Is faith realistic?

[Jesticulator]

[QUOTE=begbert2]
This is an excellent question, and here is the answer: evidence is acceptable to the degree that it is supported by other evidence, including historical tendencies, and damaged in significantly higher proportion by evidence that contradicts it unless/until that evidence is discredited by other evidence. (Also note that internal contradictions and failures to deliver on proimises are very strong evidence against.)
[/quote]
Perhaps it was an excellent question but you didn’t answer it.

The question was not “How is the acceptability of evidence determined?”
The question was: “So who determines which ‘quality of evidence’ is appropriate or acceptable?” and it was in reference to this quote:

@Sophistry and Illusion

The difference is that the people who tell me electrons have a negative charge have evidence for this claim–repeatable, intersubjectively available evidence, which is precisely the kind of evidence which is unavailable to the religious person, as I argued in my last post. Whether the person is trustworthy is only part of the story: the quality of their evidence also matters. And this is what is lacking in the religious case.

There was a claim about “the quality of evidence” but no explanation of how the “quality” is determined. And, since the post referred to “the people who tell me …”, I asked for *who * determines which ‘quality of evidence’ is appropriate or acceptable.

You have not answered the question that I asked. Please try again.

Thanks.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It isn’t just children. People come to believe as adults as well.
[/quote]
Very, very rarely. As a rule, only children are gullible enough to buy into a religion. That’s why the religious make such a point of infecting children; adults are resistant.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
That’s why I say , let’s look at belief systems for all people without the false assumption that religious ones are automatically inferior. There hasn’t been enough evidence offered to show that true.
[/QUOTE]
Thousands of years of failure and zero evidence aren’t enough ? What would be ? The answer of course, is nothing; the religious are irrational, and beyond reasoning with.

And of course religious belief systems are pretty much automatically inferior; that’s WHY they are religious. If you have evidence for something, or if you are willing and able to defend it as a simple opinion or a matter of taste, you will say so and not label it religion. Beliefs get labelled religious only when they are indefensible.

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
I don’t really see the difference between someone who has faith and someone who doesn’t. Person A has faith in God based on…faith. Person B has faith (in a way) that there is no God. Both people can be thrown for a loop if something happens that debunks their own individual faith that God does or doesn’t exist which causes them to do a 180.
[/quote]
Except that there has never, ever been any evidence for anything but the “There is no God” side. And disbelief is the logical default; that’s how we treat everything else but religion.

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
In the end I think it’s something that isn’t truly answered until a person stops sucking air for good.
[/QUOTE]
That won’t make any difference. Even in the highly unlikely event that there’s an afterlife, that still doesn’t give you any more reason to believe in a God.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Very, very rarely. As a rule, only children are gullible enough to buy into a religion. That’s why the religious make such a point of infecting children; adults are resistant.
[/QUOTE]

You just made that up out of zero evidence didn’t you? I can think of at least two dopers who became believers as adults. I’d be interested in hearing from others. My guess is don’t have a shred of evidence to support this “very very rare” blather.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
You just made that up out of zero evidence didn’t you? I can think of at least two dopers who became believers as adults.
[/quote]
Simply an observation of the obvious; which you’ve just underlined. Two out of how many ?

[MEBuckner]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It’'s important to note that faith in spiritual matters does not have to include a denial of evidence and the kind of closed mind often attributed to a fundamentalists. The classic definition in Hebrews 11

1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

does not have to be the kind of blind faith that denies evidence. We go forward moment to moment acting on faith about our world, our relationships with those close to us. We operate on what we believe is true even though a new experience or new evidence may alter our beliefs.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
Trying to convince you is evidence that I am not seeking to give you faith. Providing you with evidence leads you away from faith, and gives you nothing but logical argument. If I wanted to prove something, I would certainly avoid invoking the concept of faith. On the other hand, if I have faith, I might simply choose to offer you love, and hope that you will find faith from that.
[/QUOTE]

That second quote is an excellent example of what I was referring to earlier: Defining “faith” (religious faith) as something entirely apart from, and even opposed to, evidence, argument, or “proof”, is not the hallmark of “closed-minded fundamentalists”, but rather of liberal religionists. (I’m pretty sure Triskadecamus is far from being a fundamentalist of any sort.) “Fundamentalists” (theological conservatives) are far more likely to offer up arguments or evidence for the beliefs (“the empty tomb”, the Argument from Design, lists of fulfilled prophecies from Scripture, etc.) In my opinion, those arguments are invariably flawed, and the evidence presented is insufficient, inaccurate, wouldn’t prove the conclusion even if it were accurate, and so on. Nonetheless, it’s often the case that and atheists seem to have a kind of common ground with “fundamentalists” that’s lacking with liberal believers. We can get in there and parse scripture, toss historical and scientific and linguistic cites at each other, look for flaws in each other’s logic.

On the other hand, with the liberal believer, you often get the attitude (as referenced above) that religious belief is something which is totally apart from any kind of attempt at argument, reasoned discussion, or evidence. “It’s just a matter of faith.” It seems perhaps harsh to call this “closed minded”, but with this of thinking, religion hardly belongs in Great Debates at all–all religious beliefs would wind up in IMHO or even MPSIMS. If we accept this view of “faith”, there can be no argument, just a series of assertions.

This is not to say “fundamentalists” cannot be “close-minded”; in fact I think there are many mechanisms used by theologically conservative believers to rationalize or hand-wave away various objections to or problems with their belief systems; nonetheless, they’re still on the same playing field as the atheist arguing against religion. Arguments are met with counter-arguments; counter-arguments are objected to and rebutted; the objections and rebuttals are met with further counter-rebuttals, and so on. And I suppose it’s at least possible in theory for someone to simply say “I have faith”–in the strong sense of faith–“that there is no God.” The atheist analogue of the liberal believer.

It might be argued that if a liberal believer is only making an assertion about what he believes, rather than trying to convert anyone else by fire and sword, or even reason and apologetics, then his conviction (even if it’s one I don’t share) is harmless. The point I think Sam Harris was making about this sort of faith being dangerous is that, by definition, it is not subject to any sort of rational or empircal argument. As long as we’re talking about liberal believers having faith in compassion and love it doesn’t seem like a problem–the religious liberal asserts compassion and love as a matter of faith; secular humanists discuss rationalist ethics and the evolutionary roots of morality and utilitarianism or whatever the case may be to come to the essentially the same conclusions.

But what about the non-liberal religious believer? What do we do when someone uses the same language of faith as something which totally transcends and is even opposed to evidence or logical argument, not in the service of compassion and love, but to justify imposing the perfect law of God by fire and sword and hijacked airliners? If faith is beyond evidence or logical argument, then how do we avoid concluding that the faith of the liberal Christian who preaches compassion and love, and the faith of Mohammed Atta, are equally valid? This is why faith–in the strong sense of the word, not some variety of “trust based on evidence, experience, argument, or reason” (however misplaced I may find that trust to be)–is arguably dangerous.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Simply an observation of the obvious; which you’ve just underlined. Two out of how many ?
[/QUOTE]

Two I could think of with very little effort. I don’t know how many believers are on this board. I doubt you do either. It’s not obvious at all but I take your answer to mean that you don’t have anything to support your assertion. I’m not surprised.

It’s probably true that more believers were taught to believe as children but that’s not the same as “very very rare” Someone who rails so often about logic and evidence should be more careful about throwing out unsupported assertions like that.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
It might be argued that if a liberal believer is only making an assertion about what he believes, rather than trying to convert anyone else by fire and sword, or even reason and apologetics, then his conviction (even if it’s one I don’t share) is harmless. The point I think Sam Harris was making about this sort of faith being dangerous is that, by definition, it is not subject to any sort of rational or empircal argument. As long as we’re talking about liberal believers having faith in compassion and love it doesn’t seem like a problem–the religious liberal asserts compassion and love as a matter of faith; secular humanists discuss rationalist ethics and the evolutionary roots of morality and utilitarianism or whatever the case may be to come to the essentially the same conclusions.

But what about the non-liberal religious believer? What do we do when someone uses the same language of faith as something which totally transcends and is even opposed to evidence or logical argument, not in the service of compassion and love, but to justify imposing the perfect law of God by fire and sword and hijacked airliners? If faith is beyond evidence or logical argument, then how do we avoid concluding that the faith of the liberal Christian who preaches compassion and love, and the faith of Mohammed Atta, are equally valid? This is why faith–in the strong sense of the word, not some variety of “trust based on evidence, experience, argument, or reason” (however misplaced I may find that trust to be)–is arguably dangerous.
[/QUOTE]

We can react and challenge the actions of anyone as part of the human race when their actions , whatever the motivation, affect others. We can make assertions based on what objective evidence we have and through education try to dispel certain myths. We can engage and challenge each other to examine our belief systems in a civil manner.

IMO we can respect anyone’s right to worship as they choose and to follow whatever path they choose but we still have to hold them entirely and personally responsible for their actions. We must make that clear in our system of justice as a race of beings. However, until we can truly stand for justice and equality for all people without all the political and economic manipulation that denies justice and equality for so many we will have to deal with the consequences.

It’s not so much that I have to hold someone else’s belief system as acceptable and valid. It’s more that I have to have some respect for their right to choose it and pursue it, because I want that right for myself.

[nd_n8]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Very, very rarely. As a rule, only children are gullible enough to buy into a religion. That’s why the religious make such a point of infecting children; adults are resistant.
[/quote]
Please offer a cite for this “rule”.

@Der Trihs

Thousands of years of failure and zero evidence aren’t enough ? What would be ? The answer of course, is nothing; the religious are irrational, and beyond reasoning with.

I don’t really understand your use of the term “failure”. Please provide the standard with which you are measuring the success and/or failure of belief systems. Specific examples of which failure applys to which belief system would also be helpful

@Der Trihs

And of course religious belief systems are pretty much automatically inferior; that’s WHY they are religious.

Do you have anything other than conjecture and speculation to back this up? Something that does not fall across the same lines of “Black people are pretty much automatically inferior” or “Jews are pretty much automatically inferior”. Something nice and concrete please.

@Der Trihs

If you have evidence for something, or if you are willing and able to defend it as a simple opinion or a matter of taste, you will say so and not label it religion. Beliefs get labelled religious only when they are indefensible.

I’m not sure I follow you here either. Why would one lable an opinion as not religion? What would be the difference between an opinion and a personal belief?

@Der Trihs

Except that there has never, ever been any evidence for anything but the “There is no God” side. And disbelief is the logical default; that’s how we treat everything else but religion.

Please offer a cite for any evidence, no matter how small and seemingly insignificant, that posits “There is no God”. Please also avoid evidence that implys that “No God is required” because, while this may or may not provide that God is not necessary, it does not necessarily stand to reason that “There is no God”. Please only provide a direct cite to the non-existance of God.

@Der Trihs

That won’t make any difference. Even in the highly unlikely event that there’s an afterlife, that still doesn’t give you any more reason to believe in a God.

Ahhh… but what if, in your highly unlikely event that there’s and afterlife, the even more highly unlikely event that God stands before you and smiles. Would this give you a reason? The fatality arguement is a very solid one as it thus far eludes proof one way or the other. If you have a cite or proof that it does provide evidence one way or the other I would like to read it.

Here is a nice essay on the subject of the subjucation of faith and the onus of skepticism. I offer this as enhancement to my arguement, not as a cite or proof of anything.

I also hold that in this situation, where the initial challenge was “Is Faith Realistic” that the onus is clearly on the skeptic’s side. There has been much opinion and muck flying about, I am simply requesting some citation to back up these claims.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
I don’t really understand your use of the term “failure”. Please provide the standard with which you are measuring the success and/or failure of belief systems. Specific examples of which failure applys to which belief system would also be helpful
[/quote]
The failure to be right. About anything. Whenever religion makes a statement that can actually be checked, it turns out to be wrong. We weren’t created a few thousand years ago ( or at all ),the world isn’t flat, there wasn’t a worldwide flood, and so on.

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
Do you have anything other than conjecture and speculation to back this up? Something that does not fall across the same lines of “Black people are pretty much automatically inferior” or “Jews are pretty much automatically inferior”. Something nice and concrete please.
[/quote]
As I just said; the fact that religion always turns out to be wrong, or with zero evidence. And don’t try to compare racial bigotry with the disapproval of people who are wrong.

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
I’m not sure I follow you here either. Why would one lable an opinion as not religion? What would be the difference between an opinion and a personal belief?
[/quote]
An opinion is just an opinion; something personal. A religion makes claims of fact; that there is a God, say. Not the same thing at all.

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
Please offer a cite for any evidence, no matter how small and seemingly insignificant, that posits “There is no God”. Please also avoid evidence that implys that “No God is required” because, while this may or may not provide that God is not necessary, it does not necessarily stand to reason that “There is no God”. Please only provide a direct cite to the non-existance of God.
[/quote]
The wide variety of physical laws that God would violate is evidence against it’s existence. And “No God is required” IS evidence that there is no God, just as the lack of a need for invisible goblins to explain anything is evidence against the existence of invisible goblins. That’s the same standard we apply to everything but religion.

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
Ahhh… but what if, in your highly unlikely event that there’s and afterlife, the even more highly unlikely event that God stands before you and smiles. Would this give you a reason?
[/quote]
No. Why would I believe that it was God ? God is such an utterly silly idea - or outright impossible, in the case of most versions - that anything else would be more plausible. And any number of beings more likely to exist than God could provide false evidence that I couldn’t possibly see through. Or I could be alive and crazy, which is also more believable than God. This was all discussed to death in the other thread.

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
I also hold that in this situation, where the initial challenge was “Is Faith Realistic” that the onus is clearly on the skeptic’s side.
[/QUOTE]
Garbage. The onus is always on the person who claims something exists. ESPECIALLY when that something violates known physical laws, and when there’s no evidence whatsoever for it. You are simply trying to give religion a privileged status; no doubt because you know that without such status it would be laughed at.

I’m afraid I don’t have the time to do a web search for the rest of your demands. Not that it matters since I’m sure you’ll ignore anything I or anyone find.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Jesticulator]
Perhaps it was an excellent question but you didn’t answer it.

The question was not “How is the acceptability of evidence determined?”
The question was: “So who determines which ‘quality of evidence’ is appropriate or acceptable?” and it was in reference to this quote:There was a claim about “the quality of evidence” but no explanation of how the “quality” is determined. And, since the post referred to “the people who tell me …”, I asked for *who * determines which ‘quality of evidence’ is appropriate or acceptable.

You have not answered the question that I asked. Please try again.

Thanks.
[/QUOTE]

Personally I think the individual must determine for themselves what the evidence of their own experience means for them. Religion and the spiritual life is subjective for the most part. Beliefs are held by tradition more than any physical evidence.

A person may have some powerful experience and depending on the influences around them , they may be told, “It’s Jesus” or “It’s Allah” or it’s just your emotions. Ultimately they must decide what the experience means to them and if it has any value. That also means they must take personal responsibility for whatever actions spring from their interpretation.

IMO because I want the right for myself to interpret and determine the meaning of my own experience , I have a certain moral obligation to support that right for others as well. I do reserve the right to react and interact when their actions affect me, the same as I expect them to react when my actions affect them.

I’ll add that if we value truth and personal growth over tradition we will honestly examine objective evidence that relates to our religious beliefs.

[nd_n8]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
As I just said; the fact that religion always turns out to be wrong, or with zero evidence. And don’t try to compare racial bigotry with the disapproval of people who are wrong.
[/quote]
Bigotry is bigotry no matter how you flavor it. How is persecution of Jews because of their beliefs not bigotry?

Garbage. The onus is always on the person who claims something exists. ESPECIALLY when that something violates known physical laws, and when there’s no evidence whatsoever for it. You are simply trying to give religion a privileged status; no doubt because you know that without such status it would be laughed at.

Ummm… No. The burdon of proof lies in the prosecution. In other words the person making the claim. In this thread the claim made (I believe by you as a division of another topic) is that:

Faith makes wisdom impossible, in the areas it touches on. Faith cripples the mind. And you can’t get knowledge from faith; it’s empty. It has no way of giving you knowledge; it’s just a guess combined with denial.

Not if you trust faith you don’t. Faith is immensely arrogant. Faith denies reality, denies the arguments of others, denies everything but your egocentric fantasy of what the world is. Nothing could be more arrogant than faith.

You cannot, by definition, have an open mind on something you have faith in.

And a faith based belief is never better than any other wild guess, with the difference that the guesser will refuse to change his or her guess as the facts come in. THAT is “why not”.

Therefore, as the person making the claim you have the responsibility to back it up.

I’m afraid I don’t have the time to do a web search for the rest of your demands. Not that it matters since I’m sure you’ll ignore anything I or anyone find.

That’s ok, take your time, this post isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, we’ll still be here tomorrow or the next day if need be.

When come back bring cites …and pie.

Oh, and read this, especially the part about “Remarks must be courteous in language and deportment - avoid all personalities, **never allude to ** others by name or to motives!” and try to keep personal attacks and baseless insinuations out of it please.

[Jesticulator]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Personally I think the individual must determine for themselves what the evidence of their own experience means for them. Religion and the spiritual life is subjective for the most part. Beliefs are held by tradition more than any physical evidence.
[/quote]
That’s an interesting observation. It could be the main reason that I am not a theist: There were few (if any) traditions in my family.

But, as an adult now, I see an amazing amount of wilful ignorance that leads to (what I think are) silly superstitions. For me, religion is similar to astrology: Hey, if it works for you, fine. But don’t tell me that it will change *my * life, or that it offers the fundamental principles for explaining physical events.

I’ll add that if we value truth and personal growth over tradition we will honestly examine objective evidence that relates to our religious beliefs.

I agree. I think, though, that it is difficult (impossible?) to examine evidence in a way that is inconsistent with our worldview, making it unlikely that we will recognize the “non-truth” portion of our beliefs. (Of course, I am part of “we” … )

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

[QUOTE=Jesticulator]
Perhaps it was an excellent question but you didn’t answer it.

The question was not “How is the acceptability of evidence determined?”
The question was: “So who determines which ‘quality of evidence’ is appropriate or acceptable?” and it was in reference to this quote:There was a claim about “the quality of evidence” but no explanation of how the “quality” is determined. And, since the post referred to “the people who tell me …”, I asked for *who * determines which ‘quality of evidence’ is appropriate or acceptable.

You have not answered the question that I asked. Please try again.

Thanks.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not a question of ‘who’ decides that the evidence is good or bad; this very question indicates a relativist or subjectivist mindset. The evidence is itself good or bad. For example, 99.99% of people who get advanced degrees in fields related to evolution and are hence in a good position to evaluate the quality of the evidence believe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolutionary theory. That is a good (though not infallible) indicator that the evidence is pretty solid.

If you can show me a correlate in religion, I would be happy to discuss it. And by correlate, I don’t mean ignorant masses of people who know nothing about the philosophical and theological problems of the existence of God and say, “Hey, a rainbow; I’ll bet God made that!”

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I wouldn’t count on it. :dubious:
[/QUOTE]

Are you thinking Hell is a safer bet for me?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Jesticulator]
That’s an interesting observation. It could be the main reason that I am not a theist: There were few (if any) traditions in my family.

But, as an adult now, I see an amazing amount of wilful ignorance that leads to (what I think are) silly superstitions. For me, religion is similar to astrology: Hey, if it works for you, fine. But don’t tell me that it will change *my * life, or that it offers the fundamental principles for explaining physical events
[/QUOTE]

The traditions have a deep hold and a strong support system. They seem to think since so many people who are Christian believe X then X must be true and evidence to the contrary is just wrong. IMO we can approach the beliefs that we have ample physical evidence for and gradually those traditional myths will lose their hold.

IMO the very subjective nature of beliefs means people should hold them as provisional. as in “This works for me for now, but I can’t really say what’s true or right for everybody else” It seems painfully obvious to me that nobody has the market cornered on divine truth if there even is such a thing.

.I agree. I think, though, that it is difficult (impossible?) to examine evidence in a way that is inconsistent with our worldview, making it unlikely that we will recognize the “non-truth” portion of our beliefs. (Of course, I am part of “we” … )

I agree we have a strong tendency to do that. I think it depends on what we value. If we place a high value on learning and growing , on discerning the truth from tradition, then we are more likely to be open to learn. If we are reluctant to learn because that causes changes we don’t like, then we face the results of that as well.

[Jesticulator]

It’s not a question of ‘who’ decides that the evidence is good or bad; this very question indicates a relativist or subjectivist mindset. The evidence is itself good or bad.

Huh? So, somehow the evidence itself tells us whether it is good or bad, with no human intervention?
But then you say:

For example, 99.99% of people who …

Who cares what “people” say, right? The evidence speaks for itself. And, why are you making up percentages as part of your argument?

How about this: “99.99% of people who get advanced degrees in theology and are hence in a good position to evaluate the quality of the evidence believe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the value of religious faith. That is a good (though not infallible) indicator that the evidence is pretty solid.”

If you can show me a correlate in religion, I would be happy to discuss it. And by correlate, I don’t mean ignorant masses of people who know nothing about the philosophical and theological problems of the existence of God and say, “Hey, a rainbow; I’ll bet God made that!”

Well, I’ve already brought up graduates of theology. Here’s some info from Harvard Divinity School:

The curriculum of the Divinity School is designed to address the challenges that confront religious communities when commitment is considered in a global context. Perhaps the most critical of those challenges is the contemporary crisis in religious meaning and authority. This crisis strikes at the very heart of religious commitment and is central to a theological education that struggles to understand, evaluate, criticize, and then to affirm and act out of particular traditions.

and Oxford Faculty of Theology:

The purpose of the Master of Philosophy (MPhil) degree is to offer extensive postgraduate education in Theology for very able students, including a significant element of scholarly research and writing which may contribute towards a future research degree.

Also, do you think that the content of The Catholic Encyclopedia was compiled by “ignorant masses of people”?

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

[QUOTE=Jesticulator]
Huh? So, somehow the evidence itself tells us whether it is good or bad, with no human intervention?
But then you say:Who cares what “people” say, right? The evidence speaks for itself. And, why are you making up percentages as part of your argument?
[/quote]

Well, the evidence is good or it’s not good. But, as I said before, the layman’s best indicator of whether evidence is good or bad is what the experts say about the evidence. That’s where the people enter into it. If I were an evolutionary biologist, I could appeal directly to the evidence, rather than to the consensus in the field. But I’m not, so I have to appeal to consensus of experts–people.

How about this: "99.99% of people who get advanced degrees in theology and are hence in a good position to evaluate the quality of the evidence believe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the value of religious faith. That is a good (though not infallible) indicator that the evidence is pretty solid."Well, I’ve already brought up graduates of theology. Here’s some info from Harvard Divinity School:and Oxford Faculty of Theology:
Also, do you think that the content of The Catholic Encyclopedia was compiled by “ignorant masses of people”?

But what I asked you is if there is any correlate, on the religious side, of the type of evidence that exists on the scientific side. I have already complained that religious types, by fiat, lay out a different (and substantially more lax) set of rules that for some reason they are allowed to play by. I call bullshit. If these people at these divinity schools are not basing their conclusions on evidence, then it doesn’t matter what they think.

That’s the difference between the scientific example I cited, and the religious example you cited. Stated in an oversimplified way, but a way that still conveys a fundamental truth, scientific consensus results from evidence, whereas religious consensus results from indoctrination. You still haven’t given me a religious correlate for scientific evidence. Nor, I suspect, can such a correlate be given.

[Jesticulator]

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
But what I asked you is if there is any correlate, on the religious side, of the type of evidence that exists on the scientific side.
…
You still haven’t given me a religious correlate for scientific evidence. Nor, I suspect, can such a correlate be given.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, you continue to use the word *correlate * and I’ve gone along with you so far. But, it seems to me that you are using the word in a way that is different from the dictionary definitions.

correlate
Compact Oxford English Dictionary
each of two or more related or complementary things.

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary
1 : either of two things so related that one directly implies or is complementary to the other (as husband and wife)
2 : a phenomenon that accompanies another phenomenon, is usually parallel to it, and is related in some way to it <precise electrical correlates of conscious thinking in the human brain — Bayard Webster>

Encarta® World English Dictionary

1. complementary thing: something that shares mutual or complementary properties with something else

What do *you * mean by “correlate”?
I think we agree that science and religion are different. But your questions suggest that you think they should be identical, and, if not, then religion is useless.

Is that what you’re saying?

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
I’m not sure I agree that to know one you will know the other. Even if Satan is defined considerably by his opposition to God, that doesn’t mean you have to even know that.
[/quote]
But then surely you’re not truly worshipping Satan? You’re worshipping something you think is Satan, but isn’t. It’s like worshipping an orange under the mistaken impression it’s Satan; he might get power from the fact you’re not worshipping God, but you’re still not actually worshipping of accepting the true person.

Also about the false religion ‘gods’ Satan has created you don’t have to know Satan nor the demon who animates the false god, but you get to know the fictional god as real.

Right, you end up accepting the facade god, not him.

It would give them a leg up in knowing Satan but I don’t think it’s required, unless you want the person to see the deception also.

I think you need to know of the deception in order to truly accept it. If you don’t know of it, then you’ve only accepted the deception; seeing the real Satan is needed in order to truly accept him. At least, under my definition of acceptance.

Your entire post here (not just this last except) is a bit hard to follow, but I’ll try to go on, please feel free to clarify as you see fit. In my experience of believers, each is given a set of tasks by God for the advancement of His kingdom and to bring Him glory. To accomplish these goals God lets us use His power through His Holy Spirit. The Spirit Himself decides what gifts (including knowledge) a believer will receive, some believers will have very little to do with spiritual warfare, and never really develop a good understanding of who Satan is, others will actually meet the devil himself in combat in their Christian walk and understand him very much.

Yes, apologies, I looked back on it and I wasn’t being very clear.

My points were basically this;

• You believe that in order to truly know God, you need to believe in him, or you can gain knowledge through bestowal of the Holy Spirit.
• I suggest that in order to truly know Satan, you need to know God.
• Thus, anyone who truly accepts Satan must have been either;
  [A Christian at some point (so they have knowledge of God
  [Given the gift of the Holy Spirit temporarily.

Therefore, all people who truly accept Satan must either have been Christians at some point (and so no non-Christians truly accept Satan, though they may accept facsimilies); unless they’ve specifically been gifted with the Holy Spirit.

This is in OT scriptures, it is speculation that this still goes on, but it is possible IMHO.

I think what you are getting at here is that if someone experienced the gifts/power of the Holy Spirit for a temporary indwelling to serve a purpose then, never knowing Jesus, decides to follow Satan (In any of his forms) would be unfairly cast into Outer Darkness instead of the seemingly nicer Hell. Is this the jist of it?

Not really. I’m not familiar with what you mean by the Outer Darkness… do you mean nonexistence? I’m not certain i’d call that worse than Hell.

Well everything that happens does so because God allowed it, but it’s also a free will issue.

Actually, it isn’t. If God (or the Holy Spirit itself) was inclined to give of itself in that manner in order to comply with free will, then logically everyone would be with the Holy Spirit. That they aren’t shows it’s not a basic matter of free will, and so the gift is being given for alternate reasons. Since without that gift, no non-Christians could truly accept Satan, it seems like someone’s got something against us.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Well, the evidence is good or it’s not good. But, as I said before, the layman’s best indicator of whether evidence is good or bad is what the experts say about the evidence. That’s where the people enter into it. If I were an evolutionary biologist, I could appeal directly to the evidence, rather than to the consensus in the field. But I’m not, so I have to appeal to consensus of experts–people.

[/quote]

Saying that evidence is good or not good is overly simplistic. Some evidence is very clear, but much is uncertain. If someone digs up a bone, there can be legitimate disputes about what species that bone came from. Evidence must fit into a wider context. If it doesn’t, then it is suspect unless confirming evidence is found. The demonstration that Piltdown man was a forgery didn’t shake up archeology because it didn’t fit into other fossils, and was more or less ignored.

So the answer to who decides if evidence is good or not is the scientific consensus. For religion we have a problem, since faith requires that evidence fit into the dogma, not that the dogma be based on evidence.

That’s the difference between the scientific example I cited, and the religious example you cited. Stated in an oversimplified way, but a way that still conveys a fundamental truth, scientific consensus results from evidence, whereas religious consensus results from indoctrination. You still haven’t given me a religious correlate for scientific evidence. Nor, I suspect, can such a correlate be given.

Even worse, there is no global consensus on religion the way there is on science. If the charge of an electron were measured differently depending on what country you lived in, or what school you got your PhD from, we’d have a big problem. Splinter groups in science exist, but they’re an indication that the truth has not been found yet on a topic - see string theory. Science typically moves to consensus, like cosmology moved to the Big Bang theory. After thousands of years religion is more splintered than ever, and that seems to indicate that there is no there there. Call theology philosophy, which does not claim to be able to discover final truths, fine. But the claim that theology can discover truths has been pretty well falsified by now.