What would convince Believers that they've been wrong all along?

Great Debates
81

I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the “I was deluding myself” “it was true” false dilemna in this situation. This isn’t a matter of the experience simply being a delusion or being true: it is a matter of the interpretation of that experience possibly being wrong (when many are possible, and perhaps many have shades of the actual).

—You are quite welcome to conclude that I deluded myself.—

And very eagerly welcomed to, I see, but not interested: certainly not in such bold terms, which are, interestingly enough, yours, not mine.

—However, what part of my motivations would enable me to delude myself into believing that a mental-construct god would tell me to choose to do things that, due to circumstances I did not know as yet, would lead to a change in my personality that would make what did in fact happen a fulfillment of self, when id, ego, and superego were united in figuring those changes as unpalatable to the former me?—

The fact is, it’s quite pedestrian that people take what seem to them at the time as being uncharacteristic chances and choices, regardless of whether they experienced it as the prompting of another being or not, especially when they were fighting against it. Again, I feel like you’re playing up how strange and singular this is, which in its course paints a very misleading and extremist picture of human psychology. I don’t know your specific case, but the story of actions and motivations you are telling is not as otherworldly as you seem to have an interest in making it out to be.

—However, why am I as an individual who believes in such a god because he has such evidence any less rational than the aforementioned?–

You aren’t. First of all, people generally aren’t meaningfully called rational or irrational. But secondly, to be rational or irrational you’d have to provide an arguement, and that arguement would have to be rational or irrational. As far as I can tell, the key here is that you’ve had an experience that was deeply affecting and changed your character. That’s not an arguement for or against belief in god presented to others: it’s the basis for the fact that you DO believe in god. And facts aren’t rational or irrational.

82

minty green Quote: "A group of Christian teenagers were leaving on a bus trip from their church in the Dallas area to travel to a church camp 250 miles away. The teenagers prayed for a safe trip before departing. Sadly, not too far from Dallas the bus driver fell asleep and the bus crashed into a bridge support killing four or five of the kids and injuring many more.

Does this trouble a Christian at all (not the tragedy itself, but from a theological perspective)? …

Any takers?"

Certainly. There are two questions:

  1. Does it trouble Christians?

  2. Does it justifiably trouble Christians about their faith?

Anyone who’s been involved in terrible suffering wonders what went wrong. What they possibly could have done to stop the pain. No human being, no animal even, would behave differently. It should be troubling. None of us want to be in pain. Or in fear of pain. In this case, the fault was clearly the driver who fell asleep. Why pretend this is an act of God? For the sake of honesty, figure out why a negligent bus driver was given the responsiblity for driving a bus.

Should this trouble faith? No. No one ever promised anyone, of any faith, that being a believer would make them free of pain. That no innocent people would die. Good people are going to die, regardless of prayers. Is your faith based on actuary insurance tables? You’ll have faith only if fatal accidents of good people are reduced 10%?

83

Should it? I’m not really in the best position to answer this question, since I don’t view God as being interventionist in the “dear God, I’m falling out of this airplane from 20,000 feet without a parachute, please let me live” way to begin with, but even if one does believe that God chooses to take an active role in such things, he’s God, and as the trite saying goes, does things for his own reasons.

I’m not troubled by God not helping my football team win a game even though undoubtedly some people pray for it, and for the same reasons, even though this is admittedly a far less trivial example, I’m not troubled by God not giving us anything else we might desire either.

I’m not quite sure what you mean here. As a physicist myself, I accept evolution and cosmology, and don’t believe the Bible to be literally true. Is that all you’re asking? It seems like that question is too easy and probably not what was meant, but I’m not sure how else to interpret it.

84

I was hoping not to have to explain that the second question only applied to those believers who take their Bible literally, gr8guy. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that one cannot be a believer and also accept the validity of evolution, cosmology, etc.

And since I omitted rsa’s underlining in the first question, let me underline the key fact here:

85

I think the problem some people have with regards to prayed against accidents like that would be that if the accident didn’t happen, and everyone was safe, god would be credited for that. Obviously, non-believers aren’t looking to foist wrongs off onto god they don’t even believe in, and off the people really responsible: but what they don’t get is the seemingly self-sealing disparity in what is attributed to god’s interactions with the world, especially those that are willing to fully blame humans for any error, but credit god for any success.

86

Oh, well, now I feel stupid! I thought that was what you had to mean (i.e. that it was for literallists only), but I wanted to be sure. In that case, let me add that I cannot remember a time when I WAS a literallist, so my answer to the second question is more or less useless.

But as far as the underlined part of the first question goes… It is of course the crucial fact, but since I did catch it my answer stands.

87

As with much of what you’ve said, I agree.

Christians who believe that God can be held responsible for every good and bad thing are missing a basic point. (Helped, of course, by numerous mercenary Christian preachers who attempt to convince people that the more money they give away, the more money they will have.)

Pardon if I quote scripture:

“'Then the devil took him to the holy city, and made him stand on the parapet of the temple, and said to him ‘If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down.’” Matthew 4:5-6.

(Then devil then explains he wants to see God save Jesus from the fall.)

“Jesus answered him, ‘Again it is written, “You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.”’” Matthew 4:7.

Christians who expect God to do a certain thing may often be disappointed. The reason is NOT that God doesn’t care. It has everything to do with: If it could be demonstrated God existed, then everyone would believe. Like believing the sun will rise every day… there’s no spiritual benefit there. It’s a no-brainer.

The idea of faith is to look inside at what you believe (not what you reason). Then to make moral decisions about right and wrong based on what you believe, not just on logic.

88

Did I say it was exclusive to believers? You obviously missed the point I made. That isn’t what troubles me about your reply. It was this:

He was right there with the child and the parents. It was a special blessing given to them, though I doubt you can understand that right now. Down’s children are the sweetest, most loving child that have graced their parents lives (according to them). The tragedy is not a “Down’s child”. The tragedy is people who think that child is less deserving of being loved.

Having already lost my little grandson to brain cancer, I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter. What I do know is how much these children are already loved and that they will be welcomed with open arms into our family.

NOTE to Polycarp & partly_warmer: I admire your ability for clear and well thought out posts very much.

89

No sweat, gr8guy. I knew what you meant, and appreciate your answers.

90

No. I do not discount man’s will acted out here on earth.

I agree on some level. The difference, however, between a presense and God’s presense is discernable. Haven’t a number of nonbelievers stated that they have not ever felt God’s presense?

91

As long as theists keep claiming knowledge of a fifth dimension and the mandate of the supreme being that inhabits it, it is really quite pointless to try to reach an understanding between the two sides. An alternate reality is only limited by the imagination of the person creating it. And no amount of debate can alter that fact.

92

I’m failing to see why it’s a bad idea for God to demonstrate to everyone he exists - he wants as many people to be saved as possible, doesn’t he? Still more so I completely disagree with the idea that one should not go by reason or logic or base one’s faith on it - that seems very dangerous territory to me.

93

Understanding or do you mean compromise, RedFury?

94

Edlyn,

Not sure how one can “compromise” over something one can’t understand.

Which is what supernatural stands for.

95

RedFury, what’s so hard about understanding a typical theist position? You may not agree with it, you may find it ill founded, possibly deluded, or whatever else, but in talking to any theists who have thought about and understand their faith I would think that it’s not incomprehensible that they could clearly explain what they believe and why.

I’d also point out that while obviously it is true that if I were to make up a religion tomorrow, I could claim anything about it I wished, that’s not the nature of most current religions. That is, the broad outlines of the various major religions are well established and have been for a long time; if I were to say that (a) I’m a Christian and (b) Christ was a mutant tree-frog from the planet Zot, I’m obviously mistaken about one or both of my claims.

96

And I have a great deal of respect for a believer who does not condemn non-believers.

About the question (it was probably rhetorical, I know), I would say that if you have evidence, even if it is personal experience that cannot be demonstrated to others, then you are certainly not irrational to believe it.

I have no way of knowing how many believers base their beliefs on such personal experience and how many base it on blindly following what others have told them. I suspect that the first group would be, like you, slow to condemn others for not sharing their beliefs, not smug or self-righteous. When people act like they are better than me, I always suspect that it’s an effort to compensate for insecurity.

But God hasn’t blessed me with such an experience. As a college student, when I started to speak to others about my doubts concerning God, I had a good friend I’ll call “Pastor Mike.” He was just out of seminary, a very calm, level-headed, nice guy, in charge of a small non-demoninational Bible church. He warned me not to trust in my own intellect, seeing that my education was beginning to interfere with my faith. He warned me to trust God when my intellect and my faith diverged or collided.

I tried to do this, but finally was forced to admit that God wasn’t telling me anything. I accepted at that time that the Bible was his word, but when looking for understanding about his word, for reasons to trust in his word, there needs to be some external evidence. I wasn’t asking for a weeping statue or any magical sign, but just anything, no matter how intangible. Anything that I could find a way to interpret as evidence-- a message, an experience, even a feeling would have been enough.

In the absence of an experience with or from God, it eventually became clear to me that what Pastor Mike was really saying was this: Don’t trust your intellect; trust mine. Given the choice between my intellect and God’s, if he would communicate to me, give me some reason to believe he exists, I would trust God’s. Given the choice between my intellect and Mike’s, well, no offense to Mike, but I choose mine.

So I can’t know your experiences, and I wouldn’t ask you to discount them. I would hope, but actually I doubt, that most believers base their faith on personal experience, as you do.

97

**

Well, Ill tel you what’s so hard, becuse to say because what emerges from it is that believers and non-believers in fact have nothing to discuss because their terms of reference are not shared and therefore they put an interpretation on each statement which is unintelligible to the other.
I’d also point out that while obviously it is true that if I were to make up a religion tomorrow, I could claim anything about it I wished, that’s not the nature of most current religions. That is, the broad outlines of the various major religions are well established and have been for a long time; if I were to say that (a) I’m a Christian and (b) Christ was a mutant tree-frog from the planet Zot, I’m obviously mistaken about one or both of my claims. **
[/QUOTE]

98

Hmm… I guess I disagree with that, but I don’t feel strongly enough about it to hijack this interesting discussion in that general direction.

99

Just a few minor scraps that got abandoned by the wayside:
partly_warmer: re the desert experience: Enforced solitude makes people see things differently. If one of those people who went into the desert brought a tape recorder or something unfalsifiable, then we’ll talk.
Polycarp: Lemme say that you’re doing for Christians what Esprix does for homosexuals. And the reason that us atheists find guff with your evidence is that it’s not evident.

100

Late PS:

Basically, we have no ‘god arbiter’ that I am aware of, meaning that any claims as far a field as damming homosexuals to opposing abortion, can all be interpreted as having “back up in The Bible/God” – and viceversa. It all depends on the myriad of interpretations out there. Can’t imagine how they-- theist – are all ever going to agree.

Meantime those on the outside will keep looking in askance. The confusion only seems to assert out position. Namely, that they don’t know what they are talking about.