor is God trying to do away with science (despite some of His misguided followers that would).

I disagree with you here on the "God model" being "completely unnecessary...". There are numerous phenomena which have been experienced throughout history (and for me, personally in my life) which point to a being who has created and is still involved with His creation. And I'm not talking about, "oh, I believe in God, and good stuff happened, so God must be blessing me!" stuff. I'm talking honest-to-goodness phenomenal experience of God.
vollkan wrote:"revelation" usually either means truth through the Bible or that warm and fuzzy "personal experience" palaver.
Revelation ought not be limited to the Bible (certainly God hasn't stopped talking!), nor in the context of this discussion should revelation be necessarily related to God. (After all, light was first revealed to you when you left your mother's womb, the nature of the center of an atom was revealed to Rutherford by his experiments, etc.) It is true, however, that too often Christians do limit the meaning of "revelation" to be "what the Bible says", but this is hopelessly shortsighted.
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #66 (isolation #4) » Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:00 pm

Post by Thesp »

Part of what I'm trying to convey is that I think the reactionary Christians who see science as a threat and argue against rationality are severely misguided. I hope I'm showing that - I don't want to keep arguing over "blind faith", because I agree with you that blind faith is problematic, to say the least. I don't see, however, why religious phenomena must be barred from scientific discussion, when in fact any good scientist happily takes all the data available to him when formulating his understandings of how the world works, even if those phenomena don't easily fit the model he holds. (Thomas Kuhn thinks those are the exciting times in science - when there are things that don't quite fit the mold exactly, and we must figure out what to do with that data!)
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #90 (isolation #5) » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:32 pm

Post by Thesp »

Sarcatro wrote: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.
Sarcastro wrote: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.
Sarcastro wrote: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.)
Sarcastro wrote: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.
Sarcastro wrote: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.
Sarcastro wrote: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.
Sarcastro wrote: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?
Sarcastro wrote: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.
vollkan wrote: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.
vollkan wrote: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.)
vollkan wrote: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.
vollkan wrote: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.)
Yosarian2 wrote: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.
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #95 (isolation #6) » Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:37 pm

Post by Thesp »

vollkan wrote: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.
vollkan wrote: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.)
vollkan wrote: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.
vollkan wrote: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.

vollkan wrote: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.
vollkan wrote: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. ;)
vollkan wrote: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.
vollkan wrote: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.
Sarcastro wrote: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.
Sarcastro wrote: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.
Sarcastro wrote: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.)
Sarcastro wrote: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:
Thesp wrote: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".
Sarcastro wrote: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
.
Sarcastro wrote: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. ;)
Sarcastro wrote: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.
Sarcastro wrote: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.
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #98 (isolation #7) » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:42 am

Post by Thesp »

vollkan wrote: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.
vollkan wrote: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
.
vollkan wrote: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.
Yosarian2 wrote: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.
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #101 (isolation #8) » Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:16 am

Post by Thesp »

Kelly Chen wrote:Wow. Calling out people who think Revelation wasn't written by the same guy as wrote the fourth gospel. That's hardcore.
And Moses didn't write all 5 books of the Pentateuch! And Paul didn't write all the letters that say they were from Paul!
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #106 (isolation #9) » Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:19 am

Post by Thesp »

Kelly Chen wrote:so to clarify, this is Thesp's position
1. author of Revelation = author of the fourth gospel
2. Moses didn't write all 5 books of the Torah
3. Paul didn't write all those letters

If that's right... do you see what is standing out for me here... It's #1.
Sorry if I wasn't clear - I think good schalorship has shown #1 is
not
the case - The Gospel According to John and The Revelation According to John are in fact two different John's. It is significant to the readon of both books, though, as to if they are the same author or not. (You learn much more out of Luke-Acts when you see them as a unified unit by the same author.)
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #156 (isolation #10) » Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:30 am

Post by Thesp »

Don't feed the trolls, please. ;)
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #293 (isolation #11) » Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:16 am

Post by Thesp »

I stopped reading this discussion some time ago, but I saw an article I thought which really made me laugh and ponder some things. I hope you all appreciate it as much as I do, and thought it would be worthwhile here.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/godfuse.html

God bless. ;)
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #297 (isolation #12) » Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:51 am

Post by Thesp »

Sarcastro wrote:Eh, that article said some weird things. How can you blame Stalin's atheism for
anything
? He never even
claimed
to be motivated by atheism, he was just totally ruthless.
I think what he was suggesting is that Stalin's actions were ultimately derived from a perverted sense of atheism. I do agree that the images were hysterical, and I was especially amused by:

Image
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #304 (isolation #13) » Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:26 am

Post by Thesp »

*sigh*

:(
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #306 (isolation #14) » Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:38 am

Post by Thesp »

Just about all of it.

On a lighter note, I'm glad so many others seem to be getting something out of the article. I was answering a call while seeing the "Communion Wafers is People" image, and had to try not to bust out laughing during my greeting!
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
User avatar
Thesp
Thesp
Supersaint
User avatar
User avatar
Thesp
Supersaint
Supersaint
Posts: 5781
Joined: November 4, 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Contact:

Post Post #308 (isolation #15) » Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:48 am

Post by Thesp »

Okay.
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -
Reiner Knizia

Ask me about my automatic votecounter, and how you can use it in
your
game!
Check out my 15 minutes of fame on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”