# What would Jesus think about all the adulation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 27, 2011, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-jesus-think-about-all-the-adulation/607508 "2011-12-27T10:35:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-jesus-think-about-all-the-adulation/607508/181 "2011-12-29T21:30:05Z")
> [@DaveBfd](#): > > Trolling sideways Save this kind of thing for the Pit. Accusations of trolling don’t belong in this forum. ---
**Author:** ![DaveBfd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DaveBfd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaveBfd)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-jesus-think-about-all-the-adulation/607508/182 "2011-12-29T21:33:59Z")
Sorry I didn’t intend it as an insult and didn’t realize it would be taken that way. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-jesus-think-about-all-the-adulation/607508/183 "2011-12-29T21:36:09Z")
> [@Theophane](#): > > I’m not worried about proving my intellectual superioty. I’m not trying to accomplish that. What _are_ you trying to accomplish? > [@](#): > > The things I say that are related to my faith upset people because I don’t cite them with facts. What facts could I cite when I’m stating my faith? How do I “prove” these things are scientific facts when they are not scientific facts? This has already been explained to you in depth on several occasions, but nobody has asked you to cite those things. They’ve asked you to cite things that _are_ facts. And your faith does not upset people - we have plenty of religious posters here. Some of your arguing habits are definitely bothering people. That’s a different issue and it is one that is under your control. > [@](#): > > I love my family but I have no facts to prove it. So do I, and I do have proof: my actions. So this is a meaningless rejoinder. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-jesus-think-about-all-the-adulation/607508/184 "2011-12-29T21:36:28Z")
> [@Theophane](#): > > But is this “God-zone” the origin of religious experience or is it just a receiver, an antenna to God? Make of it what you will. Make of the science what you will. Again, you’re doing a disservice to science by suggesting it’s a purely arbitrary thing, where the scientist can choose whatever results he wants, to “make of it” what he will. I can think of a few actual tests for your “antenna” hypothesis that would tend to support the idea and a few that would tend to disprove it. Now, the best approach is to try to _disprove_ an hypothesis. If all I do is look for supporting evidence, I’ll never know for sure if my hypothesis is correct. As an example, I offer the following, adapted from a story I read on the net, by an author using the pen name “Less Wrong.” : Question: what is the pattern in these numbers? 10, 20, 40. Hypothesis: each number is double the previous one. Test: Does “5, 10, 20” fit the pattern? Answer: Yes. Test: Does “1, 2, 4”, fit the pattern? Answer: Yes. Test: Does “2, 4, 8” fit the pattern? Answer: Yes. Conclusion: the hypothesis is correct and the pattern is a doubling one. The problem is that the conclusion is _not_ correct. The pattern is just that each number is larger than the previous one - the doubling is just a coincidence that the observer noted and reinforced to himself with each test. The _best_ way to test the hypothesis would be to try to disprove it: Test: Does the nondoubling sequence “1, 2, 3” fit the pattern? Answer: Yes. Conclusion: the hypothesis is not correct. Seek another hypothetical pattern. So, if I was going to test the idea that humans had a “radio to God” in their brains (which itself carries the assumption the God actually exists), I wouldn’t just look for tests that support that claim, but tests that would disprove it, i.e. what happens in the brain of someone who undergoes an adult conversion to a particular religion? Does their brain physically change in some way? Is there a measurable change in the brain of someone who becomes an atheist as an adult? If God exists in some consistent form with some consistent philosophy, would we expect people who have similar “radios” to have similar interpretations, like we’d expect people with matching measurement tools to come to similar results when testing an objective phenomenon? So it’s not just a matter of “make of it what you will.” Religious people are happy to jump to the conclusions that suit them (i.e. something good happened so God is pleased with you - something bad happened so God is displeased with you), but scientists are less so. Of course, a scientist who has based his life’s work on a particular hypothesis will be hesitant to accept evidence from another (possibly younger) scientist that the hypothesis is wrong. Scientists are human, too. But if the new evidence has merit and can be verified, it will persist and the hypothesis will eventually be discarded or modified. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-jesus-think-about-all-the-adulation/607508/185 "2011-12-29T21:36:35Z")
> [@Theophane](#): > > I’m not worried about proving my intellectual superioty. I’m not trying to accomplish that. The things I say that are related to my faith upset people because I don’t cite them with facts. What facts could I cite when I’m stating my faith? How do I “prove” these things are scientific facts when they are not scientific facts? > > “I believe in God the Father” is a faith statement. It can’t be confirmed or refuted in the usual sense. I love my family but I have no facts to prove it. > > Why is this such a problem? No one asked for proof of that. What we asked for proof of was “Lady Gaga’s fans all hate Jesus.” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-jesus-think-about-all-the-adulation/607508/186 "2011-12-29T21:38:02Z")
> [@Theophane](#): > > The things I say that are related to my faith upset people because I don’t cite them with facts. What facts could I cite when I’m stating my faith? How do I “prove” these things are scientific facts when they are not scientific facts? You can’t, because you are wrong. Your beliefs have no facts to back them up because they are wrong. “Faith” is just another way of saying “willful self delusion”. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-jesus-think-about-all-the-adulation/607508/187 "2011-12-29T21:41:34Z")
> [@Theophane](#): > > Why is this such a problem? In a general sense, this is not a problem. In a specific sense, this has nothing to do with this particular thread (i.e. “What would Jesus think about all the adulation?”). And came as a digression with your claim that Lady Gaga fans hate Christianity (which you still haven’t backed up). If you want to want to discuss your faith, in general, start a different thread. From what I can tell, from your first response, you haven’t actually addressed the question. Take it from a different angle: what if I was adored by millions of people? Your response is basically: Well, of course **Great Antibob** deserves adulation. But that’s not the question. The question is what would **Great Antibob** think about it? It’s not whether or not such adulation is warranted. Now substitute **Jesus** for **Great Antibob**. BTW, my response would be: I wouldn’t think I deserved it and consider it embarrassing. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-jesus-think-about-all-the-adulation/607508/188 "2011-12-29T21:43:22Z")
> [@Theophane](#): > > In his own mind, an atheist is never defeated. Not by logic […] As I pointed out, if the null hypothesis isn’t falsified, then the entity/situation/thing whose existence is being claimed isn’t supported. That’s _logic_. That also means that without falsifying the null hypothesis, logic tells us that it is the default assumption which must be maintained until the point at which it is falsified. _That’s logic._ And, as such, claiming that this is some sort of idiosyncratic gaming of the system or an abrogation of logic simply betrays the fact that while you can find cites on wikipedia, you haven’t grokked the subject under discussion. > [@Theophane](#): > > “Null hypothesis” is the magic phrase. In understanding what the default assumption should be in any analysis of a claimed entity/situation/thing, yes, it’s the important bit. It’s no more magic than anything else someone refuses to understand, however. Again, if we are conducting trials and you learn that a pill shows no more efficacy than a sugar pill, would you talk about how “Anti-druggers are never defeated in their own minds. Not by logic, not by anything. Null hypothesis is the magic phrase?” Or would you accept that epistemologicaly there was no reason to give credit to any claims as to the new pill’s efficacy? If you are able and willing to apply logical standards to the investigation of new pharmaceutical compounds, why not to the claim of various entities? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-jesus-think-about-all-the-adulation/607508/189 "2011-12-30T12:28:53Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Perhaps it did- just not as expected- He ascended into the Clouds into the Father’s Glory, accompanied by angels, in the presence of witnesses and within a forty-year generation, after the Jerusalem Establishment persistently persecuted His Church & the High Priest Ananus circa 62AD murdered Jesus’ near-kinsman James on the Temple grounds, Jesus presided over the Roman Siege of Jerusalem & unleashed His Kingdom on all nations. Going up into the clouds is ‘NOT’ returning in his father’s glory,The word he was quoted as saying was ‘COMING’, not going, I guess one can intrepret it any way they wish. And if I remember right, the Apostles were the only ones who are said to watch him go up. If he had a human body as some declare, then it would have burned up in space! One can believe what ever they wish, but belief is not fact, and not much was made about the Ascension, it could br just an explanation of why Jesus wasn’t still on earth, written by the aurhor several years later and was taken as fact by some. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-jesus-think-about-all-the-adulation/607508.md?page=9)