A Modest Proposal for Empirical (A)Theology

Great Debates
101

Ok… a few more repsonses and clarifications…

I have noticed that there seems to be a connection of something like this:

Those who believe in God attribute their positive feelings of God to added proof of the existence of God.

Let me throw a twist in this one. Sometimes I get downright angry at God. There is so much that I don’t understand about His ways. My inability to understand makes me… well… almosts furious. So… this is a set of negative emotions. But it it no way detracts from the fact that I believe that God exists, and that He is active in our lives.

In response to RTF…

In doing my best to remember back 13 years to my “conversion experience”… I don’t believe there were many immediate changes in my life. I continued to drink for a while (not a good thing at the age of 14 and 15); I continued to chase after the boys and attempt to get them to sleep with me (but I remained a virgin), and was …well… your average rebellious teenager. The only change that I remember was, I started going to a Bible study once a week about a year after my experience. It wasn’t until I hit college 4 years later that I started taking real moves to change my life. Notice the difference here… I didn’t say that God made me change my life. I chose to follow Him, even after He had given me what I personally consider a miracle. There was no other big event between my miracle and college.

As far as experiencing God’s presence… I did not. As a matter of fact… for a couple of years after the experience… I tried to come oup with every logical explanation for the fact that I was still alive since I hadn’t noticed any earth-shattering presence of God. I had to reason myself into my faith. I used my mind and my brain and ended up here. (Not here as in SD :smiley: )

I don’t remember reading the Bible any other time other than the once a week Bible studies I went to while in high school. Parts of the Bible STILL don’t make sense to me. Go figure. But it becomes more clear if I sit down and read it and use my head. I really do try not to put my common sense or intelligence on the shelf when it comes to my faith, my understanding of the Bible, or my understanding of God. If I did that, my testimony would be worthless.

Beth

102

RTF: Polycarp said this was to examine the “underlying presence of God” in the universe. So far all I’ve seen is (a) Witnessing & (b) a very few people (two, IIRC) stating that this thread’s real purpose is Witnessing.

103

Then, may I step forward incautiously to advance some of my thoughts?

The ability to experience an epiphany may be viewed as a positive survival trait. Consider that humanity evolved under conditions where the ability to remain calm and think rationally in moments of extreme stress (“Where by all that burns did that sabertooth go? Up there?!!! No? Good, then I should be up there on the high ground! Go!”) had to be advantageous to an individual’s survival. If, one day, an exemplary homo sapiens learned that, if he could only get himself to momentarily ignore the stresses upon his mind, he stood a much better chance of surviving a hostile encounter, he would study (for he would live long enough to have time to study) how he had done it, and realize that it came down to putting those distractive stresses out of himself for the time required.

Perhaps, he was able to do this because a peculiarly mutated neurological structure in his brain permitted him to think such things. If so, the evolutionary pressure would favor progeny with a greater and greater ability to ‘give it up’, which would also lead to a favored position for those with a larger & larger ‘belief nucleus’ in the brain. Eventually, he would need a name for ‘that place that is both inside and outside of me where I place my greatest fears’ . . . .

There’s a lot more, but I’ve spent most of the day catching up to this fascinating (but really rather dissatisfying)thread – Monty is correct, you know.

If you knew what I know, everything would make sense; and if it didn’t, you’d know enough to know not to worry about it – The God of Somebody Else

104

You know, ‘examining the “underlying presence of God” in the universe’ seems like a pretty broad charter to me. I’d say any analysis at all would fit.

BTW, I count maybe 18 posts that could be called ‘witnessing’ or emotional responses to same. I’ve also seen various attempts at analysis and criticism by phouka, meara, Gaudere, and myself.

Since the data-gathering process involves people talking about their most powerful religious experiences, it’s easier for one who hasn’t offered an account of such an experience to shout from the sidelines, “You’re supposed to be objective!” than it is to be so during the telling.

I can provide, in my account, facts that other people (including myself, later in the going) can try to deal with objectively, but I can’t tell the tale of an event that affects me so powerfully after so many years in a dry, academic manner. I am going to invest it with meaning. I expect Lib, Tris, Poly, and the others who’ve shared their stories share some of my outlook on this. If that offends you, I am sorry.

I hope you will pardon me when I say that I don’t feel you’re giving us much benefit of the doubt, much room to work with to try to do the things we said we were out to do, before jumping in and criticizing our failure to do so. On this occasion, I had barely resurrected this thread from dormancy (with some analysis, btw) before you jumped in again to say that this thread was all about witnessing.

You’re welcome to your point of view, and it may turn out that you were right. But I think you’re criticizing the meal while it’s still in the oven.

105

I hadn’t responded to this thread for some of the same reasons mentioned by Monty, but Polycarp said

  • and I’ve read your accounts with great interest, so I figure I owe that much. My “analysis” might jump around like grease on a griddle, but I promise I’ll tie it up in the end if you stay with me.

I’ve always been fascinated by the convictions of people of faith, by the strength of belief, by the absolute certainty with which they believe. And had always wondered exactly why someone would hold to a belief system that could not be objectively proven.

But the subjective evidence is strong, and I can easily see the benefit of faith. Belief in a higher power is a powerful construct. How much better it is to believe everything happens for a reason, how much better to believe the dead are with God, how much better to believe one’s own travails have meaning, how much better to believe your prayers will be answered, how much better than the alternative of a universe without design, without intent, without meaning. How ultimately satisfying to believe justice will be served. And how much more ineffably beautiful is the world if it has been created for us.

It’s a beautiful sentiment, and a mightily effective way of dealing with life’s tribulations. Indeed, Michael Shermer postulates faith in the unknowable as a consequence of our evolution as “pattern-seeking, storytelling, mythmaking, religious, moral animals” in How We Believe.

But we’re not talking about faith, right? We’re talking about a subjective experience which leads one to a concrete belief in God that supercedes objective proof. What is happening? Well, unfortunately, it’s all subjective, and objective analysis runs the risk of appearing too much like the report of an “anthropologist studying the primitives.”

But if we can recognize the benefits of faith, can we not also recognize the benefits of some form of support? Is it an insult to postulate the ability to experience what one might consider to be a personal rapport with the Holy Spirit as an evolutionary product of the same process which results in the propensity to believe? Might this account for the absence of such experiences in the lives of those who do not have faith?

I don’t know, and I won’t pretend to know. I’m just a skeptic grasping at straws to try to explain a phenomenon every bit as alien to me as walking on the sun, and hoping I haven’t offended anyone in the process.

Sum Ergo Cogito

106

RTF: Why should I give the benefit of the doubt? (Actually, it appears I’m the only one doubting here.)

First: the OP requested objective anaylysis of what was behind the event, not subjective analysis of the aftereffects.

Second: I am a believer, just not a member of what you would call a mainstream religion. My experience, as all others are, was subjective.

Again, the stated purpose of this thread and its actual purpose are not the same.

107

Quixotic:

I enjoyed very much reading your analysis. You are amazingly unbiased. You admit your skepticism, but also acknowledge the legitimacy of the theist’s conversion experience and his subsequent faith. I wish I could develop a reciprocal understanding of the atheist’s skepticism and express it as clearly as you do.

Do you think you would be able to do a thought experiment and sort of “take the other side” and describe to me how you would summarize the theistic viewpoint of the atheistic skepticism?

108

You’re right: if we haven’t run this thread to your satisfaction this far, we won’t right that later on. So we should just give up now.

Monty, thank God you dropped in and straightened us out! I would have been crushed to have participated in the first thread on the SDMB to not conform exactly to the intent of the OP. :smiley:

Let’s see: Gaudere, meara, David B have posted; yup, true believers all. About time a skeptic dropped by.

You’re right: there’s no way to analyze an event by its aftereffects. I’ll let the particle physicists know immediately.

Thanks, Monty. I hadn’t realized I would consider your faith ‘outside the mainstream.’ Should I give you the emails of my LDS friends so you can tell them that?

Again, I am shocked - SHOCKED! - to find that this thread’s actual purpose has diverged from its stated purpose. (Of course, I’m even more shocked to find that threads have volition. Seems we’ve answered some big metaphysical question about artificial intelligence, group minds, or something like that here. Does this mean I get a Nobel, or does Cecil get all the glory?)

109

Actually, RTF, the LDS Church’s “party line” for quite some time has been that it’s not part of mainstream Christianity but “true Christianity.” Too bad if the truth (that being that they say that, not that they’re correct) astounds you.

Regarding the others doubting: sue me. I’m sorry I missed counting 3 or 4 others out of 120 something posts.

Regarding the particles: that would be analysis by regression of predictable events. Exactly how predictable is the result of this “visit by deity?” Exactly how do you decide by regression what caused it? So far, I’ve seen the “True Believers” opting for one explanation and one explanation only. That’s not science, it’s faith. Deal with it.

Regarding how the thread’s run: Sod off with your patronization. I’ve merely pointed out what the OP requested and what really happened here.

BTW, how are you coming with your appication to teach at Patrick Henry?

110

Drat! Make that “a hundred something posts.”

111

Monty,
Between you, Snark, and about a half-dozen LDS colleagues at work (plus reading a fair number of the readings you guys suggested on an earlier thread), I’m getting reasonably aware of LDS beliefs, so it doesn’t astound me that you and your coreligionists see your faith as the true Christian faith. Or bother me, for that matter. :slight_smile: I was only responding to your suggestion that I wouldn’t consider the Mormon faith to be mainstream.

I just want to make it clear that the last thing I want to do is dump on your faith. The fact that I’m not an adherent doesn’t keep me from respecting it.

But I still don’t understand why you’re picking this particular thread to get worked up about differences between what’s stated in the OP and what’s evolved.

Buses stop at bus stations; trains stop at train stations.
There’s a work station on my desk.

112

Monty - let me apologize for the tone of my post of 5:14pm. I shouldn’t have gotten quite so…whatever.

But I must admit I’m still curious as to why you’re so concerned with whether or not this thread is true to its OP.

113

RTF: perhaps it’s because I think the OP is actually a good idea. “That’s beautiful” or “Amen, brother” just doesn’t strike me as objective.

P.S. The LDS are quite proud of not being mainstream Christianity as they consider that to be an apostate faith. That’s all.

114

Drat! I forgot to post:

RTF: thanks! Apology accepted. If you’d like, feel free to send me e-mail and we can discuss doctrine in more detail.

115

Libertarian asked:

I appreciate the compliment, Lib. I promise to give your experiment some thought, and possibly open a new thread for the discussion.

Sum Ergo Cogito

116

Back on page two, RTF had gone through the “testimonies” given by each of us and made some comments. I noticed that he said that mine, and I think Nav’s experiences were not epiphanic (sp?), which in my case is true. I did have another experience just recently - last Spetember - that is probably more along the lines of what was being looked for here.

In this case, again, it was not a “conversion” experience, but it was truly a life changing experience. I was mowning the grass, of all things :), and as I occasionally do when doing otherwise mindless tasks, I was praying. IN this particulcar case, there were many things on my mind that I felt were out of my control and was seeking guidance on what, if anything I could do through His help, since on my own it wasn’t working.

Well, As I was mowing merrily along and praying, I suddenly “heard” this “voice.” It wasn’t an audible voice, but was clearly much more than a thought popping in my head. The message I heard was along the lines of “I have things for you to do, but I need to have your obedience first.” I’m, like, “Huh? Is that really you God?” I’ve felt His presence many times before, but I never had Him actually talk to me before. Again I questioned Him and got the same response.

So I asked what He wanted me to do. The reply was to fast for 10 days. Again my response was “Huh? Not eat for 10 days?!?!” You have to understand, I love food and my waistline shows it. I once went 4 days on a fast, but I couldn’t imagine 10 days. He and I had a little discussion over that and He was increasingly clear that that was what I was to do. I was told that Many people over time have answered His call to fast for 40 days, all He was asking from me was 10 days.

Well, I knew that this was not just things going through my head. I knew that this was God speaking and conversing directly with me. I knew I had to be obedient. So I started at that point and had no solid food for 10 days. The only way I could have done that - including having my wife cook meals for the family, and attending parties where food was everywhere - and not be tempted was by empowerment by God.

It was through this event that I proved my obedience to Him and changed my life in how He interacts with me. I have never felt stronger in my faith, or closer in my relationship to Him than I have since before having that experience.

“We love Him because He first loved us.” 1 John 4:19 †

117

Monty, I have not responded to your previous posts because I felt that “taking you on” regarding your insinuation would be counter-productive.

Now, allow me to make the case for what I hoped to accomplish here, and where I stand:

  1. I am as noted a devout “mainstream” Christian.

  2. As such, I find witnessing in appropriate modes, times, and places to be entirely in accordance with what I am supposed to be doing.

  3. It is totally reasonable for you to suspect the underlying motive of witnessing.

  4. That was not, is not, and will not be my intent.

  5. That said, if accounts of conversion experiences do show more than a slight resemblance to witnessing, it is hardly surprising.

  6. If the thread should have the effect of being an effective witness, that would by no means displease me.

  7. I am one of about a dozen posters who have undergone a conversion experience or one sort or another.

  8. I have drawn conclusions from what happened in that experience that may or may not be valid – I believe they are.

  9. An examination of what goes on in such experiences with no presuppositions cannot help but shed some light on the subject.

  10. I am quite prepared to entertain the possibility that I may be wrong in my conclusions, self-deluded in my experience, etc.

  11. I am interested in learning about the subject. I am emotionally involved in finding out if what happened to me constitutes a road to the truth or not.

  12. I am somewhat offended that whenever I discuss religion in any way, you see it as witnessing. (Unless the subject is LDS, when you have seen it as Mormon-bashing.) I had thought we had that bit of ill-feeling resolved. I have a high opinion of your ability to express yourself online. I would hope that the feeling is mutual.

  13. When I feel the need to witness I will do so. I will not subterfuge it with “this isn’t really a witness, but…” Conversely, when I bring up a subject that involves accounts of religious experiences, with the stated purpose of understanding what underlies them, and that witnessing is not the the issue, I would request that you respect that stated intent.

  14. I reserve the right to have and to express emotional reactions to the accounts of others. But you are correct that that does not advance the stated purpose of the thread.

  15. IF you know of some other way to present for discussion the religious experiences of individuals than by their recounting them for the stated purpose, I’d like to hear it. It sounds virtually impossible to me.

  16. If you have any insights into the experiences that would advance the intended purpose, I would like to hear them. <strike>Even if,<strike>Especially if they do not fit my theistic worldview.

118

Correction to the last line:
<strike>Even if</strike>Especially if they do not fit my theistic worldview.

119

Monty: it’s good to hear that. I guess my next question is, what are we doing wrong, in your opinion - are we asking the wrong questions, or attempting to gather data in the wrong way? And how do you think we should set this right?

120

That is a lie, a false witness, Poly. Apologize and retract and then we can continue without ill-feeling.