SDG here (still not Jimmy) with more on materialism and the moral argument (continued from Part 3).
The ethical approach sketched in the preceding posts is neither a rhetorical conceit nor a straw man. There are ethicists and moralists who really advocate this kind of thinking, who advocate extramarital flings, for instance.
One school of moral philosophy — the only thing that makes any kind of sense to me on a materialist outlook, variously called emotivism, nihilism or "boo-hurrah" — explicitly reduces moral valuations to emotional expressions of aaversion or attraction.
I respect the consistency of materialists who grasp the nettle and agree that what we call moral valuations are merely flutters of aversion or attraction, no more (or less) important or normative than other such flutters, from our appetitive response to haggis to our favorite or least favorite colors.
I respect the humanity, or if you like the humanism, of those who, despite professing a materialist outlook, find "boo-hurrah" emotivism unconvincing and try to make a case for more rigorous or normative moral obligations. I find their efforts wholly unpersuasive.
I do not see that consistency and moral humanism can ever be successfully combined in a materialist outlook. (In other words, to borrow a well-known construction, you can be a materialist, or a moral humanist, or consistent, or any two of the three, but not all three.)
The gap between the empirical pluses and minuses of what we call moral or immoral behavior and the level of responsibility that human beings feel to keep the moral code as they understand it is simply too wide. What impels us to do good and shun evil is not simply an appetitive flutter that we are free to disregard whenever it is convenient to do so, or when the empirical pluses and minuses don’t seem to warrant it.
On one level, I can certainly understand a materialist who says something like: "Look, it’s very simple: I love my partner, and no incentive could induce me to betray her/him, or even entertain the notion. Our relationship makes me happy, and anything else would only harm my happiness, not add to it."
Humanly speaking, I well understand how he feels. Certainly it’s how I feel, blissfully married to a goddess as I am. But then my marital bliss is substantially rooted in a trans-materialistic perception of what love is, and who and what Suzanne is, in a way that I for one can’t imagine sustaining if I personally were thoroughly persuaded of materialism.
My usage of "goddess," of course, is neither literal nor cultic. Like "louse" feelings, "goddess" is here a figure of speech, a hyperbolic metaphor. In my case, though, this figure of speech is at least intended by me to express something real about her — not just something about the state of my emotions or feelings. I can hardly put it better than C. S. Lewis did:
You can’t, except in the lowest animal sense, be in love with a girl if you know (and keep on remembering) that all the beauties both of her person and of her character are a momentary and accidental pattern produced by the collision of atoms, and that your own feelings are just a sort of psychic phosphorescence arising from the behaviour of your genes. ("On Living in an Atomic Age")
Some materialists (not all) will no doubt dissent from this. I understand how they feel; I don’t understand what they are thinking.
If persons are no more than the sorts of bio-electrical-chemical processes we’ve been discussing until now, all our gas about morality, as well as human dignity, personal rights, love, respect, honor and so forth, are very much the same sorts of delusions that Dawkins says God himself is. Lewis again:
Animism, apparently, begins at home. We, who have personified all other things, turn out to be ourselves mere personifications. Man is indeed akin to the gods: that is, he is no less phantasmal than they … Almost nobody has been making linguistic mistakes about almost nothing. By and large, this is the only thing that has ever happened. ("The Empty Universe")
I won’t deny that we might try to contrive, even as materialists, to enjoy the illusions of personhood and dignity as if they were real, at least for a while. Maybe. But give it time. Odds are, eventually that ex-Fundamentalist will get over his hangup about the evils of cards and see them for what they are: little rectangular bits of heavily coated, colored paper, no more and no less.
Likewise, live long enough with the belief that other persons are merely bio-electrical-chemical processes, let it sink into the depths of what men of another age would have called your soul, and see whether in the long run you consistently treat them as if the concept of personal dignity really meant anything, or how worked up you are able to get about such bio-electrical-chemical processes as murder or rape.
For the time being, Archie, I think you’re living in the shadow of a transcendent worldview you’ve abandoned without fully walking away from it. In the end, on your accounting, "boo-hurrah" is all there is to it. If you say you see things differently, at this point I can only shrug and agree that we see things differently.
As it happens, shrugging and disagreeing may be all we can do regarding a whole host of varying perceptions, values, choices, motivations and behaviors.
Many of us would agree that an adult whose sexual preferences include or focus on young children is a danger to the children and to society. The molester might (or might not) have a different point of view; society’s point of view is widely but not universally accepted. Kinsey argued for the normalization of adult-child sexual interactions, and others since him have followed suit. Most of society would brush this aside without a second thought; I would agree (from my supernaturalist perspective) that this is basic moral sanity, but is is at least questionable forensics.
Recently in New York hooligans set a homeless man on fire. Ten days later, he died in a hospital.
When you hear that, Archie, as a materialist, do you feel outrage? If so, which of the following do you feel is more outrageous? That
-
a lost soul (speaking of course strictly poetically) who was in all likelihood a drag on society rather than an asset was subjected to a harsh exercise in survival of the fittest? Or that
-
millions of dollars of shared social assets that could have gone to productive uses were spent in a futile effort to care for this useless man, rather than simply finishing the job and using the money in some socially beneficial fashion?
I know, caring for the man makes us all feel better about ourselves, right? But couldn’t we just as easily have gotten our warm fuzzies using the money to help other people who weren’t going to die anyway? How greatly were the herd-interests of the human race, or even of one particular borough, ever invested in this particular situation?
Christopher Hitchens, debating Doug Wilson, described sociopaths and psychopaths as "part of our haphazard evolution and our kinship with a nature that often favors the predator." Yet he also said "I find I have no alternative" to calling them "evil."
Wilson’s reply: "But you surely do have an alternative. Why not just call them ‘different’?"
To that, I would add a second question: Evil. Different. In a materialist universe, aren’t those just two different ways of saying the same thing?
Hitchens’ humanism outstrips his philosophy here. He knows deep down that right and wrong are not simply a matter of individual taste or perception, yet his philosophy will not allow him to formulate an understanding of right and wrong that is truly normative for all persons.
Here is a thought-experiment reportedly posed by Richard Dawkins to a theist:
You are on a deserted beach with a rifle, an elephant and a baby. This is the last elephant on earth and it is charging the baby. Do you shoot the elephant, knowing the species would become extinct?
Bracket the obvious difficulties inherent in the situation as posed (which for all I know might not have been reported exactly as originally framed), such as the vanishingly small chances of a species with only a single surviving specimen ever making a comeback.
Bracket, too, the case for or against the answer given by the theist, who felt that the question was "a no-brainer" and hoped only that she "would shoot straight enough to kill the beast." (A theist myself, and thoroughly committed to human exceptionalism, I think a case can be made that the question is more interesting than its original hearer felt.)
The point here is Dawkins’ reported response. Apparently, Dawkins was outraged that anyone would dissent from the priority he placed on preserving the endangered species. Presumably he would not have been outraged to learn that the theist differed from him regarding the palatability of haggis, but I’ve already made that point. Here I have a different question.
The point of Dawkins’ thought experiment was to assert the fundamental equivalence of one species with another. There is nothing fundamentally different about man that sets him qualitatively apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Very well, then. Under what circumstances might Dawkins be moved to outrage at the elephant?
Many behaviors that in the human world are subject to the harshest moral censure exist in the animal kingdom as mere behaviors, nothing more. Animals haven’t developed the capacity for large-scale atrocities that humans have, but certainly behaviors that in humans we would call rape and cannibalism and murder and bullying occur in the animal kingdom.
If we happen to witness such an event, we might feel pangs of pity for those on the receiving end of such behavior, but we don’t feel outrage at the aggressors.
Even Dawkins doesn’t, I suspect.
Yet, like Hitchens having "no alternative" but to call evil evil, Dawkins does feel outrage at human beings who deviate from what he obviously feels is a standard that somehow has some bearing on other human beings, a standard that is not solely a function of his own bio-electrical-chemical processes.
Coming soon: Round-up of responses to reader comments to date.
One presumes it was the last male elephant or the last female elephant?
Because otherwise you know the species will go extinct whether you shoot or not.
Looking forward to the round-up of responses as apparently I’ve missed a good discussion.
You are on a deserted beach with a rifle, an elephant and a baby.
A baby what? Baby seal? Baby crab? Baby bird? Whose baby is it?
This is the last elephant on earth and it is charging the baby.
What was the crime?
Materialism and the moral argument – Part 4…still…Jimmy…with more on materialism and the moral argument (continued from Part 3)
Great Post Jimmy!
and it is charging the baby.
Take away its credit card!
I just don’t see why Richard Dawkins cares so much about republicans.
A baby what? Baby seal? Baby crab? Baby bird? Whose baby is it?
And how was the dingo involved in all this?
I have a question — is “Smoky Mt” the same as “Smoky Mountain”?
Yup.
Will it never end?!?
It ended for you already.
Stupid nincompoops.
Yeah, saying it’s the last one and only elephant is a bad choice. Because whether you shoot it, or leave it to die a natural death of old age, the species is gone. What are you going to cross-breed it with: an elephant and a yak? an elephant and a moose?
Now, if he had stipulated that there was only one breeding pair left, and you were going to kill one of the pair, or that this was a pregnant cow and you were going to kill it, then it might make sense. But if it’s the last lone elephant, then fire away! And you needn’t even get into the ‘human exceptionalism’ argument here; you can believe humans are just another species of animal and still shoot with a clear conscience.
For a smart guy, he sure picked a dumb example 🙂
It seems the whole series, except for a few gems (and SDG, in his brilliance, always produces at least a few), has failed in that it is the same over-simplistic argument about why materialists can’t have morals. Epicurous covered these points quite will during his life, and answered most questions quite excellently. Kant’s system, though he uses it to argue for God, would still work just as well without One, for Kant’s God is not the originator of morals. Not all materialists are utilitarians. Some are deontological, some follow a virtue ethics, some suggest an emotive ethics, and some are pragmatic.
Killing people, for the materialist, can be wrong because of social consequences (pragmatism), because it feels wrong (emotive ethics), because it corrupts the character, and so reduces happiness (virtue), because it causes pain and pain is definitively wrong (utilitarianism), or because it is wrong in the sense of being a moral imperative (deontology). All these can be justified from a materialist framework.
Ethics doesn’t lead to God, and definitely not the the Christian God.
Epicurus, not Epicurous… my mistake.
Thanks for clearing that up, Aristotle. For a moment I thought perhaps you were referring to the foodie website (epicurious.com) and I wondered what they were doing discussing ethics rather than recipes. 🙂
*chuckle* glad to be of help, Monica. Though food is not a bad thing to talk about.
Aristotle,
The big problem with all of the alternative philisophical ethics systems you have posed is that they do not in any way show a given action to be immoral – that is, to be wrong – but only to be in some way inconvienent.
If we begin with the assumption that we are all simply a set of particles held together by various forces, then one cannot reach to the level of saying anything is in fact right or wrong, but only that something is at all.
And this is true on two levels. Any materialistic justifications for ethical norms must reach a point of termination, that is, an ultimate reason which provides meaning to the reasons posed by the various systems. For example, to a pragmatist, killing would be “wrong” because of the societal consequences, both to the killer himself and to society as a whole. The termination point is that one ought to do what is best for society, or that one ought to avoid societal consequences.
Why?
There is no answer for this that satisfies from a purely materialist perspective. For the theist, one may go outside of the system to find the reason for this. To the materialist, this is the terminal point, and so no explanation can be given for why one ought to care about societal consequences. “We must preserve society,” one may say, or, “We must preserve humanity,” or some other such thing.
Why?
To the materialist, there is no answer for this. Why is pleasure good and pain bad? The Utilitarian cannot answer. Kantian ethics cannot tell us why it would matter a bit if everybody killed everybody and we became extinct. Certainly this would be something that would not benefit the human race (obviously! :p), and surely it would not be what we would prefer, but there is no standard by which to say that it is immoral, that it is in fact wrong.
Is it immoral or wrong that natural selection coupled with some rather unfortunate weather patterns eventually weeded out the larger reptilian forms of life, leaving only the small, warm blooded mammals to survive? Of course not. It simply happened. But it wasn’t wrong.
And, materialistically speaking, it would be no more wrong for natural selection to favor those humans who are genetically disposed to aggression and violence, leading to the ultimate downfall of the human race. If murder suddenly becomes the in thing, we can’t call that wrong, just rather unfortunate for those of us who aren’t so disposed.
In all of this, we need to find out why human’s NATURALLY have feelings different from most other animals, because this is an essential component marking BOTH moral and immoral behavior. And one thing that Theists have on their side, is that, there actually IS empirical that such a difference does exist.
Using some of the examples above, we can certainly witness “rape and cannibalism and murder and bullying” as a NORMAL componant of the animal kingdom, but the same acts are completely repugnant and evil, if done in and against men in the rational, human world. This is why even pagan cultures and peoples have jails!
Moreover, humans seem to have a keen sense of the realities and effects of these types of wrongdoings, which lead humans to creat vocabularies such as: remorse, regret, anguish, sorrow, repentence, repugnance, sorrow, retribution, vengence, etc….
And all of these terms, applying only to humans, are applical to both theist, atheist and pagan alike, and are found in all cultures, and all men, both ancient as we read throughout history, and modern, as we can experience in our daily lives.( As well as on T.V.)
Mankinds special ability to EXPERIENCE a sense of GUILT after immoral behavior, is one of the most remarkable attributes distinguishing the kingdom of man, from the animal kingdom. And throughout history it is most remarkably recounted in the Sacred Scriptures, both New and Old Testaments.
If there is one thing we find throughout the Bible it is a sense of shame that men naturally have when doing wrong: from the account of Adam and Eve, who “hid’ in the Garden after disobeying God the Creator, to Cain, who feared the “mark” that was put on him which others could distinguish, and even wanted to kill him for it!
So too, King David wept in great anguish, and did penance because of his adulterous affair, which led to the death of one of his loyal commanders of his army, Uriah, and also for the death of his newborn son, which he believed was due to his own fault and grioevious sin against both God and man.
Jonah also knew that his running from the command of God was causing an entire ship to perish, and he even offered to confess and be thrown into the sea to save all the others…so great was his loving heart, but extremely burdened conscience!
There are NO known animals in the animal kingdom that would act in such a way as is described in these stories. An no known zoologist would disagree!
And whether materialists or secularists believe in Jesus or not, He does make sense when shedding light on this subject of feeling, or being in a state of presumed innocence, or feeling, or being in a presumed state of guilt.
To summarize these moral realities that occur in the world of mankind, He says:
“For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.
21 But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.”
What I would like to ask the athiests and secularists, is, why they think people like to keep things hidden, if there is no actual and emperical morality that exists in the world of mankind?
Why, on the other hand, is it normal, that what most common people call “bad” moral behavior, ie. rape, assaults, lies, thievery, adultery, murder, etc…is almost always done secretly, or at least when ever it is possible to be done in secret?
Also, where is the criminal or performer of such deeds, who is truly joyful and happy when his acts are made public..when he is caught?
Again, Jesus says “..every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light,”
Like Adam, a person after acting immorally, NATURALLY seeks to hide the knowledge of his acts from others….so ” that his works may not be reproved.”
Hence, morality here, appears to be proven by this overwhelming and common fact –and what we see and experience first hand on a daily basis–that people NATURALLY feel bad when caught doing evil acts, and conversely, feel good while doing “good deeds” even as Jesus says in the quote above.
Something for both Theists and atheists to ponder on.
the problem with advocates of darwin’s theory is that they use it to justify their abuse of others.
darwin has some good points but the problem is that his interpreters and advocates reduce humanity to animals and barbarism.
darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest has some valid points but it is not completely and utterly absolutely true in all cases 100%
remember it is a theory
and those who favor this theory have an agenda…like those young male theorists whom you claim are all for people being polyamourous and sexually unfaithful. i would not put too much weight in their young ideas and fantasies….i would attack them as fantasies on their part and not realistic at all. not beneficial. if it was beneficial everyone would be doing it…and they aren’t…they just wish they could…they are seeking a way to pull it off… a crime. they are trying to get away with a sexual free for all. and they won’t be successful in acheiving this. success being getting every single member of society to buy off on it…they couldn’t even get 50% to buy off on it. when i say buy off on it….i mean have it totally and completely out in the open and considered acceptable by society. society won’t accept it…society will argue against it. they won’t win their argument on the whole. their plan is not acceptable to society as a whole because it is not beneficial to society as a whole.
i mean have it totally and completely out in the open and considered acceptable by society. society won’t accept it…society will argue against it.
There are socities that accept it “completely out in the open.” Hasn’t been two weeks since they had one of those anything goes public parties.
another thing
i am not willing to change my value system just because a bunch of young male upstarts who can’t get a woman to begin with, want to spread their bad seeds and criminally get away with it.
a good outcome would be for the upstarts to never be permitted to swim in the gene pool. we don’t want perv’s and rapists ruling the world and making women’s lives miserable. we want them in jail…no matter how high their iq is.
ANTI-ATHEIST POSTER:
You are violating multiple blog rules.
First, you are changing your handle repeatedly within a single combox. Blog rules request that each user use a consistent handle at least with each combox.
Second, you are being unnecessarily inflammatory as well as rude in at least some posts.
Please make your point courteously and move on. Thank you.
there are two kinds of seeds
good ones and evil ones
we want to reproduce the good ones and eliminate the evil ones
that is my kind of survival of the fittest but the bad seeds keep cropping up because they weren’t killed when they should have been. we need some real good weed-killing juice.
darwin and hitler kind of go hand in hand when you get right down to it
survival of the fittest is what hitler was trying to do by exterminating the jews.
i think the writer of this long diatribe is sounding like the six fingered man.
Shane,
Some interesting problems raised. But God doesn’t solve any of them.
Why does God’s existing make any difference? Why should I care what He says? Because he’s always good? What does good mean?
If good is simply defined as “what God is”, it doesn’t justify why I should desire it.
I accept that God exists, and that God is good, but not that the definition of good is “what God is”. For what is good for God may not be what is good for us.
Beyond that, we may ask, “what makes pleasure good, and pain bad?” Definition. We simply define “pleasure = good”, “pain = bad”, we define good and bad as additive properties dealing with an ethical system (what should be done), and we’re done. We may object that this particular series of definitions does not agree with common understanding, or that the system is not perfect. But no ethical system is perfect. All systems are necessarily flawed, except for God’s system of ethics, but God didn’t come up with it. God just knows it perfectly.
God can’t make anything that is right wrong, or anything that is wrong right. If God could, then morals are subjective, and the subject they are relative to is God. I interject that this is no better than a system of morals relative to the subject of “me”. You can’t argue, because we operate on two different sets of definitions. So even to communicate upon the subject of ethics (say, for the purpose of arguing that some Christian deity is necessary for said ethics), we must agree upon definitions of right and wrong. But if God is necessary for the sake of defining right and wrong, then we are at an impasse. We cannot communicate about anything dealing with ethics, not even about elephants and babies.
I think what Aristotle is saying is that there are 2 ways of looking at moral dilemma, one from the point of view that there is a God, and therefore an objective system, or standard, of defining right and wrong, and the other, that there is no God, and therefore, no morality at all…ie. we have the same morality that as other animals have, which is none, and can therefore do anything we desire.
My line of thinking on this argument, however, is not necessarily limited to pure logic or reason, no matter how convincing reason and logic are. And that is because I also have personal experience, as all of us have, who are conscious of our own history and existance. And this personal, living experience, is not logical at all, because life’s occurances/ happenings pertain more to Divine Providence, and even to miracles, than to rational thought or decisions made. For instance, it falls to Divine that we are born in one country or another, or in one century or other. So too, Providence leads us to find many of the pleasures and necessities of life, such as suitable spouses, communities of friends, help when there is an emergency, work when rent needs to be paid, food when we are hungry…etc..
And none of these items deal with the intellect, or are logical. To eat is to nourish the body, to marry is to find a compatible mate. These are things logic and reason can never understand, because they are often not comprehensible at all, but rather experiences that occur for reasons only God knows.
And this is why I think atheists will never understand the workings of God, because they try to reason everything through…but how do we reason through the experience of our own being? How can we?.. because reason is ONLY an exercise of the intellect, the which intellect is only ONE PART of the PERSON.
And lessons from the life of Christ are LIKEWISE irrational. How do we compare logic and miracles?? Yet miracles and Divine Providence exist in our lives, and have been experienced by all, though it might be that some are merely insensitive to such things, and attribute them to random chance, or strategic planning.
However, even the greatest plans of men are still subject to Divine Providence, and just as man cannot control the weather, neither can he control the future, even though, in foolishness, many think they might have this ability. Remember Nebuchadnezzar, and how he gloated atop his castle walls, viewing all of his accomplishments? And then remember the 7 years of insanity which the Providence of GOd punished him with…of ‘eating the ‘grass of the fields with dew on his head’? This is to prove that the plans, logic and reasonings of mankind are are only ONE part of the equasion of our existance, the other part is the Providence of God… which, as is taught by Nebuchadnezzar, should always be kept in perspective.
So too, even the most irrational child can EXPERIENCE/RECOGNISE the works of God. This is why we read that ignorant children were praising Jesus in the Temple, whereas the highly rational Pharisees could recognise NOTHING but a pathetic Nazarene carpenter causing trouble:
“And the chief priests and scribes, seeing the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying: Hosanna to the son of David; were moved with indignation.
16 And said to him: Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus said to them: Yea, have you never read: Out of the mouth of infants and of sucklings thou hast perfected praise?”
So my argument is that reason will never solve the theist/atheist debate.It alone doesn’t have the capacity, do to the fact that it is only part of the intellect, whereas LIVING EXPIERIENCE is also a witness of GOD. And living experience can best be judged, not by reason alone, but rather by the wisdom found in common between man, incorporating BOTH reason and past LIVING EXPERIENCES.
And this is why I think Jesus teaches us to correct others in a communal way, and not with REASON ONLY, but rather,with other LIVING WITNESSES… so that what we term COMMON SENSE might also be applied to any judgement:
“And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand”.
So logic AND personal experience/common sense, should be part of every argument or discussion concerning morality, and also, the existence of God.
A. Williams,
That was a pretty a good post!
And this is why I think atheists will never understand the workings of God
In their view, it’s not that they will never understand the workings of God — but that there isn’t such a thing as a God (or gods) in the first place — the very definition of an athiest.
You can’t understand something that, in the first place, you believe is either non-existent or, on the other hand, a figment of humanity’s imagination.
For example, some might even say God is merely the “PRETEND” friend of Grown-Ups!
However, even the greatest plans of men are still subject to Divine Providence…
In their view (at least some), men and their plans are subject to chance.
…but how do we reason through the experience of our own being? How can we?.. because reason is ONLY an exercise of the intellect, the which intellect is only ONE PART of the PERSON.
Well-put — This actually comes from Traditional Catholic Teaching.
Man (at least, this has been the view of the huge majority of humans throughout history) has a moral sense very like the sense of sight or smell or hearing.
Our senses tell us that external realities DO exist, that they are in many ways knowable and repeatable, and this is confirmed by the experience of others, as well as our own experience.
In other words, moral absolutes sure SEEM to exist. Most people in most societies throughout most of history have agreed on the basic outlines of the natural moral law, even if they didn’t agree in it’s details.
The atheistic materialists are basically maintaining that things are not what they seem, that transcendent moral absolutes are illusions. They posit that morals are just a matter of perception and don’t reflect any external, objective reality.
But this is like saying that colors or smells are “just a matter of perception”. They certainly ARE matters of perception, but not MERELY that. They have an object. They are not illusions, unless you are ready to put all lived experience up for grabs as being illusory.
So, here’s the thing; People have this moral sense – atheists as much as anyone, by their own evidence. Asserting that the moral laws we perceive through our moral sense are *just* matters of perception (a grid my brain arbitrarily lays over things) is like saying, as you watch the sun rise, “Well you don’t really KNOW that there IS a “sun” or that it “rises”… these are just perceptions.”.
If you maintain that moral absolutes (the external, objective realities that correspond to my perceptions) are illusions, I’m afraid the burden of proof is on YOU, old chap. I (and billions of others) bump into these transcendent moral absolutes every day. YOU prove they’re NOT real.
When I see the sun rise for the jillionth time, I (benighted religionist that I am) infer a real sun. I am certainly open to being PROVED wrong, but I don’t have time for idle speculation that I COULD BE wrong. I COULD BE a head in a jar.
Also, saying that it is not “necessary” to believe in God is a bit of a dodge. Necessary in what sense? One could maintain that “It makes no difference if I believe in a real sun or not. I feel warmth either way”. Sure, in that sense it isn’t “necessary” to believe in the sun. But again, the burden of proof is on you.
Tim J, brilliant. Just what I’ve been writing in my coming post of replies to reader comments. :‑)
Aristotle, I think you’ve presented a self-defeating argument. I’ll elaborate later, but I do wish to continue this and so felt it wise to try to keep you paying attention.
This is where you go wrong, Aristotle. You mistakenly think of “God’s good” and “our good” as conceptually distinct and in principle potentially opposed, when in fact God is the ground of all possible good for all possible creatures. The only creatures for whom God is not their good are creatures for whom no good is possible, creatures who have turned away from every possible form and species of goodness.
More ASAP…
Most people in most societies throughout most of history have agreed on the basic outlines of the natural moral law, even if they didn’t agree in it’s details.
Are you sure that’s true? First, the details would seem to matter a lot — even today, people can’t agree regarding whether it’s licit to kill unborn babies. 150 years ago, many U.S. citizens thought slavery was acceptable. Furthermore, most of human history occurred in pre-civilized times. Do we really know what sort of moral code our ancestors from 10,000 BC or earlier subscribed to?
This is a common assertion (I think I read it first in C.S. Lewis), but it would be nice to back it up with some evidence.
Nevertheless, granting that you’re right, is it possible that commonality between moral codes is due to the fact there are obvious behaviors which are harmful to societies, and many societies recognized this?
Here’s a good thought experiment: do you think you would just *know* murder is wrong if you weren’t taught so at a young age?
The above thought experiment is why I think analysing the literature regarding feral children might be worthwhile.
the burden of proof is on you
Was it ever proven there’s any burden of proof?
YOU prove they’re NOT real.
You may have to wait. They’re still trying to prove the dancing pink elephants on Pluto are NOT real.
You may have to wait. They’re still trying to prove the dancing pink elephants on Pluto are NOT real.
Uriana/Jason:
There’s a 99.9% chance that the dancing pink elephants on Pluto Theorem is valid.
I don’t claim anything like uniformity in the *understanding* of natural law by different cultures and peoples, but the broad outlines are there. I can’t find it right now, but C.S. Lewis has a brief index of various examples of ancient law codes in his book “The Abolition of Man”. It’s worth a look.
And then, different societies (like our own) manifest original sin in various ways and the moral code is warped and twisted accordingly. The fact that I live in a society that doesn’t see unborn human life as worth protecting doesn’t mean that the society has lost *all* sense of natural moral law.
We look at things through the template of individual rights and in the case of abortion have just got the calculus horribly wrong. Most Americans (I think) would still feel that moral absolutes exist and that they are very important. A growing number, though, seem to think otherwise, seeing morality only as a construct or temporary arrangement between self-interested parties. A useful contract.
Tim,
Thanks for your thoughts. Can you address my thought experiment?
To me, whether the object of morality (i.e. the specific actions which are “right” vs. “wrong”) is learned or innate seems to be crucial.
I don’t deny that there’s something inside of us that compels us to be “moral”. But I’m not convinced that it’s more than a variety of a herd instinct — a desire (very strong in most, including myself) to be accepted by the group.
However, I’m not sure whether I know that human life has dignity (which I believe) because I was taught so at a young age, or because it’s innate to my being.
Given that it’s *not* innate — that we have the hardware for morality (the herd instinct) but need to be given the software (the actual laws) through instruction — what prevents the actual laws from being simply an agreement by society regarding what’s best for the group?
I don’t think that necessarily makes those laws arbitrary.
The system of morals developed by man and imposed on society is merely a system of CONTROL devised in order to maintain the plebian portion of our society and have the elite rule it.
At least, this is one view.
Frankly, I think even Dawkins would shoot the elephant, no matter what he says now.
Susan Peterson
“I don’t deny that there’s something inside of us that compels us to be “moral”. But I’m not convinced that it’s more than a variety of a herd instinct — a desire (very strong in most, including myself) to be accepted by the group”
Smokey, if it is a ‘herd instinct’, might this instinct not be called “love”, and might it not be more important than you seem to insinuate, using the term ‘herd’, as you seem to do, to connote merely brute or insensitive animals?
Yet it is exactly a “herd” that is used in Sacred Scripture to symbolize the very instinct you are describing, and the ‘herd’ is more particularly refined to that of a ‘flock’ of sheep…which humble symbolism particularly connotes “love”, “peace”, “trust” and “simplicity”.
So, you are right! The “herd instinct is VERY powerful,but it SHOULD BE!
Who knows.. but that this very instinct, which we will summarize as LOVE, is the very reason that the Eternal, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God, chose to create both the physical universe, and ourselves particularly,…and all for the sake of LOVE?
For if God is perfectly and eternally happy within His own being, what other motive would there be to create, anyway?? What purpose are we, to an already perfectly content, supremely happy being?
Really, I’m only raising this as a reasonable motive, and don’t presume to know the answer. However, we do have the witness of Christ who sheds abundant light on the nature and primacy of LOVE. How many times is “love” mentioned in the Gospel of John, for instance?? Almost too many to count.
What is Jesus’ (God’s) command that He left to us?
“To love others, as I have loved you”.
How do we recognize his disciples?.. by what mark did he tell us?… what particular characteristic?
“By how they love one another”.
Furthermore, what was “the hour”, that Jesus mentioned to be His defining, most important moment in life, the apex of His earthly mission?
To show mankind how much God LOVED us! And He said it like this:
“These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be filled. 12 This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
So you are very right, the “Herd instinct” is at play in creation. Moreover, it is most likely (if we really understand Jesus’ teachings thoroughly) the very PURPOSE for creation in the first place, as long as we understand the herd instinct as LOVING, being LOVED and BEING UNITED IN LOVE to one another, and particularly and intimately, to GOD.
This loving ‘herd instinct’ leads also to vision of life after death…where we won’t be just ANYWHERE…but,
“So that WHERE I AM, YOU ALSO MAY BE”.
That is.. WITH THE HERD, which is with JESUS, who also symbolizes himself as “The Good Shepherd”.
Oh Lord, I ask you to humble me and greatly increase my ‘herd instinct’, so that I will be found worthy of being united to you, and also of being a member of your loving and holy flock!
Yet it is exactly a “herd” that is used in Sacred Scripture to symbolize the very instinct you are describing, and the ‘herd’ is more particularly refined to that of a ‘flock’ of sheep…which humble symbolism particularly connotes “love”, “peace”, “trust” and “simplicity”.
So, you are right! The “herd instinct is VERY powerful,but it SHOULD BE!
It is the same ‘herd’ instinct that brought folks to collaboratively shout, “Crucify Him!”
Yes Esau,
The ‘herd instinct’ works both ways, and I guess that is why we have ‘legions’of demons and fallen angels, as well as legions of good angels.
But we should definitely pay attention to the Lord’s symbolism in these regards, as they answer many mysteries regarding the topic at hand on the nature and extent of morality.
And the Lord’s summary of the LAW as being that of ‘Loving God with all our heart, and then our neighbor as ourselves’, has much to say about the nature of all moral action. And that is, that the driving force requires love.
A. Williams,
I think what you stated before said it all:
“…but how do we reason through the experience of our own being? How can we?.. because reason is ONLY an exercise of the intellect, the which intellect is only ONE PART of the PERSON.”
SDG,
Let me start by saying my complaint in my post to Part 3 was misplaced – in this post, you clearly recognized the diversity of views among materialists and made clear that you simply view those materialists with different views as inconsistent (although as I suggest below, I’m not sure you were perfectly consistent in your own view of what logically follows from materialism).
Again, a few quick reactions:
I feel patently unqualified to comment on love, never having been married myself and never having been in a relationship that lasted longer than a year.
That said, my reaction to this claim was basically that it overstated the role that our worldviews / rationally held beliefs have in affecting the nature of our relationships with others. I have many strongly held views on intellectual topics, but unless they are a frequent subject of conversation, they rarely effect my day to day interactions with people. Especially for something like love so deeply rooted in our psyche, I would doubt that the intellectual conceits one uses to try to understand a loving relationship have much effect on the subjective feel of such a relationship. Of course, this is pure speculation on my part, although I’d be interested to see an attempt to test the claim that religious and non-religious people experience love differently using brain scans of various sorts.
Again, I think calling people “merely bio-electircal-chemical processes” is akin to calling a Van Gogh painting “merely a bunch of liquifiable substances thrown onto a canvas” or the Grand Canyon, “merely a big hole.” This is a literally accurate description as far as it goes, but I don’t see why it should have any impact on our interactions with other people any more than the description dulls our appreciation of the Grand Canyon.
Of course I do feel outrage and my response is neither of the ones you suggest. You seem to assume in your discussion of this that materialism somehow implies a kind of utilitarianism (in contrast to the nihilism you assume elsewhere). What is the argument for this? I simply don’t understand what it is about the materialist worldview that you think would make a homeless man who could not contribute to society any less the object of moral obligations than a millionaire who founded a software company. In both cases, I would say our obligations towards them stem ultimately from the fact that we recognize them as fellow conscious beings who act on reasons as we do. (I’ve already been through the “Why should *that* be normative” regress, I think in either the first or second thread on this topic, so see those threads for my responses to this challenge before asking this question). But the outrage I feel does not appeal to this ultimate justification, but rather the utter callousness of the people who perpetrated this act, seemingly without regard for the notion that the homeless man was in fact another person. As a psychological matter, I’d expect they were only able to do so because they had essentially convinced themselves that the homeless man’s subjective experience of life must be quite different from their own – and perhaps even just a kind of dull blur occasionally punctuated by some nonsensical utterances. Through this distortion, they were able to render themselves unresponsive to the kinds of reasoning that would normally prevent such callousness.
Also, I just realized I ended up repeating some of the things Aristotle said above and which were subsequently the subject of discussion – sorry about that – I posted my response before reading any of the comments.
SDG, what I fail to understand is how this notion of God fits in with the idea of a creator God or the other characteristics that God supposedly possesses. Your quote above seems almost a matter of definition – you’re saying that God and the good are in some sense the same thing. Alright, but what is the connection between goodness and the creation of the universe?
The only clause I agree with in this paragraph is that moral judgments don’t reflect anything external. Moral absolutes are not illusions, except insofar as you take the phrase “moral absolute” to mean something that exists in reality apart from human beings. Perhaps part of the issue lies in your next quote:
I think this conflates different notions of perception. I would say that to the extent that moral rules are matters of perception, they are such in much the same way that mathematics is a matter of perception – NOT in the same way that our physical senses are a matter of perception. That is, when one perceives a moral rule one is recognizing that internal consistency requires one to acknowledge that a particular rule is binding. So there isn’t really a question about the source that one is perceiving, since we’re not talking about perception in this physical sense.
“This is where you go wrong, Aristotle. You mistakenly think of “God’s good” and “our good” as conceptually distinct and in principle potentially opposed, when in fact God is the ground of all possible good for all possible creatures. The only creatures for whom God is not their good are creatures for whom no good is possible, creatures who have turned away from every possible form and species of goodness.”
SDG, you just admitted my point.
God is the ground of all possible good for all possible creatures, I agree. So God is the ground of what is good for a flying squirrel. What is good for a flying squirrel is not always what is good for me, because I am not a flying squirrel. So what is good for God is not necessarily what is good for me. The ground of all possible good includes goods (ends) that are not my good (end).
But even if what were good for God were also good for me, univocally, that still wouldn’t solve the problem. Because good either originates with God by God’s choosing what is good, in which case we have subjectivism. Or God’s good originates from God’s nature, in which case it might as well come from an impersonal force. Or good is objective, and God exemplifies, but does not originate good. And we still have the central problem. If God originates good, why should I want it? Because God did it? Why should I want what God wants or says I should want? What makes that good?
As I’ve suggested in my above posts, I agree with this sentiment.
What I’m not seeing is what the theistic view provides that the materialist view does not. In every case, it seems to be just this idea of an appeal to an external authority. SDG above essentially states that this external authority – God – is the source of all good. But how does this answer the normative question any more than the answers I have tried to provide?
Someone says, “I want to hurt you, why shouldn’t I?” You reply, “God is the source of all good in life and if you did this it would be against God and against the good.” They answer, “Why should I care about God?”
This is a crushing response to any attempt to provide an unquestionable justification for morality. Thus, the task of moral theory is not justification in this sense but explanation of why moral concepts have motivational force for us from a first-person perspective (and also what particular moral rules we should follow, but that is a different, though perhaps related question). One answer is, “God will punish you if you break his rules” although I sense this is not the answer preferred by most of the posters here (with good reason, since it seems highly inadequate).
My question is – in Catholic or Christian moral theory, why should moral concepts have motivational force for us?
Sorry, the blank post above is mine. My mistake for not including my handle.
In Catholic or Christian moral theory, why should moral concepts have motivational force for us?
Unless we understand well both the nature of GOD,(Uncreated, All-powerful, All good, all Holy, Spirit, consisting of 3 persons, given the names by Jesus Christ– Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and the nature of ourselves (God created beings consisting of spiritual heart, soul, mind and body…I think we cannot understand anything about morality, and are indeed, materialist, brute, animals.
As posted earlier, I focused on the inability of the intellect to be capable of comprehending the entire being of man, which is necessary to comprehend if we want to understand ANYTHING about morality. And the reason is, that the study of morality is not a study of the mind, or soul, or heart or body of man, but a study of the interaction of all these facets of the HUMAN BEING, and how these heart,soul, mind and body, interact WITHIN the the same BEING, as well as, WITH OTHER like BEINGS (not to mention ANGELIC SPIRITS), as well as with GOD.
So morality deals with all of this, all the facets and attributes found in both an individual man, other men (and angels), and God.. and how all are sychronized and balanced between them, that is, with how they relate to eachother, and according to principals which are generally known as: TRUTH, LOVE and JUSTICE.
And as man incorporates these various parts, intellect, heart, spirit and body, none of these is sufficient of itself to sustain his being, but all must be both used and considered in any understanding of both man and man’s moral judgements.
Thus, morality is an ESSENTIAL element for man, for the very reason that, indeed, WE ARE NOT ALONE, we cannot subsist by ourselves, we need others both to be born, and to continue living. And is to continue living NOT A SUFFICIENT MOTIVATIONAL FORCE for us to appreciate the role of morality in our lives??
And to prove, even more, how man both needs others, and also harmony beween the various elements that make up his being, consider the condition of an infant. An infant has very little need for intellect,as it is very small and growing inside him, but an infant will die from a lack of AFFECTION…LOVE. An infant RELIES on the LOVE of others for his VERY EXISTANCE AND BEING until his intellect and body are fully developed, wherein he can partially provide for his own survival. Until this time he is completely at the moral mercy of others. Moreover, the name of this moral mercy is LOVE. Love was instrumental in the procreation of the infant to begin with, and love is necessary to nurture its growth after birth.
And because we have these necessities for our very survival, we have MORALITY to guide, harmonize within, and aid us. That is, to promote our very spiritual and physical survival– Body, soul mind and spirit. And this also is a most sufficient motivational force to pay great attention to the role of morality in our lives!
The above was me.
A Williams,
I have to admit I don’t understand much of what you wrote. But let me try as best I can to respond:
1) I’m confused about the implications of your story about moral motivation. Are you suggesting that someone who was persistently immoral would literally whither away and die? This seems contrary to empirical fact. Perhaps this is not what you meant. What are the consequences of failing to live up to moral norms?
2) I find your moral theory is in many ways analogous to Ptolemy’s astronomical theory (and mistaken for the same kinds of reasons):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycle
You’ve erected an elaborate superstructure of unseen entities (the trinity, angels, presumably demons, this notion of “a spiritual heart” and “mind”) which all bear some mysterious and inexplicable relationship to one another and end up failing to actually explain much at all.
A. Williams,
You have established for me that, if one accepts the Catholic world-view, one will find Catholic morality and the Triune Christian God necessarily connected.
I agree.
But the problem is I don’t accept your premise. I don’t need to accept your conclusions.
But there is one extra assertion you (and others) have made, that it is impossible to be consistently moral (being able to justify why certain actions are good, and certain actions evil), without first accepting a Christian notion of God (or, sometimes added, with first accepting only a mechanistic worldview).
For this, I will say that my system of ethics can be rationally defended, its results match what common consensus is in western culture about right and wrong, and where it disagrees, this is most often because it has either been misapplied, or because the consensus is wrong. God is not necessary to invoke to justify this moral system. And even if problems were found within the system, God’s existence wouldn’t fix them.
Granted, I accept God. But my ethics would not require me to, in order to consistently know and do what is right in most cases (as contemplating God is the highest good, God’s existence is necessary for this good, but it is good regardless of what God would like).
To leave with one final thought, from a masterful philosopher (though one who himself did make more than a few mistakes), who hits it on the head:
“On the contrary, that which is above man’s nature is distinct from that which is according to his nature. But the theological virtues are above man’s nature; while the intellectual and moral virtues are in proportion to his nature, as clearly shown above. Therefore they are distinct from each other.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., Part I-II Q. 62, Art. 2)
As faith is a theological virtue, Aquinas argues well that faith is not necessary for moral virtues (and the intellectual virtue of living consistently with moral virtue). So, though God (even a Catholic God) may be necessary for virtue (this is debatable), belief in God is not.
Jason,
If you are think that the answers to any thoery of life or morality is going to be easy, or NOT extremely mysterious, it is you, and not I, who will be most in error and further from truth.
Clearly this subject is mysterious and difficult, and the vocabulary is even MORE difficult, which is why philosophers have been trying discuss and unravel such mysteries since the beginning of time.
If you have a problem with the concept of “Spiritual heart”, I get that from Moses:
“And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment.” Mark 12
I included the adjective “spiritual’, because you probably already know that there are numerous types of love, and ‘spiritual’, in this sense, seemed to come the closest to what I was trying to get at.(at least as compared to ‘amorous’, love, for instance.)
Furthermore, I was responding to your exact question, and that from “A CHRISTIAN OR CATHOLIC Moral theory”, as you requested.
Now are you going to change the requirements, and ask a Catholic to respond using only pagan, athiestic or materialistic concepts, vocabulary or arguments? I’m a Catholic. I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Who do you believe in?
Also, does it surprise you that when you ask for a Catholic moral theory, that indeed ANGELS, might be included? They would NEED to be included (though in a minor way, which is why I included them in parenthesis).. since Jesus Himself confirmed their existence, and frequently spok of them.
You also ask, “Are you suggesting that someone who was persistently immoral would literally whither away and die?
It depends not only on the ‘persistency’ of the immorality, but also on the degree of immorality. And if we take the words of Christ to Satan seriously, then YES I do believe that he would whither away and die…for “It is written, that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God.”
Note particularly the word ‘liveth’, and then make some assumptions that ‘every word of God’ signifies here, living according to Moral laws communicated by the Creator.
However, I think that there are few people who are so purely immoral as to wither away and die quickly, but rather, most people who are immoral tend to help others wither away and die, through robbery, fraud, murder, abortion, sexual disease,infanticide, euthanasia,political persecution, etc.. etc… And because selfishness (as opposed to love) is one of the root causes of immorality, immoral people usually cause more trouble to others first, but their immorality usually catches up to them in one way or another.
On the otherhand, if you want one good empirical resource for the ability of immorality to cause quick death.. you might want to study some statistics on 1)Drug overdose 2)Alcholism and drunk driving 3) sexually transmited diseases and 4)Murders caused by pride, envy, jealosy etc..and of course…5) Abortions.
So, yes, immorality does lead to considerable death and destruction. And If you don’t believe me, or if my argument it too confusing, and not logical enough for you, you might want to just read the newspaper every morning. : )
Aristotle,
When I discuss concepts about God and morality, since I am a believer in the teachings of Christ, I necessarily include such teachings in my premises.
However, this does not mean that God does not act outside the world of Catholic teaching and thought. Faith only helps to understand that which is ALREADY a reality everywhere, and has been and will be a reality FOREVER.
Somethings are above man to understand, as you mention in your quote from Thomas Aquinas. And this is why Catholics and Christians, pay attention to the teachings of Christ…because we ourselves are ignorant of ‘heavenly things’.
“..I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.” Matt 13:35
and:
“If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things?
and:
For, amen, I say to you, many prophets and just men have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear and have not heard them.
So, even though it is possible to understand something of our own souls and spirituality merely from the natural law, creation, etc.. still, as the above quotes imply, it might be a while for you to receive a correct answer to your ponderings.
This is why Christians are so happy with the Lord! We believe that we have a teacher who is trustworthy and competent in all that He teaches, especially regarding eternal life.
And this is not something that can be found with other teachers. Others really have little or no credentials from which we can base reasonable faith in them.
A. Williams,
An excellent answer, one that is very Thomistic, very well thought out. A powerful point, and something I am still struggling with (where does Christianity and God intersect, if at all). But ethics didn’t lead me to these thoughts. They wouldn’t. And, even according to Aquinas, they shouldn’t. I don’t need to be a Christian to be happy.
Your point I would classify, pivotally, in “Materialism and the Ontological/Metaphysical Arguments”. But not so much “Materialism and the Moral Argument”. On the moral argument, I don’t think there’s very much to say that Kant hasn’t already, even if one wants to spend 4-5 blog posts pontificating.
A. Williams,
I think you’re right that my response was unfair as a criticism of the point you were making. I do think that there is no evidential basis for believing in angels or the trinity (and perhaps what you called “the spiritual heart” is more an issue of vocabulary); nonetheless, it is reasonable for you to invoke these concepts in response to my question, which was to give an account of moral motivation from within the Catholic/Christian framework.
Let’s try to focus on one particular point of disagreement – i.e. the empirical consequences of immorality. I think this is an excellent ground to resolve our disagreement, because if we flesh things out clearly enough, we may reach some testable hypotheses.
You give a number of examples of behaviors that could be directly harmful to oneself or others, but that seems beside the point – of course, we both agree that harmful behaviors are harmful! The disagreement is whether behaviors that aren’t directly harmful to oneself do actually lead to deterioration and death by virtue of their immorality.
Some consequences that I think this hypothesis should have: 1) Controlling for everything else about their situation (demographics, wealth, etc…), slave-holders should have a lower life-expectancy than non-slave holders. 2) Controlling for everything else about the situation, murderers and rapists who were never prosecuted should have a lower life-expectancy than non-murderers and non-rapists. I’m sure together we could imagine many other such cases.
These are interesting contentions. I can imagine that they might be true on a materialist worldview if such people were racked with guilt and this guilt had adverse physiological effects. But your hypotheses would suggest that even in the absence of guilt – for instance – in the case of psychopaths – we would still see detrimental effects on their own health of their immorality.
Have I characterized your claim fairly?
Another issue – most of the commenters here have made clear their belief that atheists and other non-Christians could still act morally, they would just in some sense be mistaken about the reasons they were ultimately doing so.
If this claim is correct – if atheists and others are simply mistaken – wouldn’t we expect this to show up at least sometimes in their behavior? The Christian theory would not be disproved if there were atheists who lived moral lives, but what if, in the aggregate, atheists were no less moral than Christians (except to the extent Christian belief is considered a part of morality).
So I propose the following test:
We identify a particular act that we all agree is immoral. We then attempt to identify whether being Christian makes one less likely to perform this immoral act, controlling as in any good experiment for everything else about there background. The ideal experiment would be to find two identical individuals, who differ only in regards to the fact that one of them is Christian and the other is not. The real experiment will necessarily deviate from this ideal, but perhaps we can come close.
Would everyone agree that this is a fair test? Of course it is not entirely conclusive, but if we repeated this experiment across a number of different acts and found no tendency for Christians to behave better, wouldn’t that cast doubt on this moral theory?
Jason, your quest to prove Christianity by experimentation is kind of humorous! : )
The reality is that the working of grace in the soul differs from individual to individual, and the ability of a Christian to resist tempatation also depends on many intricate factors…not exactly like mice in the laboratory! : ) But I admire your ambition, even though it will surely prove nothing!
Every person is capable of doing what even materialists might term evil or immoral things. And usually, from my understanding, immoral acts are usually a consequence of some evil consequence or past experience, that later, as a means of avoiding the same error, mankind (and Christianity too) label as IMMORAL, WRONG to do.
Think of the Chinese. There are VERY FEW Christians as a percentage of their population, yet they have very many of the same moral guidelines as us Westerners (with Christian history). The point I’m trying to make, is that it is human experience that has often led things to be considered immoral, due to the bad effects such behavior has had on past generations. Many things, I believe are TRIAL and ERROR.
Remember the story of Noe? The story says that he was the first to make wine and get drunk. However, no guilt was imparted to him because he had no idea of the effect of so much good wine! And what’s more, his son Cham, who discovered his father in his drunken state, was faulted for revealing it to his other brothers, and/or imputing it as immoral when it was not. But we know that now, after centuries of experience getting “sloshy drunk” is wrong and immoral, and largely because it harms our own bodies, and potentially, others too.
And, this is another proof of my former argument, that immoral behavior generally leads to death or unhealth…because it is for the reason of the END RESULTS of acts, that societies have labled acts either IMMORAL, or Virtuous.
And Aristotle’s “Nicomachaen Ethics” has good theopries and examples of how and why acts are either moral or immoral, to the degree they deviate from MODERATION or the “Golden Mean”.
So, I believe all people are subject to moral guidelines, regardless of religion. If they don’t follow them, they will suffer consequences taht have proven to be evil for others in the past. So too, governments enforce laws to help protect others, should anyone not care whether an act is moral or immoral, or whether he hurts another, or himself, or not.
The difference with Christianity is the teaching of Christ. And particularly this one:
“And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Matthew 10
A. Williams,
So if I understand you correctly, you’re claiming that the main thing present in a Christian morality that is absent in a materialist one is the idea that one’s actions have eternal consequences since they determine the ultimate fate of one’s soul. Is that correct?
The fact that you regard my attempt to provide an empirical test of your claims as humorous is quite telling.
Let me give a brief argument for why I think empirical testing is really necessary here. First, philosophy is so hard that almost everyone gets it wrong almost all the time (including me). We know this is true because of the lack of consensus in philosophy and because of the effect of contingent factors (like the culture we were born into) on our philosophical beliefs. This does not imply that there is no such thing as philosophical truth, just that if there is, it’s really, really hard to get at and we have no particular reason to trust our own philosophical judgments since there are surely others we regard as equally intelligent who have thought about the matter more and reached opposite conclusions.
So, does this mean we should just give up and take any kind of philosophical judgment with a grain of salt? No, I think there are two ways we can guard against philosophical error.
First, we can try to submit our philosophical judgments to empirical testing whenever possible.
Second, we can try to use aggregate statistics to control for the effects of contingent factors on our judgment and isolate the effect of factors we affirm on reflection as relevant on belief (an example of a factor we might think relevant would be additional learning in a given field).
I am not a Christian myself because the arguments offered in defense of Christianity don’t sway me. However, if that were the end of the story, I would not be very confident in my judgment for the reasons explained above – I am just as prone to bias in philosophical matters as everyone else.
The reason I am reasonably confident that Christianity is incorrect is due mainly to surveys and other aggregate statistics which appear exactly as one would expect if Christianity were false.
The main points are:
1) 93% of the National Academy of Sciences are agnostic or atheist. That is a huge number and these are the best scientists in the world. Coincidence?
2) Studies of academics – people who think for a living – show they are much less likely to be religious than the general public controlling for a number of characteristics
3) There is a strong negative correlation between education and religiosity. The more one learns in any field, the less likely one is to be religious (the correlation could also be due to the fact that irreligious people are more likely to be educated, but there are further studies which isolate the direction of causation).
What do you think of these facts? Do they give you pause?
When did studies get in charge of who is a Christian and who isn’t?
My argument above suggests that these studies might be the most reliable method of determining the truth since our individual judgments are so obviously fallible. If you disagree, please engage with my argument.
Of course, we can’t escape individual judgments all together – we need a set of background ideas against which to interpret the studies. Still, I think we are much more likely to have true beliefs if we integrate these kinds of aggregate studies into our analysis (and especially those studies which attempt to control for various biases).
Do you think religiosity as measured by some study is the same as Christian?
What do I think?
I laughed ONLY at the notion that someone could actually come up with a moral test that was in any way moral in itself, much less revealing or in any way accurate. I guess the Romans tried such things when they were persectuing the Christians back in the early centuries of Christianity. They gave Christians very enticing rewards for stepping on crosses, denying the faith etc… And if we read Christian history, it is generally considered that the good Christians (Saints and martyrs) resisted such temptations and prefered being burnt to death, or eaten by lions, than deny faith in Christ.
St. Peter was cricified up-side down. St. Lawrence was BBQed on a grill, and even quipped “this side is well done, you can flip me over and eat!”
The point is this, that in all of life there will be trial and temptation. Jesus says..”pray always that you enter not into temptation”. He also say, “beware, lest that hour come like a theif in the night”. ‘Watch and Pray’.
He himself was tempted by the Devil, but endured such trials.
Only Christians who withstand temptations are worthy of Christ: “pray that you be worthy to stand before the Son of Man”. However, if we sin, we can confess, do penance to counter our sins and try to amend ourselves, even as Kind David did.
So, what you will find in any moral test, would be the same thing that the Devil tried to find in the wilderness with Jesus. And some Christians will keep the faith and some will commit sin.
But as a Christian, we learn in the ‘Our Father’, ‘the Lord’s Prayer’, to constantly pray “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
So, I am completely against putting anyone to a moral test, as I would hate to imitate Satan, as he tempted Christ. I think it better to advise everyone, even as the Lord did, to pray (stay united in holy faith) as best one can, and hope and pray that God does NOT put us to the test!
I only laughed, because, to a lover of Christ, it sounds a bit rediculous to put ones most precious gift in this world “FAITH” to a moral test for no reason.
It kind of reminds me of what we might find in an ultimate “Survivor” episode: “Next week on Ultimate Survivor, Find out who denies his God and his own self, who who remains true and faithful. With all the scores and statistics compiled for you at the end of the series!You won’t want to miss it!!”
Our Beliefs, our spiritual life and our Souls have much more dignity, and much more value than that! And knowing that Christ endured crucifixion for our sakes, means we shouldn’t take our faith or religion too lightly! Rather, I’d prefer to ponder on this question of Christ:
“For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?”
Matthew 16
And as for statistics?
Jesus asked “Will there be faith on Earth when I return?”
This implies that even He wasn’t concerned with statistics, but rather:
“No man can come to me unless the Father draws Him.”
What’s good for Him, is good for me. I’ll trust that God the Father will draw all that He wills in His All powerful Wisdom, Goodness, Providence and Judgement.
Melanie, I’m not sure exactly which of my above claims this is meant to engage with. In terms of the claims about scientists / educated people being less religious, the same studies also show that such people are much less likely to be Christian.
If you’re referring to my proposed tests of religiosity on moral behavior, then this is a fair point. Perhaps Islam leads to poor moral choices while Christianity leads to good ones. But this is not a conceptual challenge – only a question about what particular groups one will look at in any given study. Of the past studies I am aware of, about half separate out different religious groups and half do not, although in many cases the particular region under examination has one dominant religion so the point is moot.
A. Williams,
I was not planning on conducting some kind of laboratory experiment! (i.e. Here is an innocent child – if you murder him, we’ll give you $1000, then see who many people do it – is this what you think I had in mind!?).
There are ways of simulating a controlled experiment using the fact that people face moral choices all the time – we would not be changing the choices they face, just trying to understand how their religious beliefs affect those choices.
For instance, one could try to determine the effect of attending church more frequently on divorce rates. People do studies like this all the time and with mixed results, because properly controlling for everything is difficult.
Jason,
As a Catholic Christian I really have no time for such tests, even if they are both moral and reliable.
And they might actually be very revealing at how little faith most people really have! But this never bothers me because I am not in control of who has faith and who doesn’t.
And really I’m not really even interested, because it’s none of my business.
What I am interested in, is teaching people the Life of Christ. His life, word’s and actions are ineffably sweet…better than any treasure on Earth. Everything about His life is delectible, His charity, His patience, both with his apostles and his enemies too, His merciful miracles, His faithfulness to His friends, His zeal for God the Father, His rigorous life and lonely fastings, His concern and appreciation for all. NO ONE ELSE IS LIKE JESUS CHRIST!
And so I am not interested in polls and tests, I’d just rather teach those who come across my path as best as I can. Anyway, this is just me.
God Bless You. I hope you continue searching for the truth..because if you are honest….you will find it.
“Seek and you will Find”.
A. Williams,
The Christ you describe sounds like a worthy role-model regardless of his divinity (although I recognize that you view his divinity as an integral part of the attractive vision you describe). Certainly, if all Christians were committed only to the ideals you describe – charity, patience, mercy, faithfulness and concern for all – then I would not argue with any Christians about the truth of Christian doctrine any more than I would argue with a Buddhist monk about reincarnation. And I have no doubt that the ideal you articulate is in fact embodied in the lives of many Christians and in your own life.
Then there are those tiny matters of homosexuality, stem cell research and abortion. If Christians claim that their religion requires them to oppose gay marriage or stem cell research or abortion rights, then I have to take issue with the truth claims of their religion.
The reason I am reasonably confident that Christianity is incorrect is due mainly to… 93% of the National Academy of Sciences are agnostic or atheist
What does belief in God have to do with the National Academy of Sciences or any more than say the National Gardening Association? Is that how you pick your experts? You pick the group where 93% claim no knowledge?
The Christ you describe sounds like a worthy role-model
The Christ he describes believes in God.
Melanie,
You raise an excellent question which I haven’t really discussed yet. Why do I think scientists are qualified to evaluate the truth of religion?
First, I should point out that I don’t think scientists are obviously the best experts to evaluate every argument for God’s existence. I think historians who study the early history of the Roman Empire are better trained to evaluate the evidence relating to Jesus’s life than scientists (although there is a further question about how to evaluate supposed miracles…). My broader point above was that education more generally tends to lead people to be less religious, although it would be especially interesting to see whether historians who study the early Roman Empire became more or less Christian as their knowledge of the period increased.
I would ask you the same question I just asked A. Williams: Do you personally have any beliefs about the observable universe that follow from your religion? That is, do you agree with scientists that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that life on earth is 4 billion years old and that humans share a common ancestor with primates? Scientists have expertise about these issues.
There are many other issues which science is just beginning to tell us about – the nature of consciousness, the nature of morality and the origin of the universe. Each of these has traditionally been the domain of religion, but science increasingly has something to say about them.
The reason I think these polls of scientists are quite important in determining my views on the matter is because in my view, almost all of the arguments given for God’s existence have a big scientific component. I’m sure others would disagree – if so, please tell me which argument(s) scientists would not have something to say about.
in my view, almost all of the arguments given for God’s existence have a big scientific component.
I don’t find God to be dependent upon any argument, scientific or otherwise. If someone wants to make a scientific argument for God, I’m all for science taking a whack at it.
My broader point above was that education more generally tends to lead people to be less religious
If we stick with scientists, for example, then instead of “religious,” a large majority of university science professors tend to self-identify as “spiritual.” This is in vogue in many populations, even among those not highly educated in the formal academic sense.
Also the religious backgrounds of scientists adds a complication to the story. For example, compared to the general population, scientists reportedly come disproportionately from irreligious backgrounds or backgrounds where a faith tradition was only nominally practiced.
And even if traditional education actually results in a less religious outlook, that doesn’t mean religion is “incorrect,” whatever that means.
do you agree with scientists that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that life on earth is 4 billion years old and that humans share a common ancestor with primates?
If that’s what scientists believe of late, that’s what they believe of late. They’re not claiming absolute truth, and their story is as good as saying Satan planted fossils to deceive.
I would say that education as it is understood and practiced *now* (at least in the West) tends to lead people to be less religious. I doubt that most individuals deeply involved in careers in the hard sciences are given more than the most perfunctory introduction to philosophy, theology or ethics, as would have been expected of any serious student in ages past.
When religious institutions had oversight of universities, the level of religious belief among scientists was very high. Now that higher education is controlled mainly by those of a secular or, not uncommonly, anti-religious bent, a university education includes immersion in a materialist world view, regardless of the field of study.
I experienced this in, of all places, art school. To self identify as a Christian was to invite ridicule. After several years of hearing religion being made the butt of jokes, the target of pointed asides (sotto voce) and raised eyebrows, is it any wonder that many emerge faithless at the end of this process? It was a close shave for me. Had I ended up in an academic career (as I very nearly did), I don’t know that I would have had the philosophical underpinnings to hold on to, let alone defend, my faith.
This is not at all a matter of being honestly reasoned out of anything as much as it is a matter of peer pressure and politics… if you find things like research fellowships and tenure important to your career, you understand how crucial it is to belong to the Right Set.
I’ve never quite understood this point. As I just argued in one of the other threads, if your belief in God is not based on an argument at all, on what basis can you say that the God you envision is the true one rather than the God of other people’s personal revelations which in many cases – radical Islam to name one – may be quite different from your own.
This is a good point (I’m actually planning on conducting a study to try to control for this effect). I wonder though – suppose the statistic about the NAS is due to the fact that scientists come disproportionately from irreligious backgrounds. Why is it that irreligious people are more interested in / successful at science than religious people? (This is not a purely rhetorical question; I’d be curious to know what you think).
I’m not sure I understand your point here. Are you suggesting that modern scientific theories are on no firmer footing than the hypothesis that Satan planted fossils to deceive? I agree with you that both hypotheses result in the same observable consequences, but it seems that the scientific hypotheses are clearly preferable on grounds of simplicity and parsimony (Occam’s razor). Surely, in your own life, you believe that the past really does exist and that Satan did not create the world yesterday to make it look as if there was a past?
Tim J., I agree with you that social pressures are of first order importance in explaining these survey results. Still, this doesn’t seem to provide a full explanation. Why is it that scientists ended up being so secular in the first place? Why do pressures among scientists bend towards secularism today rather than the other way around? Also, one could imagine conducting a study that attempted to control for these peer effects (I hope to do so at some point). What would you say if a carefully controlled study showed that the more one learned about science the less likely one was to be religious?
What historical period are you referring to when you say, “When religious institutions had oversight of universities, religious belief among scientists was very high.” It’s important to note that we’re talking about the frequency of religious belief relative to the general population, so even if most scientists were Catholic in 15th century Spain, this doesn’t tell us whether learning about science makes one more or less likely to be Catholic. I’ve never seen a study of the question of the religious beliefs of the academic elite relative to the general populace in any time period before the 20th century – if you know of one, I would find it quite interesting (I realize you weren’t necessarily claiming anything more than informed speculation).
The Christ you describe sounds like a worthy role-model regardless of his divinity
Really?
The guy claimed to be the Son of God?
How can you say that he sounds like a worthy role-model?
IF anything, to the atheist, he should sound more like a mad man than a worthy role-model!
What would you say if a carefully controlled study showed that the more one learned about science the less likely one was to be religious?
Jason,
I believe you are demonstrating ignorance regarding both History and Science.
There have been many Scientists in history who were in fact Catholic:
SOME CATHOLIC SCIENTISTS
1. Algue, a priest, invented the barocyclonometer, to detect approach of cyclones.
2 Ampere was founder of the science of electrodynamics, and investigator of the laws of electro-magnetism.
3. Becquerel, Antoine Cesar, was the founder of electro-chemistry. Becquerel, Antoine Henri, was the discoverer of radio-activity.
4. Binet, mathematician and astronomer, set forth the principle, “Binet’s Theorem.” Braille invented the Braille system for the blind.
5. Buffon wrote the first work on natural history. Carrell, Nobel prize winner in medicine and physiology, is renowned for his work in surgical technique.
6. Caesalpinus, a Papal physician, was the first to construct a system of botany. Cassiodorus, a priest, invented the watch.
7. Columbo discovered the pulmonary circulation of the blood. Copernicus, a priest, expounded the Copernican system.
8. Coulomb established the fundamental laws of static electricity. De Chauliac, a Papal physician, was the father of modern surgery and hospitals.
9. De Vico, a priest, discovered six comets. Descartes founded analytical geometry.
Dumas invented a method of ascertaining vapor densities. Endlicher, botanist and historian, established a new system of classifying plants.
10. Eustachius, for whom the Eustachian tube was named, was one of the founders of modern anatomy. Fabricius discovered the valvular system of the veins.
11. Fallopius, for whom the Fallopian tube was named, was an eminent physiologist. Fizeau was the first to determine experimentally the velocity of light.
12. Foucault invented the first practical electric arc lamp; he refuted the corpuscular theory of light; he invented the gyroscope.
13. Fraunhofer was initiator of spectrum analysis; he established laws of diffraction.
14. Fresnel contributed more to the science of optics than any other man.
15. Galilei, a great astronomer, is the father of experimental science.
16. Galvani, one of the pioneers of electricity, was also an anatomist and physiologist. Gioja, father of scientific navigation, invented the mariner’s compass.
17. Gramme invented the Gramme dynamo.
18. Guttenberg invented printing.
Herzog discovered a cure for infantile paralysis. Holland invented the first practical sub marine.
19. Kircher, a priest, made the first definite statement of the germ theory of disease.
20. Laennec invented the stethoscope.
21. Lancist, a Papal physician, was the father of clinical medicine. Latreille was pioneer in entomology.
22. Lavoisier is called Father of Modern Chemistry.
23. Leverrier discovered the planet Neptune.
24. Lully is said to have been the first to employ chemical symbols. Malpighi, a Papal physician, was a botanist, and the father of comparative physiology.
25. Marconi’s place in radio is unsurpassed. Mariotte discovered Mariotte’s law of gases.
26. Mendel, a monk, first established the laws of heredity, which gave the final blow to the theory of natural selection. Morgagni, founder of modern pathology; made important studies in aneurisms.
27. Muller was the greatest biologist of the 19th century, founder of modern physiology.
28. Pashcal demonstrated practically that a column of air has weight.
29. Pasteur, called the “Father of Bacteriology,” and inventor of bio-therapeutics, was the leading scientist of the 19th century.
30. Picard, a priest, was the first to measure accurately a degree of the meridian.
31. Regiomontanus, a Bishop and Papal astronomer; was the father of modern astronomy. Scheiner, a priest, invented the pantograph, and made a telescope that permitted the first systematic investigation of sun spots.
32. Secchi invented the meteorograph. Steensen, a Bishop, was the father of geology.
33. Theodoric, a Bishop, discovered anesthesia in the 13th century. Torricelli invented the barometer.
34. Vesalius was the founder of modern anatomical science. Volta invented the first; complete galvanic battery; the “volt” is named after him.
Other scientists: Agricola, Albertus Magnus, Bacon, Bartholomeus, Bayma, Beccaria, Behalm, Bernard, Biondo, Biot, Bolzano, Borrus, Boscovitch, Bosio, Bourgeois, Branly, Caldani, Cambou, Camel, Cardan, Carnoy, Cassini, Cauchy, Cavaliere, Caxton, Champollion, Chevreul, Clavius, De Rossi, Divisch, Dulong, Dwight, Eckhel, Epee, Fabre, Fabri, Faye, Ferrari, Gassendi, Gay-Lussac, Gordon, Grimaldi, Hauy, Heis, Helmont, Hengler, Heude, Hilgard, Jussieu, Kelly, Lamarck, Laplace, Linacre, Malus, Mersenne, Monge, Muller, Murphy, Murray, Nelston, Nieuwland, Nobili, Nollet, Ortelius, Ozaman, Pelouze, Piazzi, Pitra, Plumier, Pouget, Provancher, Regnault, Riccioli, Sahagun, Santorini, Schwann, Schwarz, Secchi, Semmelweis, Spallanzani, Takamine, Tieffentaller, Toscanelli, Tulasne, Valentine, Vernier, Vieta, Da Vinci, Waldseemuller, Wincklemann, Windle, and a host of others, too many to mention.
Jason,
Also, you may enjoy this account:
Over a hundred years ago a university student found himself seated in a train by the side of a person who seemed to be well-to do peasant.
He was praying the rosary and moving the beads in his fingers.
“Sir, do you still believe in such outdated things?” asked the student of the old man.
“Yes, I do. Do you not?” asked the man.
The student burst out into a laughter and said, “I do not believe in such silly things. Take my advice. Throw the rosary out through this window, and learn what Science has to say about it.”
“Science? I do not understand this science? Perhaps you can explain it to me.”, the man said humbly with some tears in his eyes.
The student saw that the man was deeply moved.
So to avoid further hurting the feelings of the man, he said:
“Please give me your address and I will send you some literature to help you on the matter.”
The man fumbled in the inside pocket of his coat and gave the boy his visiting card. On glancing at the card, the student, lowered his head in shame and became silent.
On the card he read:
“Louis Pasteur, Director of the Institute of Scientific Research, Paris.”
Pasteur, the great French chemist and biologist, regularly said the rosary and was not afraid to exhibit the beads in public.
“Pasteur, the great French chemist and biologist, regularly said the rosary and was not afraid to exhibit the beads in public.”
And science was utterly mute about it.
Excerpt:
These words are graven above his tomb in the Institut Pasteur.
In his address Pasteur said further “These are the living springs of great thoughts and great actions. Everything grows clear in the reflections from the Infinite”.
Some of his letters to his children breathe profound simple piety. He declared “The more I know, the more nearly is my faith that of the Breton peasant. Could I but know all I would have the faith of a Breton peasant woman.”
What he could not above all understand is the failure of scientists to recognize the demonstration of the existence of the Creator that there is in the world around us.
He died with his rosary in his hand, after listening to the life of St. Vincent de Paul which he had asked to have read to him, because he thought that his work like that of St. Vincent would do much to save suffering children.
Esau, thanks for the list and the anecdote.
On a lighter note, who knew that Jean-Luc Picard had a priest in his ancestry? ;^)
Esau, thanks for the list and the anecdote.
No prob! Though the formatting screwed up the numbering for the list.
On a lighter note, who knew that Jean-Luc Picard had a priest in his ancestry? ;^)
Concerning Jean-Luc himself, I never could understand if whether he was actually a man of faith or if he was a man much like the character of Dr. Who.
I have to say I’ve always found this trilemma argument completely unconvincing. There are many alternatives: perhaps Jesus never claimed to be the son of God and his followers just distorted his claims or perhaps he said this and meant it in a kind of metaphorical sense (in the same way that many of you might say that you are/want to be imbued with the spirit of God – I wouldn’t call you crazy, just wrong). Alternatively, he may have been delusional – some people are delusional about some things, but very wise about others.
Esau, I think you have misunderstood my claim. I did not claim that no scientists are (or were) religious/Catholic! I only claimed that knowing more about science makes one less likely to be Catholic. To assess this claim we would at a minimum have to compare the frequency of belief among scientists with that among the general public (and as other commentators have noted, this still wouldn’t control for selection effects).
In addition, I would expect that the relationship is much stronger today than it has been in past eras (and will be even stronger in the future) because scientists continue to obtain better explanations of phenomena whose inexplicability theologians pronounce is proof of a creator.
One scientist is a cute anecdote but 93% of the best scientists in the country is data that warrants an explanation.
Surely Jean-Luc is not a man of faith! From an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation:
“Millenia ago, [the alien species featured in this episode] abandoned their belief in the supernatural – now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement – to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? NO!!”
I only claimed that knowing more about science makes one less likely to be Catholic.
Then you have completely neglected my above posts concerning Pasteur and the like, which completely contests your claim here.
To contest my claim we would need a control group. Pasteur is just a single observation – the larger list of scientists you give is a starting point, but it says nothing about the overall frequency of belief among scientists (since we don’t have a comprehensive list of scientists and their beliefs) and it certainly says nothing about the religious beliefs of scientists relative to the general public at the time.
I’m confused… what do polls have to do with science? I thought science was a matter of, you know, experimental confirmation of hypotheses, repeatability, measurable data and the like. I’m sorry, I don’t consider sociology to be one of the “hard sciences” and polling data is inherently unreliable.
Philosophical trends – fashions of thought that run this way and that – can’t be given any real scientific weight by anyone of a serious mind, can they? Seems to me that consensus has been on the wrong side of the scientific question as often as not. Consensus is not a scientific measure of anything.
What I contest is the idea (which strikes me, at bottom, as highly un-scientific) that we can arrive at the truth by taking polls. Not that long ago, ill health might have been attributed by “most experts” to an imbalance of the bodily humors.
To bastardize Vroomfondel and Majikthise – “You just let the scientists get on with the adding up, and we’ll take care of the eternal verities thank you very much.”.
I’m confused… what do polls have to do with science? I thought science was a matter of, you know, experimental confirmation of hypotheses, repeatability, measurable data and the like. I’m sorry, I don’t consider sociology to be one of the “hard sciences” and polling data is inherently unreliable
Tim — do you take issue with statistics in general?
Statisticians generally need to operate on a sample of a population rather than the entire population due to its size. Polling, if done scientifically, is a reasonable method used to obtain a sample of data.
Jason was arguing that there is an inverse relationship between religious belief and scientific knowledge. Whether that’s true could only be validated by sampling the population.
That doesn’t mean religion is false due to the consensus of scientists. Hardly. But I think establishing the truth or falsehood of the particular hypothesis (that there is an inverse relationship between religious belief and scientific knowledge) via a scientific poll is reasonable.
Still, the result of that study would not necessarily be meaningful, for as you point out, consensus doesn’t affect truth.
I believe Tim J. has a point.
Again and again, Jason seems to be hooked on the fallacious idea that consensus somehow proves the truth of a certain claim — which, as I have mentioned previously with the use of some past examples, actually is false.
Jason,
What if you were to arrive at a consensus of current Scientists of today who do agree that there is no God — does that, to you, actually prove that there actually is no God?
Do the consensus of such men actually prove the truth of something when, in fact, time and time before, similar consensus in the past which have turned out wrong multiple times have actually provided proof that such consensus is nothing in the end but the mere opinion of such men?
Just because they are from a collection of informed men doesn’t make their judgment any less fallible.
Esau,
I agree with you here:
the fallacious idea that consensus somehow proves the truth of a certain claim
However, there remains the practical matter of belief.
As has been pointed out numerous times, there is very little that we can *know* with any certainty. However, is it not unreasonable to believe things based upon the consensus of a collection of informed men (i.e. experts), keeping in mind the caveat that this “knowledge” is imperfect and could change if future discoveries warrant a change?
How else could we function as rational beings?
Smoky,
The main point of my comments was how can the consensus of such men (that is, if they were to agree that there is no such thing as a God) actually prove that there is no God?
The difference between a consensus that is determined on the basis of scientific studies and that here is the fact that the former actually extends from an analysis of the data.
However, as regards the latter, this consensus is not based on any substantial data at all unlike the former.
Consensus does not EFFECT truth, but consensus is a reliable indicator of truth in many circumstances. You and 100 other people you trust are in a warehouse. You are not tall enough to see out the window – they are. You ask them, “Is there a tree outside?” They all say, “Yes.” The consensus here does not determine the truth of the matter, but it is your best way for you to arrive at a true belief. I am arguing (not assuming) that a more complex version of this analogy applies to the relationship of the beliefs of scientists to religious truth.
The notion of “proof” as you are using the word is irrelevant here. The question is what it is reasonable to believe. The consensus among scientists that the tilt of the earth on its axis is responsible for seasons makes it reasonable to believe that this is true (and unreasonable to believe otherwise).
I am arguing that the same is true of the near consensus among scientists regarding religion. I agree there is an argument to be had here, but you have not even engaged with my claim – you just keep insisting that consensus is not proof.
In a nutshell, my claim is the following. Despite the consensus among scientists, they might be wrong. However, it is far more likely that YOU are wrong than that all of them are wrong. And by “YOU”, I don’t just mean “Esau”. I mean any one of us as an individual.
Alternatively, we could all just agree that the only real on authority on these matters is Jean-Luc Picard since he has the benefit of a few hundred years of accumulated knowledge that we lack.
“Tim — do you take issue with statistics in general? ”
Well, no, not as far as they go. But polling statistics are notoriously nebulous. Clinical studies? Sure, as long as they are designed well.
My point was that even if a poll of the religious beliefs of scientists was an accurate measure of anything, it could not be less relevant to the truth or falsehood of the beliefs themselves.
If we are to “trust the experts”, why should I take the philosophical musings of your average scientist any more seriously than I should take the scientific opinions of your average churchman? I don’t call a plumber to fix the wiring in my house.
If you really want to follow this logic, Jason, there is a very broad consensus among religious “experts” (not total consensus, but very broad) that there exists some kind of God or gods, that the universe is an act of special creation, and that there is some sort of afterlife.
This consensus has been around much longer than the Big Bang theory, and has been held by many more people.
So, my experts can beat up your experts. I win. 😉
Jason,
You seem to think that consensus amongst such individuals on whatever matter whatsoever provides conclusive proof for almost anything.
As if — if they should form a consensus on when the end of the world would be, you would take their consensus on this as Gospel; or perhaps if they were to come to a consensus on who would win the world series (before Boston swept Colorado, that is), you would take whatever consensus they formed there as truth as well by virtue of the fact that they had a consensus on this.
In short, as I have mentioned to Smoky, there’s a big difference between the consensus amongst Scientists when it comes to matters of scientific studies vs. on the matter we are faced with here.
The fact of the matter is that the former is based on intimate analysis of the data and it is by substantial data that Scientists come to a confident conclusion on such matters which may be valid and, in the end, true.
However, what substantial data is there that conclusively proves the existence of no God?
In other words:
There is a limit to the INFALLIBILITY that you are attributing to Scientists here — they are only experts on matters of scientific phenomenon AND empirical data!
Mind you —
Scientists are NOT omniscient beings — regardless of any such CONSENSUS!
Corrigendum:
…they are only experts on matters of KNOWN scientific phenomenon AND empirical data!
Esau,
So — would you agree that consensus among top physicists regarding the veracity of the Big Bang Theory is a reaonsable reason for the average joe to believe that theory, as long as Average Joe recognizes that the theory is subject to change / deletion if new evidence surfaces?
There are of course many methodological issues that must be addressed on a case by case basis. As I and others have noted previously, the fact that 93% of the NAS are atheists or agnostics does not show that science makes people less religious – it might be that less religious people are drawn to science. If you’d like, I could present a sophisticated way to conduct a reliable follow-up study to establish causation.
Even given just the 93% number – this is such a large number that it is unlikely it is wholly due to selection. There seems to be a real effect here.
Now we’ve finally gotten to the heart of the matter – i.e. who are the appropriate experts to judge the truth of religious claims? To answer this question, we need to determine what arguments people give for God’s existence.
I would classify them into four types:
1) A priori arguments, like the ontological argument
2) Moral arguments, like the one SDG is making in this series of posts
3) Scientific arguments, like those John E. made in an earlier thread on this topic (how do we explain the observed universe? the appearance of matter and energy?)
4) Historical arguments – arguments that the Gospels provide reliable evidence of miracles or other supernatural events.
The divisions in each case are not perfectly clear-cut – as I’ve tried to make clear here, I think science might have a lot to say about the origin and nature of our moral judgments.
That caveat aside, I would agree that scientists are not best qualified to make all of these arguments. Philosophers of various sorts might be best qualified to judge 1) and 2) and historians might be best qualified to judge 4) (although I think scientists might have something to say about the probability of miracles, although that too is a contentious topic).
Ideally, to determine the probability that God exists, I would suggest the following procedure:
1) Create an enormous dataset listing detailed biographical information of every person working in any of the above fields
2) Determine how their beliefs about God and about specific questions relating both to God’s existence and their field of expertise change as they acquire expertise in their field, controlling for any peer effects (there are ways to do this)
3) Use the results in 2) to evaluate the effect of expertise on people’s beliefs about the truth of SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS
4) Use the results in 2) to evaluate the the effect of people’s beliefs on their general religious disposition
My hypothesis is: in every one of the fields mentioned above, the more knowledge people acquire, the less likely they are to find the particular arguments related to their field convincing and the less likely they are to believe in God.
Now, the above survey would be practically infeasible, but there are ways of determining what the results would be using sophisticated statistical techniques on less detailed data. Those analyses have not yet been conducted (I’ll get back to you in 10 years with the results).
In the mean time, is there anything we can infer about what the results might look like?
I would argue that the virtual absence of religious beliefs among scientists and among academics more generally suggests what we might expect to find (although we cannot determine the magnitude without accounting for selection).
So — would you agree that consensus among top physicists regarding the veracity of the Big Bang Theory is a reaonsable reason for the average joe to believe that theory, as long as Average Joe recognizes that the theory is subject to change / deletion if new evidence surfaces?
Smoky,
It depends on whether or not there is substantial data to support such a conclusion.
Esau, how would you determine whether this is the case, lacking a PhD in physics?
Ideally, to determine the probability that God exists, I would suggest the following procedure:
1) Create an enormous dataset listing detailed biographical information of every person working in any of the above fields
2) Determine how their beliefs about God and about specific questions relating both to God’s existence and their field of expertise change as they acquire expertise in their field, controlling for any peer effects (there are ways to do this)
3) Use the results in 2) to evaluate the effect of expertise on people’s beliefs about the truth of SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS
4) Use the results in 2) to evaluate the the effect of people’s beliefs on their general religious disposition
How the heck can a consensus on opinions of whether Scientists believe there is a God or not actually PROVE that there is no God?
Jason,
Do Scientists conduct scientific studies in order to gather/examine the data and determine a conlusion based on the data or do they merely take a poll amongst them, asking each other if whether X is true or false, in order to determine a valid conclusion?
Don’t you see how incredibly ridiculous your proposal is?
It’s like saying:
Let’s take a poll amongst Scientists about when they think the world is going to end and whatever they have a consensus on is valid and true.
That is —
How is finding out what the majority of Scientists believe about whether God exists or not actually PROVE that God does not exist? This consensus would be based on nothing more than OPINION not on FACTUAL DATA!
Jason,
Just want to say again I appreciate the thoughtfulness running through your participation here. I don’t find all of your lines of thought equally helpful, and I take it for granted you feel the same about mine, but in principle I think this is the kind of discussion that is likely to be productive rather than not.
In regard to your thesis about experts increasingly finding the evidence within their sphere of expertise to be non-supportive of faith, I suspect that there is at least partial truth to this inasmuch as much uneducated belief easily finds overwhelming and plentiful support from simplistic and credulous arguments that expertise progressively discards.
Of course the same would also be true of uneduated unbelief; the anti-God tracts of a former age were rife with arguments against theism from which the scholarly atheist of today would carefully distance himself.
At any rate, I would need to see evidence that the increased acquisition of expertise beyond a certain point continues to correlate with increased skepticism. For example, from one of the few areas I have studied in any depth, scripture studies, it is not my impression that the most skeptical scholars tend to be the most knowledgeable, or vice versa. Of course the real scholars are always more skeptical than the uneducated believer, but they are also often more believing than the uneducated unbeliever.
Do Scientists conduct scientific studies in order to gather/examine the data and determine a conlusion based on the data or do they merely take a poll amongst them, asking each other if whether X is true or false, in order to determine a valid conclusion?
I think it is implied that given a scientific question, each scientist that we poll has already conducted scientific studies to gather/examine the data and determined a conclusion based upon that data. Then, we poll the scientists for their conclusions. Such a consensus is useful, I would think. In fact, such a consensus is probably a much stronger indicator of truth than having any one scientist investigate the data (because individuals make mistakes), and stronger still than having any non-scientist investigate the data.
It’s exactly the same thing as having 100 mathematicians indepedently work out the solution to a problem, and then polling them for the answer. If 98% come to the same answer, that’s a stronger indication that the answer is correct than it would be if we asked a single mathematician.
What I just posted I think is consistent with Jason’s analogy:
You and 100 other people you trust are in a warehouse. You are not tall enough to see out the window – they are. You ask them, “Is there a tree outside?” They all say, “Yes.”
It’s implied that those who are tall enough have actually looked out the window. Then, polling them for their results is a good indicator of whether a tree is outside, just as polling scientists who have studied the data or mathematicians who have worked out a problem is a good indicator of the truth of the question.
Esau, your criticism would be more valid if Jason’s analogy went thus:
You and 100 other people you trust are in a warehouse. You are not tall enough to see out the window – they are, but they don’t bother to look outisde. You ask them, “Is there a tree outside?” They all say, “Yes.”
But, that’s *not* what Jason has said.
Smoky,
You missed the point yet again —
I was referring to Jason’s proposal!
He suggests that we poll Scientists about their OPINION about God.
That’s a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT situation than a poll where the Scientists have conducted individual studies, gathered data, formed their conclusion based on that data.
Now, you tell me —
How the heck can consensus regarding an opinion about whether Scientists believe there is a God actually prove there is no God?
Jason wrote:
I would argue that the virtual absence of religious beliefs among scientists and among academics more generally suggests what we might expect to find (although we cannot determine the magnitude without accounting for selection).
I think this statement is unjustified by the data. This sounds like the kind of extreme hyperbole that Peter Atkins or Richard Dawkins might use to score rhetorical points. I found the NAS study here , and I don’t feel that a survey of 260 scientists qualifies as “virtual absence of religious belief among scientists,” even if they are “greater” scientists (see study).
I found a different study on Science Daily that claims that 61% of American physicians identified themselves as Christian. But, I’m not arguing that the trends you’ve stated aren’t plausible; just that you should be careful not to treat the statistical data as more clear cut and one-sided than it actually is.
Kudos to everyone who has been participating in the discussion and to SDG for his posts.
Smoky,
You have not thought this through as with Jason.
YOu say:
are not tall enough to see out the window – they are.
But that’s just it —
You have directed attention to just the TREE!
However, the viewing and evidence of only one aspect of our natural world isn’t at all conclusive in terms of the metaphysical!
You seem to think that just because we’ve gathered this much knowledge about our natural world, those who are the scientific investigators in this field have become, when consensus plays out, a God in and of themselves!
However, there is much yet to learn about our world and we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface!
Our knowledge is quite imperfect.
The only reason why Scientists have been capable of forming valid conclusions during those times they have been successful is due to the available, substantial data they’ve collected and thru repeated experimentation.
However, to say that any consensus made by such Scientists concerning any matter — including a trivial polling of their opinions — results in the utter DETERMINATION OF VALID TRUTHS is absolutely ludicrous!
You missed the point yet again
Yet again, huh? How sweet of you. 🙂
I posit that you missed the point, yet again :).
First, Jason did not limit his proposal to scientists, but included experts from various fields including philosophy and history, as their expertise relates to specific arguments surrounding the existence of God.
Second, his proposal suggests that we attempt to correlate experts’ beliefs about specific arguments regarding God’s existence which they are particularly qualified to analyze (and which I assume they have analyzed based upon evidence / data) with their level of expertise in the given field. For example, how does expertise in scriptural analysis and/or history correlate with a belief in the truth of arguments from the historicity of the Gospels in experts who have studied those arguments (and were qualified to do so)?
I don’t defend Jason’s proposal. But you set-up a straw man.
In your post:
Posted by: Esau | Oct 30, 2007 1:49:39 PM
You put a lot of words in my mouth.
I had previously defended the notion of polling scientists who had independently studied the data regarding a question that they are qualified to study and come to a conclusion.
I said nothing about polling those scientists about their opinions on God’s existence.
I would like to have a look at all the raw data drawn from the experiments proving that there is no God.
I mean, just to look it over. 😉
I could file it right next to all the scientific “proofs” of God.
Jason, you seem to be looking for physical data to prove a metaphysical reality.
You’re asking for a miracle, and this is understandable, but in that case shouldn’t everyone expect their own personal miracle? After all, you can’t accept historical evidence of the miraculous, or even contemporary anecdotal evidence.
And then, what kind of experience would you accept as truly miraculous – hard evidence of God – and not a dream, a hallucination or the product of your own imagination? Can you imagine such an experience that could not be explained away in natural terms?
But let’s assume you have such an experience and you do accept it as real evidence for the existence of God. How would you explain your experience to others? How would you convince them it was real? Would you expect them to believe you?
This is similar to when you thought I was insulting you with the table tennis comment — you tend to over-extrapolate on what people are saying sometimes, Esau.
Kelson,
Thanks for your comments. I think you’re right on target. My phrase, “virtual absence of religious belief among scientists” was too strong and is not supported by the data. I think the generally accepted figure in this field is that about 40% of scientists are religious (excluding physicians), but that this number shrinks the more one confines oneself to “elite scientists”.
Ideally, to determine the probability that God exists, I would suggest the following procedure… My hypothesis is: in every one of the fields mentioned above, the more knowledge people acquire, the less likely they are to find the particular arguments related to their field convincing and the less likely they are to believe in God.
You’re trying to equate the “the probability God exists” with the likelihood a man believes in God. But you haven’t shown that God is even subject to probability, or that whatever you’d be testing for equates to the probability of God. You’re testing the probability of a belief, based on your own personal unproven assumption that God is a belief, and in particular that God is the particular belief you’re testing for. Who believes God is a belief? An atheist. Your test tests for atheism, not God.
SDG, a few comments:
This is a an interesting point. I think this criticism is quite forceful when we consider the difference in belief between say college educated and high school educated people, although perhaps less so when we consider the difference between “elite” and “run-of-the-mill” scientists.
In any case, this kind of consideration suggests the need to examine how answers to particular questions vary among those we regard as experts in those questions – for instance, if we asked moral philosophers, “Does our experience of morality provide evidence for God?” (although of course, phrasing the question in a very clear way would be quite important) and examined how their answer to this question varied over their careers.
The only example of this I know is in comparison between surveys of scientists more generally and surveys of elite groups like the NAS, Nobel Prize winners and the Royal Society in the UK. I certainly agree that studies of this sort would be useful in the other pertinent discplines (philosophy, history), and especially focusing on particular questions as suggested above.
The point you raise above is itself an interesting hypothesis – I wonder if we were to ask people to rate their belief in God on a scale of 1-7 where 1 means “As likely to exist as leprechauns” and 7 means “As likely to exist as other people” whether we would find that philosophers or biblical scholars tended to be more or less polarized (and how that changed over the course of their studies). I can actually imagine this going either way, since there are also some among less educated who like to think of themselves as “moderate” because it is politically correct.
Esau, I like your analogy here. I think this is actually a great way to determine how and when the world is going to end and is the best way I can think of to get a reasonable result. We’d have to define exactly what we meant by the end of the world (the physical destruction of the planet?). Also, since this is not a 0-1 question, the correct answer would not be a single probability, but rather a probability distribution over all future times. We would want to take that into account in constructing our estimates from the scientists polled, and perhaps we would want to confine ourselves to scientists in a few relevant fields, but otherwise, I like your idea very much.
Presumably, you think this wouldn’t work. What alternative would you suggest?
…are not tall enough to see out the window
Further to the above, here, you are assuming (amongst other things):
1. The height of the subject person is sufficient to see thru the window (thus, again, you neglect the limitations of Science and current knowledge)
2. That there is a window in the first place — for all you know, what we have right now is merely a ‘peep’ hole!
In particular, with regards to specific situations where a consensus amongst Scientists would, in fact, be valid; compare these 2 situations:
1. Scientists weigh in on a specific scientific hypothesis (e.g., theoretically applied nanotechnology)
2. Scientists asked ‘Do you believe God exists?’
Do you see how a consensus on the former would possibly lead to a valid conclusion whereas the latter may be nothing more than trivial polling?
Melanie, I don’t understand what it would mean for God NOT to be a belief. I think this may just be a semantic issue. I also think that “the sun is hotter than the earth” and “my parents are older than me” are beliefs that I have – this doesn’t mean I’m presuming they aren’t true!
Do you see how a consensus on the former would possibly lead to a valid conclusion
I’m pretty sure that’s all I ever argued, because it seemed to me that you were dismissing any polling of scientists as invalid. Clearly there was miscommunication somewhere. If it was my fault, I apologize.
whereas the latter may be nothing more than trivial polling?
Yes, but that’s not exactly what Jason was proposing — which is why I pointed out that I thought you were setting-up a straw man.
Jason —
I know Esau’s disagreement with you is deeper than this, but it seems that there is a fundamental misunderstanding between you two.
When you speak of polling experts on any given question, I think it is implied that those experts have analyzed the data regarding that question and so are in a position to provide substantiated, qualified answers, not opinions based upon whimsy.
If I’m mistaken, please correct me. But if not, then you might do well to mention this explicitly.
Smoky Mountain,
Thanks for your clarification. That is indeed implied.
Let’s distinguish between the study I proposed above and the studies that currently exist.
The study I proposed above would, in addition to asking about general religious beliefs, attempt to determine how the knowledge of experts affected their answer to particular questions in the field in which they are expert (e.g. how going to graduate school to study moral philosophy and then embarking on a career in the subject affects one’s answer to the question, “Does our experience of morality provide evidence for God?”).
As for the current studies, these are typically not so precisely targeted. In order to interpret their results, I’m suggesting that we make some assumptions. First, we assume that most scientists have given some thought to their religious beliefs. Second, we assume that these beliefs are informed in some way by their expert knowledge. These assumptions are not obviously correct, but I think they are plausible. Especially when you consider the fact that Nobel Prize winners, members of the Royal Academy of Sciences and members of the NAS are typically enormously intelligent people with a broad range of interests (rarely can someone make a foundational discovery of the sort needed to reach these heights if they are a narrow-minded specialist). There are of course exceptions (Watson…).
I also think that “the sun is hotter than the earth” and “my parents are older than me” are beliefs that I have – this doesn’t mean I’m presuming they aren’t true!
But I didn’t say you’re presuming your beliefs aren’t true. Quite the contrary, I said you’re presuming your beliefs are true. Specifically, you’re presuming your belief is true that God is a belief.
I don’t understand what it would mean for God NOT to be a belief. I think this may just be a semantic issue.
It goes to the core of the validity of your test. It is your assumption that God is a belief subject to probability testing by (somehow) testing for people’s belief in God. But if the God of many religions is not defined as such, why should you begin to believe you’re testing for the same?
Bravo, Melanie. You beat me to it.
When you speak of polling experts on any given question, I think it is implied that those experts have analyzed the data regarding that question and so are in a position to provide substantiated, qualified answers, not opinions based upon whimsy.
I apologize for being simplistic, but wouldn’t the experts who have analyzed such data be theologians. I mean, sure many priests were scientists – and great ones at that – but when they made scientific discoveries they used scientific principles and not theological ones. If we’re going to use philosophers and scientists to determine the existence of God, don’t they need to use the art of theology?
Just as divine revelation is not the proper method for determining the movement of celestial bodies, the scientific method is not the proper method for determining the existence or non-existence of purely spiritual beings.
I have to say I still don’t understand. What does it mean for God not to be defined as a belief? I thought you were accusing me before of assuming that God does not exist. Apparently this is not the case – but what is your objection?
Some people believe in God and some don’t – I take this statement to be self-evident (although as I said above, there may be a semantic issue here about how we’re defining “belief”). Are you disputing this statement?
If you’re not disputing anything about “Some people believe in God and some don’t,” are you disputing the possibility of trying to understand why some people come to believe in God and some don’t?
I don’t think I can attempt a reply until I understand better the challenge you are making.
Brian,
I don’t think your question is simplistic at all. My answer is as follows:
1) Of the four kinds of arguments for God’s existence outlined above, which would theologians be especially well-suited to answer? I think one might argue that they have some expertise in assessing the a priori arguments for God’s existence, but the others would be a stretch.
2) I would be glad to include theologians in my analysis, but I doubt they would make any difference – the reason is, it is unlikely that theologians have changed their beliefs about any of the questions I raise above over the course of their career. I might be oversimplifying or just incorrect about this. Perhaps theologians tend to become more likely to accept a priori arguments for God’s existence the more they learn; alternatively, perhaps the opposite is true. If so, this would certainly be interesting to know.
A further objection is: theologians might tend to come to believe in a priori arguments for psychological reasons when they want to maintain their belief but find other arguments inadequate. Similarly, we might worry that scientists are somehow biased by “methodological naturalism” into accepting “philosophical naturalism”. The only way I can see to handle these issues is to try to identify these biases where possible and then try to control for them by gathering as much biographical information about the survey participants as one can (how exactly one would do this varies from case to case).
A further question I haven’t yet addressed is how one should weigh the results of a study like that proposed above to come to an ultimate conclusion – ultimately, this must of course be done in light of one’s own background of philosophical beliefs. But there are some things we can due to minimize the risk of error, such as asking experts to comment on the “meta-questions” that determine this weighting.
Jason, I’ll have to let Melanie explain what she said, but what resounded with me was your comment “I don’t understand what it would mean for God NOT to be a belief.”
To go back to Melanie’s post, whether she intended this or not, you have not defined “God” and consequently “belief in God” is also not defined. Do you mean God identified Judaism, Christianity and/or Islam? Do you mean the AA definition of a “Higher Power?”
Another backtrack: What I hear you saying is that some people have a belief in God, other people don’t have a belief in God and that your statements have indicated “God does not exist.” Correct any of that which is inaccurate.
Your comment, “I don’t understand what it would mean for God NOT to be a belief” occurs to me as very true. I get the impression that your idea is that “belief in God” is an intellectual concept that some people hold and some people don’t. A person is not a belief. If I met you in real life, I wouldn’t say, “I have this belief called Jason.” I would say that I met a person named Jason. A personal encounter with God, with the Persons of the Trinity, seems to be something outside not only your own personal experience, but your knowing others with that experience of a personal encounter with God.
That’s what all this clarifications about definitions has been clearing the way for. (yes, I know, I get a grammar demerit.)
Mary Kay,
I have been using the term God to refer to the Judeo-Christian God as classically understood – an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being who created the universe (presumably, this is what most of the posters on this site also use the term to denote).
When I said “Some people believe in God and some don’t”, what I meant was, “Some people believe that God exists and some people do not believe that God exists” where God is as defined above. You are correct that the belief in question is not “God” per se, but rather “God exists”.
What I still don’t understand is – how does this amount to a criticism of the study I proposed above? I can see how perhaps it might amount to a criticism of the particular wording of the questions in such a study, but I do not see how it amounts to a conceptual criticism of the study itself as a tool for determining the likelihood that “God exists” is a true belief.
p.s. I have two close friends who consider themselves religious (one more religious than the other), but you are right that the vast majority of my friends are secular. That’s the way it is in Cambridge, MA.
Let’s distinguish between the study I proposed above and the studies that currently exist.
The study I proposed above would, in addition to asking about general religious beliefs, attempt to determine how the knowledge of experts affected their answer to particular questions in the field in which they are expert (e.g. how going to graduate school to study moral philosophy and then embarking on a career in the subject affects one’s answer to the question, “Does our experience of morality provide evidence for God?”).
As for the current studies, these are typically not so precisely targeted. In order to interpret their results, I’m suggesting that we make some assumptions. First, we assume that most scientists have given some thought to their religious beliefs. Second, we assume that these beliefs are informed in some way by their expert knowledge. These assumptions are not obviously correct, but I think they are plausible. Especially when you consider the fact that Nobel Prize winners, members of the Royal Academy of Sciences and members of the NAS are typically enormously intelligent people with a broad range of interests (rarely can someone make a foundational discovery of the sort needed to reach these heights if they are a narrow-minded specialist). There are of course exceptions (Watson…).
Jason,
How can what Scientists feel about the existence of God actually PROVE that there is NO GOD?
Regardless of their tremendous expertise in their respective fields, their superior knowledge in that field, personal opinion on the matter does not necessarily PROVE the case that there is NO GOD!
Whereas in matters of KNOWN Scientific phenomenon, where in carefully conducted experiments and repeated iterations of testing of a hypothesis; a valid conclusion could be reached by a Scientist and a consensus could even further corroborate the validity of that conclusion; you propose, on the contrary, to merely poll Scientists about how they feel about the subject of God and deduce from that alone that God does not exist?
What a wonderfully new Scientific Method you and Smoky subscribe to! It’s one I’ve never quite heard of — ever!
SDG —
I apologize for falling of the wagon, but this is completely nuts!
I might as well take a poll on what Scientists think who might win next year’s World Series and accept their conclusion that is the result of their consensus as Gospel as well!
This is almost a variant of the Halo Effect!
Since these Scientists are such geniuses in matters of Science, even in terms of Metaphysics; they must be experts as well!
However, there is, as I’ve mentioned the limitations in Scientific Knowledge and Inquiry which Jason keeps conveniently overlooking here!
As advanced as we think we are in terms of technology and our Science; we are merely neophytes!
We DO NOT KNOW everything there is in the Universe!
God, to us, may be as indecipherable Scientifically at this point in our Technology as quarks are to cavemen — relatively speaking!
I might as well take a poll on what Scientists think who might win next year’s World Series and accept their conclusion that is the result of their consensus as Gospel as well!
Hey! These scientists are really really smart. Besides, if you polled sports writers and coaches they might have a priori assumptions that would disqualify them from being impartial.
Hey! These scientists are really really smart. Besides, if you polled sports writers and coaches they might have a priori assumptions that would disqualify them from being impartial.
;^)
I have been using the term God to refer to the Judeo-Christian God as classically understood
No, you’ve been using the term “God” to refer to an entity whose probability of existence can be determined by education or polling scientists. That is not the classically understood Judeo-Christian God.
Jason,
how does this amount to a criticism of the study I proposed above? I can see how perhaps it might amount to a criticism of the particular wording of the questions in such a study,
Yes, I think a lot of the responses have been in the line of methodology and/or phrasing.
but I do not see how it amounts to a conceptual criticism of the study itself as a tool for determining the likelihood that “God exists” is a true belief.
I think some of the responses have said that what you’d be testing would be others’ beliefs, that it would be such an indirect measure that it would not actually tell you if God existed or not.
You may decide to do your proposed study, taking into account to some extent the discussions here.
This may be way off-topic, but your comments remind me that way back when I was an undergraduate, the students in the campus Catholic community were spread across several disciplines, but the largest single group was Optics/Quantum Physics/whatever else is in that area. The little that I’ve read in physics is that there’s a whole subsection interested in cosmology and the Big Bang. (way out of my field)
I’ve never connected the
accidently hit Post…will try to get back to my train of thought.
Let me try to clarify why this is not the argument I am making.
My claim is not just that scientists are smart – my claim is that they have expert knowledge about a subset of questions related to God’s existence. I listed four kinds of arguments above, one of those types is scientific arguments. Perhaps you do not believe these scientific arguments are forceful. In that case, for you, the point is moot (but then you have ceded the point that their is no scientific reason to believe in God, which perhaps you are willing to do). My methodology also suggests polling philosophers and historians to determine the validity of the other types of evidence.
Now, why did I mention above the point about NAS members/nobel prize winners being really smart guys generally? I was trying to distinguish between two hypothetical scenarios:
Scenario A: Elite scientists have considered beliefs about religion. Their beliefs differ from the typical scientist or the typical well-educated and thoughtful non-scientist because of the scientific knowledge that they have which the typical scientist and the well-educated non-scientist do not have.
Scenario B: Elite scientists are also ignorant of philosophy. Their beliefs differ from typical scientists and typical well-educated and thoughtful non-scientists because they know less philosophy.
I was suggesting that Scenario A is more likely.
As to the point about polling coaches and players. Polling coaches and players on one team would be a foolish way to determine who who will win the world series because of the obvious systematic bias. Polling coaches and players randomly sampled from a variety of teams would be an excellent way to do so because of their expertise. And as noted above, I am not against polling theologians (although as I’ve argued in other threads, I think certain features of theology suggest that their is no underlying truth in the field).
Let me try to introduce two considerations that motivate the approach I have been suggesting. I think these points are actually quite central, but they have not been mentioned much in the discussion thus far.
1) Let me start by quoting one of my own posts above:
I reproduce this point here because it is absolutely critical. I don’t think any of the commentators here have made a serious effort to come to grips with the effect of irrelevant contingent factors on our beliefs. If I were born in the Middle East, or if in my formative years I had had different influences, I would surely have different beliefs than I currently do. The same holds for you. Normally, these considerations are ignored in philosophical discussions because they undermine all arguments equally. These considerations cannot be ignored.
MY CENTRAL THESIS: We must recognize and try to deal with the fact that our worldviews are highly correlated with contingent factors that do not relate to the truth of these worldviews and can thus be considered biases.
If we rely on any single individual to assess our arguments, their answer will depend on these biases. The only escape it to rely on statistical data – we might try to isolate the effects of good reasons on beliefs.
2) The approach I am suggesting might seem quite foreign, but it is not. I am simply suggesting a formalization of what we already due implicitly.
When we decide what arguments to make, we test them against various authorities – often we borrow arguments from authorities that we respect; when we improvise our own arguments, we consider whether others who we’ve found to agree with us would also find these arguments congenial. In our daily lives, we constantly rely on appeals to authority to determine what to believe.
I am saying: let’s make these appeals to authority explicit and try to control as best we can for the biases implicit in these appeals.
Since I broke my train of thought, I went back to read some of the earlier threads and saw that physics and the Big Bang have already been mentioned.
The discussion is on morality…okay, I remember. I had said that “God doesn’t exist” doesn’t work as an independent variable. Okay, now that I’m up to where I was an hour ago…
but I do not see how it amounts to a conceptual criticism of the study itself as a tool for determining the likelihood that “God exists” is a true belief.
That’s the nub of where the discussion is. My apologies for thinking out loud.
It makes sense to me that when looking at the question, “Does God exist?” that you would look to your reference group. The difficulty is that there are some self-selecting factors that remove some people from your sample but not because the more one does science, the less one believes in God. Of the Physics undergrad and grad students, only a few (at most) went into academic research, which is what your sample sounds like.
Jason, so basically you’re saying that what you call elite scientists would be freer from what I guess you could call “situational religion/morality/worldview.” That is, what you believe depends on the culture and circumstances into which you were born.
I think that premise is flawed, but I’ll have to leave it til tomorrow since I’m determined for once to get to sleep before midnight.
You are assuming false precisely the point I’m trying to argue is true. So far, I’ve only argued that polling scientists would be relevant if your belief is premised in part on scientific arguments for God’s existence. Perhaps yours is not, but I have heard many Christians who claim that scientific discoveries support their worldview. This is the kind of claim I have addressed thus far.
Now, I actually think there is more one can say about this. I think that if you believe in God but not on the basis of any kind of scientific argument that these polls of scientists should still be quite disconcerting to you. However, I have not made that argument yet.
p.s. The confusion here may well be my fault as my thoughts on this matter have developed in part as I replied to the various objections raised so I’m not sure that my earlier posts were fully consistent with the view I’m now expressing (I don’t have any particular inconsistencies in mind at the moment or I would try to point them out).
What a wonderfully new Scientific Method you and Smoky subscribe to!
Silly Esau.
The central fallacy in asserting that a consensus of scientists agrees on a philosophical question is that scientific training necessarily makes one capable of evaluating rationally issues in a non-scientific field. I hold a graduate degree in science myself and have taught science at the community college level. It’s been my experience that some scientists, and especially so among those who could be characterized as “elite”, are (to put it bluntly) egomaniacs. In that case, unbelief in God would be hardly unsurprising; a God who makes moral demands upon one would be a real party-pooper to these people. So saying that 93% of scientists don’t beleive in a deity may simply be saying that 93% of scientists are egomaniacs who don’t believe in God because then they wouldn’t get to be their own “gods”.
The idea that one could empirically test the idea of the existence of God is like the old argument over the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead, except now the assertion is that we actually can measure precisely this number, perhaps by polling some terpsichorean experts. In the end, you’re trying to quantify something which is by its nature unquantifiable; you’re trying to use the wrong tool for the job.
Terpsichorean! I had to look that one up.
Mary Kay, I’ll try to get your interesting points tomorrow. The only quick clarification I would make is that I am not saying that elite scientists would be any more free of bias than the rest of us. I’m saying elite scientists know about one more thing – they know more of the science which they study. So if we could perfectly control for every other difference between elite scientists and everyone else, we could determine the affect of that “one more thing” on their beliefs.
Jonathan, my claim is that in a well-controlled study, we can isolate the affects of scientists’ expertise on their beliefs. Your objection could be interpreted as, “One thing you need to do is control for the fact that elite scientists are egomaniacs.” I think this is an unfair caricature of elite scientists generally. I agree that “egomania” is probably more common among elite scientists than the general public, but 93% is extreme.
This is especially difficult to control for because I would expect that egomania is highly correlated with actually knowing stuff. One way to control for this would be to poll scientists’ colleagues to ask them about the ego of the scientists in question. We could then test your hypothesis that more egomaniacal scientists are less likely to believe in God and if this were true, we could control for that omitted variable in our regressions.
My claim is not just that scientists are smart – my claim is that they have expert knowledge about a subset of questions related to God’s existence.
Scientists, by definition, study the natural world. How does that qualify them to address questions related to the supernatural? The Catholic theologian does not pronounce judgements on the intimate workings of science recognizing that knowledge of one does not make one an expert in the other. What aspect of theology could a theoretical physicist possibly be expert in?
If the God in question here is the God who may or may not have created the universe out of nothing, then how does empirical scientific evidence prove or disprove the existence of a God who is outside of nature? How does historical evidence prove or disprove the existence a God who is outside of time?
I don’t have a problem with using scientists and historians and philosophers to prove or disprove the existence of God – I just don’t know what method they’re going to use. As far as I know such a test doesn’t yet exist. Isn’t that the very reason why some people believe in a God or gods and some don’t. If there were such a method then only idiots, liars, and lunatics would believe contrary to the test results.
Michael, I am still conferring with my blog-physics adviser regarding the issues you raise in the other thread (I did know that Lemaitre developed the big bang theory and I wasn’t concealing this fact – it just didn’t seem relevant to any of the issues discussed in that thread).
But in answer to your question here, let me list some of issues that I believe scientists are best placed to address which have figured in one way or another in arguments I have seen for God’s existence (the expertise of scientists in some of these matters is more contentious than in others):
1) The appearance of design in the biological world and whether it is adequately explained by evolutionary biology
2) The origin of the universe and the nature of space and time
3) The nature of consciousness and whether it could have evolved
4) The origin of moral principles and whether they can be fully accounted for by evolutionary biology
I am not saying that every believer subscribes to arguments relating to each of the above notions, but many of them do – for those who don’t, I would argue that they should but that is a story for another day. I realize that you will dispute whether scientists have special knowledge about some of the above phenomena and even I would not say that scientists are exclusively qualified to address all of these issues (moral philosophers might also have expert knowledge about the 4th). If you do, please give an argument as to why you believe the phenomena in question is beyond the reach of science.
1) The appearance of design in the biological world and whether it is adequately explained by evolutionary biology
2) The origin of the universe and the nature of space and time
3) The nature of consciousness and whether it could have evolved
4) The origin of moral principles and whether they can be fully accounted for by evolutionary biology
Jason, which findings in the above areas would disprove the existence of God? Which findings would prove the existence of God?
I presume then that you would argue that there is no scientific or historical evidence that God exists?
If so, what is the evidence for God? What argument do you find convincing? Why do you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God (presuming you do) rather than the God of Spinoza and Einstein? The latter is not a personal God (and nothing with any special relationship to Jesus Christ), but a majestic universe full of mysteries we have just begun to comprehend. If this is the God you believe in, then I share your faith.
I presume then that you would argue that there is no scientific or historical evidence that God exists?
If so, what is the evidence for God? What argument do you find convincing? Why do you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God (presuming you do) rather than the God of Spinoza and Einstein? The latter is not a personal God (and nothing with any special relationship to Jesus Christ), but a majestic universe full of mysteries we have just begun to comprehend. If this is the God you believe in, then I share your faith.
The reason I believe in the Christian God is because largely because of history and science to the extent that it supports the historical record. But I don’t believe it proves his existence or disproves it. I haven’t found any evidence which answers the question without a doubt – there’s a leap of faith involved no matter what one believes.
In that case, you must engage with my argument. Suppose (and I’m not saying this is true) that every historian who was familiar with the history of the early Roman empire in the time of Jesus believed that the Gospels were an obvious myth and that Jesus was not divine. Wouldn’t this then undermine your reasons for being a Christian?
The truth is not that extreme – however, we might find something like this (and again, I’m not asserting that this is true): almost every such historian who starts their career as secular remains secular, while many of the historians who start their career as Christians subsequently convert. Are you saying if a study found this, it would have no affect on your appraisal of the historical evidence? (supposing that the study controlled for peer effects and everything else one could imagine as a confound).
What exactly do you mean by this? I agree that asking for “proof” here is inappropriate, but as with anything else, we can ask what is more or less reasonable to believe given the evidence. Where is the leap of faith involved? Perhaps you mean that as a practical matter, we have to decide whether or not to make the Christian worldview operative in governing our actions. I agree that this is a decision that must be made, but as with any decision under uncertainty, the act of deciding doesn’t mean that the uncertainty is eliminated. I just don’t see why we can’t appraise the evidence in this case as in any other.
Jason, yes if historical evidence proved that Jesus was fictional or if it could somehow prove that he was not God, it would undermine my faith.
Your example of historians who start there careers as Christian and end up not being Christian doesn’t have as much of an affect. If the study controlled for for everything that could introduce bias, there would be no results. The existence or non-existence of God is independent of what anyone believes. The whole world could think God exists and be wrong and vice versa.
Agreeing that a hard proof seems to be impossible for this case, I’m all for appraising the evidence. Of your four areas of suggested studies, which findings do you think would support the argument that God does not exist? Which findings do you think would support the argument that God exists?
“Suppose… that every historian who was familiar with the history of the early Roman empire in the time of Jesus believed that the Gospels were an obvious myth and that Jesus was not divine”
Well, that would depend a lot on their reasoning and methodology. If they reject the gospel accounts out-of-hand because they contain descriptions of the miraculous, then I would say they had approached the subject with an anti-supernatural bias that probably skewed their assessment.
Circular reasoning;
1) Miracles don’t happen, therefore,
2) all historical accounts of the miraculous are untrustworthy, therefore,
3) There is no historical support for belief in miracles…
4) Conclusion: Miracles don’t happen.
My claim is not just that scientists are smart – my claim is that they have EXPERT knowledge about a subset of questions related to God’s existence.
Uh-huh!
This touches an almost familiar area for me given the unknowns I have had to work with in my field in the past.
Jason,
1. How is it that you are able to make such a claim that these people actually hold EXPERT knowledge in this arena (i.e., about the existence of God)?
2. How is it that you’re able to claim that their knowledge is actually directly relevant to the existance of God?
First off —
Just What is God in the first place?
Amongst other possible questions germane to this subject:
i. Do we even know what ‘God’ is comprised of?
ii. What being is ‘God’?
iii. What elements constitute the being of ‘God’?
(e.g., are we even aware of the chemical signature that is ‘God’?)
Without any knowledge as to ‘What is God’ in the first place, I should say that it would be foolish to assume that such Scientists actually carry EXPERT knowledge that directly pertain to ‘God’ when we have yet to determine what ‘God’ is in the first place!
For example, the knowledge of a physicist may be as irrelevant to the subject of God just as his knowledge would be irrelevant (i.e., ‘un-expert’) in matters of medical inquiry and investigation which only a medical doctor/scientist is capable of doing.
You assume too much due to this variant of the Halo Effect I had mentioned previously in my earlier comment; that is, your thought being, since these guys are genuises in certian matters of Science, they must equally be genuises in other matters as well.
If that were the case, they would be billionaires the likes of Bill Gates as their geniuses (especially when exercising their Powers of Consensus) would have enabled them to become such highly affluent individuals!
Oi vey.
I think everyone here agrees (including Jason) that a proof of God’s existence or non-existence is impossible.
It seems to me that this thread comes down to a simple question:
Is there any value in arguments for or against the existence of God?
If the answer is “yes”, then how do we analyze the validity of those arguments?
If an argument for the existence of God is based upon the historicity of the Gospels, who would be best qualified to analyze that argument? Historians? Or someone else?
If an argument for the existence of God involves the non-explainability of scientific data, who would be best qualified to analyze that argument?
Clearly, no single argument, whether scientific, historical, moral, theological, etc. could prove or disprove God’s existence. Furthermore, even putting all such arguments together, we still cannot *prove* God’s existence or non-existence.
So — are we wasting our time? Or is there value in arguments about God’s existence? If there is value, then we need to decide who’s qualified to analyze those arguments.
I *think* that’s what Jason has been getting at. Of course, I could be interpreting all of this incorrectly. I’ve been told that I often miss the point :).
I *think* that’s what Jason has been getting at.
Smoky,
Have you even been paying attention to Jason’s proposals?
If that were the case, then why does he say that, essentially, by polling Scientists on whether or not they believe there is a God; that their consensus on the matter (provided that the majority agree that there is no God) would actually prove conclusively that there is no God?
Re-read what Jason had proposed:
Ideally, to determine the probability that God exists, I would suggest the following procedure:
1) Create an enormous dataset listing detailed biographical information of every person working in any of the above fields
2) Determine how their beliefs about God and about specific questions relating both to God’s existence and their field of expertise change as they acquire expertise in their field, controlling for any peer effects (there are ways to do this)
3) Use the results in 2) to evaluate the effect of expertise on people’s beliefs about the truth of SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS
4) Use the results in 2) to evaluate the the effect of people’s beliefs on their general religious disposition
My claim is not just that scientists are smart – my claim is that they have EXPERT knowledge about a subset of questions related to God’s existence.
AND, in particular, his most recent comment:
My claim is not just that scientists are smart – my claim is that they have EXPERT knowledge about a subset of questions related to God’s existence.
THUS, my contention:
Smoky,
Do you not understand the difference between what Jason suggests (i.e., his proposal) in determining the existence of a God simply by his polling methods (relative to their personal beliefs) versus how scientists work in resolving the matter of a certain hypothesis in conjunction with members of the scientific community?
The latter pertains to scientific investigations of substantial data that directly fall under the scientists’ field of expertise — data that is directly relevant to their hypothesis — and by which they proceed to test the validity of their hypothesis through several iterations of subsequent testing — the consensus of which would serve to corroborate even further the validity of such hypothesis.
However, the former (i.e., the polling measure suggested by Jason) merely involves the personal opinions of such folks rather than the pain-staking elaborate investigation as observed in the aforementioned details.
Clearly, no single argument, whether scientific, historical, moral, theological, etc. could prove or disprove God’s existence.
And, yet, your buddy, Jason, seems to believe that by basically polling Scientists, one can actually prove/disprove God’s existence!
Again, re-read my comments above, Smoky!
Esau,
I think you continue to set-up a straw man.
Jason’s comment is:
my claim is that they [scientists] have expert knowledge about a subset of questions related to God’s existence
There are arguments for God’s existence. A subset of those arguments use science. For the subset which employs science, scientists are uniquely qualified to analyze those arguments. For the subset of arguments which use history, historians are uniquely qualified to analyze those arguments.
As I’ve said before, I don’t defend Jason’s overall approach. But I don’t think you’ve been representing his argument correctly.
your buddy, Jason
Lol. Yup, Jason and I hang out on the weekends playing table tennis.
Again, re-read my comments above, Smoky!
You tell people to re-read your comments alot. You must think we’re stupid. 🙂
There are arguments for God’s existence. A subset of those arguments use science. For the subset which employs science, scientists are uniquely qualified to analyze those arguments. For the subset of arguments which use history, historians are uniquely qualified to analyze those arguments.
Smoky,
You keep on REVISING what Jason’s proposal actually was.
Here is what he said:
Ideally, to determine the probability that God exists, I would suggest the following procedure:
1) Create an enormous dataset listing detailed biographical information of every person working in any of the above fields
2) Determine how their beliefs about God and about specific questions relating both to God’s existence and their field of expertise change as they acquire expertise in their field, controlling for any peer effects (there are ways to do this)
3) Use the results in 2) to evaluate the effect of expertise on people’s beliefs about the truth of SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS
4) Use the results in 2) to evaluate the the effect of people’s beliefs on their general religious disposition
Where in Jason’s proposal above is what you’ve mentioned???
It was strictly involving Scientists!
The following part was NOT PART of his proposal but was merely a recent comment:
My claim is not just that scientists are smart – my claim is that they have EXPERT knowledge about a subset of questions related to God’s existence.
Regarding Jason’s subset of questions which science can answer about God:
1) The appearance of design in the biological world and whether it is adequately explained by evolutionary biology
2) The origin of the universe and the nature of space and time
3) The nature of consciousness and whether it could have evolved
4) The origin of moral principles and whether they can be fully accounted for by evolutionary biology
I’m incredibly curious to know which findings would present evidence for God’s existence and which would present evidence against it. I have a feeling that the same evidence which Jason might use to argue against the existence of God, I would use to argue for.
Here is further proof that he meant the exclusive use of Scientists and why that was his case:
First, we assume that most scientists have given some thought to their religious beliefs. Second, we assume that these beliefs are informed in some way by their expert knowledge. These assumptions are not obviously correct, but I think they are plausible. Especially when you consider the fact that Nobel Prize winners, members of the Royal Academy of Sciences and members of the NAS are typically enormously intelligent people with a broad range of interests (rarely can someone make a foundational discovery of the sort needed to reach these heights if they are a narrow-minded specialist).
I’m incredibly curious to know which findings would present evidence for God’s existence and which would present evidence against it. I have a feeling that the same evidence which Jason might use to argue against the existence of God, I would use to argue for.
Brian,
Brilliant point!
It was strictly involving Scientists!
Nope. See, maybe it’s your turn to re-read something!!!
Jason’s original comment in fuller context:
That caveat aside, I would agree that scientists are not best qualified to make all of these arguments. Philosophers of various sorts might be best qualified to judge 1) and 2) and historians might be best qualified to judge 4) (although I think scientists might have something to say about the probability of miracles, although that too is a contentious topic).
Ideally, to determine the probability that God exists, I would suggest the following procedure:
1) Create an enormous dataset listing detailed biographical information of every person working in any of the above fields
2) Determine how their beliefs about God and about specific questions relating both to God’s existence and their field of expertise change as they acquire expertise in their field, controlling for any peer effects (there are ways to do this)
OK?
And below is where he mentions evaluating experts responses around the truth of specific arguments (it is implied that those specific arguments relate to their field of study):
3) Use the results in 2) to evaluate the effect of expertise on people’s beliefs about the truth of SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS
4) Use the results in 2) to evaluate the the effect of people’s beliefs on their general religious disposition
By Jason’s comment “working in any of the above fields”, we see that he was including not only scientists but also philosophers and historians.
By Jason’s comment “working in any of the above fields”
There are many fields in Science.
Also, as I’ve mentioned, based on his previous and recent response, it seemed more so that this was the case:
First, we assume that most scientists have given some thought to their religious beliefs. Second, we assume that these beliefs are informed in some way by their expert knowledge. These assumptions are not obviously correct, but I think they are plausible. Especially when you consider the fact that Nobel Prize winners, members of the Royal Academy of Sciences and members of the NAS are typically enormously intelligent people with a broad range of interests (rarely can someone make a foundational discovery of the sort needed to reach these heights if they are a narrow-minded specialist).
But, let’s say for the sake of argument, that that was the case —
Still, you CANNOT DENY that the purpose of his proposal still was meant to ideally, to determine the probability that God exists.
Thus, what Jason has been getting at directly contradicts what you stated:
“Clearly, no single argument, whether scientific, historical, moral, theological, etc. could prove or disprove God’s existence. Furthermore, even putting all such arguments together, we still cannot *prove* God’s existence or non-existence.
…
I *think* that’s what Jason has been getting at.”
correction —
But, let’s say for the sake of argument, that yours was the case —
But, let’s say for the sake of argument, that that was the case —
Interpretation: This is the closest I’ve ever seen Esau coming to admitting he was wrong. Lol.
Still, you CANNOT DENY that the purpose of his proposal still was meant to ideally, to determine the probability that God exists.
I do not deny that. Determining the probability of something is not the same as proving it. Isn’t that what you do when you read various arguments for or against God’s existence? You recognize that you can’t prove God’s existence, but you conclude based upon the arguments and available evidence that the probability is sufficiently high to allow you make a leap of faith?
And your ellipsis in my quote puts it out context, just as you removed context from Jason’s original to make your point.
My original context:
is there value in arguments about God’s existence? If there is value, then we need to decide who’s qualified to analyze those arguments.
I *think* that’s what Jason has been getting at.
You recognize that you can’t prove God’s existence, but you conclude based upon the arguments and available evidence that the probability is sufficiently high to allow you make a leap of faith?
But that’s just it —
Let’s say we do obtain such a compilation of opinions that run the gamut from historian to philosopher to scientist —
Does such a compilation even go to provide actual data for even the sake of probability?
I beg to differ on the basis that even when it comes to certain cases entailing the cooperation of persons from various fields for even matters touching on questions of mere probability; that there is substantial data that is collected first-hand which directly bear on the subject matter being investigated.
Here, on the other hand, you will merely end up with a compilation of opinions than anything else for reasons I’ve mentioned previously.
that there is substantial data that is collected first-hand which directly bear on the subject matter being investigated.
If I understand you correctly, I think we are in agreement on this point.
The experiment I have in mind (which is not quite what Jason proposed) is as follows:
1.) Collect a set of specific arguments for God’s existence.
2.) For each argument A(i):
a.) Determine a set of people who are experts in the subject matter of the argument.
b.) For each expert A(i)(j):
i.) Analyze the argument personally — collect data, conduct experiments, perform research, etc. (whatever is appropriate to the field and the question)
ii.) Return a conclusion regarding that argument.
c.) Average the conclusions from each expert, probably weighting the average according to their subject-matter expertise
3.) Average the conclusions across all arguments.
Of course, none of this will prove anything. But it would certainly be an interesting exercise in assessing the arguments for God’s existence. I don’t maintain (like Jason does) that this exercise favors atheism; the results may well favor theism.
I think the misunderstanding that still remains is your phrase:
compilation of opinions
Whereas I interpreted Jason’s approach to include detailed study (collecting data, performing experiments or research, etc.) on the part of each expert when assessing a specific argument.
You object to soliciting mere opinions, and I agree with you.
The indenting I attempted didn’t work. Testing:
Second attempt:
Given the pseudo-code above, why should theists think that procedure would be biased against them?
I think it’s a reasonable approach, and the result may well be favorable for theism.
Still, as I’ve said before, it won’t *prove* anything.
Smoky,
I like the framework you’ve set up here.
I am more amenable to this — though there are some reservations I do have concerning some aspects of it — but that’s only because of the nature of the subject.
I’ll look over your proposal here with even greater scrutiny once I’ve had the time and, after so doing, perhaps provide further comments.
Of course, none of this will prove anything. But it would certainly be an interesting exercise in assessing the arguments for God’s existence. I don’t maintain (like Jason does) that this exercise favors atheism; the results may well favor theism.
Agree with you completely on all accounts!
All in all, the results would be interesting regardless!
Amongst many other things, it could also serve as an indicator of humanity’s progress in his (her) current understanding of ‘God’ and our present world as well as how far we’ve come.
“Without contrast, there is no progression.”
As a Roman Catholic who believes that Christ actually established a Church built on a solid foundation (ROCK), I could accept no other authority ( a set of people who are experts in the subject matter of the argument) in areas of ethics and morals, except for Cardinals Bishops of the same Catholic Church.
Furthermore, to be more precise, I would choose an even more refined group of experts, namely those Bishops who hold office on the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Thes would…”Analyze the argument personally — collect data, conduct experiments, perform research, etc. (whatever is appropriate to the field and the question)”, AND
“Return a conclusion regarding that argument.”
And included would need to be a ‘chief’ who might be able to resolve any doubts, incase the “conclusion” wasn’t unanimous. And this Chief Cardinal, elected by other cardinals to be ‘first among equals’ is the Catholic Pope.
With this authority, I could be confident, because it is the foundation/sytem, which Jesus Christ instituted EXACTLY FOR this purpose…when there are moral and ethical dilemmas that mankind needs resolving!
So it is the Lord Jesus Christ who intituted this very means to resolve such disputes, and it has worked in exemplary fashion, as He promised it would, for about 1975 years, so far!
A. Williams,
Thanks for the input; however, do you think your selection of experts would be compelling to non-Catholics?
Clearly, attention to bias in the selection of the experts in step 2.1 above needs to be addressed.
I will make an informed guess – and Jason and others may want to investigate it for themselves – that there is no more philosophically rigorous and internally consistent religion than Catholic Christianity.
Fashions of philosophical thought come and go, but the Magisterium has been at this for 2000 years.
Smoky,
I haven’t had much time to truly put your framework to much scrutiny given the current project I’ve been working on at work at this very moment, which seems to have become top priority.
However, I had the same thought as you did with respect to A. Williams’ concern — i.e., that of introducing bias.
Yet, this brings me back to aspects of the subject matter which I had mentioned earlier:
To put it more clearly (if that’s even possible without sacrificing information from my side), I remember an experiment that we were conducting where we thought that the introduction of one group may prove to bias the entire experiment.
However, just because that one group represented an obvious bias in and of themselves — not having that group present in the experiment would have actually biased the entire experiment itself where the results of which could bias it in an entirely different fashion.
What I’m attempting to say is that the concerns that A. Williams have brought up are actually valid in representing a group which may account for some probability of ‘God’ in this aspect of it.
While I might be able to draw more specific examples from our experiment then and explain this more elaborately; I’ll just end it here and let you chew on this bit for awhile.
In other words, work calls at the moment!
…I guess not.
I think thats why there are different Churches?
Aren’t the leaders claiming to be experts of some kind?
What I was saying is that I could be pursuaded, in DEFINITIVE moral and ethical argumentation, by nothing less than experts of a Catholic type, since it is only the miraculous guarantee of Christ, which protects the judgement from error. ie..”Infallability”.
“The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”..is the precise promise that Jesus made. And this word from the mouth of Jesus, I believe, is the ONLY authority we can rely on in the case of “FAITH and MORALS”.
If Jesus taught such things as the following quotes…who am I to think that I, or anyone else knows better? Why include non-disciples of Christ to vote on and try to resolve mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven?? Or, does not the nature of truth and morals pertain to this very same Kingdom that Christ is talking about?:
” Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.”
Matthew 13:11
and,
“And he said to them: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables:”
Mark 4:11
and,
” To whom he said: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to the rest in parables, that seeing they may not see, and hearing may not understand.”
Luke 8:10
“A. Williams,
Thanks for the input; however, do you think your selection of experts would be compelling to non-Catholics?”
My argument above was in response to this question.
Smoky,
By the way, you do know that there are several priests who are actually Scientists, don’t you?
Link:
The 400th Anniversary of the Foundation of the PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Excerpt:
HISTORY OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is international in scope, multi-racial in composition, and non-sectarian in its choice of members. The work of the Academy comprises six major areas: Fundamental science; Science and technology of global problems; Science for the problems of the Third World; Scientific policy; Bioethics; Epistemology.
Further, I believe you should take a look at the list of Catholic Scientists throughout history:
Link:
List Catholic Scientists
Also, Jimmy Akin had a post on a particular cleric who is also a Scientist:
Link:
JIMMY AKIN.ORG: “Vell, He’s Just Zis Guy, You Know?”
Just to note, not that there was anything wrong with your assertion, but that including clerics into the mix may be an inescapable fact due to many priests who are actually scientists.
Awhile back, I had just watched a short segment about a priest (a physicist) who was attempting to describe his current project from the observatory he was working.
What I’m attempting to say is that the concerns that A. Williams have brought up are actually valid in representing a group which may account for some probability of ‘God’ in this aspect of it.
I think you’re saying that theists (or more specifically Catholic theologians, or even Bishops) out to be fairly represented in the pool of experts, correct?
I definitely see your point. I don’t have the expertise to know how to eliminate the obvious problem of bias. Perhaps we simply need to represent various belief systems evenly among the experts to smooth out bias. I don’t know.
But employing *only* Catholic Bishops as experts in the question of God’s existence would seem like begging the question to me, and be unlikely to convince any non-Catholic–
Q: Why is Catholicism true?
A: Because the Catholic Church says so.
Do you see the problem, A. Williams? For a non-believer (at least one of my sort) to believe, I would think something external to the Church would need to point him to the Church.
Ok, I’m going to try to sum up a lot arguments. I think everyone is closer than we realize. I apologize if i misrepresent anyone – just correct me if I do.
Jason proposed that we should get a large team of experts from varied disciplines to examine the question of whether or not God exists.
Smoky has clarified that the point isn’t to get their “opinions” but to use their expertise to properly analyze all the data collected.
Esau has questioned how all of this research could possibly directly test for God – in the end all we’d have is people’s interpretation of what the results mean but no way to test the validity of those interpretations.
If I’ve summarized Esau’s position correctly, I think I’m in his boat. Let’s look at the scientists part in this since science is arguably the most verifiable of all the fields in question and Jason has proposed some questions that the scientists would be able to answer.
I’m all for doing this. I think the more knowledge we have the better. My question is where does it get us? Hypothetically speaking, let’s say science can show without a doubt that man evolved out of lesser creatures and that his consciousness and morals are also a result of this evolution. Let’s also say that science unlocks the secrets of the creation of the universe and all space and time. My interpretation of these discoveries would be, “Glory to God!” We would know the very processes by which God created the universe in general and man in specific. It would be like looking into the mind of God. We’d have proof that God used evolution to hardwire morals into us so that all humans would know the truth. Naturally, my analysis of the data would be much different from Jason’s.
All of these studies are good – it’s always good to know the truth – but they don’t erase the gap which can only be crossed by faith. We’ve had science and philosophy and history for hundreds and even thousands of years and they haven’t proven or disproved the existence of God. Some people will look at the evidence and believe in God, others won’t.
(Personally I’m with A. Williams. When it comes to believing or disbelieving in God my expert authority is the Catholic Church. Before I turned to her I had no faith)
Smoky,
I think you’re saying that theists (or more specifically Catholic theologians, or even Bishops) out to be fairly represented in the pool of experts, correct?
Exact-a-mundo!
I definitely see your point. I don’t have the expertise to know how to eliminate the obvious problem of bias. Perhaps we simply need to represent various belief systems evenly among the experts to smooth out bias. I don’t know.
Agreed — this is a little tricky.
While I’m aware of some sampling techniques that may resolve the issue, I think you might have better luck in dealing with this aspect of your study than I would.
In the experiment I cited, I actually had to rely on an expert statistician.
“I would think something external to the Church would need to point him to the Church.”
Smokey,
Do you really think that non-believers cannot be persuaded by hearing the teachings and words of Christ, that He, as a teacher is not capable of convincing NON-BELIEVERS? This is what you seem to be implying, that it is pagans who should authoritatively point to the validity of the disciples of Christ, the Church.
And furthermore, I would think that to rely on a non-believer to teach the deeply spiritual teachings about eternal life, true virtues and morals, is kind of like, inviting a wolf to guard the chicken coop.
The above quotes of Jesus Christ are sufficient to answer ALL of your questions! Again…please read:
” To whom he said: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to the rest in parables, that seeing they may not see, and hearing may not understand.”
Luke 8:10
Do you understand what Christ is teaching Christians here??
It is to HIS FOLLOWERS who are given to know the MYSTERIES OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD!
With all of this crazy talk about taking Pagan polls on “what the mysteries of the Kingdom of God/Morals/ethics are, or are not…and voting on them…nothing will be gained but a pagan teaching on what the real essence of God and Christianity are.
The point is, that Christians believe that CHRIST taught about God, and that ONLY Christ has authority, as the Son of God. The Church only remains faithful to TRANSMITTING that teaching.
In the above quotes Jesus seems to be very content to have the world converted HIS WAY. It’s part of HIS TEACHING.
If He wanted it another way he might have written all of His instructions down in a 100 yard scroll and included some miracle buttons for the unbelievers! Then they could press the buttons and watch the Sun go dark for a second, or flowers sprout and bloom all around them..(and still they wouldn’t believe!)
No. GOD chose to found a body of people, a family, to teach His love to the world. And the great symbol of love is NOT a LOGICAL ARGUMENT!! It is NOT a philosophy! it is a PROOF OF LOVE seen in the Sacrifice of JESUS CHRIST on the HOLY CROSS.
And with all this other Baloney…it’s why St. Paul needed to say:
“And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not in loftiness of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of Christ. 2 For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in shewing of the Spirit and power; 5 That your faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.”
True teaching ONLY comes from Christ, regardless of what other non-believers think, strategize, teach or conjure up:
“For I say to you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them; and to hear the things that you hear, and have not heard them.”
So too, it is the HOLY SPIRIT that gives the power to convince:
“And you shall be brought before governors, and before kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles: 19 But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. 20 For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you. ”
Matt. 10:18
Anyone want to take a poll on this last saying??
Esau has questioned how all of this research could possibly directly test for God – in the end all we’d have is people’s interpretation of what the results mean but no way to test the validity of those interpretations.
If I’ve summarized Esau’s position correctly, I think I’m in his boat. Let’s look at the scientists part in this since science is arguably the most verifiable of all the fields in question and Jason has proposed some questions that the scientists would be able to answer.
I’m all for doing this. I think the more knowledge we have the better. My question is where does it get us?
Brian,
You have it in a nutshell.
Even with Smoky’s test — which I’m glad he has, at least, acknowledged — that is, none of this will prove anything; which I had been saying all along in terms of even Jason’s proposal.
However, Smoky’s proposal seeks a different objective, which he has rightly said: it would certainly be an interesting exercise in assessing the arguments for God’s existence.
However, Smoky’s proposal seeks a different objective, which he has rightly said: it would certainly be an interesting exercise in assessing the arguments for God’s existence.
I would be all for such an exercise. I like knowledge for knowledge’s sake.
To be honest, I think if we really wanted to do this right we’re going about it all backwards. Scientists and historians study the empirical world, they are not experts concerning a question which lies outside of empirical data. Wouldn’t it be better to assemble a team of experts in philosophy, metaphysics, ontology, and theology, etc. (I know there’s a lot of overlap in there) and have them consult scientists and historians, etc. so they can factor the best empirical evidence we have to offer into their analysis. But the experts in empirical arts should not be the ones doing the final analysis.
The way this is currently set up is equivalent to handing a team of philosphers all the raw data we have concerning global warming and asking them to interpret if it’s occurring and what’s causing it if it is?
Scientists and historians study the empirical world, they are not experts concerning a question which lies outside of empirical data.
Brian,
This is precisely what I was saying all along in my other comments regarding the limitations of our human knowledge and how it will not actually make a difference on how we test for the existence of God since we cannot really formulate such a test given our finite abilities.
I only briefly scanned the exchange since I last posted – but I think my buddy Smokey has presented a much more accurate version of my argument (we’re still on for table tennis this Saturday, right?).
At any rate, let me respond to a point made by Tim J. above:
I think this is a very good point, which underscores something I have mentioned several times but not emphasized until now: the survey would not be conclusive because we must interpret its results in light of our background philosophical judgments. Nonetheless, we can use the same proposed methods to inform those background judgments.
You raise an antecedent question to assessing the probability of Jesus’s resurrection: what prior probability should we assign to reports of miracles – or put differently, how much evidence would be required for us to accept a reported miracle as the most reasonable explanation? Let me make two points about this:
1) This question can be investigated using the methodology I have proposed. We could ask scientists, philosophers (especially epistemologists) and people who investigate reports of miracles for a living to choose between several different scenarios which attempt to gauge the evidentiary burden they believe reports of miracles must meet to be believable. As always, we would note the change in their beliefs as they acquired knowledge – this would be especially important for the last group mentioned, where many members will clearly enter the field due to a vested interest, be it skeptical or religious. We might still disagree about whether scientists, philosophers or the miracle investigators are most qualified to answer that question – we can try to sort out the weighting we should give to these groups through argument, but the weighting might be irrelevant – maybe we would find the same trend in all three cases.
2) Let me now try to directly engage with this question. I would argue that we should be EXTREMELY skeptical of any reported miracle and set an EXTREMELY high evidentiary bar before we believe it. The reason is: every past report of a miracle that can be investigated has been proven fradulent. This need not be the way things are: there could easily be medical miracles which truly have no natural explanation (i.e. amputated limbs growing back or eyes which have been gouged out reappearing), video-taped evidence of the Virgin Mary appearing to believers, elephants floating through the air or anything else which simply defies natural explanation. But this never happens. Reported miracles are always either explainable through natural causes or impossible to verify.
As I wrote in a previous post:
We know how credulous people are and how easy they are to fool (ask any magician). We have absolutely no evidence of any violation of the natural order ever despite the many possible violations that would yield conclusive evidence, only a few of which I listed above.
Given this, what kind of evidence would be sufficient for me to believe the miracles attributed to Jesus? Perhaps if we found multiple, confirmably independent first-hand accounts from eye-witnesses all of whom agreed about very specific details of the event. Barring that, 2000 year old reports of miracles enter the dustbin of history with the thousands of other such reports chronicled through the ages with insufficient evidence to support them, and the millions of unsubstantiated reports we hear daily from around the world, suspiciously from the most credulous individuals.
And how long have Hinduism and Buddhism been around?
Yikes, I knew I should’ve finished my thought last night. I didn’t plow through all of today’s.
Jason, I left off saying I thought your premise of “situational view” to be flawed. While there is a grain of truth, the essential question is whether there is an objective truth or if everything is relative, that is no objective truth. That’s such a huge foundational question that I’ll repeat it – Is there, bottom line, an objective truth whose essence remains the same always and everywhere, of which we see partially to the extent we are able. Or is there only relativism?
Moving on to your comment today
1) The appearance of design in the biological world and whether it is adequately explained by evolutionary biology
2) The origin of the universe and the nature of space and time
3) The nature of consciousness and whether it could have evolved
4) The origin of moral principles and whether they can be fully accounted for by evolutionary biology
Your starting point is the physical world. btw, I agree with Jonathan’s comment above, especially that you’re using the wrong tool for the job. Like trying to eat chicken soup with a tea strainer. But I’ll go with the physical world first.
But I am not saying that every believer subscribes… – for those who don’t, I would argue that they should… I realize that you will dispute whether scientists have special knowledge about some of the above phenomena… If you do, please give an argument as to why you believe the phenomena in question is beyond the reach of science.
My first reaction was, “What does it say about your construct of God that believers have to or “should” have such advanced knowledge, accessible to so few?”
On second look, your question reminds me that we used to joke that the essay section of a final would include two questions appropriate for the course and c) explain the universe in 25 words or less.
This is getting long, so I probably should go to Part 2.
Jason, ten seconds apart on posting, good timing. You’re going faster than
every past report of a miracle that can be investigated has been proven fradulent.
This is flat out untrue. It’s a bit unwise to make such a statement that can’t be substantiated. Besides, the bar of skepticism and being HIGHLY evidentiary has already been set by the Catholic Church which requires medical documentation.
Now I’ve completely lost my original train of thought. I think I’ll just leave it there for tonight. The real world is impinging on my cyber time.
Reported miracles are always either explainable through natural causes or impossible to verify.
Umm… yeah, that’s the definition of a miracle. If you could verify that a miracle was a miracle it would no longer be a miracle – in proving it we would reveal the natural explanation for it. We can either prove that an allegedly miraculous occurrence has natural causes, or we can conclude that we cannot explain it through empirical evidence. (Hey come to think of it, this is kind of the same reason why God can’t be proven through empirical evidence)
The Catholic Church requires evidence of miracles during the canonization process for saints. Miraculous claims are rigorously tested to make sure that there is no other explanation for them. Does anyone know if the results are publicly available?
The reason is: every past report of a miracle that can be investigated has been proven fradulent.
Is that actually true — that EVERY miracle that can be investigated has actually been proven fraudulent?
Are you sure about that?
Have you even investigated ALL such reported miracles?
Have you even read the medical reports stemming from the incident at Lourdes way back when concerning the water at Lourdes?
I, myself, am often the first to ridicule current supposed citings of the Virgin Mary in my oatmeal or in a tortilla; but things that have been verified to a more stringent degree as this are particularly worth noting.
Do you even know the level of inquiry that occurs when the Vatican investigates reports of miracles and the Scientists who examine the evidence?
The whole notion of ‘Devil’s Advocate’ is one that actually originated from this whole process, which is also the case when investigating the Cause for Saints!
Reported miracles are always either explainable through natural causes or impossible to verify.
And those miracles which are of the latter, you would simply dismiss them as being miracles since they’re impossible to verify?
Excuse me, but what do you think is a miracle, then?
If a miracle was a phenomenon that can be easily explained in the natural sense, it wouldn’t be a miracle to begin with!
Therefore, your dismissal of such events as being miracles is simply prejudicial to the very cause of the investigation!
We know how credulous people are and how easy they are to fool (ask any magician).
But not to the extent whereupon the entire civilized world rests as a consequence of such credulity!
Do you even know that Western Civilization as we know it is the result of Christianity and, in particular, the Catholic Church?
The very method of theological inquiry in ages past is the same mindset that had been adapted to certain methods of current-day scientific inquiry.
People are easily fooled — yes.
But, here, you neglect that those who are the greatest minds of humanity happen to also be Christians as well and, in particular, Catholics!
Would you consider Copernicus a fool?
How about Foucault? Kircher? Pasteur?
You seem to easily dismiss such folks who are believers as some sort of ignorant fools.
Yet, I can assure you that the minds of the following persons is one you will never equal!
SOME CATHOLIC SCIENTISTS
1. Algue, a priest, invented the barocyclonometer, to detect approach of cyclones.
2 Ampere was founder of the science of electrodynamics, and investigator of the laws of electro-magnetism.
3. Becquerel, Antoine Cesar, was the founder of electro-chemistry.
4. Becquerel, Antoine Henri, was the discoverer of radio-activity.
5. Binet, mathematician and astronomer, set forth the principle, “Binet’s Theorem.”
6. Braille invented the Braille system for the blind.
7. Buffon wrote the first work on natural history.
8. Carrell, Nobel prize winner in medicine and physiology, is renowned for his work in surgical technique.
9. Caesalpinus, a Papal physician, was the first to construct a system of botany.
10. Cassiodorus, a priest, invented the watch.
11. Columbo discovered the pulmonary circulation of the blood.
12. Copernicus, a priest, expounded the Copernican system.
13. Coulomb established the fundamental laws of static electricity.
14. De Chauliac, a Papal physician, was the father of modern surgery and hospitals.
15. De Vico, a priest, discovered six comets.
16. Descartes founded analytical geometry.
17. Dumas invented a method of ascertaining vapor densities.
18. Endlicher, botanist and historian, established a new system of classifying plants.
19. Eustachius, for whom the Eustachian tube was named, was one of the founders of modern anatomy.
20. Fabricius discovered the valvular system of the veins.
21. Fallopius, for whom the Fallopian tube was named, was an eminent physiologist.
22. Fizeau was the first to determine experimentally the velocity of light.
23. Foucault invented the first practical electric arc lamp; he refuted the corpuscular theory of light; he invented the gyroscope.
24. Fraunhofer was initiator of spectrum analysis; he established laws of diffraction.
25. Fresnel contributed more to the science of optics than any other man.
26. Galilei, a great astronomer, is the father of experimental science.
27. Galvani, one of the pioneers of electricity, was also an anatomist and physiologist.
28. Gioja, father of scientific navigation, invented the mariner’s compass.
29. Gramme invented the Gramme dynamo.
30. Guttenberg invented printing.
31. Herzog discovered a cure for infantile paralysis.
32. Holland invented the first practical sub marine.
33. Kircher, a priest, made the first definite statement of the germ theory of disease.
34. Laennec invented the stethoscope.
35. Lancist, a Papal physician, was the father of clinical medicine. Latreille was pioneer in entomology.
36. Lavoisier is called Father of Modern Chemistry.
37. Leverrier discovered the planet Neptune.
38. Lully is said to have been the first to employ chemical symbols.
39. Malpighi, a Papal physician, was a botanist, and the father of comparative physiology.
40. Marconi’s place in radio is unsurpassed.
41. Mariotte discovered Mariotte’s law of gases.
42. Mendel, a monk, first established the laws of heredity, which gave the final blow to the theory of natural selection.
43. Morgagni, founder of modern pathology; made important studies in aneurisms.
44. Muller was the greatest biologist of the 19th century, founder of modern physiology.
45. Pashcal demonstrated practically that a column of air has weight.
46. Pasteur, called the “Father of Bacteriology,” and inventor of bio-therapeutics, was the leading scientist of the 19th century.
47. Picard, a priest, was the first to measure accurately a degree of the meridian.
48. Regiomontanus, a Bishop and Papal astronomer; was the father of modern astronomy.
49. Scheiner, a priest, invented the pantograph, and made a telescope that permitted the first systematic investigation of sun spots.
50. Secchi invented the meteorograph. Steensen, a Bishop, was the father of geology.
51. Theodoric, a Bishop, discovered anesthesia in the 13th century.
52. Torricelli invented the barometer.
53. Vesalius was the founder of modern anatomical science.
54. Volta invented the first; complete galvanic battery; the “volt” is named after him.
Other scientists: Agricola, Albertus Magnus, Bacon, Bartholomeus, Bayma, Beccaria, Behalm, Bernard, Biondo, Biot, Bolzano, Borrus, Boscovitch, Bosio, Bourgeois, Branly, Caldani, Cambou, Camel, Cardan, Carnoy, Cassini, Cauchy, Cavaliere, Caxton, Champollion, Chevreul, Clavius, De Rossi, Divisch, Dulong, Dwight, Eckhel, Epee, Fabre, Fabri, Faye, Ferrari, Gassendi, Gay-Lussac, Gordon, Grimaldi, Hauy, Heis, Helmont, Hengler, Heude, Hilgard, Jussieu, Kelly, Lamarck, Laplace, Linacre, Malus, Mersenne, Monge, Muller, Murphy, Murray, Nelston, Nieuwland, Nobili, Nollet, Ortelius, Ozaman, Pelouze, Piazzi, Pitra, Plumier, Pouget, Provancher, Regnault, Riccioli, Sahagun, Santorini, Schwann, Schwarz, Secchi, Semmelweis, Spallanzani, Takamine, Tieffentaller, Toscanelli, Tulasne, Valentine, Vernier, Vieta, Da Vinci, Waldseemuller, Wincklemann, Windle, and a host of others, too many to mention.
The Catholic Church requires evidence of miracles during the canonization process for saints. Miraculous claims are rigorously tested to make sure that there is no other explanation for them. Does anyone know if the results are publicly available?
“Rigorously tested”… http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/007911.php
Crud — I knew the list wasn’t sufficiently de-limited; thus, the numbering is off yet again!
Jason –
Yes Hinduism and Buddhism have been around a long time. I studied them to some extent. They are both much more fragmented in their beliefs and traditions (greatly modified by local lore and practice) and lack anything like the rigorous philosophical underpinnings of Catholic Christianity. Study them for yourself, if you doubt it.
That’s true but irrelevant. The question is whether it is reasonable to believe that God exists. The whole world could also be wrong in thinking that the sun is bigger than the earth, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t reasonable to believe that the sun is bigger than the earth.
Brian – it seems to me that the reason you believe in the Christian God is because of your assessment of the historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection, perhaps in light of your assessment of the prior probability of miracles. Don’t you think that other people have thought about these questions more seriously than you have? Wouldn’t we be more likely to get a good answer by asking them (and controlling for their biases) than by relying on our own deeply fallible judgments? And if so, why would you continue to be a Christian if we did “ask the experts” and found that they were not convinced by the reasons you claim as the foundation of your faith (I’m only going based on your comment above about the historical evidence – if there are other reasons you believe, please state them).
I don’t see at all why this is true. I offered some examples above. Suppose that a man was being treated in a hospital. His arm was amputated. It grew right back, bone and all. This would be a miracle. Suppose during a white house press conference with many video cameras present, the virgin mary made an appearance, floated downward, looked glorious and then disappeared, all caught on tape. This would be a miracle. I could go on, but I think the point is clear – just because something is a violation of the natural order does not mean that one can’t provide highly compelling evidence that it took place.
Mary Kay, I think I’m going to need a clarification before I can answer this. What is the difference between a world where there is objective truth and a world where everything is relative? I’m not arguing here that “everything is relative”, I’m just trying to clarify exactly what you mean. When I say, “What is the difference?”, I mean that literally – given your understanding of objective truth, how would the world be different, either physically or in terms of our subjective experience of it if there were no objective truth?
This is an interesting question – I recognize that on the Christian view God makes himself known to those who are willing to accept him. This is possible. Yet, how are we to evaluate whether or not this view is true? That is the question I am asking. An alternative view is: what you believe is your sense of God making himself known to you is actually just a feeling produced by your brain with no external source. How can we distinguish between these two views? There are two ways that I can see: first, we can try to assess the degree to which sensations of this kind are reliable indicators of truth in other domains when they can actually be tested. Second, we can try to evaluate the other consequences of the “external source” hypothesis against the alternative “no external source” hypothesis for how the world should be. It seems to me that both of these inevitably involve deferral to experts. This is not a paradox – if the God view is correct, your apparent perception of God and that of anyone else no matter how uneducated would be a real one. You could have an intimate relationship with God through this channel; you just could not claim that you were justified in believing that God exists without engaging with the intellectual arguments.
I would ask you a parallel question – what does it say about your construct of God that the evidence for him is so obscure? By obscure, I mean it would be quite easy for God to convince every atheist in the world that he exists – why doesn’t he? I realize theologians have addressed this question at length and attempted many answers – I want to hear which of them you find convincing.
I don’t have time to engage with this point fully right now, but I’d only point out that it’s a bit suspect that no non-Catholics are convinced by this evidence. That’s not how evidence works. Evidence convinces people who are presented with it and understand it – not just people with a particular worldview. Consider again my example of the amputee whose arm grew back or the video tape of the Virgin Mary appearing. These would be irrefutable evidence that would convince every atheist in the world that something was up, and in the second case, would convince every atheist in the world to convert to Christianity.
As Mary Kay pointed out, the number of posts here is getting difficult to keep up with. I apologize if I ignore one of your points – this is not intentional. Please repeat any arguments you think I need to address but haven’t and I’m sure I’ll get around to them eventually.
Esau, I should have been clearer here – this refers specifically to eye witness accounts of miracles (like those Jesus allegedly performed and others). However, the scientists you note are certainly not immune to deception and neither am I.
the video tape of the Virgin Mary appearing… would convince every atheist in the world to convert to Christianity.
Not any atheist I know would be convinced by that.
Melanie,
I’m not just saying any video tape of an amorphous white light that could be glare from the lens or could be the virgin mary. I was alluding to the scenario I posed above, when many video cameras simultaneously capture an image of an angelic figure floating down from the sky, the figure is observed by multiple eye witnesses and then disappears into thin air. If you don’t know any atheists who would be convinced by that, you should get to know more atheists.
I’ve stated one example among many possibilities that would convince me to convert immediately to Christianity. What would convince you that God doesn’t exist?
I was alluding to the scenario I posed above, when many video cameras simultaneously capture an image of an angelic figure floating down from the sky, the figure is observed by multiple eye witnesses and then disappears into thin air.
Contrary to your claim, that would not convince every atheist in the world to convert to Christianity. Perhaps you should get out and meet more atheists. You sound rather naive.
The question is whether it is reasonable to believe that God exists. The whole world could also be wrong in thinking that the sun is bigger than the earth, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t reasonable to believe that the sun is bigger than the earth.
The reason for my belief is reason. I’m a very logical rather emotional person. In fact I’m often skeptical of emotional displays of religion.
Brian – it seems to me that the reason you believe in the Christian God is because of your assessment of the historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection, perhaps in light of your assessment of the prior probability of miracles. Don’t you think that other people have thought about these questions more seriously than you have? Wouldn’t we be more likely to get a good answer by asking them (and controlling for their biases) than by relying on our own deeply fallible judgments? And if so, why would you continue to be a Christian if we did “ask the experts” and found that they were not convinced by the reasons you claim as the foundation of your faith (I’m only going based on your comment above about the historical evidence – if there are other reasons you believe, please state them).
In general, I’m not a miracle person. I know this might be hard to understand from your perspective, but the reason I have faith is God is because I realized I was fallible. I realized I didn’t know anything, that my reasons for not believing in God were just my own uneducated opinions. It wasn’t until I went to the experts and trusted in their findings that I had faith. If your experts can, for example, prove that humans don’t all share one common ancestor and that the resurrection never happened that would undermine my faith.
Suppose that a man was being treated in a hospital. His arm was amputated. It grew right back, bone and all. This would be a miracle. Suppose during a white house press conference with many video cameras present, the virgin mary made an appearance, floated downward, looked glorious and then disappeared, all caught on tape. This would be a miracle. I could go on, but I think the point is clear – just because something is a violation of the natural order does not mean that one can’t provide highly compelling evidence that it took place.
I’m naturally skeptical of most miracles, it’s safer that way and they don’t really have an effect on my faith. I’ll believe in God whether someone was cured of cancer by a miracle or by modern medicine. Let’s say someone’s arm grew back while being monitored by doctors or an apparition of Mary was videotaped. Given the evidence we can reasonable demonstrate that these events occurred. And if we discovered that they had natural explanations we could rule them out as miracles. But we can’t prove that that they’re miracles. At best we can say that we can’t yet explain them by natural means – but there’s no way to verify them as miracles. If you don’t mind me turning the tables on you, pretend that those really happened and prove that such events are miracles. I say the most reasonable explanation is that they’re hoaxes we haven’t figured out yet.
Regardless, you did not answer my question: what would convince you that God does not exist? (I’d be quite curious to hear what how others would answer this question as well).
Do you mean a common human ancestor or some kind of primitive bacterium?
I would agree with this up to a point. We know what sorts of hoaxes are possible given our current technological level – it would be rather difficult for someone to “fake” the sky turning pitch black in the middle of the day, a bright light appearing and a booming voice coming from the heavens all around the world (to take just one example). I agree that one hypothesis we couldn’t rule out is that some sufficiently advanced alien civilization was trying to fool us.
I can imagine even more impressive demonstrations of power. Suppose a voice in my head told me things I could not possibly know – “Jason, this is God, here is a proof of a sophisticated mathematical theorem in a field you’ve never even heard of and something you have thought recently that only you would know. Please convert to Christianity and evangelize for me.” I’d find it difficult to believe that aliens with this kind of power would find it worthwhile to try to deceive me in this way. This gets back to the distinction I keep drawing between what is logically possible and what is reasonable to believe. I could not rule out the possibility of an advanced alien civilization, but I would consider God’s existence more likely because I find it difficult to imagine why a being of such power would bother with deception.
Do you mean a common human ancestor or some kind of primitive bacterium?
Common human ancestor
So if the arm growing back under observation and Mary on video happened, would I be demonstrating more faith if I believed there was some natural explanation that all the researchers missed or if I believed they were miracles?
I believe in God because I believe in absolute truth. I believe that truth cannot contradict itself. Science and religion complement each other. My religious beliefs have nothing to fear from good science and my scientific beliefs have nothing to fear from good religion. After all, it’s the Christian belief in a rational God who created a rational world which helped lay the foundation for the natural sciences.
Just out of curiousity what do you think would seal the deal and demonstrate to a reasonable degree that God does not exist?
what would convince you that God does not exist?
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'”
This is my fault, but I realized I’m going to need you to clarify a bit more. It is likely that I will be a common ancestor to everyone living in the year 5000 AD. The same will be true of you and most other people currently living who happen to procreate. It is likely that the most recent common ancestor of all human beings lived around 3000 years ago, perhaps even more recently – this is just a consequence of the mathematics of population genetics. Here are two articles that explain things more clearly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040930122428.htm
I think you may have had in mind a more Adam and Eve type story (correct me if I’m wrong). So the idea here would be: everyone currently living is uniquely descended from 2 individuals who lived between five and six thousand years ago and NOT descended from any other creatures who lived before except through those two individuals (a bottleneck in the language of population genetics). Is that what you mean?
Would it also conflict with your view if humans and chimpanzees, birds, fish, insects and bacteria all shared a common ancestor? (I realize you may have intentionally stated things so that it would not).
(I’ll try to address your other claims tomorrow – for now, bed!)
Melanie, I don’t see how this answers my question. I didn’t ask you if you would convert in exchange for money or power. I asked you what would convince you that God does not exist (not logically prove this, just make it reasonably likely). A few posts ago you hinted that atheists were dogmatic because they would not be convinced by compelling evidence of miracles. I don’t think this is a fair characterization, but if you cannot name *anything* that would convince you that your beliefs are wrong, then I’m afraid it is you who are dogmatic.
I didn’t ask you if you would convert in exchange for money or power
Who said just money or power? The “kingdoms of the world and their splendor” include many splendid ideas/beliefs/delusions.
A few posts ago you hinted that atheists were dogmatic because they would not be convinced by compelling evidence of miracles. I don’t think this is a fair characterization
Yes, it’s not a fair characterization, as I didn’t say or hint that atheists would not be convinced by “compelling evidence of miracles.” I said a videotape (e.g. a videotape of an “angelic figure” floating down from the sky, observed by multiple eye witnesses) would not compel every atheist to convert to Christianity. Would it compel all the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. to convert to Christianity too? If so, why? If not, why would it compel all atheists to convert?
I would consider God’s existence more likely because I find it difficult to imagine why a being of such power would bother with deception.
So you’d convert to a religion which has the Devil, “ruler of the power of the air,” “the ruler of this world,” and God who “[sends] them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie”? Is that easier to imagine?
if you cannot name *anything* that would convince you that your beliefs are wrong, then I’m afraid it is you who are dogmatic.
You asked what it would take for me to buy into a “God does not exist” belief, and when I said I don’t find any need for a used car, you then ask what it would take for me to buy into a “my beliefs are wrong” belief. Still, I don’t find any need for a used car. Is that dogmatic? I don’t demand or even ask you to accept anything I might say without question.
I think you may have had in mind a more Adam and Eve type story (correct me if I’m wrong). So the idea here would be: everyone currently living is uniquely descended from 2 individuals who lived between five and six thousand years ago and NOT descended from any other creatures who lived before except through those two individuals (a bottleneck in the language of population genetics). Is that what you mean?
Would it also conflict with your view if humans and chimpanzees, birds, fish, insects and bacteria all shared a common ancestor? (I realize you may have intentionally stated things so that it would not).
Jason, I think you’ve got a skewed view of Christianity. We’re not fundamentalists or Bible literalists. My faith is that all humans with a rational soul who ever lived come from one first “Adam and Eve.” It doesn’t matter when that happened. Also I don’t need science to prove this to be true. I need science to not contradict it.
It also doesn’t matter if humans share a common ancestor with all living creatures. I believe in microevolution, if science ever proves that macroevolution is true I’ll believe it. More power to God if that’s the method he used to create all living things.
Again, what do you think would seal the deal and demonstrate to a reasonable degree that God does not exist? A round world didn’t do it, A heliocentric solar system didn’t do it, natural selection didn’t do it, the Big Bang didn’t do it. What do you think will?
Brian, I realize that not all Christians are fundamentalists who reject science. I was just trying to figure out which one you were. Again, to every poster here, I recognize that Christians come in all types and I can’t argue against all of them all at once. So instead of saying that I’ve misrepresented you, I’d appreciate it if you assumed I accurately represented someone else, then articulated why your view is different enough that I haven’t fully engaged with it.
I’m trying to figure out what exactly would contradict this belief by understanding what exactly it is that you believe. As I understand it, your claim is the “bottleneck” claim that I articulated above. There existed a man and a woman at some point in time from which all “rational” beings are descended, and any organisms that existed before those two are related to all currently living beings only through those two organisms. (I use the scare quotes around rational because I don’t think this is a binary all-or-nothing property as you imply). This is not an untestable claim as you seem to imply – it has implications about what we should observe here and now. Do you accept this?
I will offer a lengthier answer later today, but briefly. First, your question this time is slightly different than your question on the previous thread. Earlier, you asked what would seal the deal for my non-belief. In that case, I would say that I am already reasonably confident I am correct because I find all of the arguments for theism uncompelling, some of the arguments against it (like the problem of evil) very compelling, and feel that my view is supported by the sociological surveys I have seen.
Nonetheless, there are many things that could make me even more confident. I’ll just list them and we can argue them one by one:
1) I expect that in 20-30 years, homosexuality will be widely accepted and those who think it is wrong will be viewed as bigots, as with those who opposed civil rights in the 60s. This will increase my confidence in my views.
2) If religious belief continues to erode among the well-educated, so that in 30 years America looks something like Western Europe today.
3) If scientists developed an artificial life-form that passed the Turing Test or some other test of subjective consciousness.
4) If scientists developed and tested a theory of consciousness (this is related to 3).
5) If scientists developed a unified theory which explained why the universe necessarily must have the particular laws it does (not sure this one will ever happen).
6) If we were to uncover historical evidence that cast further doubt on the stories of the world’s major religions (this might just not exist, but if it did, it would strengthen my views). To take an extreme and fanciful case for purposes of illustration, if we uncovered a gospel written by Jesus dated to the right time in which he complained about being misunderstood as claiming that he was the messiah.
Fashions of philosophical thought come and go, but the Magisterium has been at this for 2000 years.
And how long have Hinduism and Buddhism been around?
Do Hinduism and Buddhism have Magisteriums? The term Magisterium refers to a continuously existing organization with teaching authority. The Catholic Church has had one for two-thousand years. What other faith can make such a claim?
Melanie, I still think you are evading my question. Let me put the point as starkly as I possibly can. I am defining “the God of Einstein and Spinoza” to be the notion that the universe is majestic, it obeys orderly laws, and we know only a staggeringly small portion of what there is to know. I believe all of these things. Presumably, there is more content to your belief than this. As a Christian, you also believe that Jesus Christ is in some way divine, that God bears some relationship to morality and that God is appropriately conceived as a mind with an interest in our daily lives. My questions for you are: on what basis do you believe in the Christian God rather than the God of Einstein and Spinoza? And what would it take for you to decide that your belief in the Christian God was mistaken?
I apologize. That was an oafish rendering of the plural of Magisterium. Rather than using the English convention of adding an ‘s’ I should have used the proper case ending in Latin.
Do Hinduism and Buddhism have Magisteria?
Better? My Latin professor would have been displeased.
Jason, I told you it was unwise to make statements you couldn’t substantiate.
I don’t have time to engage with this point fully right now, but I’d only point out that it’s a bit suspect that no non-Catholics are convinced by this evidence (of Church recognized miracles).
Probably because the non-Catholics haven’t really looked at the evidence. Have you really looked at the criteria the Church uses to consider if a cure is a miracle? Have you looked at the histories of the 66 people whose healing was officially declared a miracle?
I didn’t think so.
There are at least a thousand fold more unexplained healings that you don’t hear about, but those 66 have been documented up the wazoo to have met rigorous criteria. The burden is on you to show how that documentation is fraudulent.
“After all, it’s the Christian belief in a rational God who created a rational world which helped lay the foundation for the natural sciences.”
I was hoping someone would point that out.
Have you really looked at the criteria the Church uses to consider if a cure is a miracle? Have you looked at the histories of the 66 people whose healing was officially declared a miracle? … those 66 have been documented up the wazoo to have met rigorous criteria.
Where can I find information on
a.) The criteria used
b.) The documentation surrounding these 66 miracles?
I am defining “the God of Einstein and Spinoza” to be the notion… My questions for you are: on what basis do you believe in the Christian God rather than the God of Einstein and Spinoza? And what would it take for you to decide that your belief in the Christian God was mistaken?
I do not believe God is a “notion,” and I do not believe in God upon the basis of a notion. On what basis do I accept and believe? God. If you find God to be mistaken, I would ask you if your “God of Einstein and Spinoza” makes mistakes.
On what basis do I accept and believe? God.
Melanie,
For the sake of an agnostic like myself, can you elaborate? I really don’t understand what you’re saying here.
“My questions for you are: on what basis do you believe in the Christian God rather than the God of Einstein and Spinoza? And what would it take for you to decide that your belief in the Christian God was mistaken?”
Although this question was not directed to me, I would answer it like this, letting Christ explain, as He often did to similar questions put to him by the Pharisees:
“24 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said to him: How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me. 28 And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand. 29 That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father. 30 I and the Father are one.
John 10:24-30
If philosophical proofs were sufficient, I think Christ would have debated in like manner in his own defense.
Rather, He spoke as such above, signifying the true mystery surrounding those who come to faith and those who don’t. What IS important, though, is that the VOICE of Christ is always proclaimed(by the Church/Followers/’Sheep’ and ‘Shepherds’ of Christ)…so that the opportunity is provided to those that might be ‘drawn’ to hear, and follow, the ‘voice’ of Christ.
They thereby also receive the promise of Christ:
“And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand.”
If anyone would like to watch the debate between Dinesh D’Souza the author of What’s So Great About Christianity and Christopher Hitchens author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything http://www.tothesource.org has it online here. I received this information in an email this morning about last week’s debate from CERC.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Brian, I realize that not all Christians are fundamentalists who reject science. I was just trying to figure out which one you were. Again, to every poster here, I recognize that Christians come in all types and I can’t argue against all of them all at once. So instead of saying that I’ve misrepresented you, I’d appreciate it if you assumed I accurately represented someone else, then articulated why your view is different enough that I haven’t fully engaged with it.
Jason, I apologize, I assumed that the reason you came to a Catholic blog rather than a general Christian blog was because you knew the basics of Catholic beliefs. For Catholics religion covers the topics of faith and morals. There’s a few areas where those by necessity intersect with science and history, but for the most part our theology is independent from science. To be honest, for me personally, the creation stories in the Bible tell me more about human sexuality than about how the world was created.
I’m trying to figure out what exactly would contradict this belief by understanding what exactly it is that you believe. As I understand it, your claim is the “bottleneck” claim that I articulated above. There existed a man and a woman at some point in time from which all “rational” beings are descended, and any organisms that existed before those two are related to all currently living beings only through those two organisms. (I use the scare quotes around rational because I don’t think this is a binary all-or-nothing property as you imply). This is not an untestable claim as you seem to imply – it has implications about what we should observe here and now. Do you accept this?
The definition of what constitutes a “rational” human may indeed be analog. If God used evolution to create man than there’s a good chance that’s the case. I’m not an expert on the anthropology of early humans; if I’ve said something wrong about early humans it’s because of my poor understanding of science not faith. My faith doesn’t dictate my science. Instead my faith allows me to take delight in all that science can tell us about our world.
I don’t see how the first five of your arguments would prove anything either way about the existence of God. The sixth one would, as I already admitted that if the resurrection were disproved it would undermine my faith, but you’re just speculating at this point.
If a scientist could find the spot in my brain that makes me feel religious piety and demonstrate it by stimulating it with an electrode, it still wouldn’t have an effect on my faith in God. My interpretation of such a study would be that God “hardwired” us to know him. The whole concept that the world is rational and that we can use empirical tests to predict how it works and how it will work in the future evolved out of the Christian worldview. Science only strengthens my faith rather than weakening it.
When it comes to science we accept the same evidence, we just interpret it differently. You choose to not believe in God unless definitively proven otherwise. I choose to believe in God unless definitively proven otherwise.
Esau, I should have been clearer here – this refers specifically to eye witness accounts of miracles (like those Jesus allegedly performed and others). However, the scientists you note are certainly not immune to deception and neither am I.
I was referring likewise.
There have been filed medical reports concerning the miraculous events that I have mentioned in my previous comments.
The problem with you is that you prejudice all such objective examinations on matters even dealing with validly categorized miracles and sarcatically dismiss them as nonsense — as is made evident by your sweeping generalization that all such reported miracles are fraudalent and that, where they have no natural explanation whatsoever, should be dismissed as being miracles — even though this is the very definition of a miracle in the first place!
Even those miracles which have endured scientific scrutiny, those that have been documented to such a degree where even scientific measures have been taken and a high evidentiary bar has been employed; you do not weigh them with any serious consideration, but have made the judgment in advance of the evidence that they are NOT miracles.
Even further than this, you seem to dismiss such miraculous phenomenon all together as being figments of a gullible fool’s imagination.
You conduct your ‘mock’ studies with such lack of objectivity that you intentionally bias them to fit your already formulated conclusions — that is, that which serves your atheistic leanings!
You remind me of some principal scientists I know who do the same with their studies; who gather only that data which fit their favored conclusions and dispose/disregard the rest — perhaps, among other things — such as ego and vanity, for the purpose of securing a grant!
Likewise, it is unwise to assume that a statement of someone you are conversing with is unsubstantiated; better to challenge it and then see if they can offer a defense. I might be wrong about this issue like any other, but I have put a lot of thought into it so I am pretty confident that if I am wrong, it is not for obvious reasons.
I personally have not, but others have. Are seriously suggesting that no non-Catholics have ever seriously considered the evidence in these cases? There are many scholarly papers on these issues by non-Catholics. Perhaps you didn’t mean that non-Catholics haven’t considered the issues – perhaps you only meant that they have not looked at them fairly, in an unbiased way. This is a more difficult point to address since full unbiasedness is impossible – still, the division along ideological lines is telling. If the evidence were really convincing, this division would not exist. There is no division among evolutionary biologists about whether humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor – Catholics and non-Catholics alike accept this provided they have the proper training. This is what happens with claims that are truly substantiated – the evidence is so overwhelming that people reach agreement despite their biases. This simply cannot be said of the evidence for miracles.
Still, if you like, despite not being expert investigators, we can consider some of the evidence now. Tell me what you think is the single best substantiated miracle you know of. Cite some evidence for me (preferably a short introduction and not a book length treatment). I will read it and tell you what I think.
Brian, you make this statement as though it were a statement of fact, but this is a contentious philosophical issue! You imply that there is a neat division between faith, science and morals. I am denying that this neat division exists. Many Catholic theologians have presented arguments for God’s existence on the basis of the issues I enumerated above as one’s that scientists were best placed to address.
You personally might not subscribe to those arguments. Very well. You might believe in a God who (by your own definition) is outside space and time. Fine.
But you still need to defend that belief! You need to give some reason why God should have anything to do with morality, with Jesus, with our personal lives, with prayer and with anything else that simply makes no sense on what I have called the Einsteinian conception of God (which I consider synonymous with atheism). In order to do this you will need to invoke arguments of some kind. My guess is that you will not be an expert in whatever field these arguments are in. This is my point – your belief is premised ultimately in arguments whose veracity you are not qualified to assess.
If the evidence were really convincing, this division would not exist.
Allow me to remind you that the ENTIRE civilized world at one time or another was CHRISTIAN!
I might be wrong about this issue like any other, but I have put a lot of thought into it
No you haven’t —
Your statements speak for themselves.
You made the sweeping generalization:
“…every past report of a miracle that can be investigated has been proven fradulent.”
Yet, when you were asked:
“Have you looked at the histories of the 66 people whose healing was officially declared a miracle?”
You responded:
“I personally have not”
Also, the fact that you stated:
“Are seriously suggesting that no non-Catholics have ever seriously considered the evidence in these cases?”
PROVES that you haven’t examined the issues here with any thought at all!
For instance, you’re not even aware of the fact that the Catholic Church hires OUTSIDE Scientific investigators (especially NON-CATHOLICS in order to avoid bias in their investigations and uphold objectivity) in the investigation of reported miracles!
You seem to think that all the Church does is pay heed to the report of miracles and declare things as being miracles without a thorough investigation into the matter!
Obviously, you’ve not even delved into the matter at all and placed much thought into anything relevant to such a study since you are ignorant about many of these things!
Esau, I’m well aware of this fact. Now, please give me an example of a reported miracle that the “OUTSIDE scientific investigators” were convinced could only be given a miraculous explanation, and please refer me to the writings of the outside investigators that establishes this fact.
Esau, this relates to your continued confusion concerning my argument about deferral to experts. To use the analogy I keep suggesting, you presumably believe that the earth’s tilt on its axes is responsible for the seasons despite not having confirmed this yourself. If I were to personally appraise the evidence, I could make a judgment – and this is what I will do as soon as you present that evidence to me. However, I still think the aggregate views of all the past people who have looked at the evidence is a better indicator of truth than my own judgment. In this case, my claim is that the evidence does not generally convince non-Christians who have assessed it. To prove me wrong, it only takes one example – give me an example of a miracle and statistics showing that non-Christians who have reviewed it generally come away convinced that a miracle occurred.
You need to give some reason why God should have anything to do with morality, with Jesus, with our personal lives, with prayer and with anything else that simply makes no sense on what I have called the Einsteinian conception of God
Is not the Einsteinian/Spinozan God pantheistic, whereby everything not only has to do with God but is of substance God?
Actually, the reason I came to this blog was because I googled “Apologetics”, “Intellectual”, and “Blog” and somehow found my way here. I had no particular reason to care about the denomination of the blog.
I’m not familiar enough with Spinoza’s philosophy to argue this point. I’m using the term to refer to the description I gave above: “a majestic universe which obeys laws and is full of mysteries we have just begun to comprehend” which I gather is how Einstein used the term as well. I don’t think it’s really all that helpful to refer to this as “God”, but I am doing so to avoid the confusion that results when I say, “I don’t believe in God” and others take this to mean that I am denying either (a) that the universe is lawful, (b) that these laws are awe-inspiring or (c) that there are many things about the universe which remain unknown. I of course believe that (a), (b) and (c) are all true.
In this case, my claim is that the evidence does not generally convince non-Christians who have assessed it.
Jason,
Their job is NOT to declare a phenomenon a miracle but to provide a thorough scientific investigation of the phenomenon in order to determine such things as, for example — among many other objectives, if the supposed miraculous event is a hoax.
They provide scientific data and present their findings from a purely scientific perspective.
This is essentially their task — not to declare the event a ‘miracle’.
For them to do so would actually disqualify them as a neutral party and discredit them professionally.
Have you looked at the histories of the 66 people whose healing was officially declared a miracle?
JPII beatified 1340 people since the 70’s. Surely there’s way more than 66 certified miracles among all those that someone should be able to present some case information.
The above was in response to Jason’s statement:
” To prove me wrong, it only takes one example – give me an example of a miracle and statistics showing that non-Christians who have reviewed it generally come away convinced that a miracle occurred. ”
JPII beatified 1340 people since the 70’s. Surely there’s way more than 66 certified miracles among all those that someone should be able to present some case information.
Charles Shurman,
Of course not!
Why are you even here?
Don’t you know that any supposed citing of a miracle is automatically declared a ‘miracle’ by the Catholic Church — including sightings of the Virgin Mary appearing on a tortilla?
Why are you even here to mock us by your assumption that, surely, out of all these declared saints, documentation of such miracles should be a breeze for simple-minded folks as we are!
You shouldn’t even grace a Catholic blog as this, obviously filled with credulous and ignorant fools in the first place — as enlightened an individual as you are.
Presumably they still have opinions on the matter, although I guess if those opinions must be kept to themselves it is unlikely they will be documented. I see your point.
My challenge remains: give me an example of a miracle you believe is well-substantiated. Refer me to the evidence for this miracle. Then, show me what non-Christians think of this miracle (they only have to be non-Christians before having investigated the miracle – if they converted as a result, that would be quite interesting to know).
Jason—
If I may “butt” in–!
I would suggest Frank Morrison’s book–Who moved the stone?.
He was a skeptic— and when researching the Resurrection accounts, became convinced of its veracity and became a believer.
” To prove me wrong, it only takes one example – give me an example of a miracle and statistics showing that non-Christians who have reviewed it generally come away convinced that a miracle occurred. ”
May this be a start?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,2047058,00.html
On June 2 2005, two months after the pontiff’s death, Marie-Simon-Pierre accepted her condition was so bad that she would have to resign from work. It was a difficult decision, being from a deeply observant Catholic family of five in northern France she had always felt a calling to serve in maternity. Her superior told her not to give up hope. “She asked me to write Jean Paul II on a piece of paper to give me strength. I didn’t want to write in front of anyone because I had such difficulties, and if someone was watching me, it would be even harder. But I wrote Jean Paul II. It was almost illegible.” Later the nun was “seized by a need to write”. It was such an unusual urge that she couldn’t even find a pen to hand. She wrote a few lines. “I looked at my writing and thought that’s funny, your writing is very readable.”
In the morning she was aware of a lack of the usual stiffness and pain. She said she felt an “inner strength”. She went to the chapel at 4am, with none of her usual difficulty walking. “I realised that my body was no longer the same. I was convinced that I was cured.
“I went to a sister and showed her my hand. It wasn’t shaking. I said John Paul has healed me. She looked at me wide-eyed and we stood in silence.”
Erick, thanks for your comment. Certainly, such study moves people in both directions. For instance, New Testament Scholar Bart Ehrman was an Evangelical Christian before his study of the historical circumstances of Jesus’ life convinced him to become an atheist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
In terms of the resurrection itself, what I’d really like to see is a survey of the kind I mentioned above which estimates the overall frequency of conversion and deconversion as a result of such study, controlling for peer effects and other confounds. I realize that this study doesn’t exist yet – if you do know of any kinds of statistics on this matter, I’d be quite interested.
The resurrection does not seem to be an example of the kind of miracle I asked for – a miracle so well-documented that even non-Christians who study it are typically moved to accept that there are no natural explanations (although this happens in some cases). It is instead the prototypical example of a miracle where the evidence is sufficiently murky that those who study it stick to the beliefs they brought to the matter – again, I would contrast this with the evidence for common descent among chimpanzees and humans, which to my knowledge convinces everyone who has obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology with perhaps one exception. What I want to see is a miracle that is sufficiently well-substantiated that it convinces the vast majority of those who make a sincere effort to objectively evaluate the evidence regardless of their worldview.
(Actually I only quickly scanned the wikipedia article on Ehrman – he apparently considers himself an agnostic, but this doesn’t effect my point)
Jason—
I do not think you will find what you are looking for!.
Unfortunately there is the problem of the human heart which must be dealt with-( after all even Jesus had Judas!).
As to the “common descent among chimpanzees and Humans”- I think that it is more of a common Creator.
The miracle that made the founder of Opus Dei a saint
http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=2593
http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=2505
http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=2610
http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=2507
http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=2506
http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=2609
http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=2594
http://www.josemariaescriva.info/index.php?id_cat=42&id_scat=34#endpage
Or read a book
http://books.google.com/books?id=vVwYKjB4rqUC
quick driveby and apologies. In my haste this morning, I should have specified that the 66 miracles were those documented of the thousands at Lourdes. Esau, you’re probably right that there are more. I was thinking of a specific story at Lourdes which I couldn’t find, but did run across those numbers in the looking up process.
Smoky, the short answer is that the Vatican would have that information, but my success at navigating their site is pretty dismal. Off the top of my head, I don’t know where all that information would be gathered in one place and easily accessible.
Besides, as someone mentioned above, it’s probably a safe bet that miracles happen for reasons other than converting non-believers. (I was thinking of Luke 16:29-31, for those inclined to Scripture.) My point to Jason was that he cited no source for calling the documentation of the Church fraudulent.
I do have some accounts of healings in my stack of books and will look up later to see what I can pass along to you.
Presumably they still have opinions on the matter, although I guess if those opinions must be kept to themselves it is unlikely they will be documented. I see your point.
Jason,
I’m glad you see my point!
I believe it’s obvious to you and to anybody else how it would appear if scientists in charge of such an investigation would make such a declaration as an event being a miracle.
They and their scientific findings along with the data would be suspect.
My challenge remains: give me an example of a miracle you believe is well-substantiated. Refer me to the evidence for this miracle. Then, show me what non-Christians think of this miracle (they only have to be non-Christians before having investigated the miracle – if they converted as a result, that would be quite interesting to know).
Your request is valid here.
Although, you need to keep in mind that even if such folks were to have been converted as a result; as I had mentioned previously, this would not give anybody else living in different times several decades into the future any reason to convert as well.
They would be frowned with similar skepticism as you have done so here.
In my haste this morning, I should have specified that the 66 miracles were those documented of the thousands at Lourdes. Esau, you’re probably right that there are more. I was thinking of a specific story at Lourdes which I couldn’t find, but did run across those numbers in the looking up process.
Mary Kay,
No worries!
I wasn’t contesting what you had posted.
I was merely contesting if whether or not Jason had actually performed due diligence on the matter as he seems to be claiming.
I wouldn’t call the documentation of the Church fraudulent. I expect that everyone involved in the matter acted in good faith (fraud implies an intention to deceive). I think they set too low an evidentiary bar for deciding that something was truly inexplicable by natural means as is evidenced by the fact that non-Christians are not generally convinced by these accounts that something miraculous occurred.
I’ll try to respond to a few of the particular cases that have been proposed later.
I think they set too low an evidentiary bar for deciding that something was truly inexplicable by natural means as is evidenced by the fact that non-Christians are not generally convinced by these accounts that something miraculous occurred.
Jason,
First off —
You still have yet to even look at the data, as is made evident by your persistent request to look at such.
So, I don’t know how you can (yet again) form such the conclusion:
“as is evidenced by the fact that non-Christians are not generally convinced by these accounts”
More and more, I am skeptical at the level of objectivity of any of the research you personally conduct in academia and wonder if you merely produce data to fit your pre-formed conclusions.
Since Jason seems incapable of even following a link. Here is more of the story.
Diagnosed with incurable Parkinson’s disease in 2001, two years ago Sister Marie-Simon-Pierre could barely move her left side. She could not write legibly, drive, move around easily and was in such pain she couldn’t sleep. So great was her dread of her condition’s inevitable degeneration that she could not bear to watch her esteemed Pope John Paul II, also a Parkinson’s sufferer, appearing on television in his pope-mobile.
“It reminded me of what I would be in a few years’ time, I had to listen to his broadcasts rather than watch them,” she said. Her disease worsened after his death, and her whole order prayed for his intervention to ease her suffering. Then one night after scrawling his name on a paper with her trembling hand, she woke up the next day cured. She has spent two years back at work as a maternity nurse with no traces of the disease. She stopped taking her daily medication. Five days later her neurologist was stunned by her agility in strolling into his office. He asked her if she had doubled her medication.
Since 2005, the Catholic church has kept the case quiet, conducting a secret investigation in which it has interviewed around 15 witnesses, including neurologists, university medical professors, a psychiatrist and a hand-writing analyst. Now satisfied that the mysterious recovery is medically inexplicable, the diocese of Aix-en-Provence will on Monday give its dossier to the Vatican. It is up to Pope Benedict XVI to rule whether it is a miracle. If he does, it would put the late John Paul II on the first step to sainthood…
Beside Sister Marie-Simon-Pierre at her first media appearance yesterday sat the archbishop of Aix-en-Provence and the priest who headed the inquiry.
On the desk was a box file containing the medical documents, photographs and witness statements that the Aix-en-Provence clergy believe prove an inexplicable recovery has taken place.
To qualify as a miracle the recovery must be sudden, complete and permanent – as well as inexplicable. For an illness such as cancer, the church would take at least 10 years to verify an inexplicable recovery, in case the patient relapsed. But yesterday the diocese said Parkinson’s, which was incurable, had no such time requirement.
“I think they set too low an evidentiary bar for deciding that something was truly inexplicable by natural means as is evidenced by the fact that non-Christians are not generally convinced by these accounts that something miraculous occurred.”
If they carry a bias against the miraculous, they certainly won’t be convinced. Take the case Esau notes above as an example. Investigation has established that the *medical professionals* involved have no natural explanation for the woman’s recovery.
That does not mean that no natural explanation – no matter how unlikely – could ever be *conceived*. I’m sure some Rube Goldberg-like chain of cause and effect could be concocted that might give a “natural” explanation that is not *impossible*, but how likely is it? How plausible?
Someone with an anti-supernatural bias will ALWAYS conclude that any “natural” chain of events (no matter how implausible) would be more acceptable an explanation than the possibility that a miracle occurred.
This is why they would likely never be convinced, even if they saw a miracle with their own eyes.
I’m not certain that Esau was the first to bring it up, but I was referring to the case of Marie-Simon-Pierre.
Actually, I did follow the link and read the story. As I said in my previous post, “I’ll try to respond to a few of the particular cases that have been proposed later.”
Let’s try to avoid the ad hominem attacks in the future, especially when they are completely unfounded.
Here’s a short selection from an account of a miracle worthy of investigating further:
The Miracle of The Sun at Fatima, Portugal
October 13, 1917
Here are briefly the facts; starting from the day after the events, by a reporter who cannot possibly be accused of partiality in this matter and for a good reason! We refer to Avelino deAlmeida, the chief editor of “O Seculo,” the large “liberal” anticlerical and masonic daily of Lisbon. He writes,
“From the road, where the carriages were crowded together and where hundreds of persons hadstayed for want of sufficient courage to advance across the muddy ground, we saw the hugecrowd turn towards the sun which appeared at its zenith, clear of the clouds. It resembled a flatplate of silver, and it was possible to stare at it without the least discomfort. It did not burn theeyes. It did not blind. We would say that it produced an eclipse. Then a tremendous cry rang out,and the crowd nearest us were heard to shout: “Miracle! Miracle!…Marvel!…Marvel!” Before the dazzled eyes of the people, whose attitude transported us to biblical times, and who, dumb-founded, heads uncovered, contemplated the blue of the sky, the sun trembled, it made strange and abrupt movements, outside of all cosmic laws, “the sun danced”, according to the typical expression of the peasants…(2)”
Attacked violently by all the anticlerical press, Avelino de Almeida renewed his testimony,fifteen days later, in his review, l'”Ilustra‡ao Portuguesa”. This time he illustrated his account with a dozen photographs of the huge ecstatic crowd, and repeated as a refrain throughout his article: “I saw…I saw…I saw.” And he concluded fortuitously: “Miracle, as the people shouted? Natural phenomenon, as the experts say? For the moment, that does not concern me, I am only saying what I saw… The rest is a matter for Science and the Church.(3)
Esau,
1) I have argued at great length why my first-hand judgment on such matters is basically irrelevant relative to the overall patterns of judgment among those who have analyzed the situations in much greater depth than I could possibly hope to do. You may not agree with this argument – if that is the case, I would suggest that you go back and attempt to reread my posts charitably (a suggestion that should be familiar to you) and perhaps you will find that there is more truth in them than you realized at first glance.
2) I will nonetheless engage with this evidence and address the particular cases that have been brought up as soon as I find the time.
3) I find your comment here quite insulting. Your routinely sprinkle your comments with insults as other posters have occasionally pointed out. I do my best to refrain from insulting your intelligence and objectivity and I expect you to do the same. If you continue to fail to do so, I will stop replying to your posts.
For a photostatic copy of the original Newspaper artical from this event at Fatima, you can find it under “Miracle of the Sun”, at Wikipedia.com
or you can try cutting and pasting this address:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun
The Miracle of The Sun at Fatima, Portugal
And the miracle wasn’t just that it happened, but that it happened when Mary had told the visionaries it would happen, and it was observed by believers and skeptics alike, some near, and some up to 18km away.
The kind of “empiricist” evidence Jason is demanding can never come to light.
Again I alude to the fact of the human heart ( and by it, also the fact of free will ).
God has made it clear that it is not a matter of not being able to “see”, as much as not “wanting”.
Indeed it is a matter of volition…not ability.
erick, reminds me of:
Luke 16:
[29] But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’
[30] And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’
[31] He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'”
Amen Brotha!.
Some thoughts:
1.) While I appreciate the handful of miracle examples that people have provided, I was really hoping for links (or book titles) that would lead me to something more “official” — Mary Kay made it sound like the Vatican had assembled a list of officially recognized miracles with much supporting documentation — I’d really like to find out where I can learn more.
2.) One of the main impediments to my faith — one of the atheistic arguments that I find most compelling — is that of the hiddeness of God. Talk of what it would take (miracle-wise or otherwise) to make someone believe seems beside the point to me — if God wanted to, presumably he could make everyone believe (it’s conceivable that God could have created us such that we simply *knew* he existed — our minds would be incapable of thinking otherwise). As I understand it from my Catholic upbringing, God wants us to know and love Him. What does the ability to have reasonable doubt as to His very existence help in that goal? Universal belief in God would not be an impediment to free will — I *know* my parents exist but I sometimes still disobeyed them as a child. Why doesn’t God simply make his existence obvious?
3.) Finally — a brief response to:
Allow me to remind you that the ENTIRE civilized world at one time or another was CHRISTIAN!
When was that ever true? Even in pre-Muslim centuries there was the Chinese and other Asian non-Christian civilizations.
Why doesn’t God simply make his existence obvious?
And a quick corollary before someone answers “he does”. Even if someone argues that the existence of God is obvious, I would think it’s clear that it’s not obvious which God exists — the abundance of religions seems to be another aspect of the “hiddenness of God” argument. Universal belief in the one, true religion would not be an impediment to free will. Why did God not make us so that we *knew* Catholicism was true?
This is false. The next quote illustrates.
If anyone I know who died were to rise from the dead and appear before me and tell me that God sent them, I would immediately become a theist (and if they said that Jesus sent them, I would become a Christian). If anyone produced any reliable evidence that someone had risen from the dead (e.g. a videotape of JFK walking around Washington DC and DNA testing to confirm it was him), then I would immediately convert).
Please stop claiming contrary to my protestations that nothing would convince me that a miracle had occurred. I could describe thousands of scenarios like the one above that would cause me to conclude that it is extremely probable that a miracle occurred.
A different argument one might make is that God refuses to offer the evidence that I require. If this is the argument you are making, then defend it! It’s not enough to simply assert that this is the case. Why should we think that God behaves in this way? How do you know how God behaves?
(again, I still have not addressed the particular purported miracles described above, but I promise to do so later)
Smokey, I am so glad you are here. Sometimes this blog gets lonely ;-).
Jason–
Frank Morrison’s book would be a good source for a robust argument in favor of the resurrection. (I happen to think this is the miracle of miracles!).
As far as you being open to the possibility of miracles if you could empirically prove one- I think it’s great!.
At least you are being honest.
However, just as you exercise some measure of faith (trust) for lots of things now— so must you trust HIM as well.
Smokey, I am so glad you are here. Sometimes this blog gets lonely ;-).
Thanks, but I don’t claim to be on your (or anyone’s) “side” in this debate. I lived my first 17 or so years as a devout Catholic, but fell away during college. I still find Catholic thought compelling and convincing in many respects. I consider myself agnostic, not an atheist; but I suppose I am a bit biased on the atheist side of things right now. Still, I hope I can remain open to change — my fiance is a practicing Catholic, and it’s an unhappy situation for her that I’m not. I refuse to revert solely on her account, though — it wouldn’t be genuine.
So there you go.
Smoky, I would never have presumed otherwise. I think your comments on my posts have been generally critical – it’s just nice to have someone else disrupting the chorus of agreement for a change.
Erick, I realize this is not an adequate substitute for reading the book, but would you care to summarize the thrust of Frank Morrison’s argument? I’ve read several of William Lane Craig’s debates and articles on this topic – if you’re familiar with the latter, would you say that Morrison’s argument is similar or does he take a different approach?
Personally, I believe faith in God comes to a person in many ways, both through the experience of great love in ones life, by examining the physical world very carefully, by searching deep within ones own soul and ‘thirsting’ for answers, and then by witnessing the lives of other ‘holy’ people, or perhaps reading their biographies or writings.
When the combination is put together, pieces of the mysterious puzzle of life start to make sense. And one truth above all seems to draw me to faith the most, and that is, that I do not deserve anything in this life, that almost nothing is my own doing, and that almost everything is outside of my control. And death too, is outside of my control, which will surely come one day.
Then, when reading both the lives of Catholic Saints and Desert Fathers, and also the Holy Scriptures, I can witness a harmony of spirit between my own soul and the souls of some of these other saintly persons…persons who love God!
And even before I was really converted, I felt a great attraction towards these holy writers, like St. Augustine and St. Francis of Assisi. Also, after spending about 20 years associating with generally normal, but pagan, friends…I realized that the love of God didn’t seem to interest them any, but only ‘things of the world’. At this time I felt most comfortable with those who thought of God and had faith, and I poured through the pages of the ‘lives of the saints’ as if I couldn’t get enough. I truly thirsted for their faith and wisdom.
For me, at this time, Plato and Aristotle, and all the other Greek philosophers, were very ‘dry’, because they were not focused on the one most important aspect of Life, the most interesting to me, which was “DIVINE LOVE”. And the Catholic Saints were the only ones who I could find who were both focusing on this, and also trying to put Divine Love into practice in their lives.
And then all of the words of Jesus Christ became a priceless treasure to me, because His teaching is the ‘Fount’ of Divine Love. Everything we read about Him in the Gospels, and up until His passion and death, we witness the most profound examples of Divine Love and Wisdom…and this is what convinced me that Jesus was exactly who He said He was. GOD.
So, I guess I am one who thirsted for the voice of the Good Shepherd for 20 years before my ‘real’ conversion. And I looked into Greek philosophy, sports and athletics, friends and family, for all this time without being satisfied by any. But it was ONLY the Catholic Saints, Fathers of the Church, Desert Fathers, and accounts from Sacred Scripture, that gave solice to my thirsty soul.
So this great happiness at having found a ‘pearl’ of infinite value has never left me. Actually it continues to grow and expand with experience and further learning.
So, for those searching for a sign? This never interested me. The great sign for me was the focus of the Catholic Saints on virtuous living and burning Charity..and not just studying it, but putting it into practice.
And how happy do you think I am that Jesus Himself makes Holy Charity as the signal mark to distinguish his disciples from all others?? He didn’t mention Wisdom, or knowledge, or bodily discipline, or long prayers..but said:
” By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.”
What can satisfy the soul of man but this Divine Love…which IS GOD??
A. Williams,
Thanks for the elaboration on your own journey. By your previous comments, I suspected you were a cradle Catholic who had taken faith for granted. But it appears from your latest comment that there was a time when you didn’t believe…so you can perhaps relate a little to my situation. I appreciate your thoughts.
Smoky, you briefly mentioned your fiancee at a time and I caught it too late, so I’ll say now how delighted I am to hear that :^)
Mary Kay made it sound like the Vatican had assembled a list of officially recognized miracles with much supporting documentation — I’d really like to find out where I can learn more.
Guess I’m being as clear as mud today. I hadn’t meant for it to sound like the Vatican had a list all in one place. Maybe they do (but I doubt it) – what I meant was that as each miracle was documented, it would have been forwarded to the Vatican where it must be stored somewhere. With all the new technology, someone who knows their way around the Vatican library and/or archives could probably assemble such a list. In fact, it sounds like a good idea for a book for someone with the time and resources to do the research.
I think you’re wise to not revert until you freely make that choice – that’s what free will is about. As for your question about the hiddenness of God, drawing on my experience, what prompts the hiddenness is particular to each individual and how the hiddenness clears is unique to each person. That’s why there’s no Cliff Notes or “How to Clear God’s Hiddenness for Dummies” book anywhere. It’s not a one-size-fits-all. But the hiddenness does clear.
There’s a book that might (or might not) be helpful to you. Something More by Catherine Marshall was originally printed something like 30 years ago and it’s still in print. As a Presbyterian, she doesn’t have a Catholic view on say, the Eucharist or Mary. But what she does write about is spot on. I found the book helpful as a grad student. Just a suggestion. And I’ll keep you in prayer.
Smokey,
To ‘believe’ is a very general term…and this is because you can ‘believe’, but not put that belief into practice. Also, you can study, debate and philosophize on ‘Love’, but indeed, NOT love anyone. For me, faith, and life, and love, and wisdom, all need to work together, and all need to be put into practice.
I also remember reading about a saintly person teaching something about love to another. And the other said he didn’t have any love, and also couldn’t feel anything. The holy person told him that he needed to PRACTICE love, he needed to exercize himself in this.He needed to do good deeds to others every day, and by this he will grow to love, even as we grow in other ways through practice, through doing.
So, love can be increased by consciously trying to do good to others, and then, one might even come( maybe after some time though) to experience the joy that comes from such giving.
Anyway, I want to interject some of these things into the conversation, because with all the logic, history, speculation etc…on this site, the theme of Holy Charity doesn’t seem to get much attention. But, if we examine both the writings of Saints and also the Sacred Scriptures, we see that Divine Love is, for the most part, the focus and theme (Especially in the Holy Gospels).
So, in all debate on morality, or anything else relating to God, I would never by-pass the essential fact that man NEEDS HOLY and TRUE LOVE, both now to survive, and also for hope for the future. And if we put love into practice, by doing good things for others, other aspects and angles of both of God and Faith are revealed to us. When we love others well, by doing them good, we can recognize, and APPRECIATE to a greater degree, the love that Christ had (and has) for us.
And this recognition of His great love, also leads to a much greater faith in Him, as well as a desire to return some of that great love back to Him, which He truly and greatly deserves.
I was reading an essay online (really the introduction to a book of essays) on the hiddenness of God this evening, and something resonated with me that I thought I’d share. It’s almost absurdly simple, maybe naive, but it resonates with me a bit:
Perhaps God hides so that we can search for him.
Bingo! :^)
Let me address the purported miracle described in the article Michael linked to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,2047058,00.html
(tomorrow, I’ll post about the purported miracle at Fatima and perhaps after a few more of these we can move on to Jesus’ resurrection)
There are a few further facts I would like to know about this case:
1) Is there any possibility that the initial diagnosis was mistaken?
2) Is it absolutely unheard of for Parkinson’s patients to recover, or is this something that has been reported in other settings? (it is obviously quite rare, but 1 in 100 million has to happen sometimes)
Regardless of the answer to these two questions, my main response to this is: medicine, and the brain in particular, are too complicated to determine what the probability is that something like this would occur naturally. This raises an important general point in trying to assess evidence of the miraculous: the most compelling miracles concern extremely well-understood phenomena. If an elephant floated for 30 seconds in defiance of the law of gravity, that would surely be a miracle. If one in a few million people recover fully from Parkinson’s disease, this could easily be exactly the probability we would assign to the event if the underlying mechanisms causing the disease were fully understood.
Some might respond: but what is the probability that this would happen to a nun in this particular circumstance? My answer to that would be: how many other nuns prayed daily and died of terrible diseases of which they were not cured?
Still, I’d say that the most likely explanation is that her faith has something to do with it – not because John Paul II healed her from beyond the grave, but because her faith is certainly something which is very real and might well have an impact on her brain. This could be a (poorly understood) kind of placebo effect, perhaps connected with the particular brain functions that accompany spiritual experiences.
Another possibility is that this is just a random fluke. Even if there are no other recorded cases of this sort, I see no reason to suppose that this kind of event is so improbable that it should simply never occur by chance. Medical miracles in general do not impress me because of how complex the subject is. For neurological cases, this point is even more true: while we know an enormous amount about the brain, the amount that we don’t know is a thousand times as large as what we do know. This makes determining whether a naturalistic explanation is possible extremely difficult.
That said, I can imagine medical miracles that would flatly contradict established knowledge – for instance, if an amputated limb or a surgically removed organ were to simply grow back in its entirety. As I’m pretty much completely ignorant of medicine beyond high school biology, I’d want to consult with someone who knew more before deciding what else would fall into this category, but I imagine we could draft a rather long list. I doubt that recovery from neurological illnesses like Parkinson’s would be on this list – despite being empirically extremely unlikely (as judged from the past set of observed Parkinson’s cases), I’d expect that the underlying mechanisms are simply too poorly understood to rule out a medical explanation.
If this is correct, what are we to make of western european societies where belief in God is essentially a non-issue (except insofar as they have to decide whether to compromise their liberal principles to deal with Muslim radicals)? That is, in the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Germany and many other countries, most of the population does not believe in God and this is simply not an issue in their daily lives. The possibility that God exists is just not a live hypothesis for them – they don’t engage with the arguments for or against his existence any more than people in America engage with the arguments for Hinduism.
How can we reconcile this with a God who hides so that we can search for him? Wouldn’t it be a good idea for God to be *a little less hidden* so that these people would at least realize there might be something they should start searching for?
I’m glad this “hiddenness of God” argument is finally being discussed explicitly – I think part of the reason the discussion grew somewhat frustrating for a while there was because I was assuming that justifications for the hiddenness of God do not succeed while others were assuming that they do.
(by the way, Mary Kay, what did you study in graduate school?)
On God Hidden and revealed:
“And thou Capharnaum, shalt thou be exalted up to heaven? thou shalt go down even unto hell. For if in Sodom had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in thee, perhaps it had remained unto this day. 24 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. 25 At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones.
26 Yea, Father; for so hath it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.”
Matt.11: 23-27
Jason,
Your 8:06 post deserves more than I can do at the moment. Others no doubt will pick up on unwillingness to believe medical experts. By analogy your question “Is there any possibility that the initial diagnosis was mistaken?” that medical experts may have been mistaken in their assessment, is there any possiblity that you are mistaken in your assessment? Why are you so quick to say that other experts in their field may be mistaken, but there’s no possiblity that you’re mistaken?
That is my biggest grump, well I’ll try to be brief. If you’re truly going to consider all possibilities, then you need to consider all possibilities, including the possibility that there is a God who created the material universe and as the creator of that universe, can suspend the natural law for a specific purpose, for reasons not necessarily known to us.
I’m glad your recognize how complex the body is. Can you seriously tell me that such a complex organism, who can only survive within very narrow limits of internal and external environment, is a matter of sheer random chance? The probability of that is likely something of a gazillion to one. Try running that past the confidence level of your everyday statistics.
The obsession atheists have with limb generation drives me up a wall but I’ll leave that for another time.
I’ve run out of time this morning, will have to come back for the other posts.
I expect that the rate of diagnostic error is higher than the rate of recovery among Parkinson’s patients (in fact, my brother does research on the former issue). Still, contrary to the above claim, I think medical experts would be much better qualified to assess this case than I am. I think if you asked medical experts about this case (especially Parkinson’s researchers), most of them would say what I have just said: we don’t know enough about the disease to determine the probability of such a recovery. I’m just speculating here – I’d be interested to see a survey of such experts on the matter.
It seems to me (and perhaps others will argue otherwise) that the only thing that could justify such an inference is if a phenomena were inexplicable or known to be extremely improbably by naturalistic means. You would not use this as an explanation for why a bowling ball fell to the earth (except perhaps to argue that God was ultimately responsible for the laws of physics, but that is a different story). You only invoke this explanation because of the perceived inadequacy of naturalistic explanations. This is the view that I’m challenging – I don’t think we have a good basis for determining the probability that someone would recover from Parkinson’s disease by chance on the naturalistic worldview other than knowing that it is low – but of course, low probability events happen every day. Someone wins the lottery; the question is, is the probability of a naturalistic explanation so low as to effectively rule it out? This is what the complexity of medical judgments prevents us from concluding.
I apologize – this is (as you rightly suspect) just due to my medical ignorance.
Can you seriously tell me that your intuition on this issue is more reliable than the judgment of thousands of brilliant scientists who have spent their lives studying it (I think a passable definition of science would be the attempt to explain the complexity of the natural world through simple and comprehensible rules)? And besides, why should God have made us so fragile and most of the universe he supposedly made for us so inhospitable anyway?
To engage more directly with your claim though, what probability are you calculating? Are you calculating the probability that the universe would have developed to look exactly as it is? (which seems to me to be an illegitimate calculation…). What probability measure are you using to calculate this? What is the density of possible initial conditions? Physicists are still trying to sort out these questions, but presumably you know?
From the perspective of Christian theology, the “hiddenness” of God might well be a result of original sin (in other words, *we* are faulty receivers) rather than something that God *does*.
In other words, as the apostle Paul touches on, God CAN be known through the created universe. It may be that in the un-fallen state, man KNEW God and recognized Him as imminent in His creation without any real effort. But one way or another, it ain’t that way now.
The whole idea of reasoning your way to God through measurements and statistics is like chasing a vapor. One might reason right up to being on the verge of belief, but faith itself means going beyond what the mere intellect can assent to. God will not fit into your head, and if you find a god that does, that is a reliable sign that it is not the Real Thing.
I don’t know that anyone can be *argued* into faith in God. I think the best aspiration for Christian apologists is to demonstrate that belief in God is reasonable, or at least not unreasonable. Beyond that, it is a fool’s errand to try and answer every objection *if* the idea is that we can come up with arguments or reasoning that is persuasively irresistible.
Again, from the Christian perspective, refusing to believe anything that can’t be demonstrated to your own personal satisfaction – demanding God jump through hoops or put on a show until you’re satisfied He exists – might sound more like a problem with pride (a spiritual disease) than a genuine intellectual impasse.
And, please, I’m not trying to insult anyone, but according to constant Christian teaching, man is fallen and his intellect and other faculties are therefore darkened, along with his spiritual and moral sense. Pride is the foundation of all sins, and I wrestle with it every day, in many forms, so I am not accusing anyone of anything I haven’t done worse myself.
I hope you can see how saying “If God does ‘x’, then I’ll believe He exists” might be seen as prideful from the Christian side of the fence. God doesn’t need anyone to believe in Him. He is not going begging for people to merely acknowledge His existence. Whether you personally have “enough” evidence for belief in God will be between you and Him.
You’ll get the irresistible evidence you are looking for, one day.
“Perhaps God hides so that we can search for him.”
Smokey, this is a very interesting notion, one of which is suitable for contemplation. And there are countless others like it, due to the nature of God being mysterious(and Spirit). It might have something to do with His being INFINITLY GOOD, Powerful, Wise, Present..etc..
In reading the history of Israel in the O.T., we see also that God reveals Himself only partially, and particularly to those who have the capacity and free will desire to “see” Him. Moses was a good example, but as we read, even though he asked to see His face, he was only permited to see his ‘back’ as He ‘passed by’. However, to ‘See the Face of God’, was different from ‘miraculuos powers’, as we read.
One item to think about, is that, since we live in a body, and are not entirely spiritual beings such as are angels, we don’t have the capacity to experience or ‘see’ God in His fullness, and continue living this mortal life. Some saints gave examples of this, and fell into ecstacy at very un-opportune moments, making life somewhat difficult for those around them.
Moreover, if we knew God fully, according to our capacity, INSTANTLY, then we would be able to either choose Him or reject Him instantly, and thereby, not fluctuate in our faith. We would be like the angels, who made their decisions to either love or hate God in a very short period of time, after which was either eternal bliss with the creator, or eternal separation and pain, away from Him.
God gives us TIME in this world to make our choice. And we can actually grow closer or farther apart during our mortal life here.
Other items. We do not even really know who we ourselves are..or about our own souls and bodies, much less the Lord. Jesus once said “don’t let your right hand knwo what your left hand is doing”, when doing or giving charity to others. There are mysteries even in our own bodies..because, like the trinity, we have different parts, and in particular, are divided between right and left sides.
By this saying of Christ, we come across another clue to why we should keep things hidden..even in our own selves! He seems to insinuate that, if when we do good, we focus on that same good, maybe certain emotions of pride might well up within us, and actually harm us, in one way or another? He seems to imply that we should do good deeds predominately for the others gratification, and not for our own. This is really a mystery of DIVINE CHARITY.
However, unfortunately I haven’t yet fathomed or practiced it adequately, and so cannot really speak much on it. But I love the saying of Christ here, because He gives us insights into our own moral behavior, and reminds us that we ourselves are complex beings, and that particularly, we have both separated, and united, parts of our own bodies and being.
So, the mysteries are many, and that is the way GOD OUR CREATOR wants it to be. Glory be to Him, who, in His Divine Wisdom, made the world according to His Will and not ours!
..And, good points Tim J., looks like we were writing at about the same time, and on pretty much the same ideas, but with our own particular angles, insights and style.
This mystery really adds to unity within the Christian community, whereby we learn a little about the Eternal God through eachother. And this adds to love within the Church and community, because when we grow through others, our appreciation for those others who teach us, grows also. And we realize that, WITHOUT inspiration and insights from others… we ourselves would be almost completely ignorant, and for the most part, miserable beings!
If this is correct, what are we to make of western european societies where belief in God is essentially a non-issue (except insofar as they have to decide whether to compromise their liberal principles to deal with Muslim radicals)? That is, in the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Germany and many other countries, most of the population does not believe in God and this is simply not an issue in their daily lives. The possibility that God exists is just not a live hypothesis for them – they don’t engage with the arguments for or against his existence any more than people in America engage with the arguments for Hinduism.
How can we reconcile this with a God who hides so that we can search for him? Wouldn’t it be a good idea for God to be *a little less hidden* so that these people would at least realize there might be something they should start searching for?
Just because current times show evidence of some individuals who have neglected altogether the notion of ‘God’ and have regarded him as being irrelevant to today’s world doesn’t necessarily negate the notion which Smoky proposed, that is:
“Perhaps God hides so that we can search for him.”
The entire history of humanity clearly provides overwheliming evidence of how this is true and that even in spite of Christianity, the notion of the search for ‘God’ reverberates — even unto today!
There are yet many who continue today to search for him regardless of those who have regarded him as irrelevant.
You seem to conveniently neglect the many populations of people who do and give sole attention to those who don’t.
I do not claim to know the mind of God or why he chooses to reveal himself to some through miracles but not to all, or why he just doesn’t come down to a major city every year or so, hold a press conference, and perform a series of astounding miracles, or why some people for whatever reason seem to have the gift of faith while others do not. But if God is indeed all good and all wise, then he probably has good reasons as to why he reveals himself as he does, and who am I to question it?
I suppose God is somewhat hidden, so that we search for him with our hearts and not our heads. Jesus seemed to teach a lot about sincere love, rather than “Hey it’s God, so we better to do what he says.” I think that latter attitude would be much easier to fall into if God’s existence was more obvious, unless we were already predisposed to love him. Perhaps God thinks it is better for people to be skeptical of his existence than to be sure of it and not love him.
And why should it be that those who are more perceptive, insightful, intelligent should be blessed with more faith in God?
As Paul says:
I am convinced though, that God will give you anything you want if it is in accord with his will — which means it also done when and how he chooses.
Skeptic’s Prayer:
“God, I don’t know whether you even exist. I’m a skeptic. I doubt. I think you may be only a myth.
But I’m not certain (at least not when I’m completely honest with myself).
So if you do exist, and if you really did promise to reward all seekers, you must be hearing me now.
So I hereby declare myself a seeker, a seeker of the truth, whatever it is and wherever it is.
I want to know the truth and live the truth. If you are the truth, please help me.”
I do not claim to know the mind of God or why he chooses to reveal himself to some through miracles but not to all
John E.
Great point — at least, from the Christian perspective!
That is, if God is truly as the Christian claims —
omniscient, omnipotent, etc.
Can a finite mind such as ours really comprehend the workings of the mind of an infinitely superior being?
Can there be any such thing as probability or ‘random chance’ from the materialist perspective? It seems to me that there cannot. All the universe must be one long chain of events that could not have happened any other way, since each event depended on a material cause (the previous event). We know that matter obeys certain laws, so how could anything have happened differently? Every thought or purpose that a person ever had would not originate in a will in any sense that I understand; it would only be the direct result of chemical reactions that could not have happened any other way. Similarly, the future would also be fixed, so there wouldn’t be any reason to argue about anything (except that the argument was the result of an unalterable chain of events of course!).
Tim J., don’t worry, I didn’t find your remark offensive at all. Regarding your point about original sin – I would not argue that there is no possible justification for God’s hiddenness from within the Catholic framework. I would say instead that the whole framework is suspect when judged against the alternative hypothesis that God does not exist. This is in part due to the fact that to achieve internal consistency it must postulate an immensely complex set of unobserved entities and unverifiable history (angels, Satan, original sin, etc…). I haven’t made this argument in detail yet – I just wanted to clarify my view (although feel free to anticipate the argument and respond).
My question for you is the following: suppose for the moment that Christianity was false and that a personal God does not exist. Given everything you have said above, it seems that even if God did not exist, you would “go beyond what the intellect can assent to” and believe that he does. That is, you would make a leap of faith and believe even though that belief was wrong (by assumption). Would you agree with this? Would you agree that your belief in God does not track the truth in the sense that even if God does not exist, you would still believe in him? (if so, I have more to say, but I want to make sure I’m not misrepresenting your views so far).
While I posed that question to Tim J., I think it applies equally well to all the posters here who have criticized my reliance on evidence in judging the existence of God:
Would you agree that your belief in God does not track the truth in the sense that even if God does not exist, you would still believe in him? If not, can you explain on what basis you would be able to conclude that God does not exist? (assuming that this were the case).
It would seem that in your view, God makes the opposite mistake, neglecting those who regard him as irrelevant. I’m asking you for an explanation of why God would allow this to be – would you argue that everyone in the Netherlands is being prideful? This seems contrary to fact – they’re not even arguing that God does not exist, they just haven’t really been confronted with the idea as a serious one worthy of consideration.
I think you’re conflating materialism with determinism, but at any rate: in the currently most popular interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe is inherently probabilistic. Particles don’t have a definite position or velocity – they just have a wave function which gives a probability distribution over their possible positions and velocities. All we can say about the results of any given experiment is a probability distribution over what might result (now in many cases, the probability is so vanishingly small that we can say with near-certainty what will happen, but at a fundamental level, the qualifier “near” is always necessary).
why should God have made us so fragile and most of the universe he supposedly made for us so inhospitable anyway?
“Fragile” is a notion. If you didn’t have the notion that you’re fragile, would you be fragile? The resurrected body is not fragile and not inhospitable.
is the probability of a naturalistic explanation so low as to effectively rule it out? This is what the complexity of medical judgments prevents us from concluding.
Yet that was the conclusion of the Medical Committee which decided that it was “scientifically inexplicable.” Apparently, they define “inexplicable” as “not presently able to explain” rather than “forever impossible to explain.” This would seem to concur with Spinoza’s view that the term “miracle” should be understood with reference to the opinions of men, and that it means simply an event which we are unable to explain by other events familiar to our experience. Yet, I should add that the Medical Committee does not officially declare it a miracle.
Just because current times show evidence of some individuals who have neglected altogether the notion of ‘God’
I stomp on the notion of ‘God’.
It would seem that in your view, God makes the opposite mistake, neglecting those who regard him as irrelevant. I’m asking you for an explanation of why God would allow this to be
There is such a thing as ‘free will’ — have you ever heard of this amazing concept?
I would have been reduced to a mere automaton had God made me a biological organism that was forced to acknowledge his superior existence.
Even in the realm of scientific experiments, regardless of how substantial and convincing the data is; frequently, there have been even the most intelligent scientists who refuse to concede to the facts.
So, are you telling me that it was the scientists’ mistakes for not forcibly making their colleagues attend to the facts and yield to the overwhelming evidence for their theories?
All the universe must be one long chain of events that could not have happened any other way
“In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things have been determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and produce an effect in a certain way… Things could have been produced by God in no other way, and in no other order than they have been produced.”
— Spinoza
Jason,
Just in case you don’t understand the latter, what I am essentially saying is that people have free choice in these matters (i.e., we are ‘individuals’ who act by virtue of independent minds, independent thoughts — at least, let’s hope so — and not merely sycophants) — regardless of any evidence and even in spite of anybody.
There is such a thing as ‘free will’ — have you ever heard of this amazing concept? … Even in the realm of scientific experiments, regardless of how substantial and convincing the data is; frequently, there have been even the most intelligent scientists who refuse to concede to the facts.
“I don’t believe in the freedom of the will. Schopenhauer’s saying, that a human can very well do what he wants, but cannot will what he wants, accompanies me in all of life’s circumstances and reconciles me with the actions of humans, even when they are truly distressing. This knowledge of the non-freedom of the will protects me from losing my good humor and taking much too seriously myself and my fellow humans as acting and judging individuals.”
— Einstein
“Men believe themselves to be free because they are conscious of their own actions and are ignorant of the causes by which they are determined… The murderer is no more responsible for his or her behavior than is a river that floods a village.”
— Spinoza
Would you agree that your belief in God does not track the truth in the sense that even if God does not exist, you would still believe in him? If not, can you explain on what basis you would be able to conclude that God does not exist? (assuming that this were the case).
Jason, would you agree that your belief in reality does not track the truth in the sense that even if reality does not exist, you would still believe in reality? If not, can you explain on what basis you would be able to conclude that reality does not exist? (assuming that this were the case).
Melanie, your quotes are interesting although it is always dangerous to quote philosophers out of context – I’m not saying you’ve intentionally distorted their meaning here, just that in matters like this, the full context is always necessary to achieve an accurate understanding of what is being said.
Melanie, I would contrast two notions of inexplicable. Something could be scientifically inexplicable because the underlying mechanisms are not well understood or because the underlying mechanisms are well understood. For instance, rainbows would presumably have been inexplicable to the Greeks, but they would not have been justified in concluding that they are extremely improbable given any naturalistic explanation because the underlying mechanisms were not well understood. On the contrary, if water were to start freezing in 80 degree weather (under ordinary pressure conditions…), this would be inexplicable and an obvious violation of everything we know about how nature behaves in such instances because the underlying mechanisms are well-understood.
The question at issue here is: is Parkinson’s disease an instance where the underlying mechanisms are well-understood? I’m not an expert, but I expect that experts would agree that they are not.
Clearly my question requires some clarification of what is meant by God. I refer here to the Christian God – I take the Christian God to be an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being who bears a special relationship to Jesus Christ.
When I ask you to imagine what things would be like if God did not exist, I am not asking you to imagine that the universe does not exist or that it does not obey orderly laws. I am asking you to imagine what things would be like if the universe did exist and obey orderly laws, but there were no omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being who created the universe and bears some special relationship to Jesus Christ.
Please reconsider my question with these clarifications.
“Regarding your point about original sin – I would not argue that there is no possible justification for God’s hiddenness from within the Catholic framework. I would say instead that the whole framework is suspect when judged against the alternative hypothesis that God does not exist”
Jason, you are a man with your own particular judgements. Aristotle was a man with his own ideas, as was also Socrates, Moses, King Solomon, King David, Jesus,all of the Apostles of Jesus, and all of the Church fathers up until our present day.
You say “There is no God”.
These others say: “Not only IS there a God, but it is highly important to pay attention to Him, pray to Him, in fact ADORE HIM!
All of us can believe what we want, and all of us use others to help us form our judgements.
Do you really think I would choose your opinions over those of Jesus? Or Moses? Or any other patently holy person that I find in sacred scripture.. or the lives of the Saints?
These people were living examples of holiness, not just preachers of it!
Even Socrates said that he could learn more about a person by examining how he plays a game, than he could by a long philosophical argument!
So belief entails many criteria, and one of the most important is: How virtuous was the person doing the teaching? How did he live his life? Is he trustworthy of teaching in truth, or is he a liar or decieved himself? What were the motives of his teaching, selfish or for true love and concern for others? It is these criteria that must be examined carefully in choosing a teacher. It is by the living example, as well as the teaching, that anyone must prove himself as worthy of belief.
And if you examine the words and life of Christ, you will find an emminantly truth-filled teacher, one that a sensitive and reasonable soul could easily put great confidence in, as have millions since the foundation of the His Church.
Jesus Christ has given His credentials, not only in the miracles of his day, but mostly in the wisdom of his discourse and doctrine that Christians live by– the which are found in both the words of Sacred Scripture, as well as the words of those inspired by the Holy Spirit, given to his disciples at Pentacost.
I have your words and arguments before me in this blog.
And I have Christ’s words before me in the Douey version of the Bible which I frequently quote from, available on the WWW.
I also have the words of Moses, David, Solomon, Elijah, Abraham, Jeremiah, Isaias, Daniel etc… etc..
available from Jewish scriptures to reinforce the Christain teachings. As Jesus himself taught, herein we have a ‘double treasure’.
And to put things pretty succinctly, I think anyone will have a hard time discounting the holy wisdom found in Sacred Scripture! In its context, and the context of the whole history of Israel up to our present day, Jesus Christ is HIGHLY believable.
However, It is for those to whom it is given to see and believe. Faith is a gift from God.
But to receive this gift, those who desire it need to seek for it, for,
“Seek and you shall find”..”knock and it will be opened to you”…”ask and you shall receive”.
But nothing will take away from the 4000 years of believable saints and prophets, whose wisdom and grace we find in the texts of Sacred Scripture. This is indeed a treasure of treasures for all mankind, even as the Lord noted as a ‘double treasure’, above.
Melanie, your quotes are interesting although it is always dangerous to quote philosophers out of context – I’m not saying you’ve intentionally distorted their meaning here
The intended meaning comes through well in the quotes.
Melanie, I would contrast two notions of inexplicable.
I did, “not presently able to explain” vs. “forever impossible to explain (apart from a miracle)” Your example of water freezing in 80 degree weather may fit in either (or both) of those two categories.
When I ask you to imagine what things would be like if God did not exist, I am not asking you to imagine that the universe does not exist or that it does not obey orderly laws.
Yes you are. Christians do not believe the universe can exist without God. To ask them to believe to the contrary is to ask them to believe nonsense. You may think of God as some disposable entity that you can disimagine for the sake of a question. But whatever it is you might dispose of for the sake of a question is not God. Therefore, your question is not legitimately answerable for it’s malformed.
Let’s take this question piece by piece then.
1) Can you conceive of a universe with a God who bears no special relationship to Jesus Christ?
2) Can you conceive of a universe with a God who happens not to be omniscient?
3) Can you conceive of a universe with a God who is not omnipotent?
4) Can you conceive of a universe with a God who is not omnibenevolent?
You can’t disassemble God.
Are you saying that you literally cannot conceive of a universe with a God who does not bear a special relationship to Jesus Christ? The reason you think that God bears a special relationship to Jesus Christ is because of the historical record. Are you saying you cannot even *imagine* that history had played itself out differently?
And the same for my other points. You might think that arguments ultimately support the Christian conception of God, but are you saying that you cannot conceive of a God who is not omniscient or omnibenevolent?
Are you literally arguing that a God who is not omnibenevolent or bears no special relationship to Jesus Christ is not *logically possible*? What argument could you make in defense of this claim?
Can you conceive of a universe
We could stop the question with just that. Can you conceive of a universe?
Yes I can. If you define belief in God as synonymous with being able to imagine that anything exists, then I believe in God. I don’t believe that God bears any special relationship to Jesus Christ, who I believe was just a man like any other who lived about 2000 years ago. I see no logical contradiction here. Do you?
You might think that arguments ultimately support the Christian conception of God
Who careThe “Christian conception of God” is that God is not a concept and not dependent upon arguments.
Are you literally arguing that a God who is not omnibenevolent or bears no special relationship to Jesus Christ is not *logically possible*? What argument could you make in defense of this claim?
What you are doing is defining something X that is not God, and then asking what would the universe be like if it didn’t contain X. But you’ve in effect put notion X into the universe by defining it, and then you ask what would the universe be like if you hadn’t done that. You’d do as well to ask what would reality be like if it wasn’t as it really is.
Melanie, you use the word “God” in sentences meant to convey meaning to me. However, our correspondence to this point suggests that I simply have no idea how you are using the word “God”. Please clarify for me as clearly as possible what you mean by “God”.
Here is an exercise that might help us. Please answer “TRUE”, “FALSE”, or “NEITHER” to each of the following sentences:
1) God is indescribable in the English language and any attempt to describe him or define him misses the point.
2) Understanding God is a question of subjective experience and not a question of any particular measurement we might make of the world.
3) Denying God is like denying that someone feels pain when you put their hand in a fire – it is simply self-evident to them that they feel pain.
Here are three more:
4) God bears a special relationship to Jesus Christ. This is self-evident – denying this is like denying that 1+1=2.
5) That God bears a special relationship to Jesus Christ is known to us through both historical experience and introspection. However, it is not logically implied by 1)-3) in the previous post.
6) If Jesus had lived exactly as he did on earth, but no one had ever written the history of his life and all of his followers had subsequently been killed so that the oral knowledge of his life was lost, we would have know way of knowing anything at all about his life.
1) God is indescribable in the English language and any attempt to describe him or define him misses the point.
Can a coffee mug contain an entire ocean?
2) Understanding God is a question of subjective experience and not a question of any particular measurement we might make of the world.
Particular measurement?
Again, please provide me with the molecular properties that define ‘God’ or his chemical signature.
The point being, you cannot understand something to this extent unless you are aware of its constituents, what it is comprised of.
3) Denying God is like denying that someone feels pain when you put their hand in a fire – it is simply self-evident to them that they feel pain.
Unless you are aware what ‘God’ is, you’ll totally be oblivious to his presence until too late — much like a latent infection that is merely kept in check by the immune system and is not noticed until the onset of the symptoms.
In this case, when you die; it will be then that you’ll come to the realization of the actual reality.
And three more:
7) It does NOT make sense to apply concepts like “omnipotence”, “omniscience” or “omnibenevolence” to God. There are concepts that are ultimately based in a human understanding of knowledge and morality. God transcends these understandings and so these descriptors are not appropriate (this is a corollary of 1).
8) To say that God wants us to do anything with our lives is a distortion since God cannot “want” anything in the traditional sense. Nonetheless, there are certain things we can do that bring us closer to God and which we therefore perceive as “good”.
9) We can determine what is “good” in this sense purely through personal introspection, by trying our best to be as close to God as possible.
Esau, so I take it from your responses that your answers to questions 1), 2) and 3) are “TRUE”, “TRUE”, and “NEITHER” respectively. Is that correct?
1) False. God is Love.
2) False. But we need a way to measure ‘sanctifying grace’. Sanctifying grace exists, we just don’t have proper tools with which to measure sanctity!
Maybe in the days of Moses, they could have found a way to measure the light eminating from Moses’ face?? Or on the Mount of the Tranfiguration…the brilliance of the Lord’s contenance and clothes?? But I think to do such would cause death from the fear of offending the Almighty Lord! …Even as the Isrealites greatly feared the face of Moses when it was filled with the ‘radiance’ of God…ie. See Exodus.
3.Depends on what you mean by ‘denying God’. It has different meanings to different persons depending on their conception of God.
But in general..I wouldn’t advise doing it! Rather…
“You shall Love the Lord your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.”
This is the advisable track to take..the ‘First Commandment’ for believers and lovers of God!
It is also good to consider Psalm 13:
” Unto the end, a psalm for David. The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God, They are corrupt, and are become abominable in their ways: there is none that doth good, no not one. 2 The Lord hath looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there be any that understand and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre: with their tongues they acted deceitfully; the poison of asps is under their lips..”
Melanie, … However, our correspondence to this point suggests that I simply have no idea how you are using the word “God”.
I will agree with you Jason. I think you have no idea what most of the people here mean when we mention God. That’s why I’m trying my level best to make comments in terms that are indeed familiar.
Speaking for myself, most self-proclaimed atheists I’ve talked with (on other sites) have actually grown up in, or had some contact with, Christianity or perhaps Judaism and then something happens and they “lose their faith,” to use the standard phrase. You strike me as someone who has no knowledge of Christianity other than the media and one or two friends. It’s almost impossible to understand the spiritual life, even as intellectual concepts, in such a near vacuum. Almost, but it is possible.
Jason and Melanie (and Esau),
I could be wrong, but I feel like you guys are talking past each other. Jason, it seems like the point you’re trying to make is that, from your perspective, God could be removed and everything that would be exactly the same, thus making the so-called “God Hypothesis” superfluous.
Melanie, it seems like you’re trying to say that Jason’s question is overloaded with hidden assumptions that make it incoherent.
Assumptions:
1. God is not necessary for the universe to exist.
2. The universe exists.
Conclusion:
1. God is not necessary for the universe to exist. 2. The absence of God would not change anything.
Kelson,
I agree with your post. I think what is driving my confusion is the relationship between “God is necessary for the universe to exist” (which I’m not sure I would deny, depending on what is meant by God) and other claims like “Jesus Christ died and was resurrected” or “The Bible is the revealed word of God”. It seems to be that the latter claims must be supported on the basis of empirical evidence (including of course the historical record).
Mary Kay,
Thanks, I do appreciate your effort to translate into a language I will understand. I’d be curious to hear your answer to 4)-6) above.
Jason, there are innumerable unfinished posts that I need to come back to. Let me jump ahead. It most likely won’t make sense and we can hash out whatever comes out, but let me get to the bottom line.
God exists. Not only exists in the same sense as the chair I’m sitting on, but a living Presence. The Catholics here have had a personal encounter with this living Presence. Even though I’ve never met SDG, Tim, A. Williams, Esau or Melenie “in the flesh,” we know what each other means because we’ve all met the same living Presence.
Hold on to those objections for a minute.
I just erased a long post about people across time – 2000 years – and distance – literally the entire world – experiencing the same living Presence. But I want to take a different route.
It’s the difference between knowing about someone and actually knowing that person. You could gather a lot of information about someone but you have to actually meet that person in the flesh before saying that you actually know him. (Okay Catholics, settle down, he won’t get the reference. Not yet, at least.) Think about the difference between knowing about a person and actually knowing a person. Then we can go back and do rounds about the intellectual arguments.
btw, the hiddenness that Smoky mentioned comes in different varieties – it’s not a one size fits all either.
Melanie, you use the word “God” in sentences meant to convey meaning to me. However, our correspondence to this point suggests that I simply have no idea how you are using the word “God”. Please clarify for me as clearly as possible what you mean by “God”.
I AM.
Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you’, and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you’. . . this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.”
4) God bears a special relationship to Jesus Christ. This is self-evident – denying this is like denying that 1+1=2.
To say that God bears a special relationship is saying that they are two separate beings and that’s not accurate. So yes or no doesn’t fit.
5) That God bears a special relationship to Jesus Christ is known to us through both historical experience and introspection. However, it is not logically implied by 1)-3) in the previous post.
Again, you’re starting from an imprecise, and to the extent that it is imprecise, an inaccurate starting point. Let me look at 1 to 3. For #1, I like Esau’s answer of can a coffee mug contain an ocain. Nice one, Esau :^) #3 makes no sense to me. #2, welllll, I think you’re using “subjective” for “interior” because “interior” is unclear to you at the moment.
Bypassing the inaccurate start for the moment, I would say yes that historical evidence confirms Biblical accounts, but no to the word “introspection” because introspection by itself, that is, without outside confirmation isn’t done in the spiritual life.
6) If Jesus had lived exactly as he did on earth, but no one had ever written the history of his life and all of his followers had subsequently been killed so that the oral knowledge of his life was lost, we would have know way of knowing anything at all about his life.
As a general rule, I don’t do rhetorical questions, but I’d say “not true” to #6.
I hope that’s what I started to answer because I’ve lost track of anything else.
Introspection is insufficient if one does not understand who I AM. But introspection is a looking into who I AM. When introspection is “complete”, no “outside confirmation” is needed, for the revelation of the ineffable name “I AM WHO AM” contains the truth that God alone IS.
For #1, I like Esau’s answer of can a coffee mug contain an ocain. Nice one, Esau :^)
Thanks, Mary Kay!
I think I borrowed from Augustine on that one! ;^)
I think this is extremely helpful. Let me see if I am understanding you correctly – as before, tell me if you (meaning all the commenters) would agree with the following statement:
Melanie’s statement above is something you know with greater certainty than anything else that you know or could possibly know; it is the foundation of everything that you know. Any attempt to argue about this statement would be absurd because the statement is as true (or even more true) than the fundamental principles of logic – so of course, no argument based on logic (or the even more tenuous empirical evidence) could possibly undermine one’s confidence in this truth.
Melanie, I was referring to all introspection needing to be run by one’s spiritual director. You may mean something else.
Mary Kay, could you elaborate on the concept of spiritual director?
Jason, my post saying that I agreed with your take on Melanie’s statement disappeared.
As for a spiritual director, um, maybe others can help out on this because I don’t have an answer off the top of my head.
The obvious answer is that a spiritual director helps guide a person in their spiritual life. There are classic stages and/or signposts in the spiritual life. I was going to say that a general description would be answering and clarifying questions a person has. At the beginning level, there are a lot of ways to learn more, not necessarily a spiritual director.
This is hard for me to answer, so I’m going to look up a description.
Jason, I can only speak of a Catholic spiritual director and even at that, I’m unfamiliar with what is available in most dioceses. What I’m most familiar with is after someone has been “a practicing Catholic” for a while and the spiritual director helps to a) discern God’s will for that person and b) help the person see where they are being slippery in their spiritual life.
People who are newer in their faith or who aren’t even Catholic yet but are thinking about it, have been known to talk with a priest they met socially.
Does that explain at all?
ahem, if anyone else is still here, I could use some help with what a spiritual director is.
Let me try to understand a bit more what is meant by Melanie’s statement above.
Would you (again any of you) say that you have experienced “complete” introspection as Melanie described it, or is this a point at infinity which one can only strive to attain to approach as closely as possible in this life?
A related question (and I’m not asking this rhetorically or because I believe it is a “knock down” argument) – what do you think Osama Bin Laden’s spiritual experience is like? Is there any truth in it? What about it is wrong and why?
Is this typically a friend or someone in a more official position (like a Priest)?
I actually find this idea very interesting from a secular perspective – I’ve had a lot of support in my own life from family and friends, but not everyone is as fortunate as I have been. I think an advisor of this sort is something that may be missing in a lot of people’s lives and religion seems to be one of the few avenues through which one could initiate a relationship like the one you describe with a stranger (I realize that the idea of a secular analogue to a spiritual director must sound rather empty and certainly doesn’t capture many of the central roles that such a person would play in Catholic life).
To me, whether it’s asking “Who am I?” or engaging in scientific research into baboons or tasting an apple pie — it’s all introspection, and as such, it’s already spiritually directed.
Would you (again any of you) say that you have experienced “complete” introspection as Melanie described it, or is this a point at infinity which one can only strive to attain to approach as closely as possible in this life?
I AM WHO AM is experiencing “complete” introspection right now. No one else. Who else is there?
what do you think Osama Bin Laden’s spiritual experience is like? Is there any truth in it? What about it is wrong and why?
Who would know but I AM WHO AM.
Jason, to answer your second question first, what I’m most familiar with is priest as spiritual director, although I have heard of non-priests doing so (but I don’t know much about them).
To clarify, spiritual direction is not advice or support or counseling or any of the constructs known in popular culture. That’s one of the reasons why I had such a difficult time trying to explain it.
I’m unclear what Melanie means by “complete introspection.” I recognize her reference to “I AM WHO AM” which was God’s response to Moses’ request to identify himself. “I AM WHO AM” is God so “an infinity to be strived at” is more true than probaby you realize. 🙂
I have no clue to OBL’s spiritual life, but if you mean Islam, I’ll give you a general answer.
Part of it goes back to the objective truth versus relativism, one of the unfinished posts someplace back in the pack. Relativism says that all religions are equal. Objective truth says there is only one truth. Catholic teaching is that the Catholic Church has the fullest amoung of Revealed Truth. From the Catechism, “the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these (non-Christian) religions as ‘a preparation for the Gospel…'”
The other preface is that ever since Jesus preached, some said, “this teaching is too hard.” The history of the Church is littered with people saying that the teaching is too hard and so they fashion what they consider to be a more “reasonable” teaching or explanation.
My personal opinion is that Islam is one of those groups who said, “this teaching is too hard. This other explanantion makes more sense to me.” The Trinity would be an example. The other thing to remember is that Islam does some revisionist history with Judeo-Christian scripture.
That’s all the steam I have for today. Be back sometime later this weekend.
okay, Melanie and I mean different things by spiritual direction and even introspection. ‘s okay.
Well, I read the always reliable Wikipedia article on determinism and still don’t see how quantum physics makes the universe any less determined than Newtonian physics. The particles are smaller and their exact position more difficult to determine (so difficult that we haven’t yet developed an accurate way to pin them down), but, though the behaviour of individual particles is beyond our current ability to predict, the particles still behave according to some pattern. These particles (particles may not be the proper term) still make up all matter, including that in our brains, and therefore, if matter is all that exists then our thoughts and actions are completely controlled by a chain of material events within us.
It may appear to me that there is something called ‘probablility’, since I don’t know the outcome of events, but this would be an illusion. I may make speculations regarding the ‘chances’ of someone slapping my face, but five seconds after he has in fact slapped my face I’d have to say that the probability of his doing so was actually 100%. Probably.
Elijah,
I think you raise two issues. One concerns the relationship between materialism and free will which I’ll try to address in a future post as it is of course a big issue (I’m sure my post on it will resolve the matter to everyone’s satisfaction 😉 ). The second issue is a scientific one regarding the interpretation of probabilities in quantum mechanics. This is also an extremely deep issue which might not be fully resolved until scientists formulate a deeper theory than quantum mechanics (if then), but these articles might help you with your questions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment (short and adequate explanation)
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html (long and more detailed explanation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variables (why scientists think QM is inherently probabilistic)
There are scientific reasons why most physicists think that the probability distributions of quantum mechanics are not simply a reflection of our current uncertainty, but will persist even after a deeper theory is formulated. The double-slit experiment is particularly astounding – as a non-physicist, it strikes me as perhaps the most astonishing discovery in the history of science (its closest competitor for that title is “the astonishing hypothesis” that our experiences have a one-to-one correspondence with events in our physical brains).
Anyone here who has not seen the two-slit experiment should read one or both of the above articles on it – I think this single experiment perhaps more than any other casts doubt on the ability of intuition alone unguided by mathematics and careful observation to arrive at the truth.
If I recall correctly, Michael Crichton used the Double-Slit Experiment (with a single photon) as evidence of parallel universes which permitted something indistinguishable from time travel. Hence hismaster work , “Timeline”.
I attempted to enclose “master work” in HTML sarcasm tags, but they didn’t show up.
I think this single experiment perhaps more than any other casts doubt on the ability of intuition alone unguided by mathematics and careful observation to arrive at the truth.
It’s like a man in Milwaukee trying to find his way to Milwaukee. Thinking, intuition, experiments, mathematics, observations…
“Be still, and know that I am God.”
Jason,
I regret that I ever stumbled upon upon this conversation because so many assertions made here compel me to respond, simply to correct the impression your incomplete understanding of so many subjects can create on others who post here. It really is nothing personal though I am sure you must feel that I am just being snarky. It is not that at all.
But, I believe you are confusing two aspects of quantum mechanics and drawing unwarranted conclusions from the conflation. While it is true that the Shroedinger wave equation does represent a probabilistic distribution of the state vector of an object with quantum mechanical properties one cannot conclude from that that the state vector is inherently unknowable, especially since the time-independent formulation of the equation does not even address time evolution of the state vector. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation#Time-independent_Schr.C3.B6dinger_equation
What I think you are referring to is Heisenberg’s uncertaintly principle which states that there are inherent uncertainties in the attempt to measure state vector quantities of quantum mechanical objects that present a lower bound to the accuracy of any physical measurement of those quantities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_uncertainty_principle
The most popular interpretation of Heisenberg is that because the state vectors are inherently unmeasurable that those state vectors are inherently uncertain. That does not mean that that interpretation is necessarily correct or that it is universally held. I had at least one professor in grad school who did not believe as you are asserting here. The philosophical implications of some of the wierder phenomena of quantum mechanics are not settled. Even Richard Feynman said, “nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
You should be able to admit however that because something is unmeasurable does not necessarily mean that it is nondeterministic and that the mind of God could hold a perfect knowledge of the state of every variable, precisely because he does not need to measure it. He simply knows it. Beyond saying what I just said, a more detailed discussion quantum mechanics is not appropriate for this forum. I hope you can continue with your arguments without having to fall back onto the “spookiness” of quantum mechanics.
Michael,
Again I should preface my remarks by saying I am not a physicist, but I think you are actually confused here.
I think what you are referring to is a hidden variables formulation. I linked to an article on this in the above post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variables
The matter is not completely settled, but the vast majority of physicists believe that no such formulation will be found due to results like the Bell Inequalities. One notable exception is Gerard ‘t Hooft.
I don’t think I argued otherwise anywhere in the above posts, but I wonder what your support for this statement is. I don’t mean the statement that God transcends QM, but just the statement that the “I AM” that Melanie described above can be properly described as “knowing” anything rather than just “Being”. It seems to me that any anthropomorphic descriptions (God has a mind, etc…) are wildly inappropriate, like saying that “love” doesn’t like it when you get divorced.
Is this something you have first-hand knowledge of from your internal experience of God?
Jason—
God , however is a person, love is not.
Erick,
This is something you know on the basis of your first-hand experience with him, correct?
ON GOD AND LOVE:
8 He that loveth not, knoweth not God: for God is charity. 1 John 4
16 And we have known, and have believed the charity, which God hath to us. God is charity: and he that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him.
1 John 4
5 And hope confoundeth not: because the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us.
Romans 5
5 But he that keepeth his word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfected; and by this we know that we are in him.
1 John 2
10 In this is charity: not as though we had loved God, but because he hath first loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins.
1 John 4
7 Dearly beloved, let us love one another, for charity is of God. And every one that loveth, is born of God, and knoweth God.
1 John 4
17 In this is the charity of God perfected with us, that we may have confidence in the day of judgment: because as he is, we also are in this world.
1 John 4
3 For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy.
1 John 5
12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abideth in us, and his charity is perfected in us.
1 John 4
Jason—
That’s correct!.
A creator (if there is one, and I think there is robust evidence for it )- could not be an impersonal entity.
I read one of the Wikipedia articles pointed to by Jason and another one linked to by it: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum%20mechanics.htm
Here’s an interesting bit:
“Nothing is real until it has been observed! This clearly needs thinking about. Are we really saying that in the ‘real’ world – outside of the laboratory – that until a thing has been observed it doesn’t exist? This is precisely what the Copenhagen Interpretation is telling us about reality. This has caused some very well respected cosmologists (Stephen Hawking for one) to worry that this implies that there must actually be something ‘outside’ the universe to look at the universe as a whole and collapse its overall wave function.”
Erick – would you agree with the following statement (I’m not trying to trick you, I’m just trying to clarify things).
“There are some moments when we are “More in touch with God” than at other moments – it is in these moments when we can most clearly perceive God’s nature – that he is an eternal person who loves us and has a personal relationship with each of us.”
Elijah—
“…Nothing is real until it has been observed!”.
Does this mean that since we (humans that is )- never observed the “BIG BANG”–then we do not exist?.
Interesting!.
Jason—
I agree!.
I think this is a case of translating a mathematical principle into an intuitive one and then trying to generalize the intuitive principle in ways that take it far afield of the underlying mathematical principle.
To say that “nothing is real until it has been observed” is a bit of a stretch – what this interpretation of quantum mechanics would say instead is, “Nothing has a well-determined position and velocity until it has been observed”. This is quite different from saying it is “unreal.” It exists as a probability distribution.
I agree that this does not match our “common sense” notion of being “real”, but quantum mechanics tells us that at the microscopic level, we have to throw “common sense” out the window in favor of mathematics and experimentation.
Also, given Steven Hawking’s well-known religious views (lack thereof), I would expect that the above quote attributed to him is a bit of a distortion, although we’d have to see the original context to work that out.
Erick,
Would you also agree with the following:
Suppose we developed a portable brain scanner (PET, EEG, whatever) and attached it to you so you would carry it around wherever you went. Do expect that those particular moments when you are more aware of God’s presence and can see things with greater clarity would be visible on a brain scan?
I don’t mean to suggest that this would somehow imply that they were just a figment of your imagination and not an interaction with something external – when you converse with other human beings, this is also visible on a brain scan. I also am not saying that the activity in your brain would constitute a full description of this interaction any more than looking at a PET scan of someone in love would help one understand what it is like to be in love.
All I am saying is, if you were constantly hooked up to some type of brain scanner, we would at least be able to determine what pattern of activity in your brain corresponded to these interactions with God.
After this post, I’m off to do some work for a while – I’m clearly developing an unhealthy addiction to this blog… but I’m eager to see your response.
Jason–
I doubt that I think with my brain.
However if they ever come up with a soul scanner— then maybe!.
The personality of God is as real and valid as your own. To maintain any claim to the contrary is no more genuine. Only when one’s own claim to first person is relinquished may the “God is a person” claim likewise logically be relinquished. He who can relinquish his own claim to first person, let him be the one to throw the first stone.
[i]”Does this mean that since we (humans that is )- never observed the “BIG BANG”–then we do not exist?.
Interesting!.”[/i]
It seems to mean that someone must have observed the big bang for it to have happened. The observer clearly wasn’t us unless the piecing together of the theory from other observations counts as observation? I agree though, that whatever Hawking said about it should be placed in its context.
Doh. Haven’t figured out the HTML or the signature.
Elijah–
I agree!.
Use these guys “<" ">” instead of “[” “]”
Thanks, Dr. Eric
I think you may have misunderstood my question. I meant it to be a purely empirical one, so answering it would not require one to take a position on whether there was such a thing as a soul which exists apart from the body.
We know from the last century or so of research in neurology that everything we think corresponds to some event in our brain – I’m not taking a position here on whether or not that event in our brain *constitutes* the thought – you might think that the brain is just a kind of receiver for the thought that emanates from your soul. I’m just saying that there is an event in your brain that corresponds to every thought that you have.
Let me clarify by suggesting an experiment. We hook up a “portable PET” scanner to your brain and you live your live with it for a year. Whenever you have a spiritual experience – whenever you feel especially close to God – you subsequently write down on a piece of paper the time of day when this experience took place. My claim is: if we looked at what was going on in your brain at the time when these experiences take place, we would find that different regions were active than when these experiences are not taking place.
Do you agree with this claim? (I don’t mean this claim to be at all controversial and I initially assumed you would agree with it without a problem – I’m just trying to make sure that I’m not assuming too much…).
I don’t see how this claim follows at all from quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics doesn’t say, “Nothing happens unless someone is there to see it.”
Let me clarify in light of our recent discussion what I mean when I say that I don’t believe in God.
I am NOT denying that spiritual experiences are real. What I am denying are your interpretations of those experiences and the conclusions you draw from them (conclusions such as: God is a person, the person named Jesus who lived on earth around 2000 years ago was divine, etc…). I recognize that you claim that you know these truths as deeply as you know anything at all – I think you’re wrong about that and all you really know is that you’ve experienced something so incredible that your ordinary experience pales in comparison.
I’m sure it seems immensely presumptuous of me – having not experienced this – to tell you what you experienced. I’ll eventually get to the reasons why I think I can actually make that judgment without being as ridiculous as someone who told you that you were wrong about what you were just thinking to yourself 5 seconds ago (but I won’t get to those reasons in this post).
I completely agree that the experiences that make up our everyday lives pale in comparison to the set of experiences that are possible. The kinds of experiences that one can achieve through meditation or through intense prayer might well be of a completely different order than our other experiences, and everything else might be trivial in comparison, just as the satisfaction one gets from looking at pictures of attractive people pales in comparison to actually being in love.
So I’m not denying anything about spiritual experience except insofar as you conclude from that experience that you are interacting with a person – this I think is an illusion produced by your brain much like the hallucinations your brain produces every night for 6-8 hours; it just turns out that it’s much harder to wake up from the illusion that God is a person.
So I’m not denying anything about spiritual experience except insofar as you conclude from that experience that you are interacting with a person
I do not conclude from any experience that God is a person. I said, if you believe yourself to be a person, then you cannot logically believe that God is not a person.
it just turns out that it’s much harder to wake up from the illusion that God is a person.
As I said before, it’s akin to relinquishing one’s own claim to first person. Hard? No. It is not something any person can do. Period.
I think this claim hinges on a special definition of “be a person” that I am not familiar with. Could you elaborate on what it means to “be a person”?
I’m also confused about what you think that I think. How in the world does a person such as me think that God isn’t a person? Am I just insane? (like someone who runs around shouting, “I’m not real! I’m not real!”?)
Also, Melanie, I’d be interested to hear your response to the question I posed to Erick about whether spiritual experiences at least correspond to events in the brain even if they are not (on your view) constituted by events in the brain. I take this correspondence to be a scientific fact (and one that is at least so far perfectly consistent with the idea that the brain is just a conduit for the soul) – do you agree with this or would you dispute it?
I don’t see how this claim follows at all from quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics doesn’t say, “Nothing happens unless someone is there to see it.”
Firstly, I am no physicist either, so may have misread/understood. Have you read the article? Do you think I’m misinterpreting it or do you disagree with the article itself?
Just feel free to ignore if you don’t have time to read it. It was this one: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum%20mechanics.htm
I think this claim hinges on a special definition of “be a person” that I am not familiar with.
It hinges on your first person claim of “I am a person.” Check your claim against “I AM WHO AM” (God) and see who is claiming God is a person.
How in the world does a person such as me think that God isn’t a person? Am I just insane? (like someone who runs around shouting, “I’m not real! I’m not real!”?)
The lunatic is concerned with such things and the blind look for answers.
I’d be interested to hear your response to the question I posed to Erick about whether spiritual experiences at least correspond to events in the brain even if they are not (on your view) constituted by events in the brain.
Why should I say spiritual experience corresponds to “events in the brain” any more than it corresponds to grains of sand or the clucks of a chicken? What criteria establishes who, when and where is spiritual experience? By what authority is spiritual experience limited in any way? If Joe says he had a spiritual experience and yet you checked his brain activity and found nothing special, what then?
Look at the verse which was quoted earlier, “Be still, and know that I am God.” What event is to be measured when nothing is happening? Does even the clock tick? If you as an observer think the clock continues to tick, if you as an observer perceive brain activity, whose experience is that? Your own?
Elijah, I am disagreeing with the article, sorry I didn’t clarify this in my earlier post.
When it says: “what quantum mechanics tell us is that nothing is real and that we cannot say anything about what things are doing when we are not looking at them” this is completely false. We can say many things about what things are doing when we are not observing them; we just can only do so on a probabilistic basis (I think the author was just trying to put things “in laymen’s terms”, but in doing so he seriously distorted their meaning).
Second, I think the article leaves fails to give any explanation of “local hidden variables”, why they fail and why most physicists therefore believe that quantum mechanics really is a probabilistic theory and it doesn’t just look that way because of our ignorance of a deeper theory.
Melanie – I don’t think you’re implying that God is a person just because he can say, “I AM WHO AM” – after all, any computer could say this. I think you’re implying that God must be a person because this is just utterly obvious from your experience with him. I’m saying that you’ve misinterpreted that experience.
I don’t understand your quote here at all. I proposed a concrete experiment in my post to Erick – you tell me when you’ve had a spiritual experience and I tell you if that corresponds to events in your brain. Do you think this experiment would produce results or not? (please reread my post to Erick where I explain this experiment in more detail if you do not recall what I am talking about).
Jason,
Those who love God, love Him continually, when asleep as well as awake. It is a ‘State’ of grace.
There may be difference in brain MRI imaging in some, when having spiritual experiences, but this does not mean that all have them, or react in the same way. Some people get more emotional about such things than others, just like in everything else in life.
Moreover, spirituality becomes ‘habitual’, kind of like a relationship with a family member or a wife. So, I’m not so sure you would find extraordinary activity in the ‘normal’ believer. And lovers of God accept God as ‘truth’ even as we accept 2+2=4. There is no special emotion that comes with such acceptance.
What I’m saying is, is that love and faith in God is like a familial experience, which most of us are well aquainted with. And might this not be why we say “OUR FATHER” when we pray??
So the radical brain changes that you propose are probably normal experiences for the more spiritually mature. Maybe like a person who while dating under went wild mood swings and emotions, but after marriage, had a stronger love, but with less variable or erratic emotions.
I really have doubts about any of your proposed tests. They seem not to be grounded in any principles what-so-ever.
I’d much rather believe in the testimony of Jesus, His Apostles, and these other Saints amongst thousands, who helped build the western civilization that we currently live in:
. St. Ambrose, 340-397
· St. Jerome, 345-420
· St. Augustine, 354-430
· St. Gregory the Great (Pope), 540-604
· St. Athanasius, 295-373
· St. Basil the Great, 330-379
· St. Gregory of Nazianzus, 330-390
· St. John Chrysostom, 345-407
· St. Ephraem the Deacon, 306-373 (Syriac)
· St. Hilary, 315-368 (Latin)
· St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 315-387 (Greek)
· St. Cyril of Alexandria, 376-444 (Greek)
· St. Leo the Great (Pope), 390-461 (Latin)
· St. Peter Chrysologus, 400-450 (Latin)
· St. Isidore of Seville (last of the Latin Fathers), 560-636
· St. John Damascene (last of the Greek Fathers), 676-749
· St. Bede “the Venerable,” 673-735
· St. Peter Damian, 1007-1072
· St. Anselm, 1033-1109
· St. Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090-1153
· St. Anthony of Padua, 1195-1231
· St. Albert the Great, 1200-1280
· St. Bonaventure, 1217-1274
· St. Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274
· St. Catherine of Siena, 1347-1379
· St. Teresa of Avila, 1515-1582
· St. Peter Canisius, 1521-1597
· St. John of the Cross, 1542-1591
· St. Robert Bellarmine, 1542-1621
· St. Lawrence of Brindisi, 1559-1619
· St. Francis de Sales, 1567-1622
· St. Alphonsus Liguori, 1696-1787
· St. Therese of Lisieux, 1873-1897
Read some from all of these writers and you SHOULD aquire both Love (Charity) and Faith! But then again, the free will in all makes it necessary that one be open to ‘truth and spirit’.
“God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.”
John 4
This is just a thought that I had. Perhaps God refuses to be found through scientific proofs because He wants us non-physicists to have just as much of an opportunity as the smart folks have to find Him. Or maybe even more opportunity, since He has ‘hidden these things from the wise and revealed them unto babes’.
I think you’re implying that God must be a person because this is just utterly obvious from your experience with him. I’m saying that you’ve misinterpreted that experience.
No, just look at your words, “I AM A PERSON.” Who is claiming God is a person? What other “I AM” do you imagine there to be? God alone is.
you tell me when you’ve had a spiritual experience and I tell you if that corresponds to events in your brain
Then you’re welcome to check 24/7/365 and to check the entire universe, as I’m not limiting spiritual experience in any way.
Yes, Elijah, I think it’s true. God is available to all, rich and poor, children and adults, genius’ and retarded…all in their own way and capacity.
Wouldn’t it be terrible if all mankind needed an IQ of 150, or more, to be pleasing to God? Or all needed to be rich? Or physically beautiful?
But wonderful is the teaching of the Lord in this matter, when it is related in the Gospel:
” And they brought to him young children, that he might touch them. And the disciples rebuked them that brought them. 14 Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased, and saith to them: Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Amen I say to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter into it.”
So we can see that not only atheists and materialists can be in error, or confused, about the nature of God, or Eternal life…but even such as were with Jesus for months and years, living with Him, and learning from Him day by day!
How different, and revealing, is a statement such as this, above, in comparison to the lofty arguments of the philosophers, scientists and wisemen of ‘this world’! These, to enter the kingdom of Heaven, says Christ, need to be both humble and simple of heart, even as are ‘little children’, to be pleasing to God, the eternal Father and Creator.
And I Thank God that He reveals the mystery of the nature of ‘eternal life’ as a “Kingdom”…the which symbolism denotes “FAMILY”…and the which word ‘family’, further connotes ‘unity and peace with others in intimate and familial union’.
How happy is this connotation of ‘Family’ in comparison to that of mere ‘philosophical rhetoric!’, or ‘intellectualism’!
“Our Father who art in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy Name! Thy Kingdom Come! Thy Will be Done, on Earth as it is in Heaven”!
I was very careful to obtain Erick’s assent to this statement, but perhaps I presumed too much by assuming that others would agree with it as well.
Melanie and A. Williams, would you also agree with this statement?
A. Williams, I wouldn’t argue that spiritual experiences would look the same for every person. I am just arguing that spiritual experiences would correspond to events in the brain that would be detectable with a PET scan. This follows from the general proposition that every experience of any sort corresponds to some event in our brain. I take this statement to be supported by an enormous amount of empirical evidence (including several studies of spiritual experiences).
Are you denying that this empirical correspondence exists? Are you saying that if I were to do the proposed experiment on you that we might detect no difference in brain activity at the times that you reported understanding your relationship with God with special clarity?
I should clarify where I am going with this. I think perhaps your reluctance to answer this question is because you think I intend to do an experiment like this and say, “We see nothing different than everyone else, therefore God doesn’t exist.” In fact, I expect (and many experiments have confirmed) exactly the opposite. I expect that spiritual experiences of the type described above (“understanding one’s relationship with God with special clarity”) correspond to unique brain states. This is true simply by virtue of the fact that they are different kinds of experiences.
At any rate, I’m just trying to make sure you agree with this very basic claim that our experiences correspond to events in our brain (even if they are not constituted by them). Again, as I said above, this is a purely empirical claim that has been the subject of numerous experiments. I just want to make sure you’re not saying that every scientist who has studied the matter in the last 100 years (religious or not) has been misinterpreting the results.
Again, I am not proposing a scientific proof or disproof of God’s existence – the endpoint of my argument will be that science can inform our judgments about religion, but I certainly am not asking you to just assent to this claim. All I want to know at this point is whether you agree with me that all of our experiences correspond to events in the brain (even if they are not constituted by them).
I am denying that what you are experiencing is really something saying (or in any way exuding) “I AM”. I think this is just your best effort to describe an experience that you don’t really know how to describe (and really can’t be fully conveyed with mere words, although some descriptions of it are more accurate than others).
Jason,
I think this is just your best effort to describe an experience that you don’t really know how to describe
Actually that did not originate with any of us. That was God’s answer when Moses wanted to know what to say to the Israelites’ inevitable question of who sent him, “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.'”
If you’re going to question that, you’ll have to question the Hebrew scriptures.
Which brings me to the next point – are you saying that Moses was talking to himself? How do you account for so many people, over thousands of years, whose experience is so consistent with others over time and distance? Do you posit they were all have illusions? All talking to themselves? This is an important part of looking at all the facts. How do you account, illusion and/or talking to themselves, when what they heard was initially not what they would have chosen? Until you have addressed that, you have not considered all the facts or all the possibilities. (hopping off soapbox)
I’ve read somewhere, maybe even Time or other secular newsweekly, about a physical respnse to a spiritual experience, so that probably does happen. I didn’t read the article closely partly because it didn’t pass the “so what?” test (for me). Granted, I’ve had a holistic viewpoint for a long time, but the mind-body connection is hardly new. Even mind-body-spirit is not new, as in the studies that show that prayers help recovery time.
I am denying that what you are experiencing is really something saying (or in any way exuding) “I AM”
If there’s any object of your denial, it’s but your own folly. Your claim of “I’m a person” is not logically consistent with your claim that God is not a person.
I think this is just your best effort to describe an experience that you don’t really know how to describe
Thinking may be your effort, and delusion the product of your effort, but I’m not making any effort to describe an experience whatsoever.
“There are some moments when we are “More in touch with God” than at other moments… would you also agree with this statement?
I’d no more agree with that statement than I’d agree a teddy bear is a bear. While it might in a sense momentarily look like a bear, it is not.
All I want to know at this point is whether you agree with me that all of our experiences correspond to events in the brain (even if they are not constituted by them).
Which brain… the physical brain or the spiritual brain? “If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one.” Just as the Christian heart is untouched in a heart transplant, so too is the Christian “brain” untouched by a surgeon’s scalpel.
Mary Kay, glad you’re back – as always, I appreciate the clarity of your post. Let me try to engage with each point.
That’s correct. I am certainly questioning the historical accuracy of the Hebrew scriptures insofar as they state that Moses conversed directly with God. (I actually went to Hebrew School twice a week until 10th grade, so I’m reasonably familiar with the Old Testament).
My rough answer to this is – all of these people are humans who have very similar brains; religion is clearly something that is hard-wired deeply into those brains, so it’s not surprising that there would be commonality in people’s religious experiences any more than it is surprising that their is commonality in how people describe being in love. And yes, I would say these people were all talking to themselves to the extent that they felt they were conversing, although I would say religious experience is more than just conversation – it is also a state of mind that one can achieve which may well differ in kind from other experiences.
Which commonalities in particular are you referring to? – I don’t mean this question rhetorically, there are of course many commonalities in people’s religious experiences across time and cultures; I just want to understand which ones in particular you find compelling.
The brain is a complicated object – we know that people are often deluded about what they actually want and why they do the things they do. So to say it is not what they would have chosen is to impose a uniformity of judgment where none exists – perhaps consciously they would have expected one answer, but unconsciously they would have expected a different answer.
Evidence against this view would be if a religious experience allowed someone to know something they could not possibly otherwise know. I don’t think there is any reliable evidence of this (and yes, I’m familiar with the Christian literature on Near-Death Experiences – we can discuss this at some point but needless to say, I find it unconvincing).
Ultimately, the importance of this fact (and what I was planning to get to if I ever managed to convince Melanie and Erick of the scientific fact that our experiences at least correspond to events in our brain), is that this allows a scientific investigation of what you call our “interior”. It doesn’t tell us *everything* about that interior experience – knowing what part of our brain is activated when we are in love does not tell us what it is like to be in love. However, it does tell us some things – for one, it allows us to evaluate whether people are having the same kind of experience or not.
Which brings me to my next question – would you argue that anyone who has had a spiritual experience at least as real as your own would not subsequently abandon religious faith? That is, once one recognizes the truth of God’s intimate relationship with us and experiences it personally, is it possible to become convinced that this was an illusion, or do you think that the only people who are atheists and agnostics are people who have never experienced this for themselves?
You’ve said this several times and I don’t see how this follows. Why does “God is not a person” imply “I am not a person”?
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Could you try to say this in a different way?
Same thing – no idea what your analogy is getting at.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are correct. There is a spiritual brain and a physical brain. I’m saying, everything you experience, spiritual or not, is reflected in some way in your physical brain. Do you deny this?
once one recognizes the truth of God’s intimate relationship with us and experiences it personally, is it possible to become convinced that this was an illusion
The short answer is yes. It happens for a variety of reasons. Like any relationship, one’s relationship with God needs to be actively maintained. So one possible reason is the person slacked off doing his or her part. Sometimes it happens because there is a lack of guidance through the spiritual life, especially during the times called aridity or dryness. Ack, as usual, I did the hard stuff before the easier and more common answer. I forgot the most common one, which is the person having to deal with “Why do bad things happen to good people?” As I think of friends who have drifted away, very frequently either something horrible happened, like a family member being murdered or events such as 9/11 or that huge tsunami recentl or any event that leaves a person wondering, “How could God let this happen?”
But if one lands in a whoopsy of “it’s an illusion,” it doesn’t mean staying there forever. There are ample examples of people moving through doubt.
I would certainly agree with you that people move in both directions.
What I’m confused about is how this fits in with the claim that God’s existence and/or personhood is in some sense self-evident and not the proper subject of reasoning or arguments. If even people who have experienced God firsthand can subsequently lose their faith, this would seem to imply that God’s existence is not self-evident for people who have had this experience after all. I don’t know of anyone who has lost their faith in the truth of the law of non-contradiction (to take one example of a claim I believe to be truly self-evident).
This doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist – it just means that one can’t be content asserting that God exists solely on the basis of one’s “internal” experience, since others have had the same experience and ultimately found this ground for belief wanting. Instead, it would seem that such experience must be supplemented with some kind of reasons for belief – i.e. reasons that allow you to make the judgment that the others who experienced the same spiritual realities you experience and subsequently lost their faith were wrong to do so.
Would you agree with this?
Jason,
I would say these people were all talking to themselves to the extent that they felt they were conversing … we know that people are often deluded about what they actually want and why they do the things they do
So you think Abraham subconsciously wanted to sacrifice Isaac? I’m glad you have those years of Hebrew school, but perhaps you could use a bit of a refresher course. What about Elijah when he was worn out and then again in the cave? And back to Moses, who had a whole lot of reasons to object to what God said. And what about all that Jeremiah was asked to do? And Hosea getting stuck with infidelity?
I had to look up their time – Abraham approximately 2000 to 1800 BC, Elijah is 9th century BC, Moses – approximately 1550 to 1085 BC, Jeremiah – approx. 627 BC, Hosea – approx. 779 to 747 BC. Right there you have a span of a thousand some odd years, wandering all over the place, yet each one heard a covenant message, a covenant message that was not part of the “popular culture” of the time. None of whom seem to be masochists yet all heard what they were not expecting.
Your explanation doesn’t really account for that. And… you seem to have excluded the possiblity, just the possibility mind you, that they heard God, that they had a personal relationship with God.
J, cross-posted, let me read your last post.
the claim that God’s existence and/or personhood is in some sense self-evident and not the proper subject of reasoning or arguments
Some here have said that you can’t deduce God’s existence by reason, but if I recall correctly, someone did do just that. Or maybe I’m thinking of Pascal’s wager.
I think it’s more that people are saying that you can’t set up a set of circumstances, basically setting up hoops for God to jump through, to prove His existence.
When you meet a person in the flesh, it’s self-evident that you’ve met them. The sticking point for you is the interior aspect.
I’m debating on a topic that may or may not help. So I’ll post this and debate with myself for a little bit.
Why does “God is not a person” imply “I am not a person”?
“I am a person” is a personalization of the one and only I AM. If it’s valid to you to personalize I AM into “I am a person”, why is it not valid to you to personalize God?
Could you try to say this in a different way?
You said, “I think this is just your best effort to describe an experience that you don’t really know how to describe.” And what I said was that I’m not making any effort to describe spiritual experience, even if you think I am. If there’s any effort, it’s not apart from your own thinking.
Same thing – no idea what your analogy is getting at.
While there may be some moments when one FEELS “more in touch with God”, God’s true relationship is not measured by fleeting feelings or words like “more”.
if I ever managed to convince Melanie and Erick of the scientific fact that our experiences at least correspond to events in our brain
You’d do as well to claim as “scientific fact” that the chicken came before the chicken egg. It is not fact, but a perspective, one of many ways of looking at things.
I’m saying, everything you experience, spiritual or not, is reflected in some way in your physical brain. Do you deny this?
The spiritual is not limited or defined by spacetime. You’d do as well to define God as a function of a physical brain, but that’s not God and that’s not spiritual experience. God is not dependent on any physical brain.
If even people who have experienced God firsthand can subsequently lose their faith, this would seem to imply that God’s existence is not self-evident for people who have had this experience after all.
Firsthand? Who has ever looked directly upon the glory of God? People take it on faith. Some may find their faith strengthened or weakened by various experiences, but that does not necessarily invalidate any experience.
it would seem that such experience must be supplemented with some kind of reasons for belief
God does not call people to have faith in their personal interpretation of experiences.
That is one possibility. I’d say a much more likely explanation is that the story of Abraham and Isaac never actually happened.
Of course, there are still people today who claim to receive very detailed instructions from God to do things that seem otherwise immoral – and by and large these people are considered insane. Consider for instance David Koresh who believed that God instructed him to burn himself and his followers to death. Presumably you would not say he actually was in communication with God.
The same goes for the other examples you bring up – the most likely explanation is that they never happened – they are myths. So asking why Abraham would be motivated to do such things if God did not exist is like asking why Odysseus would have been away from home for so long if it weren’t for the enmity of Poseidon.
It’s not as though these stories are all first-hand accounts written by the characters the day they were experienced. These stories were written down hundreds of years after the events they purportedly describe. And I don’t understand your claim that the covenant message was not part of the “popular culture” at the time – it was part of the oral tradition of the Jewish people at the time these books were written.
It’s not as though this is simply an assumption on my part – this is a judgment I’ve arrived at on the basis of many arguments which ultimately lead me to the conclusion that this hypothesis is extremely unlikely.
OK, this is quite different – and much more reasonable – than the claim that Melanie and others were making above.
I think Melanie is claiming that God’s existence is literally as self-evident as the correctness of the law of non-contradiction in logic.
I understand your criticism when you say that you can’t expect God to jump through hoops. This is I think a fair point. The fact that there aren’t “obvious miracles” – like an elephant floating in sky – is not evidence against God’s existence. My claim as regards purported miracles is weaker – I think they just don’t provide any additional evidence that God exists on top of any other evidence that might be available from other avenues of inquiry (e.g. moral and cosmological arguments).
That’s right – although I wouldn’t call it self-evident in quite the same way as the rules of logic. I can imagine meeting a person in the flesh, and then learning I was the subject of an elaborate deception (it was actually a robot, I was actually dreaming, etc…). But I can’t imagine learning that I was mistaken about the rules of logic. Although certainly, if I met a person in the flesh, I was have a strong prima facie reason to believe they were real that would be decisive absent some strong evidence to the contrary.
it just means that one can’t be content asserting that God exists solely on the basis of one’s “internal” experience, since others have had the same experience and ultimately found this ground for belief wanting. Instead, it would seem that such experience must be supplemented with some kind of reasons for belief – i.e. reasons that allow you to make the judgment that the others who experienced the same spiritual realities you experience and subsequently lost their faith were wrong to do so.
Would you agree with this?
Let me think out loud. Reason is sufficient but not necessary for belief in God’s existence. I don’t know if that last sentence makes sense, but it sums it up for me. Reason does supplement belief because there is no contradiction between God and reason. There’s nothing wrong with applying reason. What I come back to is that you’ve limited the field of possibility.
I agree with you that the point of confusion is the interiority (what a word). I’m at a loss right now and thinking that I’m not the best person for this. Maybe tomorrow my mind will be fresher.
Melanie,
I will reply in more detail to your points later, but there is one issue I want to clear up. I didn’t ask you whether you agreed that God is a *function* of the physical brain (although certainly I believe that to be the case). I took great pains to clarify that this is not what I’m saying.
What I’m saying instead is that there is a correspondence between your experiences (spiritual / physical) and what happens in your brain. Since you believe that we have a soul that is independent of our physical brain, you would presumably interpret this correspondence as implying that the brain is a kind of receiver for the soul. This correspondence explains why brain damage would have an effect on our behavior even if that behavior were ultimately routed in the soul, as you suspect.
OK, I think after this post I’m done for the night as well. Let me just try to explain as clearly as I can why I disagree with the claim to give you a bit more to mull over.
It seems that you ultimately believe in God because of what you said above: you feel that you have met him and interacted with him, just as if you had met a person in the flesh.
As I noted above, if this were all there is to it, that would be a good reason to believe. However, you also have to face these facts:
1) Other people who have had similar experiences have subsequently lost their faith. So in our analogy, it’s as if you met a person in the flesh who other people also met, and those other people now insist they have reason to think the person isn’t real.
2) To the extent that other people agree that this person is real, they disagree about many of his features – i.e. there are many different religions, within religions there are different denominations and within denominations there is disagreement among different people about what God is like and what he wants in our lives. In our analogy, it’s as if you recall meeting a person, you recalled him as having a red shirt and being 6 ft. tall, but others insist that he always wears a green shirt and is only 5′ 6″. (this alone would not make you think there was no person at all, but combined with 1) it might yield that conclusion).
3) There are good reasons to think that our brain fools us all the time regarding the structure of our “interior” world. The starkest example is that our brain fools us for several hours every night, but there are many other examples of our brain simply inventing memories and explanations where none exist:
Here is one compelling example:
http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/UBNRP/Split_Brain/Gazzaniga%20Experiments.html
Oh, and one more kind of important thing that I forgot!
4) Bad things happen to good people.
OK, this is quite different – and much more reasonable – than the claim that Melanie and others were making above. I think Melanie is claiming that God’s existence is literally as self-evident
Did you not previously agree on Nov 2, 2007 5:52:22 PM that God / ‘I AM’ is self-evident?
What I’m saying instead is that there is a correspondence between your experiences (spiritual / physical) and what happens in your brain.
If you’re saying that spiritual experience MUST always register / manifest in a physical brain, that’s an untestable hypothesis, unless you’re going to simply define spiritual experience in terms of the physical — and then you’re just playing into your own hand, which is all you’ve been doing. You’re spinning in circles, going nowhere you aren’t already but trying to look like you’re moving.
you would presumably interpret this correspondence as implying that the brain is a kind of receiver for the soul.
A physical brain may be a receiver, but that doesn’t mean a physical brain receives all types of signals.
This correspondence explains why brain damage would have an effect on our behavior even if that behavior were ultimately routed in the soul, as you suspect.
By “behavior,” you’re simply looking at the physical, e.g. physical behavior, within the scope of measuring abilities. That’s what you see a person and reality to be: strictly physical. To you, the physical is all that is, the blanket assumption behind all your hypotheses, behind your science and behind your view of personhood.
As usual, my self-control was not quite enough to stick to my claim to being done for the night :-).
No. That post was me trying to state as clearly as I possibly could what I thought you were saying. I do not agree with this claim.
I think I may understand what you are saying now. Let me know if this is a fair characterization (this is not my view, but my attempt to articulate your view in my words):
“Our subjective experience is merely an extension of God’s subjective experience. We are only able to exist as persons with a sense of self because we are sustained by God’s enveloping presence. When we see things clearly, we become aware that we are simply part of God’s greater consciousness.”
I think I see your point here. I think this hypothesis could be justified by an appeal to Occam’s razor, but I won’t make that argument because I think I can make the point I wanted to without saying that every aspect of all spiritual experiences must register in your physical brain.
Would you agree with the Mary Kay’s answer to the question I posed to her above – namely, that there are people who have had similar spiritual experiences to the ones you have had who subsequently lose their faith?
That post was me trying to state as clearly as I possibly could what I thought you were saying. I do not agree with this claim.
In other words, the claim you do not agree with is your own interpretation.
Let me know if this is a fair characterization
It’s way off.
there are people… who subsequently lose their faith
Prove anyone has ever lost true faith in God, that it wasn’t just temporarily hidden and not just some notion about God, or some expectation that wasn’t met, a happy feeling, delusion, etc.
Here’s an interesting item regarding brain/heart science. I don’t know how reliable the facts are here, but just something to consider since ‘brain function’ seems to be a sticking point in this current debate:
Science and Spirituality: How are your Heart and Brain connected to God?
By Virginia Essene
Before exploring the brain’s unique role in connecting a human being to what many call God, it is essential to honor new scientific information about the human heart that identifies it as the very first connection point between the physical body and its Creator source.
“Amazing recent evidence indicates that the heart begins to beat in the unborn fetus even before the brain is formed so it appears that the heart truly holds primary status as the initiator of human life. Even so, scientists have yet to discover what causes the human heart to automatically begin this essential, “auto-rhythmic” beating function that grants us physical existence.”
“Although previously unknown, neuroscientists have now discovered that there are over 40,000 nerve cells (neurons) in the heart alone, indicating that the heart has its own independent nervous system sometimes called “the brain in the heart.” ” In addition, the heart has an electromagnetic energy field 5,000 times greater than that of the brain and this field can be measured with magnetometers up to 10 feet beyond the physical body.” This provides support for the spiritual teachings that indicate we humans have energy fields that constantly intermingle with each other, enabling healing (or negative) thoughts to be extended and exchanged.
“Since the heart’s energy field is greater than that of the brain’s, we presume that feelings and information sent from the heart to the brain can have a profound effect on the brain’s functions, introducing heightened intuitive clarity and increased feelings of well being. Gratefully, this welcomed state of balance or coherence between the heart and the brain eliminates stress and permits the personal condition we have called creativity as well as peace of mind!
The above artical reminds me of some word’s of Jesus:
Matthew 12
” O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”
and,
Luke 6
” A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”
Fronm an artical on the fetal heart, from “USC Health Magazine”:
“The fetal heart begins beating at about three weeks, making it the first organ to function. Initially, it is a tiny, pulsing tube, but over the next dozen or so weeks, that tube grows quickly, looping around and folding on itself to create four chambers—two atria and two ventricles—as well as four valves and the circulatory, coronary, electrical and lymphatic systems. All during this intricate process, the heart sustains the fetus’ life.”
There are good reasons to think that our brain fools us all the time regarding the structure of our “interior” world. The starkest example is that our brain fools us for several hours every night, but there are many other examples of our brain simply inventing memories and explanations where none exist:
If this was truly the case, and that is what you seriously believe, then why should knowledge of Science be any more valid if our brain fools us for several hours every night?
For all you know, much of our scientific knowledge is based on an illusion of facts that the only thing that remains demonstrable is our interpretation of them; yet, what is our interpretation of the world is far from what is the actual reality since our brain fools us for several hours every night.
4) Bad things happen to good people.
Your point being?
For goodness sake, the Son of God was crucified and put to death!
just a lunchtime driveby.
Esau, however serious Jason was to include that, I think his 7:32 post is a bit of a tease of my 5:21 post.
Mary Kay,
By the way, I enjoyed your Real Presence post! ;^)
Jason,
I think you’ve raised some interesting points. I tend to personally agree that spiritual experiences by themselves do not prove the veracity of a faith. I believe that there is a great deal of truth and value in these experiences, and I find it compelling that most people in the world (even many atheists and agnostics) share these experiences.
Your argument makes a reasonable case that if our own spiritual experiences are our only data, we don’t have enough to argue that the Christian faith is true where other faiths based on spiritual experience are false. I also agree that we should try as much as possible to apply historical criticism to the spiritual experiences of the founders of our faith.
However, I think Esau makes a good point. Your argument cannot be used completely undermine the evidence provided by spiritual experiences without undermining itself. That a person loses confidence in their spiritual experiences does not mean that those experiences were not real. That people disagree about the object of their experiences does not necessitate that both of them are wrong (or even that either of them are wrong). People can be wrongly convinced to disbelieve something that is true just as easily as they can be convinced to believe something that is false.
Spiritual experiences by themselves are not enough. But, where spiritual experiences confirm history, morality, and reason, where the whole of human experience comes together, there is truth.
PS Sorry if my post is incoherent or rambling.
Jason: Let me know if this is a fair characterization
Melanie: It’s way off.
Melanie,
I’ve read your posts with much frustration these past few days as well…I rarely understand what you’re saying! I don’t mean any offense, but you seem to post in a very terse, very figurative style which is not easy to understand.
If you hope to convey your message beyond the choir, it might help to try explaining it more clearly and verbosely. Don’t assume your readers have the same worldview as you. Try to explain yourself such that a non-Catholic could understand.
I think I know a lot more about Catholicism than Jason, having practiced for the first 17 years of my life; furthermore, I have no problem understanding the arguments of most of the people on this blog; still, I’m usually left scratching my head after reading your points.
Maybe you’re not interested in communicating, but if you are, I think you need to try a different approach.
As a case in point, regardless of your view of Jason’s beliefs, I (at least) don’t think he’s an idiot. Yet, I don’t think he’s been able to correctly paraphrase anything that you’ve said (every time he tries, you tell him he got it wrong)…
Maybe you’re not communicating very effectively.
My claim is not: “Our senses cannot be trusted at all to reveal the truth about the world”. This claim would indeed seem to be self-defeating if it were made on the basis of scientific evidence.
Instead, my claim is that our self-understanding and our interpretation of events that we experience is often an after-the-fact rationalization which bears no connection to those experiences. This is something we know on the basis of extensive experimentation in the cognitive sciences.
“Our brain often fools us” and “Our brain always fools us” are two very different statements; I would only endorse the former. For events that are not purely internal experiences, there are many ways we can test whether our recollections are accurate. Do others recall the same events occurring? Is there physical or circumstantial evidence which implies that the event probably occurred?.
For our assessment of purely internal states, the slope is slipperier. I agree completely with Kelson’s paragraph above where he states:
I am certainly not claiming that the experiences themselves are unreal or unimportant. I am claiming that to the extent that one interprets these experiences as interactions with an external mind capable of conscious thought that this interpretation is mistaken.
I make this claim on the basis of the following lines of evidence (this list is not exhaustive):
1) We are beginning to understand very precisely why the brain might often wrongly infer the presence of another conscious mind where none exists; see for instance the work of Pascal Boyer. This research is still in its infancy although it has produced interesting results – I expect that in the next 20-30 years this argument will become much stronger. It may constitute what scientists would consider a “knock-down” argument against religion if we could show that the spiritual experiences of modern-day religious people work through the same neural channels as the experience of a child who fears a stick that looks like a snake, and that when these channels are suppressed, religious people lose their faith or feel out of touch with God. I expect that experiments like this will lead the intellectual world to be almost wholly secular in about 40 years time.
2) There is extensive heterogeneity in people’s description of religious experiences which bears the tell-tale signs of their own cultural biases (e.g. in Egyptian lore, the universe was filled with water out of which God emerged). Further, most everyone here believes that Hindus and Greeks got things completely wrong and Muslims got things mostly wrong (a point that at least Kelson acknowledges).
3) There is no compelling uniformity in people’s religious experiences that could not be easily explained by the uniformity in their brains (an example: if all people who had religious experiences agreed that God
4) There is no evidence for God’s existence apart from these internal experiences (obviously many of you would dispute this claim)
5) The interpretations attributed to these experiences conflict with our observations of the world (I realize this will also be a point of contention! I’m just stating it to get the ball rolling); you say the God you experience is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. As far as we can determine, the world does not look as though it was crafted by such a God.
I’m usually left scratching my head after reading your points… Maybe you’re not communicating very effectively.
Are you expecting human language to exhaust the mystery of God? Maybe scratching your head is a good thing.
Whoops, sorry, forgot to finish point 3) in the above post:
3) There is no compelling uniformity in people’s religious experiences that could not be easily explained by the uniformity in their brains (an example: if all people who had religious experiences agreed that God especially liked the same complicated geometric shape)
Are you expecting human language to exhaust the mystery of God?
Not the exhaust the mystery, but perhaps to illuminate it a bit. If human language can say nothing coherent about God, then why speak of God at all? How do we have a Bible, or a Catechism, or homilies on Sunday, or books on religion? Some people must think that it’s possible to communicate *something* about God.
Maybe scratching your head is a good thing.
It’s answers like this that frustrate me. I guess if you’re not interested in communicating, then that’s your prerogative. But then why are you spending your time here? What are you trying to accomplish if not to communicate?
I say all of this in an honest effort to understand what you’re saying … try to meet me (and Jason) halfway.
Jason has tried numerous times to paraphrase you (which is the best way I know of to confirm understanding), and you keep telling him he’s getting it wrong. Explain yourself better then!
Correction:
Not the exhaust the mystery
should have been
Not to exhaust the mystery
Yet somehow, I’m not left scratching my head when I read Alvin Plantinga, Francis Beckwith, William Lane Craig or for that matter Mary Kay, Kelson, Smoky Mountain or SDG (omissions not intentional) – these people all presumably share your belief that God is mysterious and I disagree with them all about a great many things, but they manage to express themselves clearly enough that I can understand the point they are making.
Just because God is inscrutable doesn’t mean that your writing has to be.
(except perhaps Smoky who is agnostic – or as Steven Colbert calls is, atheist without balls 😉 ).
Quick caveat:
I actually strongly disagree with this statement. I do agree that Hindus, Muslims, and the ancient Greeks interpret (or interpreted) their spiritual experiences differently from Christians; otherwise, they would almost certainly have converted to Christianity.
However, I think that there is a great deal of truth in the Hindu and ancient Greek religions, and rather than getting it mostly wrong, I think the Muslim faith gets it mostly right.
I like Peter Kreeft’s analogy of the peep-hole into ultimate reality. We all see a tiny bit of the truth, but none of us can see the whole truth (or even a very big portion of the truth) by ourselves. All religious people at least agree that the peep-hole exists. Only a materialist argues that we invent the peep-hole (wish-fulfillment, evolution, etc).
So, to knock down the straw man that Sam Harris is (or at least used to be) so fond of: No, I am not, in fact, an atheist with regard to every religion save one.
I hope to formulate a larger response to your thoughts/arguments later.
Thanks.
Some people must think that it’s possible to communicate *something* about God.
We cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not.
Yet somehow, I’m not left scratching my head when I read…
Mysterious, isn’t it.
I am claiming that to the extent that one interprets these experiences as interactions with an external mind capable of conscious thought that this interpretation is mistaken… Just because God is inscrutable
Rather than seen simply as external and impenetrable, “I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.”
This is a fair point; I should have been clearer about what I was trying to say. My use of the term “mostly wrong” was highly ambiguous; let me try to clarify what I meant.
I completely agree with you that the spiritual experience itself is likely quite similar across different religions. The sense in which you believe that Greek religion is wrong regards the factual claims that you (presumably) believe follow from this experience.
Whereas you interpret this experience as implying that there is a single all-powerful deity with a personal interest in our lives, the Greeks interpret it to imply that there is a Pantheon of deities with varying degrees of interest in human life, none of them omniscient, omnipotent or omnibenevolent and none of the present deities created the universe. As far as I know, the idea that the gods are the origin of moral claims and the reason why they are binding on us is absent in Greek religious thought (I may well be wrong about this – but if there are examples of this idea, it was not widely held, nor is its role anywhere near as central as in Judeo-Christian thought). I realize this is a caricature as any attempt to characterize an entire culture’s religious beliefs necessarily must be – certainly, Aristotle’s beliefs on the matters above differed from Aristophanes to stick to the “Aristo” portion of the alphabet. Still, I think my point is clear. While the spiritual experiences may have been quite similar across times and cultures, the inferences drawn about the nature of God are quite different across cultures and even across individuals within cultures.
Jason—
Never mind these different “cultures” and experiences—
What about YOU?.
What are you looking for?.
Never mind these arguments about philosophy and science…obviously these have not satisfied you much— since you are here among many Christians expounding on beliefs that are cxonfusing at best and polemic at worst.
Having read many of the (what I consider great Christian thinkers)— there must be something unconfortable about it all!.
Jason— after you argue and explain all of your arsenal— what do you have?.
Is it any better for you?- Or are things still the same?
Jason—
Never mind these different “cultures” and experiences—
What about YOU?.
What are you looking for?.
Never mind these arguments about philosophy and science…obviously these have not satisfied you much— since you are here among many Christians expounding on beliefs that are cxonfusing at best and polemic at worst.
Since you have read many of the (what I consider great Christian thinkers)— there must be something unconfortable about it all!.
Jason— after you argue and explain all of your arsenal— what do you have?.
Is it any better for you?- Or are things still the same?
Further, most everyone here believes that Hindus and Greeks got things completely wrong and Muslims got things mostly wrong
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men” (Nostra aetate, n. 2).
From Pope John Paul II’s General Audience Address, September 16, 1998:
“Taking up the Council’s teaching from the first Encyclical Letter of my Pontificate, I have wished to recall the ancient doctrine formulated by the Fathers of the Church, which says that we must recognize “the seeds of the Word” present and active in the various religions (Ad gentes, n. 11; Lumen gentium, n. 17). This doctrine leads us to affirm that, though the routes taken may be different, “there is but a single goal to which is directed the deepest aspiration of the human spirit as expressed in its quest for God and also in its quest, through its tending towards God, for the full dimension of its humanity, or in other words, for the full meaning of human life” (Redemptor hominis, n. 11).
…
It must first be kept in mind that every quest of the human spirit for truth and goodness, and in the last analysis for God, is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The various religions arose precisely from this primordial human openness to God. At their origins we often find founders who, with the help of God’s Spirit, achieved a deeper religious experience. Handed on to others, this experience took form in the doctrines, rites and precepts of the various religions.
In every authentic religious experience, the most characteristic expression is prayer. Because of the human spirit’s constitutive openness to God’s action of urging it to self-transcendence, we can hold that “every authentic prayer is called forth by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person” (Address to the Members of the Roman Curia, 22 Dec. 1986, n. 11; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 5 Jan. 1987, p. 7).
…
The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic expressions of prayer. “The Spirit’s presence and activity”, as I wrote in the Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, “affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions” (n. 28).
…
The Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of coming into contact, in a way known to God, with the paschal mystery… This possibility is achieved through sincere, inward adherence to the Truth, generous self-giving to one’s neighbour and the search for the Absolute inspired by the Spirit of God. A ray of the divine Wisdom is also shown through the fulfilment of the precepts and practices that conform to the moral law and to authentic religious sense. Precisely by virtue of the Spirit’s presence and action, the good elements found in the various religions mysteriously prepare hearts to receive the full revelation of God in Christ.
For the reasons mentioned here, the attitude of the Church and of individual Christians towards other religions is marked by sincere respect, profound sympathy and, when possible and appropriate, cordial collaboration…”
http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=535
5) The interpretations attributed to these experiences conflict with our observations of the world (I realize this will also be a point of contention! I’m just stating it to get the ball rolling); you say the God you experience is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. As far as we can determine, the world does not look as though it was crafted by such a God.
Jason,
Were the cavemen capable of detecting quarks?
Is the fact that they were unable to do so provide any sort of evidence that quarks do not exist?
My personal experiences concerning the Divine may be proof enough for me — or perhaps it might be nothing more than a placebo effect.
However, the fact of the matter remains —
that we shall all witness the Truth when death arrives for all of us.
I would, thus, counter that at that time, when all things have then passed on; my God has the Power to resurrect me while your ‘god’ of Science will have condemned you to oblivion!
Well, I’d like to find a pretty girl who I connect with, but otherwise I’m pretty happy. I’m sorry you find my arguments confusing – this is perhaps inevitable given the divergence in our worldviews and undoubtedly due in part to the fact that I often fail to recognize the ambiguities in my claims, but please ask me to clarify about anything you don’t follow.
If you’re asking what I’m doing at this website, I can only speculate about my real motives (as I’ve noted above, we are notoriously bad at recognizing our true motives). My motives as I see them, in increasing order of sordidness are: 1) I rarely get to discuss these issues with people who disagree with me, and doing so sharpens my own views and helps me to better understand the views of others (which in turn leads me to view them less derisively), 2) I find discussing these issues very entertaining, 3) If I can ever convince anyone of anything, this increases my confidence that the views I currently hold are correct, 4) I pridefully enjoy reading my own writing.
The fact that many people I consider very intelligent disagree with me forces me to leave open the possibility that I could be wrong, but I’m pretty confident that I’m not wrong because the vast majority of these people were either profoundly ignorant of science or lived in a culture where there was such uniformity of belief that there were very strong personal incentives for them believe as well; there are always exceptions – Francis Collins for one – but even his belief in God seems primarily to be based in arguments well outside his field of expertise. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the faculty at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford etc… are perhaps an order of magnitude less likely than the general public to believe in God, nor do I think this can be explained by their pridefulness (some of them are prideful, but some are extremely humble). I think it’s because they know more about the world and this knowledge leads them to doubt the truth of religious doctrine.
I recently read an article by Alvin Plantinga where he argued that scientists would be more successful if their research were more explicitly motivated by the Christian worldview (for instance, if they pursued the hypothesis of intelligent design). This is a rare empirical hypothesis from a philosopher of religion – and one that I believe will continue to be proven false – scientists would have long-since adopted any such methodologies if they produced fruitful results; they have not, and I fully expect that they will not in the future. If I’m wrong about this, and intelligent design produces a flourishing scientific movement or scientists begin looking to the Bible for research guidance, that would certainly force me to re-evaluate my beliefs.
Jason, your 11/4 6ish post:
I’d say a much more likely explanation is that the story of Abraham and Isaac never actually happened.
If you think the stories in the Hebrew scriptures never happened, how do you account for the Dead Sea scrolls?
Of course, there are still people today who claim to receive very detailed instructions from God to do things that seem otherwise immoral – and by and large these people are considered insane. Consider for instance David Koresh who believed that God instructed him to burn himself and his followers to death. Presumably you would not say he actually was in communication with God.
Simply claiming to hear God is not sufficient in today’s age. In the Catholic Church, there is an established way of checking out private revelation or what seems to be private revelation.
That obviously wouldn’t apply to Abraham 4000 years ago, but you’ve missed the point of that story.
The same goes for the other examples you bring up – the most likely explanation is that they never happened – they are myths.
Again, how do you account for the Dead Sea Scrolls? Are you saying they’re a myth also?
It’s not as though these stories are all first-hand accounts written by the characters the day they were experienced. These stories were written down hundreds of years after the events they purportedly describe. And I don’t understand your claim that the covenant message was not part of the “popular culture” at the time – it was part of the oral tradition of the Jewish people at the time these books were written.
I forgot that since oral tradition is not tangible, that you’d consider it suspect. I guess I don’t have the patience for this tonight.
My phrase of popular culture was a mistake. I’m glad we can agree that the covenant message was part of Jewish oral tradition. Next question: Where do you think it came from? Why only the Israelites? That would contradict your previous statement about how similar all people are, therefore they would have similar experiences. Why did only one particular group of people get the covenant message?
I’m not sure I understand your point here. The Dead Sea Scrolls written between 335 BC-107 BC (according to the wikipedia article, but I don’t think anyone disputes this). This is hundreds or even thousands of years after the stories described in the Old Testament took place. These documents no more establish the stories they describe as historical fact than Homer’s stories establish the Odyssey as historical fact.
Absolutely I am (that is, the stories contained within them are mythical; the scrolls themselves certainly exist!).
Understood, but this is not me being an inveterate skeptic as you imply. You presumably believe the events described in the Odyssey did not in fact happen despite the fact that they were a part of the Greek oral tradition and were written down far closer to the events they describe than the Old Testament.
I actually don’t know enough about comparative religion to say this is unique to the Judeo-Christian religion, but suppose it is. If it is unique, asking why it is so is like asking why only one particular group of people came up with the idea of a primeval cow who lived in an eternal ice-world and nourished a race of frost giants who eventually made the humans (the Norse creation myth).
I’m not saying that all religions are literally identical. I’m saying that the commonalities between them are easily explained by commonalities in the human experience. So for instance, it’s not surprising that many cultures give special prominence to water gods because securing a stable water supply was a constant subjects of concern for early civilizations; the fact that many cultures have water gods is easily explained without arguing that they are all referring to one true water God.
You also ask why the Israelites would come up with the idea of a covenant. Perhaps some mystic (perhaps Abraham if he existed) either invented the idea or thought that one of his spiritual experiences implied it. Again, this is not at all surprising – mystics do this all the time today, but fewer people believe them in the western world (they still gain quite a few adherents in less developed regions). A more interesting question is why this particular idea endured. There are many possible explanations; one is that the idea helped guarantee social stability among the Israelites; it increased group loyalty and prevented defection – who wants to marry someone from the other tribe if you’re the chosen people of the one true God? (the laws governing Kashrut could be given a similar explanation, although I won’t get into that now).
These are interesting issues to speculate about, but I don’t see how this constitutes a puzzle at all. People make up stories all the time – sometimes they admit they’re making them up (fiction), sometimes they pretend the stories are real when they know they’re false, and sometimes the person making them up even believes what he’s saying, but the fact that a story was told by someone thousands of years ago does not mean it is true! Think about historical stories that you have less of a personal attachment with. There are thousands of stories written on tombs in ancient Egypt. Some of them detail mundane things: “Amenehemet was a water fetcher. He was well-regarded”. Others tell of supernatural phenomenon: “After his death, Ramses became a God and crushed Egypt’s enemies with his infinite power.” Which do you believe? Even if a story is loosely based in historical fact, this doesn’t make it true. To use the example I keep harping on, just because the Trojan War actually happened, you don’t believe everything written in the Odyssey do you?
To use the example I keep harping on, just because the Trojan War actually happened, you don’t believe everything written in the Odyssey do you?
Sure —
And I bet that for over 2000 years, such beliefs in the Greek gods have continued unto today and, in fact, have shaped the face of our entire Western civilization and continues to win coverts to its religion.
How awfully negligent/ignorant are you Jason to keep avoiding the facts regarding Christianity that particularly sets it apart from all other religions.
Esau,
I was making a very specific point about which stories are historically reliable and which are not. I agree that no one today believes in the Odyssey. My question is – why? Why is the Old Testament any more believable? In response to your post:
The Egyptian religion persisted for over 2000 years although you are right it has few adherents today. Hinduism on the other hand is older than Christianity and still has about a billion adherents and continues to win converts.
Esau,
I agree with your first paragraph but name-calling in the 2nd isn’t going to get anyone to listen to you.
Jason, he does have a point. You seem to keep avoiding the extent that monotheistic faiths have been accepted and adhered to faithfully even through very difficult times.
Back later.
Another irony: while you reject my detailed proposal about appeal to consensus among experts to answer specific questions, your argument here is solely an appeal to consensus; unfortunately, 1) the degree of consensus is overstated, and 2) the vast majority of people have no special qualifications to judge the issues in question.
Egyptian religion – endured for thousands of years. Hinduism – endured for thousands of years; continues to endure today.
This is eliding the issue I raised in my post (Mary Kay – I realize you’ll post a complete response later – I just want to make sure you understand my point when you do). I know that Christianity persists today while the Greek religion does not. That’s my whole point! My whole argument relies on the fact that you don’t accept the stories of the Odyssey. That’s why I picked it. I want to know – on what basis do you reject those stories yet accept the stories in the Old Testament?
It’s not enough to say that others do as well; this is just a very coarse version of my argument about the appeal to consensus among experts. If you were to make the case that historians tend to become more likely to accept the Biblical stories the more they study the matter, that would be a much more forceful claim – but as far as I can tell without having conducted the study, I see no reason to think this claim is anywhere close to being true.
Jason, you continually ask for experts in spirituality, and most here have told you, in one way or another, that you aren’t going to find sufficient experts, except possibly in the Church.
This is an old, old, quest! We’ve gone over it many times over the past week. The problem is that you want scientists to be your EXPERTS, because you are a materialist. But Christians want SAINTS to be their EXPERTS because Christians believe in SPIRIT and TRUTH, which is MORE than just science, matter or ‘material’.
Just because we live in a material world doesn’t mean ‘believers’ DENY the ‘material world’.
Every Lent on ‘Ash Wednsesday’, we here ar Mass “remember man that you are dust, and to dust you shall return”.
Of course we Christians believe that we are made and composed of molecules, minerals, chemicals, etc.. just as all other created things are. But we BELIEVE in more than this. We believe that God FIRST made us, of these earthly materials…and then “Breathed His Spirit” into us. And in this sense we are MORE than ‘material’. WE are MATERIAL yes..but material that includes the ‘SPIRIT OF GOD’. And this is also why it is noted in scripture, that we are made in the “IMAGE of God”, and animals ARE NOT as such, because we have God’s Spirit as an essential part of our being, body AND SOUL.
Now, you and Smoky Mountain seem to get angry with some of us if we get tired of accomodating your requests for a brain test to locate such a spirit, and that’s because, as we have said over adn over, that we believe that you cannot test this SPIRIT of GOD within us. Moreover, for us it would not be moral, and would actually be a grave sin to try to do so!
And even if it WAS’NT sinful, to try using a ‘brain’ scan to , to do such a test, I think you will be missing an important point, that the spirit of God in man comes before the existance of the organ of the brain,as the spirit of God is from the beginning…that is, from conception. And the developement of the heart takes place in the Fetus BEFORE the brain developes, (as was posted earlier).
So what does the brain have to do with the “Spirit” of God, united with person in the just concieved egg? And,if anything, the heart would be a best place to test, if it were moral to do so, because it is the first organ developed and functioning in the body at this time.(As noted above, whereas the brain, as yet, does not even exist!
To add to this argument, even Jesus mentioned (above in quotes), that believers need to be like ‘little children’ to enter the “Kingdom of Heaven”. And what is special about little children? They don’t even reach the age of reason until about 6 or 7 years old!!They thus have eternally high value, even before being CAPABLE of fully developed reason!
So all of your arguments asking Christians to put the spirit of God to the test are highly insulting to a true believer. It is like a temptation of the Devil, as was mentioned earlier on in this topic! Satan tried very hard to convince Jesus to conduct one of these same tests!! Just go and read the Gospel about the temptations in the desert after His baptism.
And also, the words of the Son of God Himself to Satan are an important witness regarding such things: “It is written, “Thou shalt not put the Lord, Thy God, to the Test”!!
Do you think that ANY good Christian would do that which Jesus specifically denies and commands not to do in this teaching, above? Or do you really think that his scriptures and words mean nothing to a follower of His?
So, if you want a reason why no devout Christian would want to take you up on your offer, just re-read the above quote over and over…even as you ask, over and over: “Thou shalt not put the Lord your God to the Test!”
Hinduism on the other hand is older than Christianity and still has about a billion adherents and continues to win converts.
Where the heck do you get your stats?
They just presented the world religion stats a month ago on CNN and I’ve never heard of anything like the ridiculous statistics you’ve presented for Hinduism here — I mean, really now — 1 billion?!
Hinduism has only 828 million adherents while Christianity has 2.039 billion and Islam has 1.226 billion.
Esau, 828 million is “about a billion.” Nothing in my argument hinged on the exact magnitude of the number. This is a purely pedantic point on your part that fails to engage at all with the substance of my argument.
What substance?
The fact that the majority of those who inhabit the planet believes in a God doesn’t necessarily strike you as significant?
A. Williams,
Let me put this point as starkly as I possibly can and then you can respond. I think you are drawing an illegitimate distinction between “testing” and reasoning more generally. Perhaps you would say that reason has nothing to do with spiritual truth either – if so, consider the following:
For you, God and Jesus Christ manifestations of the same ultimate reality; God wants us to love even our enemies, and the spirit of God infuses all beings.
For Osama Bin Laden, God is especially concerned that everyone accept that Muhammad is his prophet to the point where he is willing to sanction murder to compel people to believing this.
On what basis, if any, can you say that you are right and Osama Bin Laden is wrong?
My argument is that you can only say that Osama Bin Laden is wrong on the basis of reason; i.e. on the basis of scientific, historical and philosophical arguments about the validity of Christianity and Islam.
The argument I am having with Mary and Esau regards the validity of the Old Testament texts. Are you claiming to be certain of their validity on the basis of personal revelation?
Jason–
“…scientists would have long-since adopted any such methodologies if they produced fruitful results; they have not,…”
Again Jason– this is due to a problem of volition and not understanding.
Does Richard Dawkins saying – that although the universe has the appearance of design this does not mean we need to infer a designer- sound like a problem of the will as opossed to understanding?— it does to me!.
My argument is that you can only say that Osama Bin Laden is wrong on the basis of reason; i.e. on the basis of scientific, historical and philosophical arguments about the validity of Christianity and Islam.
How does that even help your initial argument?
The fact of the matter is that 97% of the world believe in a God.
How is it that their individual conceptions of ‘God’ even help you in your atheistic notion that there is no such thing as a god?
I can understand why it would if this was the only thing written by Richard Dawkins that you had read.
However, if you read the rest of his many books where he eloquently explains how natural processes yield this appearance of design, then you would recognize that this is not a problem of the will, but a problem of your ignorance.
I don’t mean this to be insulting, but think about what evolutionary biologists must think of you. Almost every single person who has obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology (with literally perhaps one or two exceptions) accepts the claim that evolution explains the appearance of complexity in the biological world (for complexity in the physical world, you’ll have to ask physicists). There are many Catholic scientists who accept this claim; they give other reasons for their faith. Let me repeat that again so it will sink in: almost every Catholic who has studied evolutionary biology is convinced that the scientists are correct (I actually don’t know of any Catholic with a PhD in evolutionary biology who does not accept evolution as the explanation of complexity in the natural world). You’re not just disagreeing with Richard Dawkins and me – you’re disagreeing with hundreds of Catholic biologists.
The fact that you continue to do so says far more about you than it says about the motivation of these scientists.
Almost every single person who has obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology (with literally perhaps one or two exceptions) accepts the claim that evolution explains the appearance of complexity in the biological world
How the heck does evolution actually PROVE your atheistic claim that there is NO GOD?
Wouldn’t it be quite conceivable that evolution might have been THE means by which such a creation came into being?
You’re not just disagreeing with Richard Dawkins and me – you’re disagreeing with hundreds of Catholic biologists.
Jason,
For what it’s worth — erick is NOT even Catholic, for goodness sakes!
So, your sorry attempts to offend his non-existent Catholic sensibilities is ludicrous.
Correct, I did not say that evolution proves atheism. It just refutes one argument for theism.
Evolution refutes the argument that complexity in the biological world warrants an inference to an intelligent designer (and this seems to be the argument Erick was making when he quoted Richard Dawkins). Because evolution explains this complexity, the “appearance of design” that Richard Dawkins mentions no more warrants an inference to an intelligent designer than the existence of lightning or thunder.
ESAU READ THIS CAREFULLY: One might also argue that the fact that the natural world obeys laws at all warrants an inference to an intelligent designer (Esau, I can see you seething – “Lightning proves God’s existence too!!”). THIS IS A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT. I also think this argument is wrong, but my points in my post to Erick and above have only been trying to engage with the argument that particular complex phenomena warrant the inference to an intelligent designer, not that the presence of scientific laws more generally warrants such an inference.
My point about Osama bin Laden was only meant to refute the argument that we can be confident in the truth of inferences we draw on the basis of personal revelation alone. These inferences must be tested against reason – otherwise, you have no basis for saying that the truths Osama bin Laden claims to know on the basis of revelation are incorrect.
So, that example ultimately connects back to my atheistic conclusion in the following way:
1) We must apply a test of reason to any conclusions we draw on the basis of personal revelation.
2) When we apply that test, we find that the conclusion that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent personal God does not pass these tests
3) Therefore, personal revelation does not provide any reason to believe in God
4) Nothing else provides any reason to believe in God
5) Considerations like the problem of evil provide us with an active reason to disbelieve in God
6) Therefore, the only reasonable position is to conclude that God does not exist
ESAU: I know that you disagree with 2)-6). I was only trying to establish 1) through my Osama Bin Laden example. The ongoing discussions of: the historical validity of Judeo-Christian teachings, the nature of morality, purported miracles, and the problem of evil (which we have not yet discussed) all bear on claims 2)-6). I think all of these lines of evidence suggest that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent personal God is unlikely – if you disagree, then engage with my particular arguments in particular cases as they arise.
Jason,
You have a poor understanding of scientific investigations.
The fact of the matter is that you keep neglecting this one consistency that appears and re-appears throughout all of human history and even in our modern society today — the REPRODUCIBLE evidence that is observed in the vast majority of the world’s population — that is, their individual beliefs that there IS a God!
This is demonstrated to be something that remains ever consistent throughout not only the past history of humanity but continues even today.
How come?
Can you really dismiss such a PHENOMENON as a consequence of the mere meanderings of the cognitive workings of the human mind?
If that is all there is to it, then even the intelligentsia of humanity would not subscribe to such notions of mere ‘myths’.
Yet, the fact remains — there ARE 97% of the world’s population that continue to believe in notions of a God!
And amongst these are, in fact, the great intellects of humanity!
My problem with materialism is summed up by Chesterton. He referred at one point to “an expansive reason accompanied by a contracted common sense”. He expands;
“As an explanation of the world, materialism has a sort of insane simplicity.
It has just the quality of the madman’s argument; we have at once the sense of it covering everything and the sense of it leaving everything out. Contemplate some able and sincere materialist… and you will have exactly this unique sensation. He understands everything, and everything does not seem worth understanding. His cosmos may be complete in every rivet and cog-wheel, but still his cosmos is smaller than our world. Somehow his scheme, like the lucid scheme of the madman, seems unconscious of the alien energies and the large indifference of the earth; it is not thinking of the real things of the earth, of fighting peoples or proud mothers or first love or fear upon the sea. The earth is so very large and the cosmos is so very small. The cosmos is about the smallest hole that a man can hide his head in.”
We have been discussing (owing to the topic of SDG’s original post) mainly morals as a clue to the nature of the universe, but there is an even more basic aspect of human existence that – by my own experience – completely undoes materialistic determinism; my free will.
Now, Jason may argue, as he has done with moral absolutes, that our free will is a kind of illusion, that we don’t really make truly free choices rooted in some phantom “Will”. He must (I think) accept that our decisions are not just conditioned (as they undoubtedly are) but that they are thoroughly determined and could not have happened in any other way (per Spinoza).
I completely reject this, in that I experience my choices as truly free choices. I have firsthand knowledge of my interior life and KNOW my decisions to be the act of my free will. In fact, in daily life my free will is almost the same as my definition of “myself”.
One can argue that I am locked in to deciding a certain way and that this FEELS like free will, but once again, it is the materialist that must assert that “things are not what they seem”. He must go to great lengths to explain away the practical lived experience of every individual.
We experience “free will” he might say, but it is really just a combination of conditioning, “self conception”, instinct, etc… we experience moral absolutes as constant and inviolable, but this is also a figment. The vast majority of us have a sense that the universe “means something”, but he assures us that the best science proves that it means nothing. There is nothing “outside” because there is no “outside”, only the four walls of our room, which we call the “universe”.
All the most interesting, the most distinctive traits of the human species have to be dismissed as figments, mirages, unfortunate by-products (or even mutations) of evolution.
And speaking of evolution, I have never heard even the beginnings of a satisfactory explanation as to how or why a sense of moral absolutes or free will or the supernatural or a meaningful universe could be advantageous from the point of view of strict, atheistic evolution. What GOOD are these things to the human species, if they are false? If they came about purely as a result of evolution, and if they are false, then one might be tempted to conclude that evolution is a collossally screwed-up process.
And again, from a strictly scientific perspective, can someone explain to me how the interaction of matter and energy, the motions of molecules, could be either moral or immoral? Isn’t the very idea just a projection of The Mutant Brain? The blade of a guillotine passing through the tissues of a human neck can hardly be of any more significance than leaf falling to the ground. Why pretend otherwise?
Further to the above, the fact that most in today’s modern society do not subscribe to certain ‘facts’ without the benefit of a showing of substantial evidence (as the vast majority of modern society are the ‘I’ll believe it only if I see it’-type crowd than mere credulity); what then could actually account for the reason why such folks continue to convert to such religions that carry notions of a ‘God’ be it any of the world’s religions?
If it all hinges on personal revelation, I doubt that any could be convinced in experiencing such conversion to a ‘faith’.
For example, when Christian friends attempted to (re-)convert me into Christianity in the past, their personal experiences of God meant relatively nothing to me.
Coming from a science background, such maniacal manisfestations of what I considred then to be artifacts of ancient human myths meant little to me.
Yet, there is such a thing where each person’s journey to such a faith came not because of other people’s so-called personal revelations (we typically ridicule those — as I had done so then) but because of something more intimate.
It is that ‘intimacy’ that every person who comes to such a faith that is the reproducible element which is the evidence that is frequently neglected by the likes of people as yourselves.
Even more, such instances eminate from independent sources.
The fact of the matter is that you tend to bias your poorly-conducted investigation on facts that seem to promote your case while neglecting others that give evidence to something even greater.
Yet, were I to have remained the person I was then; I would have looked at you presently as the worst of idiots.
Why?
Because of the fact that you actually engage those idiots who actually subscribe to human myths that long should have become extinct!
My point was that even though Richard Dawkins rejection of a designer is volitional (regardless of what Jason says ),this stems from the fact that if he would concede such a notion, he would then have to explain a Designer!.
He admits this in his book- “The God Delusion”.
Anthropology, logic, the natural sciences, history, linguistics and so forth—the whole universe of knowledge has been involved in one way or another. Yet the positive results achieved must not obscure the fact that reason, in its one-sided concern to investigate human subjectivity, seems to have forgotten that men and women are always called to direct their steps towards a truth which transcends them. Sundered from that truth, individuals are at the mercy of caprice, and their state as person ends up being judged by pragmatic criteria based essentially upon experimental data, in the mistaken belief that technology must dominate all. It has happened therefore that reason, rather than voicing the human orientation towards truth, has wilted under the weight of so much knowledge and little by little has lost the capacity to lift its gaze to the heights, not daring to rise to the truth of being. Abandoning the investigation of being, modern philosophical research has concentrated instead upon human knowing. Rather than make use of the human capacity to know the truth, modern philosophy has preferred to accentuate the ways in which this capacity is limited and conditioned.
– John Paul the Great – FIDES ET RATIO, Paragraph 5
the only reasonable position is to conclude that God does not exist
Many “elite” scientists find uncertainty to be a reasonable position. If you know the answer, or think you do, then what motivation is there to seek further knowledge? Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of uncertainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain. In order to progress, scientists must leave room for doubt. You have admitted, “we know only a staggeringly small portion of what there is to know,” yet you want to conclude your search already. Is that reasonable?
Erick perhaps I unfairly assumed in my previous post that you were expressing skepticism about the ability of evolution to explain the observed complexity in the biological world. If you were not expressing such skepticism, then I apologize, but then I don’t quite see what you were getting at – after all, if you agree that evolution can explain the complexity in the biological world, why would this complexity warrant an inference to a designer any more than the existence of lightning and thunder? (perhaps both do in your view, but I took your quote to imply that this complexity was a separate argument).
I don’t understand what you mean when you say his rejection of a designer is “volitional” – do you mean by that that he has no good reason to do so and simply rejects a designer because he wants to? In a trivial sense, I agree with you that any judgment we make is “volitional” but that doesn’t mean it isn’t supported by good reasons. I think actually this post and your previous post refer to two different arguments that Dawkins makes. These arguments are:
1) The inference to a designer is superfluous because we have a perfectly good explanation of complexity in the biological world (I think this was the argument implicit in the quote about the “appearance of design”).
2) The inference to a designer creates more problems than it solves because the designer itself must then be explained.
I think both arguments are quite forceful, although the 2nd is philosophical while the 1st is primarily scientific.
I certainly do not claim to “know the answer”. I only claim to think that with very high probability that a particular answer is mistaken (i.e. “God explains it”).
There are innumerable things that scientists don’t know – why is there something rather than nothing, what is the nature of time, what are the fundamental constituents of matter, why are the laws of the universe the way they are, and what is consciousness to name just a few. My only claim is that the answers that religion gives to these questions are either mistaken or vacuous.
Uncertainty about the questions I suggest above is the only reasonable position given our current knowledge. However, that uncertainty does not mean that we cannot rule out some explanations as inadequate.
Uncertainty about the questions I suggest above is the only reasonable position given our current knowledge.
Likewise, uncertainty about God is a reasonable position given our current limited knowledge. Thus, it is not reasonable to claim, as you did, that “the only reasonable position is to conclude that God does not exist.”
“…do you mean by that that he has no good reason to do so and simply rejects a designer because he wants to? …”
” Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”…RICHARD DAWKINS-the blind watchmaker.
the word BIAS does come to mind!.
Tim J.,
You raise many different issues in your post. I’ll just briefly sketch my response to a few of them and then you can decide which you want to press further – I don’t mean for these responses to be completely clear – I just want to give you a very rough idea of what I will eventually argue, and you can decide where you want to press me further.
1) The only thing that I’m arguing is illusory is your belief in God. I am explicitly denying the proposition that materialism implies that morality or free will are somehow illusions.
2) I didn’t quite argue that there are no moral absolutes, although I did argue that morality has no external sanction; there are moral absolutes in the sense that there are moral propositions that all humans regard as binding on them.
3) I wouldn’t argue that free will is an illusion – I would argue that free will as we understand it is quite real and perfectly compatible with determinism (where by determinism, I mean the probabilistic determinism of quantum mechanics, although I don’t think the distinction matters much here). I think we make choices, but the act of making choices is something that goes on in our brain like everything else we think.
4) I’m not asserting that things are not as the seem. I’m saying things are exactly as they seem; when you claim that volition seems as though it involves something outside our physical brain, I think you’re just mistaken about how things seem (i.e. we have no idea what it would even mean for things to seem like this to us).
5) See my above caveats about how I am not saying that morality or free will are illusions. The idea that the universe as a whole has a purpose is an illusion. I would not say this is an adaptation which would be favored by natural selection, but rather a byproduct of other adaptations – for instance, the tendency to overattribute conscious motives to inanimate objects and our desire that the manifold injustices in the world occur for a reason.
My only claim is that the answers that religion gives to these questions are either mistaken or vacuous.
Interesting to note you demonstrate here the very model of an either/or fallacy.
How surprising that the only two options you’ve provided concerning religion here is that it is either stupid or idiotic — either way, by your fallacious reasoning, religion loses.
You still have provided no conclusive answer why 97% of humanity still continues to believe in a ‘God’ and why this has been the case throughout human history!
However, that uncertainty does not mean that we cannot rule out some explanations as inadequate.
Then, if that is indeed the case, why are you ruling out the explanations provided by classical theism?
One thing is certain: My Messiah can raise me from death while your messiah, Dawkins, will have condemned you to yours — permanently! Too bad it will have become only too late when you ultimately realize that this is so!
Perhaps, but we are all biased. The quotes you give show that he doesn’t believe the universe is purposive, but he is not simply assuming that – he is giving arguments for it. Perhaps these arguments are wrong and he just thinks they’re good arguments because he wants to justify views he holds for other reasons, but that could be true of any of us including you – the only way to counter Dawkins is to actually engage with his arguments rather than accusing him of bias. Only if his arguments are mistaken would we have any reason to infer bias.
Esau – I’m curious – how old are you? (I’m 24).
Esau – I’m curious – how old are you? (I’m 24).
Dude,
Sorry, bud —
I’m straight.
You might consider Smoky; he’s an open-minded fella.
I’m straight.
You might consider Smoky; he’s an open-minded fella.
???
Grow-up, Esau.
Grow-up, Esau.
No offense — to either your lifestyles.
Not only that, but my heart still belongs to Mary Kay!
(j/k)
I recognize that you’re joking Esau. Still, I think it’s in poor taste.
I believe stating:
“The only thing that I’m arguing is illusory is your belief in God.”
is, in fact, in poor taste as well without having provided any facts that corroborate this premise.
Sigh.
Smoky – I know you often disagree with me although we sometimes find ourselves on the same side – which of my arguments do you find least compelling?
Jason,
Consider the fact that your conclusion merely re-states your premise; that is:
“The only thing that I’m arguing is illusory is your belief in God.”
Conclusion: There is no such thing as God.
Whereas I have said that:
1. 97% of humanity still continues to believe in a ‘God’
2. This has been the case throughout human history
My argument offers reasons independent of the conclusion (i.e., “There IS a God”) as support for the conclusion.
Please provide your support that “God is illusory” to conclude ‘There is no such thing as God’.
Esau, aw shucks. (shuffles feet)
Jason, I almost don’t know where the discussion is at this point.
I looked up Hinduism to see what the belief system was and there isn’t a consistent belief system.
In contrast, there are three monotheistic religions and only two of them (Judaism and Christianity) consistent, both internally and with archeology since Islam does revisionist history.
So basically what I’ve gotten from all this is that only what can be measured is real.
Esau,
When I use the phrase, “My argument is” I am using it to mean “the conclusion I am trying to argue for” not, “The content of my argument is” – I think this may have led to an enormous amount of confusion when you tried to interpret all of my previous posts. I now understand why you have found them all so frustrating – you keep thinking I am just assuming the conclusion I am trying to argue for when in fact the remainder of the post is often devoted to arguing for just that conclusion (sometimes, I note I am deferring content of the argument to a future post). I suggest you go back and read all of my previous posts at least twice with this caveat in mind.
Regarding your point about 97% of the world’s population, I will respond to this later in a longer post (brief summary: All mean different things by God, what matters is what people with the relevant expertise think; I know you think everyone is qualified by virtue of personal revelation – I will argue that you are mistaken).
A general point: you seem to think that many of my arguments reduce to simple logical fallacies. They do not. If they did, smart people would not make them and there are many smart people who make the same arguments I am making. I don’t think any of your arguments are simple logical fallacies – I think you’re mistaken for more subtle reasons.
Next time you feel the urge to accuse me of making a simple logical fallacy, first try to figure out how you may have misunderstood my argument (as has been the case every time so far). Only after you have exhausted every possible charitable interpretation should you angrily accuse me of making some obvious fallacy and see what I have to say about it.
Mary Kay,
Sorry, I think the discussion has been sidetracked by my posts in response to Esau and Erick.
I think the best thing to do would be to ignore those posts and respond to the most recent posts I made which were directly in response to you.
Hindus would beg to differ – someone could easily say the same thing about Christianity due to the multiplicity of denominations. Of course, if you focus in on any one you will get more consistency; same with Hinduism.
Jason
Mary Kay,
Also, so we don’t get sidetracked into a long argument about whether Hinduism or Christianity is more cohesive, I would agree that the Christian denominations tend to have more beliefs in common than the different variants of Hinduism.
What do you think follows from this claim?
Mary Kay – the two most recent posts I think it would be most productive to respond to were the ones from 8:44:39 PM and 5:39:06 AM.
“I am explicitly denying the proposition that materialism implies that morality or free will are somehow illusions.”
But it does. At some level (even the level of quantum mechanics) you hold that the choices we make are EXCLUSIVELY the result of material processes. That’s fine if you want to believe that, but I’M telling you that my decision to have bleu cheese instead of swiss is something that I IMPOSED on reality this evening, and isn’t something that reality imposed on me.
If the will is determined, it is not free will. If you don’t agree with that statement, you don’t believe in free will. If the free will you are talking about is anything other than the mind breaking in on the temporal world from outside, then we are not speaking the same language. Either the will really shapes the world, or the world creates the will from within and shapes it however it will. In the latter case, the will couldn’t possibly break free of the “rules” of the physical world (even if those rules are tiny quantum rules) and it is to that extent not *free* will.
“I did argue that morality has no external sanction; there are moral absolutes in the sense that there are moral propositions that all humans regard as binding on them.”
Again, we are speaking different languages. By moral absolutes is meant precisely that which is really binding on our behavior BY external sanction, not just something that people happen to REGARD (for the moment) as binding.
“I would argue that free will as we understand it is quite real and perfectly compatible with determinism (where by determinism, I mean the probabilistic determinism of quantum mechanics, although I don’t think the distinction matters much here). I think we make choices, but the act of making choices is something that goes on in our brain like everything else we think.”
The use of phrases like “as we understand it” is not helpful, as it implies that our understanding is faulty or incomplete without backing up the assertion. Again, you seemingly accept free will, but only with the understanding that “free” and “will” are in quotation marks and mean something other than what people really mean when they use these words.
“I’m not asserting that things are not as the seem. I’m saying things are exactly as they seem; when you claim that volition seems as though it involves something outside our physical brain, I think you’re just mistaken about how things seem…”
All you’ve done is back up one rhetorical step. You have just asserted again that though I experience my mind as something MUCH greater than the sum of its physical parts and processes, I am mistaken. In other words, things are not as they seem. On what evidence do you challenge my own firsthand experience of my Self? If YOUR thought life seems to YOU like just the aggregate of material processes in the brain, then that’s fine.
“The idea that the universe as a whole has a purpose is an illusion.”
Does HALF the universe have a purpose? Maybe a quarter? How finely do we have to chop the universe before we start to find meaning? To the extent that you believe meaning is just something we project on to things, you don’t believe in real meaning of any kind at all. Meaning is expressed THROUGH things, not laid over them, otherwise, why are you reading this?
I’m sorry I can only break in to the conversation occasionally and deal with very broad issues without fully fleshing them out, but it can’t be helped. I would like to deal with your objections in more detail, but just flat on’t have the time.
Tim J.,
I think it might be more productive if we try to flesh out just one of these issues at a time (although they are all closely related).
In this post, I’ll just engage with your point about free will since I haven’t really discussed this yet and since I think it underlies many of your other points.
This is a correct interpretation of my position. To the extent that you believe you are literally imposing your choices on reality, I think you are mistaken (so you’re right that if that’s what you mean by free will, then I do think it is illusory).
I don’t see what feature of our conscious experience makes you think that this is what the act of choosing involves.
It seems to me that the act of choosing involves weighing the reasons in favor of different actions and then making operative the reason that you find most compelling (a compelling reason could even be, “In this instance, I want to do the opposite of what I would typically do!”). Choice is a matter of acting on the most compelling reason without external interference (I realize that “without external interference” raises many questions which you can bring up as you please).
It’s true that the fact that you acted on the most compelling reason was not your choice; the particles in your brain are the ultimate cause of why you acted as you did. But this is irrelevant – you are free as long as nothing apart from the ordinary functioning of your brain interferes with your ability to act on the most compelling reason.
I think Benjamin Libet’s experiments were really the first scientific experiments to attempt to address these issues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
They are by no means conclusive, but they are a jumping off point for more recent experiments which I think support the view I articulated.
Jason, no wonder I get sidetracked. I’m totally flabbergasted when you tell Tim, “well, you think you’re making a free choice, but really it’s your brain controlling all your choices.” Then again, it does explain your non-acceptance of scripture.
But back to Odysseus. No, first back to Hinduism.
I would agree that the Christian denominations tend to have more beliefs in common than the different variants of Hinduism.
yes.
What do you think follows from this claim?
I’m actually more interested in what you think it says. And you can use a stronger word than “claim.”
Wikipedia says that “Hinduism
is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism,[14] panentheism, pantheism, monism and atheism.”
I couldn’t even paste that with a straight face. I mean how do “span” monotheism, polytheism and atheism? One, many and none, whatever you want.
On the other hand, Christianity has core beliefs that are and have been consistent: that Jesus is both God and man, that God became man when Jesus took on human nature, that Jesus died and rose from the dead, that God is the Trinity of Father, Son and Spirit. No matter where you go in Christianity, those beliefs are held in common, have been for 2,000 years and will continue to the end of time. Granted, there are some differences and some of the differences are major. But that internal consistency is something that I find to be rather remarkable.
On to a brief visit to Odysseus and then I need to get back on track getting to bed on time.
that you don’t accept the stories of the Odyssey. That’s why I picked it. I want to know – on what basis do you reject those stories yet accept the stories in the Old Testament?
Greek mythology is universally recognized as mythology. Not so the OT stories…..
…If you were to make the case that historians tend to become more likely to accept the Biblical stories the more they study…
The most germane answer is that a personal encounter does not need historians for validation, but to rely on just the history aspect. There is historical corroboration for at least some of the Biblical stories, certainly from the time of Jesus on (who mentioned by Josephus). But Christianity did not start in a vacuum. It has deep roots in those Old Testament stories. I’m not saying this well, but it’s a matter of internal consistency and external validation.
And with that, good night to all.
You’d also be totally flabbergasted if I told you that the same particle can literally be in more than one place at the same time – this is completely contrary to our intuition. It also happens to be true. Our intuition is not always a reliable guide to figuring out how things really work.
Just to reiterate my (admittedly confusing) earlier post, I am only making the claim you quote above regarding what I view as Tim J’s idiosyncratic definition of free choice as being a choice literally imposed on reality from somewhere outside reality.
I just don’t see what aspect of the experience of choosing suggests that the choice comes from outside reality. Whatever motivation is ultimately effective in moving me to act comes from inside my brain – this doesn’t make it any less my choice – it’s just that what constitutes “Me” is also ultimately the collection of impulses which emerge from an extremely complex series of computations performed in my brain. A consequence of this view is that a sufficiently sophisticated computer could be conscious in the same way that we are. However, our current computers are lightyears away from the massive computing power of our brains, and it’s not just a question of megahertz; it’s also a question of the sophistication of the algorithms.
As with most complex issues, I think the discussion stalls if we simply try to rely on our intuition to evaluate this claim. I think my view is as consistent with intuition as the one that Tim J. proposes, although perhaps you disagree.
Read some summary of Libet’s experiments and tell me how you interpret the results; I’ll then suggest follow-up experiments that might distinguish between my interpretation and yours (and perhaps we’ll see that some of the relevant experiments have already been done).
If you’re really interested in this question, the one book I would recommend is “How the Mind Works” by Steven Pinker.
This is false. Many Unitarians deny the divinity of Jesus and the miracles attributed to him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian
You might say, “If they deny the divinity of Jesus, then they are not really Christians!” But they self-identify as Christians. If you exclude them, your claim that there are fundamental beliefs that all Christians share is just true by definition and you can’t infer anything substantive from a claim that is true by definition. Many Hindu groups certainly believe that those who call themselves Hindus but don’t share their beliefs are not really Hindus.
I think if we were to poll all Christians and all Hindus, we *might* find that Christians share more beliefs in common, although the wikipedia article might be misleading about this (I could write a wikipedia article that made the Unitarians seem more prominent in Christian thought than they actually are).
At any rate, my original point in bringing up the Hindus was just to say that the fact that a belief has endured for centuries is not evidence that it is true. Whatever the current degree of heterogeneity among Hindus, many of their beliefs have endured for longer than Christian dogma but this does not make them true.
This argument is circular:
Me: It seems like the historical evidence for the Odyssey is at least as strong as the historical evidence for many biblical stories. Why do you believe the Biblical stories and not the Odyssey?
You: Because no one believes the Odyssey anymore but people still believe in the Biblical stories.
OK, but my point is that people are mistaken to believe in the Biblical stories because there is no more evidence for them than the Odyssey (perhaps most people believe just because everyone else does with no one having a good reason). To counter this claim, you need to explain how the evidence for the Biblical stories is somehow stronger than the evidence for the stories in the Odyssey (and I don’t think it is).
But Hindus claim the same thing about stories in Hindu scripture, as have the Greeks and Egyptians before them. As does Osama Bin Laden when he says on the basis of his personal encounters that God wants him to kill infidels. On what basis can you say that you are right and they are wrong? It seems that your only option is to appeal to historical evidence of some kind if you want to argue that Christianity is right and Islam and Hinduism are wrong.
There is historical corroboration for some parts of the Odyssey as well – the Trojan War really took place. This doesn’t mean that Odysseus really was tied to the mast of his ship so he could resist the sirens’ call.
Finally, all of my points in this post should be interpreted in the context of my (November 05, 2007 at 02:41 PM) post which enumerated my reasons for thinking personal revelation untrustworthy.
Esau, I apologize, my post to Mary Kay took a bit longer than expected so I didn’t get to your 97% claim. I will do my best to address it at some point tomorrow.
I mean how do “span” monotheism, polytheism and atheism? One, many and none, whatever you want. On the other hand, Christianity has core beliefs that are and have been consistent
Mary Kay, it’s much like how a rainbow spans many colors, although it all comes from the same light source. Even to read the same Hindu scriptures, the mind acts like a prism, splitting or reflecting the light into divisions or paths which may be described as monotheistic, polytheistic, atheistic, etc. Different Hindus follow different paths.
Whatever motivation is ultimately effective in moving me to act comes from inside my brain
Jason, is your brain not acting in response to external stimuli?
In reality, I have felt for some time that we are at an impasse. We don’t begin with the same questions, and it is no surprise that we go in opposite directions. We aren’t even talking past one another, we have no hope of really communicating at all.
You are basically asking me to provide you with an adequate rational proof demonstrating that rational proofs are inadequate.
I can’t remember a time when I did not see the world as a piece of art, the expression of a mind. I can’t remember when I didn’t look at the universe and wonder what it was *about*… curious not so much about how it worked (though that, TOO), but much more what it was *for* and Who was behind it. Apparently, the vast majority of people understand that reaction. They know what I am talking about.
Philosophy and religion in general, and Christianity in particular, are answers to the question of the Meaning of Life. If you have never asked the question, or see it as a question about simply nothing, then you have nothing to gain from any dialogue. It can’t even properly be called dialogue.
Given time, I might persuade you that Christianity is the most complete answer to the Meaning of Life, but there is absolutely nothing I can say to make you take an interest in the question.
Not that that would keep me from having a few beers with you.
🙂
That’s right (this is the kind of objection I was alluding to with my parenthetical remark about the ambiguity of “without external interference” in my earlier post).
It’s true that (with the usual quantum caveat) our actions are ultimately determined by causes completely beyond our control. But this seems to me completely consistent with choice as we experience it. There are just two ways of looking at the same thing: from the internal perspective, we make a decision and act on it. From the external perspective, if someone else were to examine the particles in our brain, those particles would cause us to make exactly the decision that we in fact made from the internal perspective.
Perhaps what you are getting at is the issue of how this relates to moral responsibility. To answer that, we’ll have to return to the notion of “self-conception” that I set out in an earlier thread. We are responsible for an action if the cause of our actions passes through our stable self-conceptions (I described the notion of self-conceptions in detail in one of the earlier threads, I think in the first responses thread). This is a more precise statement of what I meant when I said, “without external interference” – external is defined relative to these self-conceptions.
Nor I with you of course :-).
I see your point here, but this seems to me not to be an internally consistent view. Surely, you think that rationality is important in some spheres of your life. You would not consider yourself wholly irrational. The only question is whether applying reason is an appropriate way to deal with the question of God. Before I respond, let me make sure I understand your position.
The argument I want you to make (because I believe it is at least internally consistent), but which you do not make is:
1a) I believe God exists on the basis of personal revelation
2a) I have a rational argument for why personal revelation is reliable in this case
3a) Therefore, I also rationally know that God exists
I of course reject premise 2a). But you seem to favor a different view:
1b) I believe God exists on the basis of personal revelation
2b) I also know on the basis of personal revelation that God’s existence is not the proper subject of reason so there are no further arguments that can be made about the matter including arguments that question the validity of this premise
Before I respond, would you agree that 1b) and 2b) are a fair characterization of your view?
I certainly don’t think this question is meaningless. I think there is a great deal to be said about how we should live our lives. I just don’t think the answer to this question is, “As God wants us to”.
our actions are ultimately determined by causes completely beyond our control… We are responsible for an action if the cause of our actions passes through our stable self-conceptions
Responsible implies holding a specific office, duty, or trust. Where is the office, duty or trust if one has no control or authority? In your story, the cause or authority merely passes through “completely beyond our control” and does not originate in the person. How then is the person “being the cause or explanation”, i.e. responsible?
Or are you just redefining the word?
In this case, I am defining responsibility to mean that the forces which cause us to act in a particular way influence our action through our self-conception.
Two substantive questions seem to follow:
1) Can responsibility defined as such respect our ordinary language use of the term – that is, does it lead to the right attribution of responsibility or a lack of responsibility in the obvious cases?
2) Does responsibility defined as such have the moral significance we usually attribute to it?
I of course think the answer is yes in both cases, but it seems to me that challenges to the view I describe should challenge it on the basis of 1) or 2).
Look at it this way, if you knock over a vase because something completely beyond your control pushed you, society does not label you as responsible. But with your redefinition of the word “responsible”, you would be responsible because “the cause of your action passed through your stable self-conception.”
What you describe is already known, without redefining the language, as “Oh, things happen but no one is responsible.”
Charles,
it’s much like how a rainbow spans many colors, although it all comes from the same light source.
But it’s one light source. This is one time when it really is an either/or situation. Either God exists or not. Either monotheistic or polytheistic. The definition literally excludes the other.
Jason,
Many Unitarians deny the divinity of Jesus and the miracles attributed to him … You might say, “If they deny the divinity of Jesus, then they are not really Christians!” But they self-identify as Christians.
I could self-identify as the Cy Young winner but that doesn’t make it true. There needs to be some corroboration. You’ve been trumpeted the superiority of scientific corroboration for some things, yet accept other things simply on someone’s say-so.
is just true by definition and you can’t infer anything substantive from a claim that is true by definition
I’ll have to come back as I don’t have time for this one this morning. I want to address your wiki reference about free will.
I looked at the wiki entry on Libet that you linked. It’s a topic wiki alone would be insufficient. But I did notice this sentence:
It is possible that Libet’s theory has been misunderstood to some extent, and that his results have been used by materialist polemicists, since the question of the nature of the mind is a highly political one.
Ack, I still ran out of time. I’ll try to get back at lunchtime.
But it’s one light source. This is one time when it really is an either/or situation. Either God exists or not. Either monotheistic or polytheistic. The definition literally excludes the other.
One light is still many colors. Whether it be seen as blue, or red or green, it is light. The colors are not separate from the light. The light is not exclusive of the colors and the colors are not exclusive of the light. Thus it’s monotheistic and polytheistic, which is not the same as “either God exists or not.” It can even be atheistic in the sense of transcendence beyond being and not being, beyond faith, beyond what is called God.
Trying to follow the contorted logic has led me to speculate on the nature of Jason’s beliefs. Is he a Ramthaist? Does he draw his philosophy from this movie?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!
This is a serious question.
Jason,
The reliablity and credibility of the Sacred Scriptures, and particularly of Jesus Christ Himself, is something Christians believe is beyond reason. It includes reason, but is not limited by it. This is why we say, and recognize, that the Holy Scriptures were inspired by the “Holy Spirit”, and NOT that they were the product of man’s ‘reason”(though reason may certainly have played a large role!).
Moreover, we believe that the same Holy Spirit of God in-dwells our beings from the moment of conception, and is the very reason that our human natures are formed in likeness and “IMAGE OF GOD”. This same Holy Spirit is responsible for giving us both natural and supernatural gifts such as intuition, natural instinct, sound reason, inspirations, communicative locutions, prophetic dreams, angelic visitations, and divine miracles …all of which accompany us, and guide us as we develope throughout our lives.
(One example of such communicative locutions might be the response that the embryo John the Baptist made when he heard the voice of Mary when she met Elizabeth :”He lept in her womb”. And prophetic dreams are also found throughout scripture and the lives of the Saints, as well as in the personal testimony of many people, including myself.)
So, Christians believe in, and experience in their lives, these other aspects of human existience, all of which both lead to faith in God, and also help us to attain “Eternal Life”, as promised through the same natural and supernatural means.
And these other elements, including both inspiration, instinct and supernatural miracles/prophesies, CANNOT be overlooked, no matter how ‘scientific’ you might want to try to be. They are a far to intregal part of the history of mankind,( found both in sacred scripture and in personal biography–lives of saints, etc..) to be ignored.
To discount these other human attributes and/or occurances as false or inconsequential, you will need to call many, very virtuous men, LIARS, and chief amongst them:
Jesus, all of The Apostles, St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi (almost all of the early Brothers of St. Francis who were witnesses to his life also), St. Patrick, w/autobiography),St. Dominic, St. Joseph Cupertino, St. John Bosco, St. Anthony Mary Claret (w/autobiography), St. Francis Xavier, Padre Pio, The Children of Fatima, etc.. etc…
So, we form our opinions and faith not only through reason, as you suggest, but through MANY other natural and even supernatural means and events. And Christians BELIEVE because of this long historical line of both rational and supernatural proofs, found both in our personal lives, as well as in accounts given since the foundation of human history.
I hope that also you will read from the lives of the Saints, especially in numerous accounts which are autobiographal, and discover the profound truth, faith, wisdom and divine manifestations contained in such accounts. Trust can be given to men who have been proven to have lived ‘heroically virtuous’ lives…and this is why they are canonized by the Church… SAINTS.
Then again, you might want to argue that the above ‘Saints’ are nothing but gyrating atoms.
However, I prefer: SAINTS, SERVANTS, WITNESSES and CHILDREN OF GOD.
….but then again, I’m a Catholic Christian!
Charles, you’re simply assuming the result you want to show here.
If you knock over a vase because you think, “That’s an ugly vase, I’m going to destroy it” – then society does hold you responsible; this is an example of outside causes acting through your self-conception (again, to see why, you may need to refer back to my earlier posts on self-conception and normativity).
If however you knock over a vase because someone drugged you and you accidentally hit it as you fell to the ground, then this is an example of causes influencing you through an avenue which is not your self-conception; and my definition gives the right answer here too: you are not responsible.
Mary, as I pointed out in my initial post, if you want to define Christianity in such a way as to exclude Unitarians, that’s your prerogative, but polytheistic Hindus could define Hinduism in such a way that it excludes monotheistic Hindus – and I think they would have a strong basis for doing so.
Again, before taking this argument further – remember what point you were originally trying to show (something about how the longevity of the central Christian notions suggests that they are true). It is only in the context of that point that this argument about how to define Christianity will make sense. My claim is that many notions in Hinduism which are still widely believed today are at least as old.
If you knock over a vase because you think, “That’s an ugly vase, I’m going to destroy it”… If however you knock over a vase because someone drugged you
No, my example was neither about you not liking the vase nor about being drugged so that you don’t know what you’re doing. It was a specific example where someone pushed you and you know you knocked over the vase. With your redefinition of the word “responsible”, you would be responsible because “the cause of your action passed through your stable self-conception.”
No, this movie strikes me as trumpeting a facile and incorrect interpretation of quantum mechanics; also, I don’t think there is any evidence for the Penrose-Hameroff theory of consciousness.
Michael, just so you know, I also view your logic as contorted. Perhaps other posters on this board agree with you. However, the scientists who have done careful experiments and thought hard about the question mostly agree with me. My account only offends your sensibilities because you are so accustomed to the Catholic account which, while familiar to you, is also inconsistent with modern neuroscience (I’m not referring here to just the Libet experiments).
Presumably you also view quantum mechanics as “contorted” because it so offends your intuition. That’s too bad, because it means you live in a very contorted world. I prefer to consider it mysterious and beautiful.
Perhaps I should clarify my definition. By “passed through your stable self-conception”, I don’t mean “Your brain was aware of it as it was happening.” I mean instead, “The source of your reasons for acting was a stable self-conception that you hold” (again, refer back to my earlier posts on the matter in a different thread for more on self-conceptions). With this definition, you would not be responsible in the case you suggest.
One more clarification – I should have included the word proximate above; “The proximate source of your reasons for acting was a stable self-conception that you hold.” It is of course true that the ultimate source is factors that are beyond your control; but you are responsible provided those factors act through your self-conception in such a way that the proximate source of your reasons for acting is your stable self-conception.
I mean instead, “The source of your reasons for acting was a stable self-conception that you hold”
In your materialistic world, my active knowledge that everyone’s “stable self-conception” was not of their own creation but sourced with causes “completely beyond a person’s control” precludes me from holding the person responsible. In other words, I do not believe the source of reasons for acting is limited to a “stable self-conception.” I could no more hold you responsible than I’d hold your great great grandparents and the weather responsible. It would be like holding an automobile responsible for an accident and not the driver, the automaker, the people who make the road, etc.
It is of course true that the ultimate source is factors that are beyond your control
This is simply saying I’m ultimately not responsible. Any responsibility alleged upon me would only be ignorance of the fact that I’m ultimately not responsible.
In all of this debate it doesn’t really matter, personally, whether we believe, philosophize, study, theorize, argue or convince. What matters MOST for us personally is:
Whether we are considered worthy of attaining ETERNAL LIFE. If not, the little intellect, love, worldly wisdom, joy, happiness, everything that we currently find comfort in, in this present world…will be taken from us.
What happens after death…is of extreme importance becaseu it NEVER ENDS! To be in a state where love no longer exists, where rest is never found, where regret is never ended…is HELL!
Separation from the GOOD Creator,God, by choosing evil (YES IT DOES EXIST) over good, sin over virtue, lies over truth, casts a soul into spiritual and physical misery. It is why Jesus said: “Fear not those who can kill the body but not hurt the soul. Rather, fear Him who can both kill the body, and cast the soul into the fires of Hell”
Better for all of us to follow EVERY inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT, so as all to be held worthy to stand before God in His good preasure!
So, let’s debate all we want…but practice virtue and do good while were at it. Lest we all end up debating, weeping and complaining without end, in a Hell of eternal fire, darkness and pain!
And only God knows the Quantum physics of this state!
Sigh.
Esau (out of nowhere): I’m straight. You might consider Smoky; he’s an open-minded fella.
Smoky: I recognize that you’re joking Esau. Still, I think it’s in poor taste.
Esau: I believe stating:
“The only thing that I’m arguing is illusory is your belief in God.”
is, in fact, in poor taste
First, Esau is quoting Jason, not me.
Second, I’m done. I see point in conversing with Esau in the future. He is too immature.
Correction. I see no point in conversing with Esau in the future.
The post by A Wiliams above is quite pertinent.
How many soup kitchens are run by Atheists–( I wonder).
If we are all molecules and atoms plus chance , plus nothing, plus chance, etc. etc.
Then it is no wonder that Atheism cannot ever produce a character like Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr. et al.
After all we are intrinsically no different than a Galapagos turtle——— no pun inteneded.
What Atheism does produce though, may have to be found in the hundreds of millions of lives “lost” in the communist regimes of Russia and China!.
First, Esau is quoting Jason, not me.
Second, I’m done. I see point in conversing with Esau in the future. He is too immature.
Smoky,
My point is that you often overlook the insulting remarks of those who look down on Christianity but make every effort it seems to put down those who defend it.
Case in point is the matter brought up previously by A. Williams.
It is very unfair the way you seem to act in this manner as if operating by some sort of double standard.
This is the reason for my tongue-in-cheek remark, which purpose was not only to inject some light humour but also to place focus on this as well through said humour.
Smoky,
It do well for you to take into consideration what A. Williams mentioned to you and Jason in one of his posts above, namely:
“Now, you and Smoky Mountain seem to get angry with some of us if we get tired of accomodating your requests for a brain test to locate such a spirit, and that’s because, as we have said over adn over, that we believe that you cannot test this SPIRIT of GOD within us.”
Posted by: A.Williams | Nov 6, 2007 6:57:29 AM
Smoky Mountain seem to get angry with some of us if we get tired of accomodating your requests for a brain test to locate such a spirit
Esau,
Show me where I got angry; furthermore show me where I advocated a brain test. It seems that you like to attribute things that Jason says to me.
Furthermore, how can you consider your “joke” that I’m homosexual to be “light humour” which attempted to show that I’m “operating by some sort of double standard”? It’s completely unrelated and in extremely poor taste; if nothing else (besides offending me), you should be mature enough to realize that joking about homosexuality is inappropriate. Many Christians struggle with homosexuality and try to live chaste lives. Making light of the matter is not appropriate.
Rather than telling me how I’m in the wrong and you’re in the right, why can’t you ever apologize for anything?
And isn’t this what is special about mankind, is that we really are molecules and atoms, minerals and ‘star dust’, chemicals and ‘slime of the earth’…yet God then ‘breathed His Spirit into us’, ..thereby adding something divine to that which, before, really was only molecules and atoms?
So too, isn’t this the reason why killing an animal is not the same as killing a human being?
And why eating a chicken isn’t a crime, but dinner?
IT is that little extra item about breathing the Spirit of God into man that is the ESSENTIAL part of the story, thereby making us capable of, somehow, intrinsically understanding God.. of being “like” Him.
And as God is GOOD….we also, therefore, need to be GOOD, because our fundemental human nature was created after the pattern of ‘goodness’, which is the ‘image’ of the good God.
This is also why Jesus mandated: “Be holy, because your Father in Heaven is Holy”.
So, whether a person believes in God or not, it behooves him to be as ‘good’ and ‘holy’ as possible.
Thereby it might even be possible to disbelieve with one’s mouth, false reason and ignorance, but in ones acts, spirit and natural intuition, might conform to, and still be found to be in the image of, the Creator?
This is a mystery, but Jesus does allude to it in the Gospels, saying:
“But what think you? A certain man had two sons; and coming to the first, he said: Son, go work today in my vineyard. 29 And he answering, said: I will not. But afterwards, being moved with repentance, he went. 30 And coming to the other, he said in like manner. And he answering, said: I go, Sir; and he went not.
31 Which of the two did the father’s will? They say to him: The first. Jesus saith to them: Amen I say to you, that the publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you.”
…Just,something for all mindful souls to consider.
Show me where I got angry; furthermore show me where I advocated a brain test. It seems that you like to attribute things that Jason says to me.
First, I wasn’t the one making this claim. It was a quote from a previous post from A. Williams.
Second, I don’t think it was wrong of A. Williams to have considered you party to Jason’s endeavor.
Third, that was your interpretation of the humour, which is far from its intent.
Rather than engage with you in this regard, as this subject is of greater importance to me than your propensity of making mountains out of mole hills, as made evident in previous threads; I would like to hear out more of Jason’s, erick’s, and A. Williams’ comments on the subject.
Esau, I apologize, my post to Mary Kay took a bit longer than expected so I didn’t get to your 97% claim. I will do my best to address it at some point tomorrow.
Posted by: Jason | Nov 6, 2007 7:53:42 PM
Jason,
I am still awaiting your answer on this and the fact that throughout human history, the belief in ‘God’ has been a consistent notion which continues unto today, in spite of our modern advances.
What would account for 97% of the world’s population to continue to believe in such notions of ‘God’?
How is it that even members of the intelligentsia continue to do so as well?
Thank you for proving my point Esau.
A Williams-
You’re alright by me!.
Jason,
Once again, my name if Mary Kay.
the Catholic account which, while familiar to you, is also inconsistent with modern neuroscience
I’m willing to hold off on my intended post to hear a precis of how you think “the Catholic account is inconsistent with modern neuroscience.” My guess is that in various posts, you’ve mentioned a good part of it. But if you have an bulleted condensed version, I’d be interested.
Charles, the various colors are various aspects, various wavelengths of the one light source. That does not equate with polytheism.
Esau and Smoky, 🙁 at hearing you guys. Esau, I have to admit that I wondered where that particular comment came from.
Jason-
“…The inference to a designer creates more problems than it solves because the designer itself must then be explained”.
Why MUST this be so?.
If I’m digging in a forest and a couple of meters down I find broken pottery and say cooking utensils- what would be the LOGICAL inference?.
What would be the RATIONAL conclusion of the evidence?.
The answer is obvious… this must have belong to some community of people indigenious
to this area.
Does it matter who these people were?— do i need to exhaust all explanations as to what color hair they had, just to know THAT these are evidence of intelligent beings would do for the matter at hand.
Yet the scientists under whose feet you worship would tell us…”Nah!… since we don’t know WHO these intelligent beings were, we will altogether dismiss the fact that the evidence points in that direction… we will say…. ah yes….it APPEARS as if though there were intellingent beings…but really there is another explanation.”
“1b) I believe God exists on the basis of personal revelation
2b) I also know on the basis of personal revelation that God’s existence is not the proper subject of reason so there are no further arguments that can be made about the matter including arguments that question the validity of this premise
Before I respond, would you agree that 1b) and 2b) are a fair characterization of your view?”
Not really. I believe God exists for every conceivable reason, including revelation.
As I mentioned earlier, the most we can expect from rational argument is to show that belief in God is not irrational, and this has been demonstrated in spades by better minds than mine.
Faith in God is super-rational. It can’t be summed up or conjured out of thin air by any argument from mere materialism, though it IS well *supported* by any number of rational arguments.
“I also know on the basis of personal revelation that God’s existence is not the proper subject of reason”
Not so. Anything is the proper subject of reason. It’s just that reason is inadequate, by itself, to establish certainty in the existence of a personal God. It is impossible to draw up any equation opposite an equal sign from God.
Augustine said “Our hearts are restless until they rest in You”.
If the idea of a restless heart – in search of communion with the ineffable Presence behind everything – is just opaque and meaningless to you, then there is really nothing much for us to talk about.
When I talked about wonder at the “meaning of life” earlier, I wasn’t wondering about the best way to live – making sound decisions – I was talking about what ultimate meaning our lives have, whether we live them well or not. You maintain they have no ultimate meaning, that they are important only to us and to those affected by our decisions.
But most people accept that our moral decisions are important in and of themselves, regardless of their effect on our environment. Men have nearly always held that our main problem in doing evil is that we are not in right relation to the Universe, to the Creator.
Morals, to most of mankind, have been much more than just a matter of what is socially optimal or personally fulfilling. There has always been this sense that immoral behavior was “bad” mainly in that it was at cross-purposes with the Creator of the cosmos.
A huge majority of human beings have had this sense of things, of transcendent morals and of true free will, and some great Mind behind everything. One who totally lacks any such impulse is not to be envied.
Thanks Erick!
My understanding of God is not complicated, just as you mention in your example above, about finding items buried in the ground. There is ample evidence of God from the items we find when digging ‘for the truth of our lives’. An we don’t really need the hard core details as proofs, because often times more error can be created when analysing with a microscope, when the subject at hand demands only a magnifying glass!
In this sense, I don’t think that quantum mechanics is any help at all relating to God, no matter how interesting it is for a theoretical physicist.
The child Jesus did a pretty good job of impressing the leading Jews of His day at the age of only 12 years old, and I don’t think he needed to know much about physics… much less sub-atomic physics. Regular world examples suited Him fine.
Like Ecclesiastes says:
” What needeth a man to seek things that are above him, whereas he knoweth not what is profitable for him in his life, in all the days of his pilgrimage, and the time that passeth like a shadow?”
Ecclesiastes 7
Also, someone else wrote here, a while back, another saying:
“And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.
And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.”
All of this signifies the stubborness of peoples hearts. People aren’t content with the wisdom of the prophets found in Sacred Scripture, they need MORE PROOF than Divine Wisdom. And Jesus seems to say here, that if they cannot recognise THIS WISDOM, or, if it is not plainly evident to them in all simplicity, (even as the cooking utensil example you used was), then NOT EVEN A GREAT MIRACLE such as rising from the dead would be sufficient. If Divine Wisdom is not sufficient to convert a soul to God, then no other means also will be possible.
And isn’t it amazing how God Himself (Jesus) had so little impact on the regular people of His time with both His miracles and His preaching? Doesn’t this teach us something about the enormous power, and also respect, given by God to man’s free will?
So too, Jesus says: “For if in the green wood they do these things, what shall be done in the dry?”
That is…”If they don’t listen to Me, who am the Son of God, and not even after they have witnessed many miracles before their very eyes…do you expect them to easily believe you?? Or to treat you any better than Me?
So, no Christian should think He has the power to convert or persuade many soul’s to the love of God easily. He can try, but must remember this teaching of Christ, and not expect better results than even Jesus Himself had when He lived and taught among us… in this ‘world of sin’.
In this sense, I don’t think that quantum mechanics is any help at all relating to God, no matter how interesting it is for a theoretical physicist.
A. Williams,
I totally disagree —
Such scientific discovery does, however, lend insight into the Divine and the Wonders God has created.
I believe that although there may be merit to what you are saying to fellow Christians; it carries little or no weight at all where the Atheist is concerned.
You might want to adopt the approach that Tim J. has splendidly pursued in this regard where although he leans on Christian elements; he, nonetheless, attempts to approach the matter from Jason’s perspective.
Esau,
I’ll correct myself. It’s not that quantum mechanics can’t help at all, as I said above, but rather, I don’t believe it to be ESSENTIAL in any way.
Maybe miracles such as levitation (Jesus walking on water, saints risen in the air during ecstacy etc..) are the result of some of these strange laws of quantum mechanics that are effected in conjuction with a powerful Christian faith. But, I personally am less interested in how the miracle, or by what physical laws the miracle is performed, than by WHY, or what purpose, the miracle or wonder is performed.
And as Jesus said to Martha, “you are troubled and concerned about many things”, so too I think many people introspect about things that are too far above them, and maybe spend not enough time contemplating items that are easier or more accessible to understand.
Jesus said, “Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.”
He nowhere, here, implies that a knowledge of quantum physics is either something that we might learn from him, or which is likewise necessary for the good of our souls. It’s probably one of those items that Martha was worried or troubled about, one of the millions of items of life that are interesting, but ‘not essential’.
And as for technique in discussing topics of faith with Atheists?
I put my trust in the words and wisdom of Christ who said “One is Your Teacher”. He also said to ‘proclaim’ the Gospel to all nations..and:
” whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.
Matthew 10
So, my own style is to stick with the Lord…whether others believe or not. I believe Christ has a ‘power to convert’ even greater than the best of philosophical arguments on whatever the topic. And this power is even over those that DON’T believe in Him. I believe also, that St. Paul was of my opinion, considering that he had plenty of opportunity to debate the atheists, philosophers and pagans of his day, and I’m sure they all had similar, or possibly even better, arguments than the ones that we presently encounter.
And also, St. Paul said of this matter:
“And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not in loftiness of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of Christ. 2 For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in shewing of the Spirit and power; 5 That your faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.”
Cor.2:1
So this is my approach to all, also.
However, I do appreciate the styles of others, and enjoy the logical argumentation backing their premises. It’s just not MY WAY, as I prefer the ‘spirit’ and wisdom found in the Words and stories of Christ,(and Catholic Saints as well) and feel that they are a sufficient proof of their own.
And Jesus Himself seems to agree, in that even in the quote cited above, about not believing Moses and the other prophets, …he implied that a historical account of wisdom and miracles that was given 1500 years earlier, was sufficient for belief and faith in God, for the men present of his time.
However, as I enjoy reading St. Anselm occasionally, I also enjoy reading your’s, as well as others’, posts on this site.
I don’t believe it to be ESSENTIAL in any way.
A. Williams,
As Saint Augustine even states:
“Understand so that you may believe.”
I believe that merely relying on Faith alone without looking to Reason is an unreasonable faith (obviously).
I believe that the Fathers of the Church and the Theologians of history inquired into the Causes of things of this world for the very fact that they wanted witness to the Finger of God at work.
One thing I find interesting is how readily a thoroughly convinced materialist will fall back on highly nebulous theories like “evolution” or “quantum mechanics” with complete unqualified trust, having no more understanding of these things than I have of the Holy Trinity.
“Evolution” is credited with just about anything, even in the absence of any proven mechanism. “Well, we don’t really exactly know HOW evolution gave rise to consciousness, but it did, all right. It MUST have. Trust us.”.
Quantum mechanics, as far as I can tell, is a word for a great number of theories that attempt to explain why tiny subatomic particles behave in ways we can’t understand. To say that the behavior of this or that “particle” may be “acausal”, or that a particle can be in two places at once requires a faith that would be the envy of any religious mystic.
This is not to say that I doubt that evolution of some kind may have occurred, or that there may be a lot of usefulness to certain kinds of quantum theories – as methods of calculation and prediction – but the way these theories act as a catch-all to explain every mystery is pretty telling.
Sorry about that!
I have two points in mind here:
1) Experiments building on the the Libet experiment (which I agree by itself is ambiguous) which suggest that our brain “knows” how we will act before we consciously make a decision.
2) The general proposition that every cognitive function (including the many which are associated with decision-making) is ultimately located in the brain; there is no room for an external self which imposes its will on reality because there would be nothing for such a self to do.
The first claim is more specific and refers to a few particular experiments (I can give you references or elaborate on them if you like); the second claim is sufficiently general one that no single experiment can confirm it, but I think it is the consensus opinion of neuroscientists in light of the thousands of experiments that have been done in the field.
Alright, but what evidence can you present for this view? Can you suggest any experiments that would show my view to be false? Alternatively, can you suggest a thought-experiment that shows my view to be inconsistent with our ordinary attributions of responsibility? (i.e. show that my view leads us to say that someone is not responsible in cases when we all agree they are responsible, or that it leads us to say they are responsible in cases when we all agree they are not responsible).
You’re just declaring by fiat that my view is incorrect. Further, I doubt this is true.
Imagine that somehow you became convinced that materialism is correct.
Your children, Matthew and Mary (not Mary Kay! 🙂 ) are playing.
Mary: Daddy, Matthew punched me!
Matthew: She deserved it, she was being mean!
Charles: Kids, I’ve recently become convinced that our actions are ultimately governed by the motion of particles in our brains; these particles are in turn influenced by other factors beyond our control. So Mary, the fact that Matthew punched you is of no more significance that than a rock rolling down a hill into a tree.
This isn’t how you would behave – you would behave as if Matthew was responsible for his actions. The reason you would behave that way is because Matthew *is* responsible for his actions; he’s just responsible in the sense I have articulated and not in the sense of imposing his external will on reality.
I agree.
Jason,
I would suggest that you immerse yourself with a more elaborate study of the subject matter.
As I’ve studied, perception is a species of inference.
Yet, as several experts in the past have cited particuarly, if our inner beliefs and desires did completely determine our perception of things, we, as human beings, would not be able to function — even for a day!
There are limitations to the perceptual set as well as the influence they have over our actions.
Thus, there is such a thing as choice in the act itself.
I really don’t know what you mean here. I’ve explicitly denied that quantum mechanics is helpful in explaining consciousness or free will (Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff would disagree with me).
I only drew an analogy with quantum mechanics to point out that our intuition is sometimes an extremely unreliable guide to the truth.
I did claim that evolution explained the complexity in the biological world, but this is precisely what it does and what nearly all biologists agree that it does; this doesn’t mean we know everything about evolution, we just have a very broad picture which is enough to see its explanatory power. But don’t take my word for it – ask a biologist.
What examples did you have in mind where I have misused quantum mechanics or evolution?
I don’t understand what you mean here.
Which experts? What are you talking about? Please give me specific citations.
Esau,
Of course “understand so that you may believe”!
But the understanding of the Christian, I believe, should pertain more to the sayings of prophets, Saints and Christ, than to scientific theories. Mathematics, I’d presume, has very little to do with saving ones soul, though Pathagoras might disagree!
According to Christ’s invitation “Come to ‘ME’ all you who thirst”, and “my yoke is sweet, my burden is light”, I am sure He isn’t talking about advanced scientific theories, although these might be interesting, or help, in some way.
The Gospel is “preached to the poor” as Christ teaches, even as those whom Christ chose as Apostles, were poor Galilean fishermen.
So, for the most part, the poor have never had much access to advanced scientific research and knoweledge, throughout the course of human history. Yet, ‘salvation’ has always been available to them–at least in the Western world as each of the corresponding countries became evangelized.
So faith, in no way, hinges on science, and is not dependent upon it, otherwise the Gospel would also be dependent upon it! Rather, The Gospel is spread exactly as the Catholic Church teaches, as a faith built upon the teaching of Christ, passed on through the Apostles and St. Peter, throughout the centuries.
This is what is important and essential! The Gospel taught until the end of the world. “Those who have ears to hear”, will hear. Those who don’t, will reject the one true Teacher who can teach authoritatively about “Eternal life”. There just isn’t anyone else qualified.. except He who “rose from the dead”.
All of the science is just some research and truth, united with an abundance of ‘speculation’, and most of it serving only to aid man in his daily living!
On the otherhand, Christ’s words, Sacraments and examples, are what the human soul needs to become HOLY– ‘like God’.
What examples did you have in mind where I have misused quantum mechanics or evolution?
Evidently, you did.
Never in my elementary study of Physical Chemistry did I ever witness such an egregiously mistakened use of the term!
And thank you Jason for adding to the stimulating conversation!
There might even be some records broken here for this blog: the most comments psoted on any one topic?
Looks like the count currently reports 529 posts.
And thats a scientific data I think we can all count on!! : )
But the understanding of the Christian, I believe, should pertain more to the sayings of prophets, Saints and Christ, than to scientific theories.
A. Williams,
Although you have such a zeal for the faith, you may want to look into the Sermons of Augustine, the Franciscan School of thought by Bonaventure, as well as in the school of thought as espoused by Thomas Aquinas.
Such inquiry into scientific matters (i.e., Causes) were promoted, not denounced, by such individuals.
God bless.
There might even be some records broken here for this blog…Looks like the count currently reports 529 posts.
Not quite a record yet. Even during October, the “Declining Church Attendance” topic hit 732 posts.
However, if we add the comment totals from all Parts of this Series:
Part 1: 64
Part 2: 174
Part 3: 24
Part 4: 531 (and counting)
Responses Part 1: 32
Responses Part 2: 46
Total: 871
That *might* be a record. I’d be surprised if anyone found a blog topic with a higher count. I’d be even more surprised if anyone bothered to take the time to check.
Cheers,
System Dynamics Groopie
Esau,
Even though I have ‘zeal for the faith’ it doesn’t mean that I haven’t augumented my faith through sufficient study. I have studied Catholic faith topics for some decades now… for fun.
I can assure you that I have read all of these authors, ignorant as I still am. Of Augustine I have read the ‘Confessions’ numerous times, as well as his ‘Rule’ and the “City of God'(at least much of it.. until I became bored!).
As for Thomas Aguinas, I read so much of the ‘Summa’, that I actually went to confession, since I felt that my interst in it was too intense, and counter productive to a healthy spirituality. I read it for many hours on end, entire days, for at least 3 days continuous, non-stop. And this was on top of earlier studies that I had done on a more off and on, ‘sporadic’ basis.
But regarding Thomas Aquinas I like the fact that he noted: “I cannot go on . . . All that I have written seems to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me.” Though this doesn’t take away from his greatness as a Catholic Doctor of the Church and Theologian!
However, this same quote from Aquinas shows the power of ‘revelation’, like to which was revealed to one of my other favorite Saints– St. Francis of Assisi. And of course, the great biographer of the Life of Saint Francis was St. Bonaventure, which I read more than 10 times, over the years (as well as other lives, like 1 and 2 Celano). I’ve also read other works of St. Bonaventure, but nothing impressed me as did the “Life of St. Francis”.
Besides these Saints I’ve read the Penguin edition of the writings of St. Anselm numerous times…and the various writings from the lives of the Desert Fathers including St. Simeon Stylites and St. Daniel Stylites, numerous times.
Also, the short biography or “confessions” of St. Patrick, is highly inspirational, especially regarding the dreams, locutions and miracles which he reported during his escape from slavery.
I’ve studied about 6 books from the writings of St. Bernard of Clairveaux, of which my favorite is “In Praise of the New Knighthood”, which praises the monks who left their monasteries to fight in the crusades! Extremely interesting!
And after these I’ve read so many others that I’ve lost count, like: The life of St. Francis Solano (read about 5 times), St. Francis of Paola (read about 2-3 times), St. Jean Brebuef, St. Francis Xavier, St. Ignatius of Loyola, various books from St. Theresa of Avila, St. Rosa or lima (2 books), St. Martin de Porres 9 (read numerous times), St. Joseph of Cupertino, St. John Bosco (numerous books), Autobiography St. Anthony Mary Claret (read about 4 or more times), various books from the pen of the great St. Alphonsus Liguori, and also. the spiritual works of one one of the greatest of the Marian Saints, St. Louis de Montfort.
So, although my spirituality is simple, it’s not entirely unfounded.
And I will always encourage all people to study carefully, both the Life and words of Christ.. and also the lives and words of these great “Servants of Christ”…the Saints of the Catholic Church!
So you can see, that my specialty is more in the line of Catholic/Christian spirituality, than in ‘Catholic logic and theology’, per se. But, at least, I’m a somewhat ‘informed’ Catholic in these particular regards!
Now we just need the corresponding graph of the amount of work I got done over the same period…
That should be easy!
I’d estimate about .000015%?? : )
Just my guess considering this is a Catholic blog.
But you stimulate some good arguments and topics of controversy… even though they don’t make much sense to a lover and follower of Jesus Christ— the same who love the “Good News” that is currently being ‘proclaimed’, taught, and lived, throughout the world today.
But I personally love you, pray for you, and hope for you all the same, as someone capable of understanding the love of God in this life, and with the potential to give God thanks for all His benefits that He has given you– considering that we deserve none of them.
And I hope and pray for all brothers and sisters throughout the world, whoever they might be in like manner! Amen.
A Wiliams–
You’re alright!!! (for a Catholic) :0)
God Bless!.
My above comment is presuming that, when you are talking about “Work”, you are referring to your laborious efforts over the last few days/weeks at propogating an atheistic, anti-Christian Doctrine.
This is why I responded with a bit of humor/sarcasm, as I, as a practicing Christian, could never support such an agenda or line of argumentation. I would hope that No anti-Christian doctrine be promoted.. in any degree, at anytime, and likewise, anywhere!
What can I say? I’m a Christian! : )
So, no offense if I completely disagree with your secular dogmas.
Charles, the various colors are various aspects, various wavelengths of the one light source. That does not equate with polytheism.
Mary, the various colors are various aspects, but that does not preclude seeing the colors/aspects as gods, and as such as polytheism.
“I do not believe the source of reasons for acting is limited to a ‘stable self-conception’.” Alright, but what evidence can you present for this view?
What view? I said I don’t believe the view that the source of reasons for acting is limited to a ‘stable self-conception’. I don’t need evidence for something I don’t believe.
Alternatively, can you suggest a thought-experiment that shows my view to be inconsistent with our ordinary attributions of responsibility?
Why? I don’t deny your view is not inconsistent with ordinary ignorance.
You’re just declaring by fiat that my view is incorrect.
It’s your own words that “the ultimate source is factors that are beyond your control.” If your view falls short of the ultimate, what reason do you have to hold your view is ultimately correct? The “reason” you don’t see your view as incorrect is simply ordinary ignorance, which of course, is a condition “beyond your control.”
Imagine that somehow you became convinced that materialism is correct… This isn’t how you would behave
To the contrary, under materialism I’d follow the God of Spinoza, who teaches “the murderer is no more responsible for his or her behavior than is a river that floods a village.” For example, I might say, “Matthew, you are correct that Mary deserved it in the sense that there was some cause, even if it’s beyond our immediate awareness, that resulted in your behavior.” I may also, by some probability, add, “But Matthew, please also understand, I may also be caused by forces beyond my control to hold you responsible and even to ‘punish’ you. Realize however, it’s merely ignorance, beyond our control, and it’s not punishment, but merely the impersonal play of the universe.”
Alternatively, under Christianity, I could well say similar statements, like “One man sows while another reaps.”
It’s beyond me why you wouldn’t believe I’d actually say such things.
Now we just need the corresponding graph of the amount of work I got done over the same period…
Yes, which is why I’ve had to limit my time somewhat… :^)
1)… our brain “knows” how we will act before we consciously make a decision.
2) The general proposition that every cognitive function (including the many which are associated with decision-making) is ultimately located in the brain; there is no room for an external self which imposes its will on reality because there would be nothing for such a self to do.
Even that phrasing has problems. You’ve lumped behavior, emotion and intellect under the one heading of “cognitive.” An external self? I haven’t heard such compartmentalized talk in a very long time. But I’ll move on.
That’s basically what I thought you were saying, that the brain/neurophysiology is the ultimate source of behavior, emotion, decisions.
This is what I had intended to post at lunchtime today: There is a difference between saying that brain activity reflects behavior, emotion, spiritual experience, etc, which has been demonstrated and saying that the brain is the ultimate source of/controls behavior/emotion, spiritual experience, decisions, etc, which is unwarranted.
The fallacy is that causality goes only one way, that brain activity influences/determines behavior, emotion, spiritual etc but that behavior, emotion, spiritual don’t influence/determine brain activity.
It’s more accurate to say that causality can go in both directions.
A study of people with chronic pain showed that those who had greater control of when the pain med was given reported greater pain relief and used a smaller amount of the pain medication.
There’s Seligman’s early work on learned helplessness,
Norman Cousins defeating a terminal diagnosis with the Marx Brothers and
a longitudinal study of nuns showing a significant along some health variables than a matched population.
With families of incest, the only treatment modality that’s had any degree of success has been one of the family systems variations.
The entire topic reminds me of a variation of the old nature versus nurture controversy. That focused specifically on genetics and your arguments focus on neurophsyiology, but in both cases,there’s a tendency to dismiss the non-physical. I talked to a geneticist once who said that the environment always affects the gene. If not on a practical level of treatment for the disorder, then in how the gene manifested itself, of interest to research.
All of that was preliminary to what I objected to in your “not really any free will” comments.
Mary Kay,
I don’t understand either of your points here. Could you clarify?
This is what I’m saying now, but I should point out that earlier in this thread there was a discussion where I was very careful *not* to be saying this because I wanted to see if you at least believed that all of our experiences including our spiritual experiences have correlates in our physical brain. This is all that was necessary for my argument that examining these correlates could undermine our confidence in truths inferred from spiritual experiences if we found that the correlates of spiritual experiences were the same correlates as when children mistakenly attribute deliberate action to a stick that looks like a snake (this is a highly stylized example of course – the reality would be much more complicated).
At any rate, I certainly understand the distinction you’re drawing – there is an enormous amount of evidence that all of our behaviors correlate with brain functions. It is a further step to say that they are caused by these brain functions. I am saying this further step is also justified for two reasons:
1) Experiments like those initiated by Libet and continued by people like Daniel Wegner suggest that the direction of causality when we make choices goes from our brain to our conscious choices
2) There is no evidence of any processes in our brain that are “uncaused” – which seems to me to be what we would expect under the Christian theory of action.
I wouldn’t quite claim this, and I think this point goes to the heart of all your examples: our thoughts, emotions, and everything else do influence our brain – but these are themselves products of prior processes in our brain. So all you’re really showing in your examples is that our brain influences our brain – of course I agree with that!
What my theory denies (to use Tim J.’s words) is that choice “is something that I IMPOSED on reality” from somewhere outside reality (hence my use above of the word “external”). This seems to be how Tim J. understands choice – is it also how you understand it?
I was going to go through each of your examples, but I realize it might be better for me to wait and see how you respond to this.
As for the nature vs. nurture point, I’m not sure I understand your analogy – nurture is not “non-physical” (I don’t even know quite what this would mean) – the environment just effects us through different physiological processes than our genes; often, it effects us through our brains.
Charlie, guess I have to remind you also that my name is Mary Kay.
Jason, your comment yesterday To the extent that you believe you are literally imposing your choices on reality, I think you are mistaken (so you’re right that if that’s what you mean by free will, then I do think it is illusory) … Choice is a matter of acting on the most compelling reason without external interference …
It’s true that the fact that you acted on the most compelling reason was not your choice; the particles in your brain are the ultimate cause of why you acted as you did. But this is irrelevant – you are free as long as nothing apart from the ordinary functioning of your brain interferes with your ability to act on the most compelling reason.
This is what I was going to get on my soapbox about. This is an example of when people get so wrapped up in their intellectual idea, they don’t look at the full ramifications, don’t see the harm they do and don’t clean up the mess resulting from the insistence on their intellectual pet theory. Some people would read that and see a way of not taking responsibility for their actions. Those who are suicidal would point to your words and say, “See, I can’t impose my decision on reality.” It is very hard work to get a suicidal person to the point where they decide to live. I wish all of you who breezily and blithely insist on this one-sided intellectualism could see the difference it makes to someone for whom it is literally a life or death decision.
Those who are suicidal would point to your words and say, “See, I can’t impose my decision on reality.”
Or say “Because I can’t impose my decision on reality, I can’t kill myself.”
There are many interesting posts above that I have not yet had a chance to respond to that I will try to get to eventually.
Let me first reply to Esau’s claim that the fact that 97% of the world’s population believes in God provides compelling evidence that God exists. My response is as follows:
1) The 97% number is probably too large; I think the World Values Survey (the most reliable source on this question) typically gives around 90%.
2) Of those who believe in God, most mean different things by God. Many have in mind something like the Christian conception; others believe in something more like “The Force” from Star Wars or like the impersonal God of Spinoza and Einstein.
3) Once we get rid of those people, there are still a few billion who are Christians or Muslims and believe in some version of the Judeo-Christian God. The question is, what is their basis for doing so? Let me list a few broad categories below:
a) Default position among their peers / never really thought about
b) Personal revelation
c) Well-thought out intellectual defense of their position
The vast majority of people are split between a) and b). I’ve discussed c) at length in previous posts (I think the more people learn, the less likely they are to find this intellectual defense convincing).
Let me now try to discuss b) a bit more. There can be no doubt that millions, perhaps billions of people claim to have had a personal experience with the divine. What are we to make of this? Consider two competing hypotheses:
1) Spiritual experience means communication with a divine being that helps us understand how we should behave so as to live according to God’s will
2) Spiritual experience is purely a subjective experience; it tells us nothing about how we should behave in the rest of our lives
My claim is that 2) is true and 1) is false.
How can we distinguish between 1) and 2)? I think the best way is to determine if people agree about the implications of this divine experience in ways that can’t be explained if this experience doesn’t have real implications for how we should live our lives.
My claim is: people don’t. People only agree about the implications of this experience to the extent that they have already been told what the implications are. It’s not as though 1,000 people independently had spiritual experiences which led to the conclusion that they should love their neighbor. Everyone was told that this was what their experience implied, and then when they experienced it, they said, “Aha, it’s just like I’ve been told!” – classic confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). The fact that people disagree about the implications of personal revelation for how to live except insofar as they have already been told what it implies suggests that personal revelation does not imply anything at all.
In my (November 05, 2007 at 02:41 PM) post and my 03:59 PM clarification on the same day I lay out an argument closely related to the one in this post.
Another important point that I have not discussed much is the evidence that evolution predisposes to believe in God whether or not he exists; for some evidence for this claim see http://artsci.wustl.edu/~pboyer/RelCogWebSite/index.html .
“evolution predisposes to believe in God whether or not he exists”
What a silly thing for evolution to do. Completely useless, or worse.
“..perhaps billions of people claim to have had a personal experience with the divine. What are we to make of this? Consider two competing hypotheses:
1) Spiritual experience means communication with a divine being that helps us understand how we should behave so as to live according to God’s will
2) Spiritual experience is purely a subjective experience; it tells us nothing about how we should behave in the rest of our lives
My claim is that 2) is true and 1) is false.”
In the first sentence, above, you seem to imply that spirituality is an experience, somewhat akin to a ‘drug’ experience, whereas Christians believe spirituality to be not an isolated ‘experience’ per se, but rather, a “state of being in ‘Sanctifying Grace'”.
For a Christian, this is a permanent state, unless he commits ‘grave sin’, whereby he loses this ‘state of grace’. So the communion of the soul with God, when a soul is in grace, is a continual state of being, but which can have fluctuations more or less intense, such as at prayer, during acts of charity or meditation.
An example of this might be something a certain Catholic Saint mentioned about St. Francis of Assisi, who said that St. Francis was in a higher state of sanctity while souldly asleep, than a certain person was while in a state of spiritual ‘ecstacy’.
Another example, is that of Jesus on the Mount of the Transfiguration. Here, His glory was revealed to the apostles Peter, James and John, in the form of a brilliant light emanating from his person and clothes, similar to what is said happened with Moses when he entered the ‘holy of holies’.
However, this isolated experience didn’t mean that Jesus wasn’t equally as holy while in a more ‘normal’ state, for instance, while preaching, performing miracles, or even sleeping.
So it’s difficult to discuss such topics as ‘spiritual experiences’ and spiritual ‘states of grace’, unless we’re all talking about the same thing.
Moreover, A dose of LSD, or many other drugs, can greatly affect the brain and induce a certain higher state of awareness in some. But this temporary condition shouldn’t be confused with ‘living in a ‘state of sanctifying grace’. And these drug induced states would actually be considered ‘sins’ for some,(knowledgable Catholics) and so would indeed ‘impact’ or damage the ‘state of grace’ of the soul to the degree that the soul was aware that what he was doing was ‘gravely sinful’. Committing immoral acts with full will and knowledge, greatly affects the spiritual ‘state’ of a soul.
“…Completely useless, or worse.”.
Absolutely— think about it for a minute.
Evolution predisposes belief in God—who negates evolution!!!….( at least Macroevolution ).
My claim is: people don’t. People only agree about the implications of this experience to the extent that they have already been told what the implications are. It’s not as though 1,000 people independently had spiritual experiences which led to the conclusion that they should love their neighbor. Everyone was told that this was what their experience implied, and then when they experienced it, they said, “Aha, it’s just like I’ve been told!” – classic confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). The fact that people disagree about the implications of personal revelation for how to live except insofar as they have already been told what it implies suggests that personal revelation does not imply anything at all.
Your premise here seems to invoke some sort of group mentality, which is far from the case.
You have oversimplified not only the fact that 97% of the world’s population continue to subscribe to such notions of ‘God’ but also this theme that has remained a consistent variable in human history.
The same sort of group mentality that you describe above can also be levelled against notions of evolution as well.
Scientists can discover artifacts and, because they subscribe to the theory of evolution, intepret their findings along the same bias and operate on a similar confirmation bias.
For example (not unlike the discovered skull who many mistook as belonging to the ‘missing link’):
“Ah hah! See — this skull we found confirms that man DID evolve from apes!”
While not objectively looking at the facts, they tend to more so promote their pet theories over and above what the evidence actually entails.
When all was said and done, the skull was nothing more than that of a deformed native who lived during the common era.
Jason, I may have been unnecessarily sharp in my last post and if so, my apologies. My frustration is with people previous to you and (if you hadn’t guessed), it’s something I feel strongly about.
You seem to be someone who genuinely wants to use reason. But as I’ve said before, that means looking at all possibilities. Right now, you seem to be bent on persuading others to how you see it and are not considering, not seriously, that is, the possibility of a loving, therefore personal God who is larger than human understanding.
I hope you continue to post on these discussions. I think this particular thread has run its course, but Jimmy’s blog does tend to run the gamut of topics.
Mary Kay – no apologies necessary – many of my posts above have surely been unnecessarily sharp as well. I’ve enjoyed reading your responses as they are clear and to the point.
We’ll see what happens when the global warming thread peters out… ;-).
I’m curious as to what you mean though – I certainly don’t see myself as close-minded and I don’t think I’ve simply ruled out the possibility of a loving God by fiat – I think there are compelling arguments against this possibility.
What exactly would it mean to “consider seriously… the possibility of a loving, therefore personal God who is larger than human understanding”? How could I go about doing this other than to engage with the arguments as best I can? Perhaps there are exercises we could try, such as trying to write a few posts giving the most compelling defense I can of the Catholic viewpoint?
Jason,
and I don’t think I’ve simply ruled out the possibility of a loving God by fiat – I think there are compelling arguments against this possibility.
Perhaps you have not exactly said in specific words, “I’m ruling out the possibility of a loving God,” but the arguments you find compelling seem to have crowded out the arguments for a loving God, making it difficult to see them by their own merits and/or free of being filtered by what you see as compelling arguments.
What exactly would it mean to “consider seriously… How could I go about doing this other than to engage with the arguments as best I can?
The answer that came to me was to broaden reading, think of it as a literature search :), and look from the perspective of people who were both of science and faith. You’ve mentioned Francis Collins who wrote The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, which I now intend to reserve at the library.
But my first thought was Galileo. I have a book about Galileo written by written by a historian (history of science) and a priest who is also a physicist (PhDs in both physics and philosophy, which gives him sufficient credentials). The gist that I’d gotten from what little I did read was that Galileo got into trouble not so much for his science as for his impatience with Church procedure.
Since even that probably presupposes knowledge of how the Catholic Church works that you probably wouldn’t have access to, I looked at (yet another half-read book on my shelf), How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. The title’s a bit triumphalistic partly in response to some blatant anti-Catholicism, but the book itself is well-researched.
Anyhow, I thought you’d be interested in the chapters on the university system and science (and the first chapter which serves as an introduction). The chapter on universities has a sections on the Scholastics who “were committed to the use of reason as an indispensable toll in theological and philosophical study” (p.58). In fact, if I were better read in Aquinas, who thought one could know the existence of God through reason, I could’ve given you better responses earlier in this thread.
The chapter on science is started by the author asking “was there something about Catholicism itself that enabled the success of science?” He goes on to Galileo and that the Church welcomed Galileo’s early work. It was when Galileo wanted to revise Scripture that he went on trial. He was so convinced his work was true that he wanted it accepted without sufficient objective proof and that was a problem.
The third book, Galileo in Rome by William Shea and Fr. Mariano Artigas (the historian and physicist priest), is a more in-depth account, written by two academics, would give a fuller account.
My suggestion would be to give yourself time to read the three books (or those chapters from Woods and the other two books) and read without trying to fit them into some experimental design.
If I were in your shoes, I’d be curious why scientists also felt comfortable being people of deep faith.