Triskadecamus got me to thinking about faith

[Liberal]

Recently, I opened a thread in Great Debates soliciting definitions of God. But, inevitably I suppose, it turned into a debate about the MOP. It meandered on for a long time — more than 500 posts — and brought us a new member, Indistinguishable, whose profound knowledge of logic systems provided a great challenge. He and I stalemated on the premise. He took it as an epistemological proposition, and I took it as a metaphysical proposition. Aside from that, it was wrangling as usual among the rest of us over matters like the definition and the applicability of S5.

But anyway, that’s not what I came here to talk about. That’s just the backdrop for what really stood out in the thread to me, which was this post from Tris. Long ago, Gaudere called his posts “butterflies”. I know that he’s ambivalent about the term, but it really is quite apt. Our message board has its fair share of thread-shitting, hijackings, and one-note-posting, but Tris’s butterflies are never like that. They stand out, but not for their heavy-handed obviousness; rather, it’s for their light and clarity. He has an uncanny ability to condense an otherwise complicated viewpoint into an almost Quakerish plain take.

This was the paragraph that got stuck in my head:

My reasons for denying logic, and proof in the matter of faith is not that it might fail, for if it fails, it is only me, being a fool. I am well aware that I am a great fool, and have learned to adapt. But there is the great horror that it might not fail. I might prove to someone that God exists. That seems to me to be a potentially evil thing, to take from you the possibility of faith (a pearl of great price) and leave you with nothing but proof. Reason is great tool, for this world. My faith is not of this world, and I desire that no one follow my lead. I am lost. Follow He whom I seek to follow if you choose.(Emphasis mine.)

And nearly a month later, here I am. Not a day has gone by that I haven’t thought back over his post, and now it’s time that I speak out about it.

He’s right. Fortunately, none of my arguments have convinced anyone of anything. I’ve often dismissed demands for empirical evidence of God for the obvious reason that God is supernatural and empiricism examines nature. But I’ve always insisted that logic is an appropriate tool for examining God because God is analytic. But that’s wrong. Our conception of God is analytic, but God Himself is not. This should have been obvious to me since anything said about God must of necessity be metaphorical.

In the end, the only appropriate tool for examining God is experience. I can know of Him only what He has revealed to me. I do not know why He has not revealed Himself to everyone else in the same way, but I’ve never thought there was any reason why He should. Our moral journey is a private one that no one else can share. What is the right place and the right time for me might not be the right place or the right time for anyone else.

To those who don’t believe:

You never know what’s around the corner. Maybe God will speak to you a year from now, or a month from now, or this afternoon. Or maybe not until you die. It’s not for me to say, and He’s never asked me for my advice or counsel. But this is just to declare and witness that I will no longer attempt to prove God’s existence to anyone. It is, like Tris says, potentially disastrous, robbing you of the gift of faith.

I’ve often said that I don’t blame you for not believing. In your shoes, I wouldn’t believe either. But I’ve always thought that I could convince you, and now I know that no logic will ever convince you. You will deny the premise, and so would I in your shoes. No miracle will ever convince you. You will find a physical explanation, and so would I in your shoes. No observation will ever convince you. You will declare it to be an illusion, and in your shoes, so would I.

This doesn’t mean that I will cease to argue in favor of God’s existence, or in favor of His gracious qualities. Nor does it mean that I will abandon the MOP or my own deductive theology. I will discuss it with anyone interested. All it means is that I will not expect to convince anyone, and will in fact stress the shortcomings of logic and observation that should make you wary of any proof. I will continue to believe because I cannot not believe. But if you come to believe in the course of any discussion with me, it will be only because God Himself has convinced you.

As Sentient once said, the only way that God could convince him to believe would be to change him from within. I agree. That’s exactly what happened to me. One instant, I was an atheist, and the next, I was a believer. I required new eyes with which to see Him, and a new mind with which to comprehend Him. These were gifts that did not come about by any set of inferences. They came about because of God’s grace. He gave me faith. I do not want to be an obstacle to yours.

[Czarcasm]

@Liberal

You will deny the premise, and so would I in your shoes. No miracle will ever convince you. You will find a physical explanation, and so would I in your shoes. No observation will ever convince you. You will declare it to be an illusion, and in your shoes, so would I.

Unfortunately, this is the response almost every time an atheist asks for the evidence religionists claim is in abundance. “I’ve got evidence, but I’m not going to show it to you because you will just dismiss it out of hand.” While it is easier to win an argument when you get to argue both sides, I’d much prefer that you allow us the opportunity to lose our own debates, thank you very much.

[Mangetout]

@Czarcasm

…“I’ve got evidence, but I’m not going to show it to you because you will just dismiss it out of hand.”…

I don’t think that’s a fair appraisal of what Lib said. He’s saying you’ll dismiss it not out of hand, but for very good reasons that would make perfect sense to him also, if he were in your shoes - it’s not the same thing at all.

[Apos]

@Liberal

You never know what’s around the corner.

Neither do you.

Maybe God will speak to you a year from now, or a month from now, or this afternoon.

And maybe someday you’ll decide that your subjective experiences of God speaking to you are not necessarily what you interpreted them to be, and indeed that no internal experience is particularly reliable in that sense, since the mind can imagine or be made to experience or believe or re-interpret just about anything regardless of it having an objective meaning.

But I’ve always thought that I could convince you, and now I know that no logic will ever convince you. You will deny the premise, and so would I in your shoes.

I think this is overstating it. There aren’t good reasons to believe the premise, or even that we know what the premise is actually really implying.

No miracle will ever convince you.

Again, don’t presume for us. There are a heck of a lot of objectively verifiable miracles that would convince me to believe, if not that God is absolutely good and supreme (since I cannot know what’s outside of my ability to know), that such an entity fitting the basic description of the standard God exists. In fact, it would be trivially easy to do.

Furthermore, people have laid out again and again some very easy circumstances in which, again while not fully distinguishing God from, say, powers of mindreading, you could demonstrate that something akin to what you are talking about is going on that demands explanation. The God you describe has the capability to see the first line string of dotmatrix characters on the ShopWise junk mail I have in front on me right now. He could tell you, and you could tell me, and I’d certainly be wowed. That wouldn’t be the end of things, but it would be a start, and a very easily accomplished start.

So no, I don’t think you are being fair to us.

[Quiddity_Glomfuster]

@Apos

There aren’t good reasons to believe the premise

Point is, it’s not about ‘reasons’.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Quiddity Glomfuster

Point is, it’s not about ‘reasons’.

Then there can be no “debate,” nor can I conceive of how there could even be a “discussion.”

[the_PC_apeman]

@Quiddity Glomfuster

Point is, it’s not about ‘reasons’.

Yep. There it is in a nutshell. A point that both sides of the debate would do well to remember.

@Hentor the Barbarian

Then there can be no “debate,” nor can I conceive of how there could even be a “discussion.”

No debate, I think, is Liberal’s point. But discussion is easy. Think poetry, not math.

Good post, Liberal. Thanks for sharing your epiphany (if I may call it that). Very brave of you too. I wonder if you can as easily place yourself in the shoes of one who’s made the opposite journey as you: from theism to atheism.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Liberal

I’ve often said that I don’t blame you for not believing. In your shoes, I wouldn’t believe either. But I’ve always thought that I could convince you, and now I know that no logic will ever convince you. You will deny the premise, and so would I in your shoes. No miracle will ever convince you. You will find a physical explanation, and so would I in your shoes. No observation will ever convince you. You will declare it to be an illusion, and in your shoes, so would I.

Was this aimed at all atheists? 'Cos I have to say, I for one am all too willing to accept that there may be evidence, and I am quite prepared to say that a miracle could be a miracle. I think you’re going past ascribing skepticism and suggesting atheists would essentially ignore such evidence, or not treat it on it’s merits, which (while i’m sure is true for some) isn’t true for all of us. If in fact by saying “this is what i’d do in your shoes” you’re suggesting there’s no possibility you could ever be convinced, hey, fair enough. But experience is not the only determining factor - there’s personality. My reactions will be different from yours to the same experiences.

I’m quite prepared to be convinced. Send for the miracles!

[Apos]

@Quiddity Glomfuster

Point is, it’s not about ‘reasons’.

Um, in a debate in which both sides agree is over an issue of logic, then yes, the point IS whether or not there are reasons. The point of Liberal’s post is indeed that he’s not so much concerned about convincing people anymore, but in this case, I was responding to his characterization of previous discussions.

So… you are completely confused as to what is being discussed.

[Revenant_Threshold]

Sorry; I forgot to be polite and say congratulations or whatever the appropriate thing is to **Liberal ** for his epiphany. I don’t agree with you, but I can respect thinking through things and coming to new conclusions.

[Nava]

Uh, Liberal…

Faith is, according to my Dad’s catechism from the '40s, “knowledge without proof”. So, glad you realized that it’s not faith anymore if there’s a proof and stuff, but uh, d’oh

A favourite sermon subject with some priests is that “of the three cardinal virtues, charity is the highest because the other two cease to exist once you’re with God - which by the way is Love, that is, Charity, from where…” from where they can spend as long or as little as you want puddle-jumping through the Bible.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@the PC apeman

No debate, I think, is Liberal’s point. But discussion is easy. Think poetry, not math.

I suppose it depends on what “reason” means, but what do we discuss about poetry that is different from math? How do I convey to you anything about poetry or math? How do I describe to you my experience of math or poetry? Both math and poetry involve feelings and thoughts, and describe the interaction between concepts.

This idea that there is some meaningful distinction between anything that involves communication between people is a false one. Either god/religion is an entirely personally idiosyncratic experience which renders any discussion (or joint celebration) of it moot, or it can be conveyed meaningfully among people. The idea that there is no “reason” behind it is, in my opinion, nothing more than a dodge. Perhaps it is on the order of a child saying “I dunno” when asked to explain himself, perhaps not.

I believe that if something can be conceived, it can be conveyed, and can be discussed and debated.

I would also say that I have no illusions that any discussion I have will convince a believer that they should stop believing. I have a hard time buying into the idea, however, that if that were to happen, they would be damaged or lost. I believe that there are important guiding principles and that there is significant meaning to be found in life. I just think that there is no divine source for these things.

Have solace, believers. You are no more fulfilled, self-actualized, insightful or any of a host of other positive and impressive sounding qualities than I am. Don’t weep for me.

[the_PC_apeman]

@Hentor the Barbarian

…
This idea that there is some meaningful distinction between anything that involves communication between people is a false one. …

I disagree. Human neurology isn’t so monolithic. There are different emotional and cognitive parts to the brain.* Communications between people can appeal to one part more than the other - often intentionally.

*Consider Joshua Greene’s fMRI work on the trolley problem. Interesting radio interview here.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@the PC apeman

I disagree. Human neurology isn’t so monolithic. There are different emotional and cognitive parts to the brain.* Communications between people can appeal to one part more than the other - often intentionally.

There certainly are. Fortuantely, human experience is not quite as discrete as human neurology (and of course, human neurology is not all that discrete either). For instance, can you tell which of your own neural transmissions are travelling along myelinated versus non-myelinated pathways? No.

The messy entanglement of emotions and cognitions makes life so fantastic and yet so complicated at the same time.

But the question at hand, of how we convey information between one another, and whether we do so with constructs that have some meaning, and how “reason” or even “reasons” might be involved, is largely independent of the distributed functions within regions of the brain.

[Liberal]

@the PC apeman

Good post, Liberal. Thanks for sharing your epiphany (if I may call it that). Very brave of you too. I wonder if you can as easily place yourself in the shoes of one who’s made the opposite journey as you: from theism to atheism.

Yes, I definitely can. And that’s thanks, again, to SentientMeat. That’s what happened to him. It’s a weird situation with us. Even though our worldviews are practically polar opposites, there is a deep and abiding mutual respect between us. I realize that I can be bombastic, but he always manages to disarm me with courtesy. His arguments are rock solid and thoughtfully conceived. And most importantly to me, he understands my arguments. He deals with them directly, never twisting them into something they’re not. I mean, we do have misunderstandings from time to time, but one of us need only ask the other for clarification, and we’re ready to move forward. He’s a thinker’s thinker.

@Revenant Threshold

But experience is not the only determining factor - there’s personality. My reactions will be different from yours to the same experiences.

I agree completely with that. In fact, it’s a part of my point but I should have fleshed it out much more. The permutations of belief systems are too varied to address completely. The sort of atheist I’m addressing is pretty much the kind I was myself. And to tell you the truth, even now, as a theist, I’m not very impressed with the miracles (other than the miracle of conversion itself). It’s all easily explained by quantum accident. It wasn’t very likely that the water would change into wine, but if a power is capable of collapsing certain probabilities at will, then it’s at the very least describable if not reproducible.

@Apos to Quiddity Glomfuster

So… you are completely confused as to what is being discussed.

Inasmuch as it is my thread, I think I get to decide what is being discussed. That’s not to say that you cannot discuss whatever you wish. But it’s a mighty bold and pretentious thing for you to tell others that they cannot do what you are doing.

[the_PC_apeman]

@Hentor the Barbarian

There certainly are. Fortuantely, human experience is not quite as discrete as human neurology (and of course, human neurology is not all that discrete either). For instance, can you tell which of your own neural transmissions are travelling along myelinated versus non-myelinated pathways? No.

The messy entanglement of emotions and cognitions makes life so fantastic and yet so complicated at the same time.

But the question at hand, of how we convey information between one another, and whether we do so with constructs that have some meaning, and how “reason” or even “reasons” might be involved, is largely independent of the distributed functions within regions of the brain.

I’m not understanding your point. We seem to agree that humans process information both cognitively and emotionally. Greene’s work demonstrates that two different expressions of a concept can be processed with different amounts of cognitive and emotional activity. (Compare the switch and footbridge variations.) If a communication primarily invokes emotional processing, isn’t there a significant* distinction from one invoking primarily cognitive processing? Knowledge of fMRI studies or non-myelinated pathways isn’t necessary. Though not always consciously, we construct our communications to appeal to different parts of the receiver’s brain.

*I’m avoiding the word “meaningful” here on purpose.

[hotflungwok]

So, how do you know god is purely supernatural? Did he tell you? Saying ‘oh, you can’t measure god, he’s not like that’ always sounds like such a cop out, a way to prevent any serious examination of even the idea. If you have some reason to think god is like that, then lets hear it. But if you came up with the idea that god is purely supernatural after trying to examine him, then I can’t see how it can be anything but a cop out.

Doesn’t he intersect with this reality at all? If god does something here, then it can be examined. If it’s done here, in this reality, then it’s natural, not supernatural, right? If god does anything here, heals the sick, makes statues cry, helps a boxer beat his opponent senseless, anything, he’s here and not over there. So how can he make you have experiences, change what you are in this reality, and still be purely supernatural?

[Apos]

@Liberal

Inasmuch as it is my thread, I think I get to decide what is being discussed. That’s not to say that you cannot discuss whatever you wish. But it’s a mighty bold and pretentious thing for you to tell others that they cannot do what you are doing.

I guess you just felt like you wanted to call me bold and pretentious, because your rationale for doing so doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense.

To sum up:

As part of your post’s explanation, you characterized a debate over a particular logical argument in some way, and I disagreed. with your characterization.

QM, apparently not understanding what I was talking about, made some general statement about reason not being the point of the thread.

I pointed out that this response was confusion: I had disagreed with a specific thing YOU had said, in a discussion that WAS about “reasons.” QM’s response was a complete non-sequitur, and I said so. My statement “So… you are completely confused as to what is being discussed.” was in direct response to what I was discussing WITH YOU, not any general attempt to declare what the entire thread was about.

And yet, now you post, somehow arguing that I tried to determine “what was being discussed” and accusing me of being pretentious in doing so.

The only real conclusion here is that you were so eager to call me a name that you didn’t bother to more than skim what I wrote.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Although I’d quibble with a few minor points in what you typed, Lib, overall I agree with the sentiment and appreciate the respect it shows for folks.

Daniel

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Liberal

I agree completely with that. In fact, it’s a part of my point but I should have fleshed it out much more. The permutations of belief systems are too varied to address completely. The sort of atheist I’m addressing is pretty much the kind I was myself. And to tell you the truth, even now, as a theist, I’m not very impressed with the miracles (other than the miracle of conversion itself). It’s all easily explained by quantum accident. It wasn’t very likely that the water would change into wine, but if a power is capable of collapsing certain probabilities at will, then it’s at the very least describable if not reproducible.

Ah, fair enough then. My only real complaint (I have more disagreements, but nothing hugely worth debating at this point) was that you seemed to be addressing all atheists (and possibly anyone who doesn’t believe what you do, though that’s less clear). If that’s not what you meant, no worries.