I think we can all agree that, while Dewey may or may not be a fairly intelligent and reasonable person (I’m withholding judgment until more evidence comes in), it’s clear that when he deals with this particular subject, his brains turn to goo and run out his ears.
I think this is precisely why Randi becomes so frustrated. Not only does he have to deal with people believing all kinds of claims with utterly ridiculous support, but people who otherwise think rationally yet have such tremendous psychological blindspots that they can’t perceive the exception they make for religion.
Given that frustration, I think we can all appreciate why Randi wrote that article. I’ll go far enough to say that he was right, although the article itself may not endear him with the people he’s upset with.
By the definition of the noun “bright”, no, deists are not brights. And no, I won’t “respectfully disagree”, the same way I won’t respectfully disagree with people who claim dowsing works, or that they can talk to the dead, or that they can see the future in fish entrails. It’s all ignorance, retarding the march of science and raising the average dumbness of the world. I see no difference between one irrational notion and the other.
Here’s a piece from a Simpsons episode. Marge is going through a psych evaluation.
See? The reason this is funny is that we’re not used to God being treated the same as any other supernatural phenomenon. If Marge had talked about her little pixie friends instead of God, this wouldn’t have been funny, because that’s the kind of thing that does get you declared insane in real life. But if you substitute the word “God” for “pixie”, you’re in the clear. That’s plain lunacy.
That’s why I will not respect your position. I do not respect belief in little invisible pixies, I do not respect belief in dragons, I do not respect belief in tea-reading, and I do not respect belief in God. Same difference.
-Excellent. Please provide the proof, or at least a compelling argument, that you are not “faking it”.
-Agreed. Judging by past responses, you wouldn’t reply anyway.
-Again, if it cannot be tested, even in such a vague and roundabout matter to merely provide a firm hint it exists, then how can it possibly be said to exist at all?
Time, for example, does not exist. It is not a physical structure, a radiation, a gas, a measurable motion of atomic particles. It is merely a name for the fact that events happen in a regular, ordered progression. However, we can measure it, indirectly- we can record it’s passage with clocks. This is an indirect measurement- we are not literally putting a yardstick to a block of time itself. But it is still an observable, repeatable, quantifiable phenomena.
So if your God is less detectable or verifiable than something that does not exist, how on Earth can you possibly rationalize that it exists at all?!?
-Non sequitur. You and I both know that is not what was being discussed, but I understand you’re uninterested in formulating an answer to the actual question. I’d actually say “incapable”, but you’d just go off on another tirade about being insulted, and ignore the question entirely.
Again.
-Precisely. And “God” did touch you. You probably read a rather lengthy storybook in which a character named “God” starred, and visited a series of fancy buildings where a man- a normal mortal, like the rest of us- spoke in flowery prose and windy metaphor about this same character.
You apparently found these stories enjoyable, and likely noted various disconnected bits of day-to-day phenomena that just might be connected in some way- if you think about it long enough- to the character in those stories, who was wont to do things like that.
It is identical- and absolutely no more mystical or magical- to how Star Wars “touched” two generations of sci-fi fans, and how the Harry Potter books have “touched” millions of children.
And your vehement protestations to the contrary, you have not produced one iota of compelling evidence for anything more, and further, have actively dismissed or avoided even attempting to do so. What you don’t say speaks volumes.
-Sure. Like an God so powerful he can create a trillion solar systems from nothing, yet can’t be seen, felt, heard or even inferred… except he talks to you personally, apparently 'cause you’re special.
-Perhaps. But note how long it took for man to evolve to a semi-refined toolmaking stage (at which point we assume language began to be refined into a usable form of dialogue.) Then note how long it’s been since then.
Tens of millions of years from protoprimates to tool-using Man, only a few tens of thousands at best, since then. Relatively clear concepts of “gods” are only six or seven thousand years old- evolution doesn’t make huge changes on scales of time that short.
-That assumes their deism is instinctual, and prayer is not instinctual. Thinking that floods and earthquakes are due to some powerful, unseen force- with the assumption it’s a sentient force- is likely an offshoot of the mind’s desire for answers (in other words, a vague sort of instinct, if you stretch the definition a bit) but prayer is a learned response.
-Ah. Makes sense now. However, you still misunderstand. What I’ve been describing is less instinctual, depending on how you define the term, and more a trait, a “side effect” if you will, of the mind’s desire to learn.
Or, to be more clear, the desire to learn, the “need” for answers, is a form of instinct, but the tendency to see gods or magic in events is a trait, which is more of a learned response.
-And theists in general have been pretty consistent in cleverly defining their God as to be impossible to prove.
You say he can, but doesn’t want to.
How convenient.
-Except when it comes to God talking to you personally. Then it’s a simple matter of “I know I’m right, so there”.
-Then as far as Christians go, you’re in the minority. Most theists, of many stripes, think their God takes close and careful watch on the World. He’s directly responsible for aesthetically pleasing sunsets (but oddly, never drizzly days) he keeps people from stepping out in front of busses (except those that didn’t manage to stop in time) and saves people when they have heart attacks.
So why is your interpretation, which would largely invalidate the interpretations of many thousands of other christians, correct?
-You and me both. I’d be equally surprised if somebody got gored by the Invisible Pink Unicorn, caught the Easter Bunny, or managed to find a good Piers Anthony book.
-Why do you maintain it as a possibility? You admit the belief is irrational, cannot prove it, cannot plausibly suggest it, cannot even properly enumerate it, yet feel strongly enough about it to nearly single-handedly propel the theist side of this discussion for three pages now.
-That, I won’t deny. I’m sure you believe them to be real.
The point of contention comes when you, rather hypocritically, turn and deride seers, dowsers and dead-speakers for the same level of self-belief.
And, to give kudos to TVAA, you’ve illustrated perfectly the exact- precise!- sort to whom Randi referred in his article. Otherwise intelligent, learned, skeptical people who nonetheless absolutely will not face their religious beliefs with the same skepticism.
-I respectfully disagree. I can, in fact, tell the future from fish entrails.
I look at them and I can determine, with incredible accuracy, that I’m having salmon for dinner.
It was marvelous, too. King Salmon less than three hours out of the river. A little lemon, spices and garlic… People pay $120 a plate for meals like that at the Waldorf-Astoria.
Ahhh, but it’s a well-known, well-nigh provable phenomenon that, once in awhile, men do run down streets. If it were generally accepted that gods do exist, as surely as men run down streets, then right now we would merely be having a discussion right now about whether a particular God exists. But sceptics accept no such thing. Extraordinary claims and all that.
Your anology works for you only if you stack the assumptions in your favor. In your analogy, “19 of 20 neighbors say a man of approximately the same description was running down the street.” When we’re talking about God, however, you’d have to have an incredibly broad definition of “approximately the same description” for your anology to apply.
God is a great worker of miracles; God is an unseen force who doesn’t work miracles but simply speaks to the minds of men; God; God is a god of love who teaches all men to respoect each other; God is a god of vengeance who smites those who disobey him and who orders nonbelievers to be killed; God sends natural disasters to torment those who displease him; God let’s natural disasters occur because to do otherwise would be to interfere with man’s free will. And that’s just the mainstream Christian “description” of God! Wait until you try to fit the Islamic, Buddhist, Zorastrian, Jewish, and Mormon (who are Christian but who have a radically different definition as to the essential nature of God), descriptions, not to mention all the various defunct religions of the past which we now characterize as “mythology.”
In short, the various “descriptions” of God throughout the ages have varied so widely from time to time, culture to culture, and religion to religion, that it’s clear to anybody willing to excerise their brain that they couldn’t all be talking about the same God. And once you add in the vast number of people throughout the ages who have had no belief in God whatsoever, only a truly credulous person would claim that the various witness accounts – regardless of how contradictory they are – must prove that some sort of God exists.
[As an aside, with regard to the “19 of 20 neighbors” in your anology, once again you have stacked the deck in your favor. One billion Chinese people (give or take a few million) do not believe in God at all. Another billion Indian people have religion, but no concept of God in the Judeo-Christian sense. Even if the remaining 4 billion people on this planet all believed in God (which they most certainly do not), that’s still no better than 2 out of 3 and not 19 out of 20.]
Ah, but there’s a limit to that accuracy. After all, the fish could be ruined, or you could be hit by a bus just as you’re about to take your first bite. What you are really seeing is a potential, high probability future.
I’d really like to more actively participate in other SDMB threads, but as of late this one has been consuming the lion’s share of my time. I’d like to bow out; debating six-on-one gets old fast, and really sucks time away. I hope that after six pages you can acknowledge my departure as simple weariness rather than an unwillingness to explore this topic further.
A few final thoughts in no particular order:
Re a “silent John Edward” – fortunately, real life doesn’t comport with this. People like John Edward have to make falsifiable claims in order to gain an audience – even the Sci-Fi Channel would balk at a show where Edward stood on a stage for an hour chanting “I can speak with the dead” without providing details. And charlatans need an audience – it’s their whole raison d’etre.
Mercifully, I don’t need an audience. While I am willing to discuss (and enjoy discussing) theologic concepts, public attention is not the reason for my theism. My views would not change if I was on a desert island. Because I’m not concerned with the crowd, I don’t need to make the kinds of claims that attract crowds.
Re deism/Polycarp: You are correct. I have been sloppy, using “deism” interchangeably with “theism.” I think in pretty much all such instances, “theism” would have been the right word to use for what I was trying to say. I apologize for the error.
Re the Simpsons sketch: So, do you agree with the diagnosis of the good doctor?
Re “…except he talks to you personally, apparently 'cause you’re special.”: I don’t think I’m particularly special. Many millions of human beings have claimed to have had spiritual communion with God. That hardly makes me unique.
Re “By the definition of the noun “bright”, no, deists are not brights.”: Which misses the point, that the choice of the term “bright” is deliberately meant to imply theists are not-bright. The “as I’ve defined it” game is just a dodge. I think I’ll coin a term for theists: “getting laids.” By that definition, any given atheist is not getting laid. Hey, as I’ve defined it, it’s perfectly accurate, right? There’s no subtext at all, right?
Re “I’m withholding judgment until more evidence comes in” – I’ve got over twice as many posts as you do, and have been posting here almost a year longer. Surely there’s no need to wait for anything – there’s plenty evidence on these boards of my intelligence/reasonableness or lack thereof for you to draw conclusions.
Re “In short, you say you believe in something that has not been proven, and justify your credulity by claiming that it cannot be proven and therefore you don’t need proof.” – Quite the contrary, it is proven to me. It’s just that the evidence is not of a kind that is capable of being shared with the rest of the world. That’s why I’ve said repeatedly that I would think it absurd to believe in a deity on just my say-so – I can’t provide evidence that you can evaluate yourself, and you shouldn’t just take my word for it. As I’ve said, over and over and over again, my goal here is not conversion.
Consider the following: the president says country X (which to date has never had nuclear ambitions) has nuclear weapons (to avoid political mudslinging, let’s say this president isn’t Bush, but rather a future president of indeterminate party affiliation). The president has in fact seen a bevy of evidence to that effect, all of it clear and valid and none of it based on sketchy African forgeries. But for national security reasons (key informants’ lives in danger, etc), he can’t share that evidence with others. Now, it may be improper for the president to commit the country to any sort of action to take out the nukes on just his say-so. It may even be improper for the president to suggest that others actually believe that country X has nukes on just his say-so. But I don’t think it improper for the president to suggest that others should consider it possibile that country X has nukes, or that others should refrain from thinking the president is insane on the basis of his claim.
That’s all I’ve suggested: that theism is a reasonable (though externally unprovable) possibility, and that theists shouldn’t be considered insane on the basis of their belief in a deity.
This post is getting much longer than I imagined, and I fear I’m falling back into the trap of full participation in this thread, so I’ll just cut it off here. I may pop in for quick questions, but please don’t expect extended engagement.
And nobody here has asked you to prove the existence of God or provide evidence of his existence. We have simply asked (over and over again) why you are willing to accept a different standard of proof when it comes to one form of supernatural experience over others.
What is it about God that makes him believable (to you) in the absence of any empirical evidence and in the face of much direct evidence to the contrary? If whatever deep feeling you have that justifies your belief in God is, in the absence of any empirical data, enough to overcome your skepticism, why then are you so skeptical of the deep feelings that other people have about ghosts, psychic powers, UFOs, etc.?
See – we’re not asking you to convert us or prove that God exists. We simply want to understand why you think that God’s existence doesn’t NEED to be proven by empirical means in order to believe in him, unlike every other alleged supernatural phenomenon.
[Just in case you decide to check back in, of course. I don’t really expect a response.]
-And that’s not the reason for churches? A friend of mine works at a local Baptist Temple. This is a fabulously wealthy place- their own TV studio, two radio broadcasting studios, print shops, top of the line ethernetworks, their own server farm for their extensive website.
Pretty fancy for something that’s not a “business”, per se`.
Roberts’ and Swaggarts’ multi-million-dollar empires go without saying. The Vatican has billions in artwork, frescoes and raw gold.
I remain wholly unconvinced that the primary reason for organized religion is not, in fact, making largely tax-free money. But I digress. In any case, your example is flawed- A TV show has to be, by definition, entertaining and cinematic. Truth, falsifiability/nonfalsifiability, logic and reason all take a distant back seat to showiness.
-Moreover, when the crowd does gather, you’ve managed to carefully phrase your claim as to be unfalsifiable- there’s no more evidence to it than evidence you had a random thought about blueberry pancakes.
-You misunderstand, yet again. In this case, you’re stating quite clearly that God deliberately declines to meddle in the day-to-day physical affairs of Man- contrary to common Christian dogma- but he takes the time to speak directly to you, personally.
That’s not thinking you’re special?
-And is indistinguishable from a normal, day-to-day thought you might have.
So to summarize, you realize that fortune-tellers and dowsers and dead-speakers are charlatans- either lying or believing in falsehoods- a fact which seems quite clear to you. But then you have a random thought, and you unquestioningly attribute this thought to an invisible, intangible, undetectable transdimensional creature, and not only believe that, but actually try and defend that viewpoint with logic!.
-And my goal is not reconversion. My goal is to see if you can actually acknowledge how absurd and hypocritical your position is. You’ve refused to answer or make meaningful replies, dodged the hardballs by bringing into question my motives, and obfuscated others by picking semantical nits about literal interpetations of invisible men or “contact” meaning physical touch.
-The same can be said for the Chinese concept of Chi, telepathy, UFOs, dowsing, spirit contact, the existence of ghosts, telekenesis, faeries, precognition, poltergeists, remote viewing, spoonbending, voodoo, homeopathy, astrology, feng shui, faith healing and sorcery. Do you also admit any of these are “possibilities”?
-Priceguy summed it up well with the Simpsons skit.
Example A: “I believe in ghosts.”
Sane or not-entirely-sane?
Example B: “I believe in God.”
Sane or not-entirely-sane?
There’s precisely as much evidence for either claim, both can be “explained” the same way, both have similar adherents (both intelligent, reasoned people and the true looney-tunes) and both are largely contrary to almost all natural laws, known physics and observed phenomena.
Why is the latter mainstream and accepted, while the former is derided and debunked?
Also, try not to make another semantical nit from “insane”. Being not-entirely-sane does not therefore mean raving, drooling incoherence. A well-known example is Dr. W.C. Minor, who contributed considerable well-researched additions to the nascent Oxford English Dictionary, and was by all rights a calm, reasoned man, but who had, due to traumatic wartime service, an irrational fear and paranoia involving “irishmen”.
There are varying levels of “insanity”- compulsive washing of hands, irrational fears of certain plants or animals, any number of phobias.
Given that I pointed out several major problems with Randi’s screed, and that no one here who claims to be logical, etc. has addressed them, you might understand why I’m frustrated too.
Perhaps godzillatemple the reason that no one other than Dewey is willing to join the fray is that no one is seriously engaging him in debate (TVAA has resorted to namecalling for instance) and hence it is clear that such an effort wouldn’t accomplish anything.
Actually, I only recall only one post from you prior to this one and some of it seemed on par with something lekatt might say which is probably why most ignored it. However:
If you think you would fare any better than DCU, feel free to start a board with you defending this position that your religious nature can be defended logically, and can be examined. By starting your own OP, you’ll get all the attention you feel like you deserve. Judging from what Doc, TVAA, godzillatemple, et all have done already, I’m curious, do you like to be flayed alive?
Ugh. I promised myself I wouldn’t do this, but there are a couple of things here I feel compelled to note.
I suppose the answer goes as follows: I believe that my spiritual experiences are valid because I’ve experienced them firsthand. I wouldn’t expect anyone else to take my word as Gospel truth on that; indeed, I expect skepticism from others, and think any other response by others would be foolish.
I tend to believe those whose experience comports with mine. I tend to be skeptical of claims that do not comport with my experience. To the extent such claims are falsifiable, I reject them altogether (including claims of religious phenomena, such as miracles). I suppose those claims that are not falsifiable I would hold open as a possibilty, although frankly I’m hard-pressed to think of any outside of theism that aren’t falsifiable – as noted, charlatans like Edward need a crowd, and nonfalsifiable claims don’t make for a good show.
No, actually. The principal reason for churches is for believers to fellowship together. And I think that is the basic motivation behind most Christian churches. Strictly speaking, the church is wholly unnecessary for communion with God.
I don’t feel the need to defend the excesses of wealthy MegaChurches, and I certainly don’t feel the need to defend televangelism. Just because individual churches may have lost their way doesn’t invalidate the concept overall. **
All of which misses the basic point that John Edwards’ particular show depends on his making falsifiable claims. Without those claims, there would be no “showiness.” It would just be John Edwards mumbling to himself on stage for an hour. **
No more special than any other human.
And again, seeing how I haven’t set forth to defend any particular religious tradition (other than to correct misconceptions, as per above), I fail utterly to see why it would matter in the slightest that my view is “contrary to Christian dogma” (if that is in fact the case).
emarkp has a lengthy post on page one of this thread, and he/she is correct that no one replied to it. I take no position on the validity of her post. You can easily refresh your memory by clicking on the “first page” thread navigation link. **
In the post emarkp linked to, you called me a “nitwit.” That addressess neither my position nor my arguments. It is instead a purely ad hominem attack on my person. Emarkp’s accusation of namecalling is entirely accurate.
There is a difference between calling an argument foolish and calling the proponent of that argument a fool. You should either learn to distinguish between the two, or confine your posts to the Pit.
TVAA, Doc Nickel, there is to be no namecalling or referring to poster’s “tiny minds” in this forum, understood? GodlessSkeptic, it is against the rules to discuss the contents of your ignore list.
So did you cease posting to this thread because you didn’t have time and you couldn’t reply to everyone at once, or because you felt you were losing and vowed not the respond?
** ‘Valid’ implies standards. What do you mean what your experiences are “valid”? And what difference does it make that they were firsthand (as if there’s such a thing as secondhand experience)?
People experience hallucinations firsthand all the time. That doesn’t make those experiences empirically valid.
Error: the validity of a position doesn’t depend on whether it’s similar to something you believe, but only on the support for that position.
Error: skepticism applies to all positions. It has nothing to do with active doubt; rather, it involves a suspension of certainty and a willingness to examine a position.
Incorrect assertion. Your position is logically falsifiable, but you assert it nevertheless. Additionally, you actively believe in “miracles” (interactions between a deity and the universe that obey no laws or principles) yet deny that you do.
Verbing weirds language.
** Doctrinally incorrect. The earliest Christian beliefs revolve around the community, not the individual, and religious worship can take place only in a gathering in the oldest tradition.
** There was a reason for that.
** No, it is a conclusion that we can derive from the nature of your arguments. But as Gaudere requests, we won’t focus on you.
Your arguments are vapid and intellectually void. Your position is logically indefensible.
The former. And I specifically noted I might continue to participate on occasion, just not as frequently. And I still don’t want to get sucked back into this thing as a regular participant; it is draining to reply at length to six people at a time without backup.
If you’re implying I’m a liar, stop. I didn’t question your motivation when you departed the Galileo thread, even though that was (to put it mildly) equally questionable. **
Eh? I take miracles as a possibility, but think they should be subjected to the same types of proof as other supernatural claims. **
Take it up with Martin Luther. What exactly the earliest Christian beliefs were is a matter of some debate.
