I’m afraid this is going to be an excessively long post. I want to deal with a number of questions that have come up, and without doing a Phaedristic “this is my thread” game, to clarify what I intended in starting this thread. Then I wish to respond to Glitch’s question about the Divine Weasel.
First (and this is very applicable, though it seems way off thread at first), let me examine what exactly William of Ockham’s famous Razor is for. It is a valuable tool in inductive logic, and states, in one classic formulation, “Thou shalt not unnecessarily multiply entities.” I.e., if something can be explained in more than one way, choose the way that requires the fewest assumptions. What it does, though, is to give the most probable solution, not necessarily the right one. The equations of Newtonian physics make are simpler, and call for fewer components, than those of Einsteinian. However, when all data are reviewed, it seems that in point of fact, Newtonian equations represent a special case where the relative speed of the measured components is so low that the v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup] component of the Einsteinian equations is or approximates zero.
Likewise, it is entirely plausible that the behavior of matter on planetary surfaces is due to the legendary organizing ability of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, who keeps all stones, boards, people, animals, etc., adjacent to the world that they “belong” with, as defined on the Holy Note Cards. With sweeps of her mighty horn, she causes all potentially-floating objects to “fall to the ground” (this being, like the movement of the sun, a naive perception of what is really invisibly happening). The exceptions, brightly colored objects like helium-filled and hot-air balloons and birds, she gives a boost that they may move through the sky and delight her with their bright colors. In the past century, she has been pleased by human witness to the power of her horn in shaping airplane fuselages and missiles in imitation of it, and therefore allows them to “fly” so long as they continue moving (and therefore representing her powerfulness) and causes them to “fall” when they lose speed (and therefore no longer show her power). While this may need some fine-tuning, it is a sensible explanation for the behavior of matter.
Now, the virtue of the Newtonian and Einsteinian conceptions of gravity, dynamics, etc., over this highly sensible theory is that they do not presuppose the constant interaction, or even the existence, of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It does not take much insight to see the extension of this principle to the elimination of God from any active role in the operation of the Universe as, to quote Voltaire, “an unnecessary hypothesis.”
The point, however, is that Occam’s Razor proves nothing. It simply provides a vehicle for reasonable evaluation of possible theories. If tomorrow the existence and activity of the Invisible Pink Unicorn could be proven, then all bets are off, and the assorted skeptics who have postulated her as imitations of theistic reasoning would need to reexamine their theories to take her into account. St. Elmo’s fire, ball lightning, optical illusions involving Venus or the Moon, etc., are known to exist. Extraterrestrial spacecraft are not. Hence the Occam-compliant explanations of UFOs involve the former and not the latter. But if tomorrow a spacecraft lands on the White House lawn in the traditional B-movie manner (with a bumper sticker advertising Krispy Original variety, of course! ;)), submits itself to examination by competent scientists and engineers, then rational humans need to accept it as real and revise their theories accordingly.
I think all us Christians would admit that David’s proferred “explanations” of the Gospel story as an assortment of urban legends and misinterpretations of data regarding a heterodox 1st Century rabbi *can[/] be seen as a valid explanation of what went on. The difference is that we apply Occam’s Razor to the data at hand, and assume an active God (for whatever reasons we may have), and find the idea that the accounts are, in main part, accurate a much more plausible hypothesis than the complex structure of legend and misperception required to “explain it away” in the absence of God.
Now, while we can never get at the truth of the Gospel stories, the Old Testament stories (or for that matter any accounts of the founders of other religions) to the simultaneous satisfaction of any skeptic and any believer, and God seems singularly coy in demonstrating His existence to a large portion of humanity, what we do have to work with are the conversion experiences of those who have experienced them. My assumption is that by careful analysis of what we who have had such experiences can testify to having experienced, some understanding of what phenomenon is behind such experiences can be established that will make sense to all participants. I have no real fear that having some assumptions I have made on the basis of my experiences analyzed is going to harm my faith. As I noted before, God calls us to know the Truth.
Accordingly, I do not want this to be “just a witness thread.” I’d like to see Lib and R.T.'s analytical abilities look carefully at Mike’s, Gator’s, and my stories, and vice versa, to see what assumptions we’ve made from our experience that may not follow. Even more, I’d like Gaudere, David, and slythe to pursue their capabilities to analyze what we have to say and ask the sorts of probing questions that will lead us all to the truth behind our stories. And I’m very interested in what went on in Phil’s life that led him to where his worldview is today.
I have never seen anything that even suggests there is a commandment, “Thou shalt not subject thy conversion experience to analytical scrutiny.” I think there may be a slight discomfort in us theists to do so for fear of what we might find out, or that God might be mad at us for doing so. To that, I suggest that Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
Gaudere, I never saw your probing questions as destructive nor definitive; you are simply doing the job you know best (and on my wife’s testimony, are expected by God to do). I won’t take your observations as definitive; rather, I think that together we may come to some unexpected conclusions about what the heck is going on in rational people to give them religious experiences, and that the results will be startling to both skeptics and believers. And I welcome it…I want to know the truth. Not Adam’s testimony about the accuracy of the Bible, not David’s apparent certitude that everything supposedly supernatural can be explained away, but the facts that remain when all the analysis is done, and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. For me at least, and I think the other “witnessers” who have told their stories tacitly accepted my conditions when they posted, have at it. Let’s find out the truth.
Now, to Glitch’s question. Let’s begin by taking a hyper-fundamentalist, somebody that would make Adam or 'Gator gag. Now, we discuss the characteristics of his God with him. Okay, it’s clear from the Bible that he made the world in 144 hours (six twenty-four-hour days) approximately six thousand years ago. What sort of world? One that takes light ten billion years to cross the Universe – and he threw in light from quasars that far away that had evidently been en route for 9,999,994,000 years or so, just to confuse the issue. The planet? Let’s make it look 4,600,000,000 years old, with rocks that radiometrically date to varying ages and fossils that make it look like life has been around for about three billion years, and change according to Darwinian notion. Now, let’s make some people. With perfect foreknowledge, He knows they’re going to sin, and turn from him, and being somewhat reasonable, he does give them an escape hatch. But here’s the kicker. First, for the first
Sometimes, yes, I will paint extremely well; well enough that I doubt I could ever recreate that piece. Sometimes I am so fumble-fingered and uninspired I wonder where on earth my talent has gone. When I am pleased with my work and it is going well, I feel certain that it will continue to do so (though it does not always happen that way; sometimes I start out sure and confident and everything starts amazingly well, but it falls apart in the last stages; sometimes the next day when I look at the piece I wonder why I thought it was so great). The times when everything “works” are rare, as rare as the times when everything doesn’t work. We are not simple machines that you can feed in X and get result Y; my work seems affected by the importance of the topic to me, the circumstances in my life, my mood, the time of day, even the strength of my arm. I doubt that anything requiring skill and luck and talent can be counted on to have easily and reliably reproducable results. To do something beyond what one can normally do does not seem so wildly unlikely to me; surely excellent concentration and a good dose of luck can push one far beyond the usual. I also think you should consider, not just the exceptionally good experiences, but the exceptionally bad ones as well. Surely your friend has also had days when he dropped every ball batted to him and couldn’t hit water if he fell out of a boat. Would that be a spirtual event–or the lack of one?