By “compelling” I did not mean simply finding the concept attractive. I meant experiencing the spiritual on a very deep level. And embracing the spiritual on those grounds does not constitute a defect in cognitive power.
Point of clarification: I have no evidence which is accessible to others. I have my own experiences that lead me to the spiritual. I agree it would indeed be illogical for another to embrace the spiritual solely on the basis of my say-so, but I disagree that it is illogical for me to embrace the spiritual on the basis of that evidence.
I think we’ve meandered a bit from the original point of this thread. The issue (as I understand it, at least) is not whether God’s existence can be proven or not. Instead, the issue is why it is apparently “acceptable” for a so-called skeptic to believe in God while at the same time stating that every other supernatural phenomenon that can’t be proven through empirical analysis must be false. In other words, how can one call him or herself a skeptic and still believe in God?
Some people believe in all manner of things that cannot be empirically proven, whether it be ghosts, ESP, psychics, or what have you. If these people also believe in God, well, that’s just to be expected and Randi’s argument is not targeted to those people.
Other people, however, claim to be skeptics and say that such things as ghosts, ESP, and psychics are likely false because there isn’t a single shred of physical evidence to support their existence. But at the same time, they say they believe in God, in spite of the fact that there isn’t a single shred of physical evidence to support God’s existence. It’s the inconsistency shown by those who want to pick and choose among that which requires physical proof and that which doesn’t that bother Randi.
I think Dewey did an admirable job of summing up religious conviction in general when he stated:
I don’t have a problem with his statement, and I’m not about to try and prove his beliefs false. But I also have to assume that Dewey therefore gives just as much validity to other people’s beliefs in ghosts, ESP and psychics who receive messages from the dead. After all, those who believe in such things do so in spite of the lack of empirical proof, just as Dewey believes in God in spite of the lack of empirical proof.
Again, the “problem” is not whether God’s existence can be proven or not. The problem is why the existence of God get’s special treatment that other supernatural beliefs don’t share. All good skeptics know that ghosts probably don’t exist, that there is probably no such thing as ESP, and that TV psychics like John Edwards are in all probability frauds, since there is no physical, empirical evidence to support their claims. It’s perfectly all right, however, for a skeptic to believe in God, in spite of the fact that there is also no physical or empirical evidence to support that claim either. Why is that?
If somebody has a deep, unshakable “feeling” as to the existence of ghosts and ESP and TV psychics, one that can neither be explained nor refuted, they are obviously deluded. If somebody has a deep, unshakable “feeling” as to the existence of God that can neither be explained nor refuted, on the other hand, that’s perfectly all right and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the person’s faculties of reason or powers of deduction. Why is that?
There’s actually a huge difference between the two. The latter are clearly and measurably falsifiable. John Edward is demonstrably full of bullshit – anyone with any knowledge of cold reading can deliberately flummox him; his show survives only thanks to extensive editing. ESP? Well, let’s look at how accurate your results are. Prophesy? Well, let’s see what your batting average is. All of the folks who believe in that stuff are making claims which are directly observable in the real world.
I am not. God works on me spiritually. It’s an internal matter. I don’t claim God is changing anything but me.
TVAA: Not only did you prove my point, you missed it as well. For you, my beliefs must necessarily mean I am “not capable” of a “high level of conceptual precision.” You (again) assume that I’m simply incapable of understanding your point, as opposed to comprehending your point, recognizing that it is problematic and inconsistent with my own experience, but deciding that a little inconsistency is acceptable.
And how do you know this to be so? Everyone knows that synaptic interactions are involved, but how do you know that intelligence is “merely the interaction of synapses”? That strikes me as an unsubstantiated assertion at this point.
Remember, I’m not asking for evidence that synapses coincide with thought, or that they have some clear causal correlation. I’m asking for evidence that synapses are all that govern intelligent thought, as per your claim.
It does if you use this information to argue for the existence, in some sense, of the spiritual (outside of your head, that is.) Compelling is a word used in reviewing a book, say, or a movie. We accept that a movie compelling to me might not be to you, and don’t treat the quality of a movie as anything but an opinion. Compelling does not say anything about the existence of this stuff.
No, your report of your evidence makes it accessible to others. What is illogical is your embracing the spiritual without checking it against other people’s experiences and evidence. If you were with a crowd of people, and briefly saw something odd, like a UFO, say, is it more rational for you to believe in your brief image, or compare your image with others?
There is no proof that things like ghosts, ESP, psychics, are real.
Wrong. there is a lot of proof, even scientific studies. Sorry you didn’t do your homework.
But, in the case of Randi, he doesn’t have to do anything, prove anything, as long as he can convince the skeptics that support him he is “fighting ignorance.” He reminds me of the televangelist preaching “send that money in folks” I am fighting the evil devil in mankind and I need your support.
While plenty of proof of God and spiritual things abound, most ignore them or just can’t see them to begin with. In my opinion the skeptical view is the most useless one in the world. Instead of wasting energy name calling, why don’t you really learn about the world you live in?
Don’t be afraid to study subjects you disagree with to learn what others see in them. Try to seek truth, not what seems to be the popular view.
Skepticism is negative, name calling is negative, etc. Try to look in the other direction for a couple of days, you might be surprised what you learn.
Sorry, but I don’t see a relevant distinction. Any religion that has been around awhile will have doctrines that have been proven false. When that happens, the doctrine is either changed, explained away, or swept under the table. People, however, continue to believe in their religion in spite of this, based on the “special feelings” they have about it.
Of course, some people strip out any and all doctrine from their belief in God, reducing the belief to nothing more than “something else exists, I know not what.” I would maintain, however, that this isn’t really a belief in God.
You, for example, have repeatedly claimed that you don’t believe that God micromanages the universe and that he simply started the whole ball rolling. And yet, at the same time, God apparently gave you your special feeling as to the truth of his existence. I’m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways – God can’t be both an impersonal force and someone who goes around touching the hearts and minds of anybody who sincerely seeks him out.
If you want to believe solely that God is some unknown force that started the Big Bang and then has had nothing else to do with the universe since then, I don’t think that is particularly credulous on your part. Modern science (as far as I know) still can’t explain what the universe was like before the big bang or what caused it to happen in the first place, so “God” is just as valid an explanation as any other. But this belief in God is not the type of belief that Randi is discussing in his article methinks. And as soon as you start talking about beliving in something that can’t be proved because you have a feeling that can’t be denied, well, then you are no better off than those who claim that ESP is true because they once had an experience when they just knew the phone was going to ring and it immediately did. Both are equally valid (or invalid) expressions of faith and should not be treated differently.
JT, I claim that there is an invisible purple butterfly that you cannot detect hovering behind your head. Would it be an unsubstantiated assertion for you to say that I’m a lying mofo?
That’s precisely my point: inconsistency is a sign of error. Scientists have no problem with accepting that even their best theories are actually wrong: since they never expected their thoughts to produce something other than a crude model, the crudity of their models isn’t important.
Instead of admitting that your ideas about the nature of God and the universe are simply incorrect, and moving on, you persist in defending them. That is why you’re deficient: you’re not brave enough to be wrong.
Well, DCU, I guess we’re gonna have to work with different definitions of physical and spiritual.
And I still insist that barring an active obscurement by a god, spiritual intervention would be detectable with controlled studies.
And to answer the OP, I think a sceptic could believe that God might exist, but not other “supernatural” phenomena, if that person had had experiences under which the existence of God is the most plausible explanation. Of course, I cannot imagine what these might be, as most of these could be better explained by luck or by altered states of consciousness.
I’m certainly a sceptic, and I believe that God could exist, less so than Pascal’s Wager, but more so than atheists. If I were to have one of those experiences that would convince many people of God’s existence, I would still await corroboration with other evidence to make up my mind. In the meantime, I would believe that God probably exists.
-Ah, you have illustrated rather well what I’ve been trying to say, or at least lead to.
Let me make it simpler still: God is your teddy bear.
Just as ol’ Theodore comforts the child at night, when the Monster Under The Bed or the BoogeyMan In The Closet start getting up and moving about, your God-icon brings comfort and solace to your psyche, which you interpret as a spirit or soul.
I have said before, in other threads, that God is a literary device- he exists, yes, but as no more than a creation in and of your own mind.
Interestingly enough, that definition fits perfectly with your stated position- that God affects only your spirit.
That affect/effect is, however, quite conventional stimulus/response. You have a pleasant emotion attached to a memory of a fine restaurant- the food was very good, the atmosphere enjoyable. You have an unpleasant emotion attached to the memory of a movie- the acting was awful, the plot full of holes.
You read the bible and/or attended church or sunday school, and those events created pleasant/pleasurable memories, the thoughts and concepts resonated in a positive manner with your preexisting worldview, however nascent at the time.
At certain times, particularly key points, times of stress or facing important questions or choices, your mind- being an incredibly powerful and highly sophisticated pattern recognizer- recalls, for example, a bible verse (there’s a great many of them, one to fit any occasion) or a particular sermon.
That mental construct is as real to you, I’m sure, as any memory can be- you call this construct “God”. Certain Native Americans called this animus a spirit totem, the image of an animal, or spirit of a departed loved one, that gave them strength or mental fortitude for difficult tasks.
The rest- all of it, from Churches, to iconography like crosses and images of the crucifixion, to copies of the book, to the rituals and chants- is just window dressing.
I disagree, at least insofar as my report can be considered meaningful evidence to other persons. Words are a poor vessel for communicating these sorts of things. And other people cannot slip into my skin. Anyone who elected to embrace spirituality solely on my say-so would be a damned fool; it’s the sort of thing that simply must be experience firsthand. **
This is the sort of deeply personal thing that doesn’t translate well to others. But we do try. If I compare notes with the likes of Polycarp, would you suddenly find my position more valid?
I think it quite relevant. It is one thing to say God impacts people on a deeply personal level, quite another to say he helps football players score touchdowns. **
Religious doctrine is just our fallible attempt to describe the nature of God and His desires. The fact that the description needs periodic revisiting does not invalidate the basic underlying concept of God’s existence – it only proves that our knowledge of God is imperfect, because we are imperfect.
At any rate, it’s a far cry from the psychic, who can easily be shown up as a charlatan by looking at her batting average.**
I have repeatedly claimed that God doesn’t micromanage the physical universe, by which I mean he isn’t interested in helping football players score touchdowns. I think God is considerably more interested in the hearts and minds of humans than in the 49ers beating the spread. I haven’t described God as an “impersonal force” – that’s just you putting words into my mouth.
N.B.: Before it gets repeated yet again, I get the issue over where the spiritual ends and physical begins – i.e., I can physically type on a message board that I recognize spirituality, so there is a physical component to it. OK, fine. There’s an intersection between the two somewhere, though I’m not sure where. To quibble over this is, IMO, to miss the forest for the trees.
I’ve actually noted numerous times that I recognize full well that I may be incorrect. My personal experience has been significant enough to make me think otherwise, but understand that the possibility exists in a very real way.
You, on the other hand, cannot even begin to imagine that you’re wrong.
Please understand that I grasp the technical point you’re making, as per my response to godzillatemple above. But I think to call what I’m referring to as “physical” creates more confusion than it remedies.
Why is that different? can’t God have a “deeply personal” effect on a football player so that he tries harder, works through the pain, and scores more touchdowns?
Your personal definition of God by its very nature precludes anybody from proving his existence, since you say he doesn’t interact with the material world. Aside from the fact that you also claim that he does interact with the material world (i.e. people, albeait indirectly on their “hearts and minds” instead of on their “physical” bodies), the fact is that most people who believe in God do believe that he can and has and does interact with the material world.
And God’s batting average is any better? Oh right, I forgot – your God has never actually made any predictions or performed any alleged miracles that would lend themselves to verification (or “falsification”, if you prefer), since he doesn’t get involved in the physical world. Again, though, I don’t think your beliefs in “God” are typical of the attitude that Randi is decrying.
As a general example, let’s say that I claim to have received a premonition that a family member will die, and a month later the person does indeed die. Any good skeptic will tell me that it was just a coincidence and that I don’t really have the ability to fortell the future.
If, however, I claim that God sent me a personal revelation that a family member will die, and the person then dies, well, that’s a whole different story to some so-called skeptics. A belief in God is a deeply personal thing, supported by special feelings, and the fact that the revelation came true is sufficient proof that God is alive and well and having an effect on your life.
Now you, Dewey, would likely accept neither instance as proving anything, since your belief in God conveniently precludes the possibility of his existence being verified by anything other than purely “spiritual” means. But many so-called skeptics would accept the latter as being true (especially if it happened to them), and this refusal to apply the same logical empiricism to religious experiences that we apply to other so-called supernatural phenomena is what Randi is complaining about.
So-called “prophets of God” have been receiving revelation and making predictions for thousands of years. These predictions are no different than the ones supposedly made by Nostradamus, and they can and should be examined with the same logical rigour. When a psychic’s prediction doesn’t come true, skeptics see it as “proof” that the psychic is a fraud. When a prophecy doesn’t come true, on the other hand, many skeptics are perfectly willing to say that the prohecy was simply misunderstood, or that it hasn’t occurred yet (but surely will at a later time).
Again, I’m NOT arguing that God doesn’t exist. But I do think its disingenuous for somebody to believe in God (especially the standard notion of God, what with miracles and all) and still claim to be a “skeptic.”
Your entire post is nothing more than armchair psychoanalysis, and thus impossible to respond to in any meaningful way. Suffice it to say I find it incorrect.
But the line above, and many of the lines following it, disturb me because they crop up so frequently in these types of discussions. The analogy fits the point you’re making, I’ll give you that much. But the subtext of the analogy is galling: it implies that deists are the mental equivelant of children, and only the great and wise atheist has matured into adulthood. It’s insulting on a very basic level.
Calling God a “teddy bear,” or the other favorite standby, “Invisible Pink Unicorn,” or any variants thereof, are designed to do more than make a debate point. They are implicit ad hominem attacks.
One would hope that adults could discuss these sorts of things without insulting each other or mocking the other’s beliefs. One would hope that both sides could show the other respect, even as they disagree. I am saddened that this has, yet again, proven not to be the case.
You’re being deliberately obtuse. Yes, God can inspire a man to give his fullest. That doesn’t mean that God guides the ball from the quarterback’s hand into the arms of a reciever in the end zone. **
I agree that folks claiming to foretell the future should be subjected to the same standard of proof, whether they claim their source to be innate ability or a vision from God. I ask of the prophet and the psychic the same question: what’s your batting average? Same deal with miracles. Claiming God as the source of your power doesn’t give you a free pass.
-I’m not surprised. Lekatt still considers Reader’s Digest articles about life after death as definitive proof- I had hoped you might see somewhat deeper into the debate, but I understand this sort of thing is taken as a direct attack on the very foundations of your beliefs. No one likes that.
Is it impossible to respond to, or are you just unwilling?
-Of course. These discussions run in direct opposition to a major brick in the foundation of your mind. You agree your beliefs are irrational, yet you hold on to them dearly- these discussions force you to strip away the metaphor and the colorful prose and reveal the incongruous, irrational base on which those beliefs are built.
You hold on to them dearly because they give you solace and comfort- if they did not, you would discard them.
-Very much agreed! One cannot have another face his very deepest beliefs, especially those that the believer himself sees, though intentionally may not fully acknowledge, as irrational and self-deceptive, and not insult him.
It’s much like taking a good friend with a drinking problem aside and telling him forcefully, “Look you stupid, drunken bastard! You’re a mess, you smell and you’re ruining your marrige! You need to get some help or one of us is gonna have to kick your ass!”
On, of course, a somewhat subtler and vaguely more polite level.
You wish to assume you’re being insulted for having an irrational belief- and admitting it’s irrational!- then chances are you are.
You yourself have railed against dowsers, psychics and speakers-to-the-dead in this very thread. You insult them, call them names, because they either hold irrational beliefs or they take advantage of the irrational beliefs of others.
And yet, Mr. Kettle, you take umbrage at those insults directed at you.
-Certainly. See the point on ‘insults’ above. However, that’s merely an implication- my use of the “teddy bear” analogy is just that, merely an analogy.
God is used as an icon of comfort, solace, serenity, love. A child cradles his teddy bear for the same reasons.
The average “IPU” analogy is used similarly: The theist says God did this, or God did that. The skeptic notes that, given the conditions (nobody saw it happen, to have it done as mentioned would require magic or miracles, etc) then why couldn’t some other entity, say, an invisible, magic pink unicorn have done it?
It’s only an “attack” when the question is phrased like “So, Mr. Swaggart, what did the Magic Invisible Pink Unicorn tell you to do today, hmm?”
That being said, you’re not debating my point, you’re attacking the motives of my argument. Isn’t that, itself, ad hominem?
-Excuse me for a second while I say, suck it up and take it like a man.
This thread started out mocking athiests for having the unmitigated gall to use the otherwise inert phrase “Bright” in place of the emotionally charged “Athiest”.
As I’ve said, it is difficult to debate a man’s deepset and carefully-groomed beliefs without some measure of insult. I’ve read what you have to say, and like Poly and others, I will not mollycoddle you with sweet words.
Again, however, I note that you are not debating my points, you’re attacking my maturity and motive. With, oddly enough, insult in reply.
I can take the insult- trust me when I say I’ve been called worse, by better. But being unable- or is it unwilling?- to debate my points as points, and instead “killing the messenger” as it were, is a rather loud and telling statement on your behalf.
