Philosophy - God and scientific evidence.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Yup. I’d say all beliefs are subjective. Some may not even map to reality, such as a taste preference or a love preference. But if the belief is a statement about reality, then we can measure if the belief is true - or show that the belief is nonsensical.

Three examples.
I believe I love vanilla ice cream. Purely personal, and beyond dispute.

I believe vanilla ice cream is the best flavor. Unless there is an implied, “for me” this is something that can’t even be measured, since there is no metric. Children say this kind of thing, but get over it. Children and sports fans, who don’t.

I believe Tokyo is the capital of Japan. That’s something that can be checked.

Many of the statements of belief in this thread are 1 or 2 masquerading as 3, or people who hear a refutation of a belief of type 3 taking it as an attack on their class 1 or 2 beliefs.
[/QUOTE]

Good points. I think lots of folks can’t discern which category their beliefs are in and that makes progress a bit slow.

One thing I’ve tried to do by participating in these discussions is to understand the varied nature of beliefs and to determine where the lines are drawn. My other goal is to try and determine more effective means of communication in discussing and sharing beliefs for the sake of progress. To that end focusing on the beliefs we have objective evidence about seems more productive to me. but YMMV.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
I know this is starting to feel like a pile-on. But remember–suffering builds character!

Anyhow, it seems like the subjectivity of religious belief is its primary weakness. Think of it this way: what makes scientific and other empirical beliefs so well-founded is their intersubjective nature. If a doctor looks through a microscope and sees that a cell is cancerous, in principle anyone with similar training can look through that microscope and see the same thing. This intersubjective verifiability is what makes these beliefs well-grounded.

But evidence that in principle cannot be verified by others doesn’t really count as evidence at all. This is why if someone hears voices in her head, and noone else can hear them, that person has good reason to think they aren’t real. (Not that I am comparing religious belief to mental illness.) Similarly, if you have an internal religious experience, but there is no publically observable external cause, then there is no reason to think that the experience is good evidence for the existence of God. It might be caused by God–but you don’t have a good reason for thinking that it is. You don’t even have a good reason for personal belief, I don’t think.
[/QUOTE]

It’s only a message board. I can take it.

I’m not sure their subjective nature is necessarily a weakness of spiritual beliefs if we understand what that means about beliefs. I think the problem lies in people on both sides of belief blurring the lines between subjective and objective. For me, understanding how much emotion, attachment, and the subjective nature of beliefs affects our over all belief system, helps me see what a unique and personal journey it is. That means that while I can say, I believe X and go forward on that belief, I know it’s folly to insist that my way is the right way for everybody else. We must develop tolerance and understanding, even respect for others right to find their own way in their own time, and at their own pace.

On the spiritual experience. Certainly many people translate an experience as “god did it” because of the people around them or their upbringing. Who’s to say that’s not a valid reason? Some other person who doesn’t really know but finds no such reason to believe? It is very hard to sort out the emotional attachment and tradition from the true transcendent experience, but that doesn’t mean that experience isn’t valid. Those experiences often continue in various degrees from something subtle to something more profound and confirm within the person that although they may not have all the answers they have chosen their path correctly.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
That doesn’t make it ‘evidence’. Under the influence of drugs little blue elephants might convince me that I’m flying, but that’s not ‘evidence’. That’s ‘delusion’. If you have an experience, your interpretation of that experience isnt evidence for your conclusion unless you can back it up with something independent. Until then it’s just an opinion. By your definition I can choose to interpret any light I see as a UFO, and then claim I have evidence that UFOs exist.

[/QUOTE]

Thats an interesting point. People can and do claim all sorts of things. Once again I think part of it depends on whether their purpose is to try and convince others they are right. A subjective interpretation of an experience is certainly not that kind of evidence. We might argue the differences between evidence and just opinion but let’s not. Our interpretation of subjective experience is an ongoing process and it seems wise to temper that interpretation with objective evidence and input from the experiences of others. I think thats why so many myths survive as truth. A person has some experience and then others step in to “help” them interpret the experience.
It seems unavoidable that we all interpret our subjective and objective experience s and go forward based on that interpretation.

But no believer doubts that they’re really wrong, just that they don’t know everything. They don’t doubt the basics: god, heaven, hell, etc. They just think they don’t know all there is to know about them. That’s what faith is. Unreasoning belief. Paul never meant that he might be wrong about the whole god/jesus thing, he just meant that he still had a lot to learn about it.

I wouldn’t put it quite like that. Many people do hold rigid beliefs and clinging to tightly hinders growth but fortunately that is not always the case. A person may start out believing in god as the big man in the sky and heaven as literal golden streets and hell as a literal lake of fire, and then come to understand that their previous concepts of these things are incorrect. While they may not really doubt at the moment, experiences both objective and subjective can and do cause a gradual shift in perception. Looking back at how beliefs have* changed * people can say. “Woah, I was wrong”

Wrong. Sociology can easily show that murder, war, and slavery are bad. Bad for society, bad for individuals, whatever. Bad, and therefore wrong.

Really? I didn’t think sociology made moral judgments. I thought it provided data from which judgment calls were made. It might be interesting to note that religious leaders , long before sociology was a science or even a concept, already were coming to those conclusions.

Besides, judging by history, and current events, belief doesn’t have much to stand on.

Because we know that people of faith have never really done anything good?

I really don’t get this kind of comment. Since most people in the world’s history by a huge margin have been believers {I know that doesn’t prove anything} then isn’t it logical to say that most of the world’s good as well as all the bad things trotted out by so many, has also been accomplished by believers.

So if they’re the same, why bother with god? He doesn’t seem to affect the results.

I specifically said they were different didn’t I? What is apparent is that neither god belief or a lack of it is inherently good or evil. That means a deeper understanding of belief systems is required. Jesus spoke of this in the NT. Certain actions are required not just calling him Lord. Since the question of is god real, and if so what is the nature of god, are as yet unresolved I think that’s why we bother.

Many atheists seem to react with, “since my world functions just fine , or even better, without god belief, then the logical conclusion is that a lack of god belief is better for everybody else as well”. That simply doesn’t follow. Believers have that same feeling reversed. IMO what seems to work is that we recognize the individual journey and respect that. We will come into conflict because that is the nature of interaction but a basic respect for individual and cultural differences and preferences might help ease some of the tension.

I’ll willing acknowledge that certain believers are far more guilty of intolerance than non believers. When people make it their mission to make everyone else conform to their ideal of “what’s right” or the more arrogant “God’s will” then they need to be called on it. Thats why I react here to blanket condemnations of religious beliefs as stupid, delusional, or evil.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Thats an interesting point. People can and do claim all sorts of things. Once again I think part of it depends on whether their purpose is to try and convince others they are right. A subjective interpretation of an experience is certainly not that kind of evidence. We might argue the differences between evidence and just opinion but let’s not. Our interpretation of subjective experience is an ongoing process and it seems wise to temper that interpretation with objective evidence and input from the experiences of others. I think thats why so many myths survive as truth. A person has some experience and then others step in to “help” them interpret the experience.
It seems unavoidable that we all interpret our subjective and objective experience s and go forward based on that interpretation.

[/quote]

I don’t think even trying to define evidence is very useful. Subjective experiences might not be evidence in a criminal trial, but very important evidence in a psychology experiment. A person might be lying about subject or objective experience, or they might be deluded.

It seems to me a common proactive defense of subjective religious experiences is to claim that anyone doubting them is calling the experiencer a liar or insane. But the important thing is whether the evidence can be confirmed objectively, if it is the kind of evidence that supposedly supports a statement about external reality. (If my wife tells me she’s in a bad mood, I don’t propose a battery of tests to prove it. )

Really? I didn’t think sociology made moral judgments. I thought it provided data from which judgment calls were made. It might be interesting to note that religious leaders , long before sociology was a science or even a concept, already were coming to those conclusions.

Oddly enough, the religious leaders who came to that conclusion didn’t have armies. Once they had them, war became far more attractive. In any case, the sociological judgement wouldn’t be a moral one, but one that noted civilizations with too much emphasis on war eventually collapse, or lose out to those without as much an emphasis.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I don’t think even trying to define evidence is very useful. Subjective experiences might not be evidence in a criminal trial, but very important evidence in a psychology experiment. A person might be lying about subject or objective experience, or they might be deluded.

It seems to me a common proactive defense of subjective religious experiences is to claim that anyone doubting them is calling the experiencer a liar or insane. But the important thing is whether the evidence can be confirmed objectively, if it is the kind of evidence that supposedly supports a statement about external reality. (If my wife tells me she’s in a bad mood, I don’t propose a battery of tests to prove it. )
[/QUOTE]
Right, and because we can’t confirm the experience or its interpretation objectively we are left with certain options. Do we completely disregard the interpretation or do we weigh it with other experiences and see what unfolds? I think the subjective nature of beliefs places a responsibility on the believer to share but respect the rights of others to find their own way through their own experiences. I’ve recently gone to the local Bahai center. One of the tenants of their belief is no proselytizing. How refreshing.

Oddly enough, the religious leaders who came to that conclusion didn’t have armies. Once they had them, war became far more attractive. In any case, the sociological judgement wouldn’t be a moral one, but one that noted civilizations with too much emphasis on war eventually collapse, or lose out to those without as much an emphasis.

I don’t think sociology has told us much that Jesus, Buddha, and others haven’t already said about what behavior is more or less harmful to mankind. In the meantime other people have used there images and their own personal interpretation of these figures to justify their evil actions. Welcome to humanity.

The question isn’t simply what acts are morally correct, but more crucial to progress is how do we encourage people to desire and choose more positive behavior.

A daunting task, but one we all have a stake in.

[hotflungwok]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Thats an interesting point. People can and do claim all sorts of things. Once again I think part of it depends on whether their purpose is to try and convince others they are right. A subjective interpretation of an experience is certainly not that kind of evidence. We might argue the differences between evidence and just opinion but let’s not. Our interpretation of subjective experience is an ongoing process and it seems wise to temper that interpretation with objective evidence and input from the experiences of others.
[/QUOTE]

Ok, with you so far.

I think thats why so many myths survive as truth. A person has some experience and then others step in to “help” them interpret the experience.

Wait, what? Myths survive in the absence of evidence. They practically are interpreted subjective experiences. A person with experience only helps if they have real evidence, otherwise, they’re just going to perpetuate the myth, rather than make things clearer.

It seems unavoidable that we all interpret our subjective and objective experience s and go forward based on that interpretation.

Of course, and we do base decisions on subjective experience, but the degree of the decision is important. If you’re just getting ice cream, subjective experience is fine. If you’re trying to decide how to live your life and what your core world views are, you should maybe try for something a little more.

I wouldn’t put it quite like that. Many people do hold rigid beliefs and clinging to tightly hinders growth but fortunately that is not always the case. A person may start out believing in god as the big man in the sky and heaven as literal golden streets and hell as a literal lake of fire, and then come to understand that their previous concepts of these things are incorrect. While they may not really doubt at the moment, experiences both objective and subjective can and do cause a gradual shift in perception. Looking back at how beliefs have* changed * people can say. “Woah, I was wrong”

Er, no you’re missing my point. St Paul’s ‘doubt’ wasn’t about whether or not god exists, it was about whether or not (to follow your example) the roads in heaven are made of gold or silver. When he said he had much to learn he wasn’t questioning the core tenets, just that there were details he didn’t know yet. His faith, undoubtly strong, wouldn’t allow it. If he questioned the whole basic gid idea, he wouldn’t have had strong faith in the first place. That’s what faith does, allows you to not have to doubt what you believe.

Really? I didn’t think sociology made moral judgments. I thought it provided data from which judgment calls were made.

Using available data to make a decision on what’s right and what’s wrong in a situation? Sounds an awful lot like a moral judgement to me.

It might be interesting to note that religious leaders , long before sociology was a science or even a concept, already were coming to those conclusions.

Yeah, and they came up with winners like ‘Stone people to death who work on Sunday’ and ‘You don’t believe the same thing I believe, so it’s ok to kill you’ and ‘Shes a witch, set her on fire’. I have yet to see a sociologist espouse stoning.

I really don’t get this kind of comment. Since most people in the world’s history by a huge margin have been believers {I know that doesn’t prove anything} then isn’t it logical to say that most of the world’s good as well as all the bad things trotted out by so many, has also been accomplished by believers.

You said:

Whatever we define as our moral foundation there’s no indication that non belief has any superior moral standing.

implying that belief has superior moral standing over non-belief. First, non-belief has had very little representation in the past, so I’d like to see what you’re comparing to make this conclusion. Second, what has been done in the name of non-belief done that compares to the bad things belief has done? People turn to belief for moral foundation because for a long time there wasn’t a whole lot else. And please don’t bother with Hitler or Stalin, it’s been done to death why non-belief was not a factor in their actions.

I specifically said they were different didn’t I? What is apparent is that neither god belief or a lack of it is inherently good or evil. That means a deeper understanding of belief systems is required. Jesus spoke of this in the NT. Certain actions are required not just calling him Lord. Since the question of is god real, and if so what is the nature of god, are as yet unresolved I think that’s why we bother.

But the question of god being real is moot in this case. If all that matters is your actions, and that belief in god one way or another doesn’t matter, why involve god at all? Just skip to the actions. The way you’re putting this, one way is just as good as the other, and so god becomes a needless complication.

Many atheists seem to react with, “since my world functions just fine , or even better, without god belief, then the logical conclusion is that a lack of god belief is better for everybody else as well”. That simply doesn’t follow. Believers have that same feeling reversed. IMO what seems to work is that we recognize the individual journey and respect that. We will come into conflict because that is the nature of interaction but a basic respect for individual and cultural differences and preferences might help ease some of the tension.

This is a strawman. Athiests do not (all) think this. Generally, an athiest doesn’t care what you believe. Most recognize that people need their belief, and taking it away suddenly or would be bad. We’ve had a lot of experience being told what we should believe, and generally we try not to do it back uninvited. The problem is that since religion is not very friendly with athiesm, there are some who do actively fight back.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
Ok, with you so far.
[/QUOTE]
Great! Progress!

Wait, what? Myths survive in the absence of evidence. They practically are interpreted subjective experiences. A person with experience only helps if they have real evidence, otherwise, they’re just going to perpetuate the myth, rather than make things clearer.

Allow me to clarify. Nobody forms their belief system in a vacuum. We are influenced by others. When someone has a powerful subjective experience the people they are around will influence their interpretation of that experience. People around them might interject their own beliefs into the interpretation. Thus certain myths are supported and passed on from generation to generation. Sincere deep experiences are colored by their surroundings, whether they be Christian or whatever. I say this from looking at my own changes in belief and seeing it in others as well.

Of course, and we do base decisions on subjective experience, but the degree of the decision is important. If you’re just getting ice cream, subjective experience is fine. If you’re trying to decide how to live your life and what your core world views are, you should maybe try for something a little more.

Like what? Trying to fathom the teachings of Buddha or Jesus and their day to day application to our lives and relationships is what, a horrible waste? The process of spiritual growth isn’t perfect but it would be wrong to claim it hasn’t improved anyone’s quality of life.

Er, no you’re missing my point. St Paul’s ‘doubt’ wasn’t about whether or not god exists, it was about whether or not (to follow your example) the roads in heaven are made of gold or silver. When he said he had much to learn he wasn’t questioning the core tenets, just that there were details he didn’t know yet. His faith, undoubtly strong, wouldn’t allow it. If he questioned the whole basic gid idea, he wouldn’t have had strong faith in the first place. That’s what faith does, allows you to not have to doubt what you believe.

Are you sure? Do you think we can’t find examples of people who were fundamentalist believers who are now agnostics or atheists? I remained within belief for a reason. Beliefs can fade completely or just change and be refined. either requires a seed of doubt that grows into something. If you’re making a point I’m not getting it. FTR in my discussions here on the SDMB I’ve never seen anyone who didn’t hold some beliefs as true without substantial evidence, be they believer atheist or in between.

Using available data to make a decision on what’s right and what’s wrong in a situation? Sounds an awful lot like a moral judgement to me.

Sure, that’s people combining data from sociology with their own experience to make a moral judgment. Their experiences can include spiritual beliefs and teachings , and statistically speaking, most often do. You said,

Sociology can easily show that murder, war, and slavery are bad.

I don’t think it shows that at all. It provides data we can use but that data isn’t sterile. It is combined with existing standards and influences including religion and spiritual beliefs.

Yeah, and they came up with winners like ‘Stone people to death who work on Sunday’ and ‘You don’t believe the same thing I believe, so it’s ok to kill you’ and ‘Shes a witch, set her on fire’. I have yet to see a sociologist espouse stoning.

Yeah, that Karl Marx was a prince.

I’m not denying any of the horrible acts done in the name of religion. I’m saying that looking realistically at human history it is impossible to say with any certainty that religion and god belief is a plus or a minus for humanity, since it has been so pervasive. We can’t compile two columns and say with any certainty that religion is predominantly bad or good. even though many people like to believe it the issue is too complicated for that.

You said:

implying that belief has superior moral standing over non-belief.

FTR, I implied no such thing and I’m sorry you read it that way. To clarify, I don’t give a rats ass about the labels of believer, atheist, or agnostic when it comes to judging a persons charecter because experience has shown me that those labels alone are no indicator. An act of love or compassion, kindness, charity, courage, is just as valuable no matter the label the person prefers in that category. Likewise evil selfish acts are what they are whether coming from a believer or non believer. As I said before. Judge the actions of the person to discern their charecter.

First, non-belief has had very little representation in the past, so I’d like to see what you’re comparing to make this conclusion. Second, what has been done in the name of non-belief done that compares to the bad things belief has done? People turn to belief for moral foundation because for a long time there wasn’t a whole lot else. And please don’t bother with Hitler or Stalin, it’s been done to death why non-belief was not a factor in their actions.

I hope you see you were mistaken about my conclusion. I won’t mention Stalin even though I think there is a double standard going on there. I’ve explained what I meant. Some form of religious belief has been so pervasive in humanity that we’d have to credit most of the evil and good to belief wouldn’t we? I don’t believe it’s realistic or credible to point out a few highlights and say “see religion bad”

But the question of god being real is moot in this case. If all that matters is your actions, and that belief in god one way or another doesn’t matter, why involve god at all? Just skip to the actions. The way you’re putting this, one way is just as good as the other, and so god becomes a needless complication.

Nope. The way I’m putting this people get to decide what they value and why. Some may choose non belief and thats fine if that works for them and results in positive actions. If another’s path contains Jesus, Buddha, or Zoroaster, but results in positive actions, then good for them and all of us too.

This is a strawman. Athiests do not (all) think this.

I know all don’t. Just as all believers don’t think the same.

Generally, an atheist doesn’t care what you believe. Most recognize that people need their belief, and taking it away suddenly or would be bad. We’ve had a lot of experience being told what we should believe, and generally we try not to do it back uninvited. The problem is that since religion is not very friendly with athiesm, there are some who do actively fight back.

I am in no way against a non violent, non hateful confrontation about belief systems {too idealistic huh?} I think it’s essential to progress for humanity. I’m concerned about the methods we use within that confrontation and which ones are more productive. In that spirit, thank you for your time and input.

[hotflungwok]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Like what? Trying to fathom the teachings of Buddha or Jesus and their day to day application to our lives and relationships is what, a horrible waste? The process of spiritual growth isn’t perfect but it would be wrong to claim it hasn’t improved anyone’s quality of life.
[/QUOTE]

No I never said that. But it’s important to recognize those teachings for what they are: the ideas of a person. Once you start slapping think like divine and god on there, the message changes, subjectively. Everyone has their own interpretation of things without all the stuff that’s been added on to Jesus’ teachings, all it does is warp the meaning. I can see ‘love your neighbor’ and understand that it’s a good idea without all the structure and interpretation religion has built around it.

Are you sure? Do you think we can’t find examples of people who were fundamentalist believers who are now agnostics or atheists? I remained within belief for a reason. Beliefs can fade completely or just change and be refined. either requires a seed of doubt that grows into something. If you’re making a point I’m not getting it. FTR in my discussions here on the SDMB I’ve never seen anyone who didn’t hold some beliefs as true without substantial evidence, be they believer atheist or in between.

Originally, you said:

Beliefs based on subjective evidence should be held provisionally , with an acknowledgment, that there is more to discover and we may be wrong.

and I responded with my comment about how this is not the case with religion. Religious beliefs tend to be held with obsolute faith rather than wavering doubt, if you can find someone who will acknowledge that a religious belief is a subjective opinion and not a fact. Religion proper is more than just a few beliefs, it can be a big part of someone’s life. A big chunk of religious believers treat their beliefs as fact rather than beliefs, and it’s their faith that allows them to do this. My point is that beliefs based on subjective evidence should be held provisionally, but that religion does not do this.

Sure, that’s people combining data from sociology with their own experience to make a moral judgment. Their experiences can include spiritual beliefs and teachings , and statistically speaking, most often do.

But they don’t have to. You can use just information from sociology to make a moral decision. What do you think sociology data is? It’s a bunch of experiences.

I don’t think it shows that at all. It provides data we can use but that data isn’t sterile. It is combined with existing standards and influences including religion and spiritual beliefs.

But it doesn’t have to be. You can make a case for murder being bad soley by showing what it does to the people affected, the costs to community, work lost, disruption, etc.

Yeah, that Karl Marx was a prince.

I hate to say it, but the old ‘But he did it too!’ argument doesn’t defend your position. And the rules I named were around much longer than Karl Marx.

I’m not denying any of the horrible acts done in the name of religion. I’m saying that looking realistically at human history it is impossible to say with any certainty that religion and god belief is a plus or a minus for humanity, since it has been so pervasive. We can’t compile two columns and say with any certainty that religion is predominantly bad or good. even though many people like to believe it the issue is too complicated for that.

Shrug, I guess, but by the same reasoning you can’t point to belief based moral systems and say they’re definitely superior to non-belief based moral systems, it’s too complicated and there isn’t enough data to compare.

Nope. The way I’m putting this people get to decide what they value and why. Some may choose non belief and thats fine if that works for them and results in positive actions. If another’s path contains Jesus, Buddha, or Zoroaster, but results in positive actions, then good for them and all of us too.

Actually no, if both choices give the same results, then choosing god isn’t good, it just isn’t bad. In fact, all the little things that are required by choosing god might be said to be restrictive, so it might be a little bad to make that choice.

[begbert2]

[QUOTE=Sapo]
Take a person who is influenced, in any way, by what they perceive is a beautiful painting. Does that prove that the painting is beautiful? Does that prove beauty?. Just the same, people are influenced by a God-created world. It doesn’t prove that the world was created by God, and it doesn’t prove there is a God. But the experience is real. It happened and it had an effect.

Now if you want to argue that everything subjective doesn’t really exist, that’s fine. I am nowhere near being able to fight that fight. To me, though, they do.
[/QUOTE]
There is a world of difference between the concepts “beautiful” and “God”; they’re so far apart they’re not even comparable. Beautiful is a descriptor that by nature implies a human reaction to something. It quite literally is in the eyes of the beholder; any objective standard of beauty that we might imagine is merely a person’s impression of the collective average reaction of people to appearances. There is no actual objective standard of beauty.

So, yes. Your impression of a painting means that that painting is beautiful, to you. There is nothing about your impression or beauty in general that indicates that all others will perceive the painting the same way. And that’s okay, since your assertion that the painting is beautiful is an assertion of universal fact.

Unlike “Beautiful”, God is refers to a thing; it exists or it doesn’t. If it exists for one person, then it exists for everyone. There is nothing subjective about God’s existence; all assertions about it are assertions about the objective world.

If people happen to look at the naturally-created world, they might experience a feeling that they interpret as being god-influenced. Just like when they experience a painting as being beautiful, this impression is personal and subjective. It’s also incredibly poor proof that a god exists, particularly a specific god with properties unrelated to the experience. Conclusions to the effect of Gods existence have little to do with the experience and nothing to do with the observed world. They have everything to do with the expectations and imagination of the person who had the emotional reaction.

Subjective experiences exist. That doesn’t justify drawing wild conclusions based on imaginative notions about reality you have that are supported by no objective evidence and that are only barely (if at all) even supported by the experience itself.

[ITR_champion]

[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
Apparently, I did not understand what you posted. You tried to compare the feeling of happiness, a widely spread if not universal basic emotion, with how you perceive response to prayer by saying that you cannot do an experiment to see why people would be made happy by a Van Gogh painting. My response was to point out that you can in fact detect what different things can make a person happy by seeing a Van Gogh painting, experimentation would be one way to do this, and they can all be explained.
[/quote]

You atheists seem very fond of declaring that it’s possible to perform certain tasks without actually performing them. Here you’ve made a specific claim, namely that all factors which affect a person’s reaction to a Van Gogh painting can be detected and explained. I say that your claim is nonsense. For sure you’ve listed some factors that sometimes have some effect on how people respopnd to a Van Gogh, but I don’t believe you’ve provided a complete explanation. Viewing great art, like all significant parts of the human experience, is an unknowable, unquantifiable experience with a spiritual dimension.

Nevertheless, I’m willing to listen if you’d like to try proving me wrong. I’ll change my stance if you (or anyone else) can accomplish two things:

1. List all factors that affect how a human being responds to a Van Gogh.

2. Demonstrate that you’ve completely quantified reactions to Van Gogh in an experiement. In other words, take a sample of people, use your list of numerical factors to predict how they’ll react to a certain Van Gogh, then actually show them the Van Gogh and demonstrate that their reaction is what you predicted.

That process ought to be simple enough. Heck, even a Monet would be acceptable.

The thing about happiness is that it can sort of be measured, in a certain way. Well, maybe not measured, detected I guess would be a better word. As with all emotions, the human body responds in certain physical ways, which can be detected. Adrenalin, endorphins, brain activity, etc. It might be slightly different from person to person, but it won’t vary by too much within the same person. So if we really wanted to, we should be able to tell if a person is ‘happy’.

Here you’re at it again, declaring that we “should be able” to do something. If it’s possible to detect happiness based solely on brain chemicals and activity then surely someone has done so by now. After all, such a device would have obvious huge commercial value. If no one has built a happy-meter yet, that strongly suggests that happiness involves more than just adrenalin and endorphins.

Now, with your ‘feeling of god responding to a prayer’, which you compared to happiness, can this be done? Can it be shown that this is a unique and induced state, not created by the brain or body? Shouldn’t be too hard. Until it can be shown that is different from what the brain would produce if, say, you had false expectations and your brain provided a small change that you took to be god without any real justification, then we really shouldn’t bother with the ‘god did it’ explanation.

Until such time as the happy-meter can be employed in large numbers, our best bet on measuring God’s effect on happiness is by recording what effect people say God has on them. If they say that gives them a positive response to prayer (and many do) then that’s evidence. Now if a skeptic claims that the positive effect comes from expectations about God rather than from God, we’re at an impasse because the claim isn’t falsifiable. Similarly, most people say that cheeseburgers taste good, but a skeptic might insist that people only think cheeseburgers taste good because they expect cheeseburgers to taste good. The claim might not make much sense, but there’s no experiment that can refute it.

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

I think this whole debate about a van Gogh painting causing happiness is a red herring. In the case of a person being emotionally affected by a van Gogh painting, there is a publicly visible object whose existence can be intersubjectively verified. The fact that we can’t measure the person’s happiness is irrelevant to the argument under discussion in this thread. In the case of someone praying to God and feeling affected by that, there is no similarly-public thing we can identify as being the cause of this feeling. You might believe it is God, but again, a person hearing voices might on similar evidence think that there are people inside her head giving her instructions. What’s the difference between the two cases (aside from the fact that one is the case of mental illness and the other is merely a case of unjustified (IMO) belief?) None that I can see.

Now, if happiness cannot be measured by any type of brain scan or happiness meter, that might be an argument for dualism–i.e., for the existence of a non-physical soul. But it is not an argument for the existence of God; and it does not provide a helpful analogy for understanding how one’s subjective feelings concerning God are evidentially legitimate.

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

And BTW, although the state of the art is primitive, researchers have discovered neural correlates for a lot of emotions, including happiness, fear, etc. Here is some interesting research done by a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania:

Today’s neuroimaging tools take real-time “pictures” of the brain that can reveal which segments and neural pathways are active while a person experiences certain thoughts, sensations or bodily movements. Cognitive neuroscientists use these images to associate extroversion, conscientiousness, schizophrenia, alcoholism and other psychological states and illnesses with particular regions and activation patterns. Farah has been analyzing published data from brain-imaging studies, and while the technology is not advanced enough to pinpoint predilections and personality traits, she has found that “the scans are not totally uninformative either.”

Racial prejudice is a good example. In one study, white subjects were shown a mix of black and white faces. Investigators found that negative attitudes toward black people corresponded with heightened activity in the amygdala region of the brain when subjects viewed unfamiliar black faces. “For the first time it may be possible to breach the privacy of the human mind and judge people not only by their actions but also by their thoughts and unspoken attitudes,” Farah says.

So it’s a bit premature to conclude that emotions involve more than brain states and chemicals.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=ITR champion]

Nevertheless, I’m willing to listen if you’d like to try proving me wrong. I’ll change my stance if you (or anyone else) can accomplish two things:

1. List all factors that affect how a human being responds to a Van Gogh.

2. Demonstrate that you’ve completely quantified reactions to Van Gogh in an experiement. In other words, take a sample of people, use your list of numerical factors to predict how they’ll react to a certain Van Gogh, then actually show them the Van Gogh and demonstrate that their reaction is what you predicted.

That process ought to be simple enough. Heck, even a Monet would be acceptable.
Here you’re at it again, declaring that we “should be able” to do something. If it’s possible to detect happiness based solely on brain chemicals and activity then surely someone has done so by now. After all, such a device would have obvious huge commercial value. If no one has built a happy-meter yet, that strongly suggests that happiness involves more than just adrenalin and endorphins.

Until such time as the happy-meter can be employed in large numbers, our best bet on measuring God’s effect on happiness is by recording what effect people say God has on them. If they say that gives them a positive response to prayer (and many do) then that’s evidence. Now if a skeptic claims that the positive effect comes from expectations about God rather than from God, we’re at an impasse because the claim isn’t falsifiable. Similarly, most people say that cheeseburgers taste good, but a skeptic might insist that people only think cheeseburgers taste good because they expect cheeseburgers to taste good. The claim might not make much sense, but there’s no experiment that can refute it.
[/QUOTE]

God of the gaps, eh? No one is claiming that we know exactly how our brains work yet, since they’re damn complicated and we’ve only studied them scientifically for a brief period. But the more we study, the more “spiritual” things turn out to have physical and chemical causes.

Have any evidence that the experience of viewing great art is inherently unknowable (as opposed to unknown as of yet?) Where does the spiritual component come from? Does the artist dab it on the painting to zap viewers? Does God inspire us? (I hope for your sake no one got inspired by Piss Christ!)

Consider how some people get inspired by modern art, and some think it’s trash. Seems individual and cultural to me.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
No I never said that. But it’s important to recognize those teachings for what they are: the ideas of a person. Once you start slapping think like divine and god on there, the message changes, subjectively. Everyone has their own interpretation of things without all the stuff that’s been added on to Jesus’ teachings, all it does is warp the meaning. I can see ‘love your neighbor’ and understand that it’s a good idea without all the structure and interpretation religion has built around it.
[/QUOTE]

well here’s what you did say

If you’re trying to decide how to live your life and what your core world views are, you should maybe try for something a little more.

Yet you haven’t offered any thing that is a* little more* as you put it.
Yes the basic tenets function without the trappings of religion. I prefer less ceremony and tradition myself, but although you may feel the addition of beliefs about god make it worse,you have nothing but your feelings to base it on. That’s the same criticism people use for spiritual beliefs. The fact remains that religion is the vehicle through which many people choose to approach those tenets. However imperfectly it operates, it is what it is.
Thats been my point all along. People should be free to choose what vehicle is meaningful for them. All vehicles are imperfect.

Originally, you said:

and I responded with my comment about how this is not the case with religion. Religious beliefs tend to be held with obsolute faith rather than wavering doubt, if you can find someone who will acknowledge that a religious belief is a subjective opinion and not a fact. Religion proper is more than just a few beliefs, it can be a big part of someone’s life. A big chunk of religious believers treat their beliefs as fact rather than beliefs, and it’s their faith that allows them to do this. My point is that beliefs based on subjective evidence should be held provisionally, but that religion does not do this.

And I gave you examples and evidence to show that your point is untrue. Some people like myself do hold beliefs openly provisionally. Other’s while thinking they know the truth and that their beliefs won’t change, still do change as life goes on and experiences come. Atheists become believers and fundamentalists become atheists or agnostics. How could that happen unless there beliefs were provisional on some level?

But they don’t have to. You can use just information from sociology to make a moral decision. What do you think sociology data is? It’s a bunch of experiences.

But it doesn’t have to be. You can make a case for murder being bad soley by showing what it does to the people affected, the costs to community, work lost, disruption, etc.

Wait! Aren’t you saying exactly what you just claimed atheists don’t say.
So the study of sociology can tell us what Jesus and Buddha already told us 2000 years ago with extra statistics. That’s handy.
Your point seems to be that religion is unnecessary or even detrimental. I’ve heard this argument many times and no one has shown it to have any weight. It’s just your opinion and thats fine. When you say religion isn’t necessary for me
{meaning you}I accept that as a true and accurate statement. That’s how I think believers should approach those who are happy and content to not believe. When you imply that religion isn’t necessary for anyone or that people would be better off without it I don’t agree that’s true or accurate. Have I misunderstood your position?

I hate to say it, but the old ‘But he did it too!’ argument doesn’t defend your position. And the rules I named were around much longer than Karl Marx.

Please. This was not the “but he did it too” argument. You like so many others drag out a few infamous quotes to show how bad religion is. Those are tired old arguments. You specifically said

I have yet to see a sociologist espouse stoning.

My point wasn’t 'he did it to." but a direct response to your statement. People who have proposed social engineering outside of religion haven’t found any solutions any better than those already proposed by religious icons. The real life application of those principles isn’t easy.

Shrug, I guess, but by the same reasoning you can’t point to belief based moral systems and say they’re definitely superior to non-belief based moral systems, it’s too complicated and there isn’t enough data to compare.

In fact I specifically haven’t said that belief based moral systems are superior and for a reason. Did you miss it?

Actually no, if both choices give the same results, then choosing god isn’t good, it just isn’t bad. In fact, all the little things that are required by choosing god might be said to be restrictive, so it might be a little bad to make that choice.

Sigh!! If it works for an individual and leads them to a more positive life then it works, for that individual. It is not for you to say the god belief component isn’t necessary* for them* anymore than they should say that god belief is necessary for you. More importantly you have exactly zero ways to support the statement you just made.

[hotflungwok]

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Viewing great art, like all significant parts of the human experience, is an unknowable, unquantifiable experience with a spiritual dimension.
[/QUOTE]

You theists seem very fond of declaring things true without having any evidence to back them up.

Nevertheless, I’m willing to listen if you’d like to try proving me wrong. I’ll change my stance if you (or anyone else) can accomplish two things:

1. List all factors that affect how a human being responds to a Van Gogh.

2. Demonstrate that you’ve completely quantified reactions to Van Gogh in an experiement. In other words, take a sample of people, use your list of numerical factors to predict how they’ll react to a certain Van Gogh, then actually show them the Van Gogh and demonstrate that their reaction is what you predicted.

That process ought to be simple enough. Heck, even a Monet would be acceptable.

Um, IIRC, you made the original claim about Van Gogh and happiness. So I will graciously give the same concession: if you can show that there is some element to happiness through Van Gogh viewing that can be shown to not be the result of phsyical processes in any way, then I too will change my stance.

I will also grant the concession that it could be a Monet and not a Van Gogh.

Here you’re at it again, declaring that we “should be able” to do something. If it’s possible to detect happiness based solely on brain chemicals and activity then surely someone has done so by now. After all, such a device would have obvious huge commercial value.

I’d suggest a little reading on the subject before you go making declarations like that. And what commerical value would an invasive and complicated process for measuring a person’s physical state all to determine if the person has elevated levels of adrenalin and endorphins have? Couldn’t you just ask them?

If no one has built a happy-meter yet, that strongly suggests that happiness involves more than just adrenalin and endorphins.

No, it strongly suggests that no one has built a happy meter yet. Suggesting that happiness involved more than just adrenalin and endorphins would require evidence. Just because X fails to show that something is true, doesn’t automatically mean a different theory is true.

Until such time as the happy-meter can be employed in large numbers, our best bet on measuring God’s effect on happiness is by recording what effect people say God has on them. If they say that gives them a positive response to prayer (and many do) then that’s evidence. Now if a skeptic claims that the positive effect comes from expectations about God rather than from God, we’re at an impasse because the claim isn’t falsifiable. Similarly, most people say that cheeseburgers taste good, but a skeptic might insist that people only think cheeseburgers taste good because they expect cheeseburgers to taste good. The claim might not make much sense, but there’s no experiment that can refute it.

Nope you’ve got it wrong. Cheeseburgers tasting good is purely subjective experience. The information comes solely from the eater and the food. As long as you make sure it is a cheeseburger they’re eating, they are the only possible source of information for taste preference.

The problem with testing the effect god has on people is establishing that it is in fact god that’s having the effect. The information isn’t coming from just the subject, god is supposedly causing the effect. There are lots of psychological phenomena that account for the experiences people attribute to god, with plenty of evidence to back them up. But there isn’t any evidence to back up the god explanation. So until we can establish the fact that it is god that’s causing the effect, we can’t attribute any emotional states to him.

People claiming that prayer gives a positive response only works if it is in fact the prayer that’s doing it, and not the calm, relaxing, meditation type activity that could produce the same results.

[Sapo]

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
I think this whole debate about a van Gogh painting causing happiness is a red herring. In the case of a person being emotionally affected by a van Gogh painting, there is a publicly visible object whose existence can be intersubjectively verified. The fact that we can’t measure the person’s happiness is irrelevant to the argument under discussion in this thread. In the case of someone praying to God and feeling affected by that, there is no similarly-public thing we can identify as being the cause of this feeling. You might believe it is God, but again, a person hearing voices might on similar evidence think that there are people inside her head giving her instructions. What’s the difference between the two cases (aside from the fact that one is the case of mental illness and the other is merely a case of unjustified (IMO) belief?) None that I can see.

Now, if happiness cannot be measured by any type of brain scan or happiness meter, that might be an argument for dualism–i.e., for the existence of a non-physical soul. But it is not an argument for the existence of God; and it does not provide a helpful analogy for understanding how one’s subjective feelings concerning God are evidentially legitimate.
[/QUOTE]

(to this and in consideration of begbert2’s post)

In my example I mean:

life=painting
god=beauty
god-inspired=beautiful

I am sure a person’s reaction to a beautiful thing can be somehow measured. But that varies from person to person and does nothing to proof the existence of beauty itself. Likewise, a person’s reaction to what they believe is divine can also be measured and it does nothing to prove the existence of God.

Looking at a rock, some see a bunch of atoms and some see the work of God. Looking at a painting, some see a bunch of brushstrokes and some see a masterpiece. Just like the person who sees a masterpiece has nothing to offer in the defense of the beauty of that painting, the person who sees the work of God in the mundane can do nothing to convince another of the divinity of something.

So, there is something visible in the case of God, you cannot see God just like you cannot see Beauty itself. You can recognize beauty in the things you see, but that is a purely subjective experience. Likewise for God.

Trying to convince someone of the beauty (or ugliness) of a piece of art, is just as pointless as trying to convince someone of the divinity (or naturality?) of the world.

[hotflungwok]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Yet you haven’t offered any thing that is a* little more* as you put it.
[/QUOTE]

I was referring to degrees of evidence. I attempted to state that purely subjective evidence is fine for choosing ice cream, but that more rigorous standards should be used for accepting evidence when forming core world world views and morals.

Yes the basic tenets function without the trappings of religion. I prefer less ceremony and tradition myself, but although you may feel the addition of beliefs about god make it worse,you have nothing but your feelings to base it on. That’s the same criticism people use for spiritual beliefs. The fact remains that religion is the vehicle through which many people choose to approach those tenets. However imperfectly it operates, it is what it is.

They’re naturally imperfect because people are imperfect. But adding on the layer of religion makes it even more imperfect. You get another layer of interpretation, of subjectivity. And religion comes with a whole lot of each. ‘Love your neighbor’ is fine on it’s own, it doesn’t need religion. Religion detracts attention from the message by demanding attention to the organization. I don’t need to not eat meat on Friday’s to be able to love my neighbor.

And I gave you examples and evidence to show that your point is untrue. Some people like myself do hold beliefs openly provisionally. Other’s while thinking they know the truth and that their beliefs won’t change, still do change as life goes on and experiences come. Atheists become believers and fundamentalists become atheists or agnostics. How could that happen unless there beliefs were provisional on some level?

My point would only be untrue if I tried to include the word ‘all’ in it, which I didn’t. You are not a typical theist, and you cannot hold yourself up as a normal example. People are capable of changing beliefs, I know it happens. But it doesn’t happen like people change their minds. Beliefs, and the faith that goes along with it, tend to be pretty deeply rooted, and one argument or event isn’t going to change their minds. If I think X is true, and someone shows me that it’s not, I can simple change my mind about X. If someone has strong religous faith that X is true, and someone tries to show them that X is not true, then it is highly unlikely in the extreme that the person will change their mind. It is more likely that they will react negatively, regardless of the actual argument made.

So the study of sociology can tell us what Jesus and Buddha already told us 2000 years ago with extra statistics. That’s handy.

So what? My point stands: science can give us morality.

And more, if you’re going to suggest that the morality Jesus and Buddha preached came from a divine source and not commen sense or logical deduction, then I’m going to need to see some evidence.

When you say religion isn’t necessary for me {meaning you} I accept that as a true and accurate statement. That’s how I think believers should approach those who are happy and content to not believe. When you imply that religion isn’t necessary for anyone or that people would be better off without it I don’t agree that’s true or accurate. Have I misunderstood your position?

Religion isn’t just what you believe. There are many more religious people who do not follow your approach to non believers, who think it is ok to intrude and demand and expect people to believe. We wouldn’t be having a discussion like this if all religious people thought that way, it wouldn’t be necessary.

Please. This was not the “but he did it too” argument.

Yes, it was.

You like so many others drag out a few infamous quotes to show how bad religion is. Those are tired old arguments.

I didn’t drag out any tired old quotes, I pointed out that religion is not the paragon of morality you try to hold it up as.

People who have proposed social engineering outside of religion haven’t found any solutions any better than those already proposed by religious icons.

In fact I specifically haven’t said that belief based moral systems are superior and for a reason. Did you miss it?

When you make statements like the first one in this quote you are implying that the opposite is true. You have made several other quotes like this in this thread, statements like:

Whatever we define as our moral foundation there’s no indication that non belief has any superior moral standing.

make it sound like you are advocating belief based morals. If you say that non-belief based morals are not superior, then the other half of the statement is that belief based morals are.

Sigh!! If it works for an individual and leads them to a more positive life then it works, for that individual. It is not for you to say the god belief component isn’t necessary* for them* anymore than they should say that god belief is necessary for you.

You are talking about specific instances for some reason, where I am not. My statement was very general.

More importantly you have exactly zero ways to support the statement you just made.

See that was what we call ‘logic’. I gave a logical argument, and you didn’t actually do anything to refute it besides wave your hand say you didn’t like it. If you can give evidence that choosing god over not choosing god had a distinct advantage, which you actually denied in the argument itself, then you might have a point.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Sapo]

So, there is something visible in the case of God, you cannot see God just like you cannot see Beauty itself. You can recognize beauty in the things you see, but that is a purely subjective experience. Likewise for God.

Trying to convince someone of the beauty (or ugliness) of a piece of art, is just as pointless as trying to convince someone of the divinity (or naturality?) of the world.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure anymore whether you are arguing for the actual existence of God or not.

Beauty is inherently subjective. Arguing for the beauty of something involves trying to get someone to see what you see in it. Now, if by divinity you mean some property of an object, for instance it being so splendid that it might as well as been designed by a god, then the same criteria apply. If you mean that it actually was designed by a God, then we’re talking about something objective. You’d have to do something like show there is no other way for that thing to have been created - and good luck with that.

[begbert2]

[QUOTE=Sapo]
(to this and in consideration of begbert2’s post)

In my example I mean:

life=painting
god=beauty
god-inspired=beautiful

I am sure a person’s reaction to a beautiful thing can be somehow measured. But that varies from person to person and does nothing to proof the existence of beauty itself. Likewise, a person’s reaction to what they believe is divine can also be measured and it does nothing to prove the existence of God.

Looking at a rock, some see a bunch of atoms and some see the work of God. Looking at a painting, some see a bunch of brushstrokes and some see a masterpiece. Just like the person who sees a masterpiece has nothing to offer in the defense of the beauty of that painting, the person who sees the work of God in the mundane can do nothing to convince another of the divinity of something.

So, there is something visible in the case of God, you cannot see God just like you cannot see Beauty itself. You can recognize beauty in the things you see, but that is a purely subjective experience. Likewise for God.

Trying to convince someone of the beauty (or ugliness) of a piece of art, is just as pointless as trying to convince someone of the divinity (or naturality?) of the world.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for taking note of my post; did you notice the part where I said that “beauty” cannot be reasonably analogized with “God”? Just in case you missed it, I will reiterate.

Contrary to your assertion, I can see beauty itself; it is an attribute of beautiful things I look at. Kind of like ‘Bigness’. I can look at something big and see bigness. This does not, however, mean that Bigness exists as an independent entity; it doesn’t. Like Beauty, it is a nouned adjective; we use the word as though it’s a thing, but it isn’t actually one.

Like Voyager, I am no longer certain of what your position is; however, I will note that if you actually think of “God” being a nouned adjective, as a property without independent existence like “beauty”, then you are not using the word the same way the rest of the world does. You would be better off saying that you see Xx’phtack when you look at nature, since at least that word does not already have a massively loaded and controversial meaning already associated with it.

However, in the off chance that you are not grossly misusing the word ‘God’, I will point out that when you look at a painting and see beauty, you can be confident that you are indeed seeing beauty, since beauty refers to the quality of your subjective experience itself. (As the say, beauty is in the eye of the bolder.) On the other hand, when you look at a rock and see the “work of God”, your confidence in your interpretation of your experience is misplaced. There are two things that must be true for the rock to be the work of God: God must exist (or have existed), and it must have made the mountain. There is nothing about any rock that necessitates that it must have been made by a god; it could be natural planetary matter effected by plate tectonics, erosion, and a number of other natural factors. The only reason you think that you are seeing the “work of God” in a rock is because you decided that in advance, entirely independent of what you are actually seeing.

In short, when you see the “work of God” in anything, you are projecting your own desires and beliefs on the rock, and not drawing your conclusion based on any sort of objective reality. It is as if I had decided that M. C. Escher was the only good artist ever, the only artist whose works I enjoy, and when I encountered other works that I enjoy I decided that other works had been created by Escher based on my reaction to them, regardless of any trivial evidence such as expert opinion, plaques, or signatures. “Michaelangelo’s” David? Nope; that’s actually Escher’s David. The Mona Lisa? Escher. The Harry Potter books? Escher, definitely. (And then he followed up with that series of movies, that he made all by himself. All those names in the credits? He put those in as part of the artistic experience, of course. They certainly don’t indicate that anyone else had a hand in making the movie, oh no.)

Does this seem less than rational to you? How does it differ than seeing the hand of God in various things? (I can think of one difference, but it’s not in God’s favor: we’re pretty sure that Escher actually existed, and actually made things, based on reasonable, objective evidence.)

[Sapo]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I’m not sure anymore whether you are arguing for the actual existence of God or not.

Beauty is inherently subjective. Arguing for the beauty of something involves trying to get someone to see what you see in it. Now, if by divinity you mean some property of an object, for instance it being so splendid that it might as well as been designed by a god, then the same criteria apply. If you mean that it actually was designed by a God, then we’re talking about something objective. You’d have to do something like show there is no other way for that thing to have been created - and good luck with that.
[/QUOTE]

I am saying that the experience of God is purely subjective. That doesn’t make God more or less real, of course. It is just that it is not an experience that can be shared and compared.

It all started with miracles, I stated that miracles occur through natural means. Seeing God in that natural phenomenom is a subjective experience just as seeing beauty in a work of art. Some people see God in something that others see as a purely natural act. There is no proving the influence of God in that act just as there is no proving the presence of beauty in a piece of art. That doesn’t mean that beauty or God are not real, though.

To me, personally, the presence of God in an evaporating glass of water is obvious to the point where I cannot conceive it any other way. God makes it so and ordained it from the beginning of time. He does it through the laws of physics that we have understood for years and that describe the phenomenom to the point where we can make predictions. That we are able to describe it and explain it, doesn’t make it less divine, just as an algorithm that describes Monet’s technique and identifies forgeries doesn’t make the paintings less beautiful or artistic, inspired or expressive.

I have nothing to convey that divinity of the natural world to an non believer just as I don’t have a way to convey the colour yellow to a blind person (and I don’t mean, of course, a range of wavelengths, but the impression and effect of yellow on my person). To me, though, it is something as self-evident as the sun shining on my face. Perception.