Faith: the evidence of things not seen

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The thing is that all of the above ad hoc hypotheses work just as well at explaining why studying the effects of praying to a carton of milk is a waste of time. They all still leave open the possibility that the carton does occasionally answer prayers. What you're essentially saying is that there is no way to get an objective view of whether pray works, that all we can ever have is anecdotal evidence of the kind that we have to suggest the existence of bigfoot and leprechauns

No, I'm saying that these studies are bad science and I outlined why.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What you're telling me is that no objective observer who understands the flimsy and unreliable nature of anecdotal evidence should accept that prayer is effective. That's not my opinion, demanding more than anecdotal evidence is considered good practise in every area of human endeavour

I'm telling you nothing of the sort. I commented on what I saw as the fundamentally flawed nature of "prayer trials".

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Edit: and also, the idea of a god that would allow vast numbers of people to die unless some kid somewhere asked him to help all sick people and then still decided to only help certain sick people doesn't sit well with me.

Again, I didn't say this. In brief: I was suggesting that if Christian eschatology is concerned with life beyond our three score and ten - specifically a new heaven and a new earth - then God's priority lies with making this possible.

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

I would prefer to use the phrase 'evidence for God'. That indicates that we are not talking about absolute proof - but rather evidence that points towards a conclusion.

I heartily agree with this, but this is all we are looking for. What evidence points to the conclusion that there is a god. No one wants absolute proof.

Take science for example. Science is NOT in the business of absolute proof. Science is in the business of getting as much data as it can and then looking for conclusions that explain that data without a) assuming data you do not have or b) ignoring data you do.

Nothing in biology, for example, is 100% proved. Take, as a tounge in cheek example, conception. It is not 100% proved that this happens when the sperm meets the egg. Why? Because we can not say that had the sperm not entered the egg it was not going to grow anyway. We would have to be able to go back in time and prove it by preventing the sperm the second time around.

However we have vast data of eggs growing when the sperm gets there. No data of eggs growing without it. The best conclusion therefore is that sperm has to enter the egg for a baby to grow.

So what we want is the evidence that points towards there being a god. What we dismiss is evidence that first requires that you assume there is a god, which is what I meant with my quote “Faith is the willingness to assume to be true, that which you want to show is true”.

As one random example of the 1000s I have heard, I hear when I say “What is the evidence for a god” people often saying “Look in the mirror. YOU are the evidence for god”. This evidence is only evidence if you first assume there IS a god.

PDN wrote: »

However, I think sometimes atheists get a bit hung up because they want to discuss God's existence or non-existence before anything else. That might be the right approach if you are trying to follow a path of logical deduction, but in most areas of life we tend to follow a more inductive process.

Also heartily agree. And most people do not care if you believe or not. It is only when this data is used as part of a path of deduction that we have a problem with it. Take for example if someone were to say “I think homosexuality/abortion is wrong because it is against god’s plan”. The base assumption here is that there IS a god and it HAS a plan. Therefore we wish to establish these “first level premises” before we accept the “second level premise”. If the first level is not shown to be true, we can dismiss the second level out of hand.

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Also heartily agree. And most people do not care if you believe or not. It is only when this data is used as part of a path of deduction that we have a problem with it. Take for example if someone were to say “I think homosexuality/abortion is wrong because it is against god’s plan”. The base assumption here is that there IS a god and it HAS a plan. Therefore we wish to establish these “first level premises” before we accept the “second level premise”. If the first level is not shown to be true, we can dismiss the second level out of hand.

I don't see what the problem is here.

When I say I see homosexuality as being wrong, that simply means that I see it as incompatible with the practice of Christianity. In other words, it only affects those who share my view about God's existence. The second level premise is only relevant to those who have accepted the first level premise. If you aren't a Christian then you can cheerfully rodger people of either sex and I have no intention of judging you.

Also, my views on abortion are independent of my view of God. You don't have to be a theist to think that killing babies is a bit off.

nozzferrahhtoo

Really? Well let me put it in non-religious terms and see if we can clarify it.

I would put the problem like this:

The problem is coming to a conclusion based on data you simply do not have.

Or like this:

Coming to a conclusion that appears not to match reality in any way.

However, I will agree with you on yet one more thing today. If you are someone who has accepted the first level premise and therefore the second too, then this is fine. Just do not engage in abortions or homosexuality. More power to you and I would never try and change your mind.

However I am directing what I am espousing at the groups of people who not only do not engage in these things themselves, but attempt to prevent others from too, engage in hate speech against those people, or worse even murder them. There are people who do this with NO OTHER basis other than this god they believe in. I therefore do not think it out of line to request that such evidence by provided that this god in fact exists anywhere but in the heads of those who say it does.

Do not get me wrong however. I have zero problem with people who are religiously motivated against such things but who find real world evidence and arguments to argue their position. I can talk with those people. You said your views on abortion are independent of the existence of god. This I have NO trouble with. None at all and I look forward to discussions on it on threads that are not this one. I really hope the difference is a clear one now however. If your position is independent of a god then nothing this thread is about is directed at you at all.

But if this god is the only basis of their position, then as soon as it comes into the political, education, moral or scientific arena publicly, the first level premise requires evidence.

To go back on topic therefore, I stand by my phrase that Faith is the willingness to assume to be true that which you are trying to show is true. I have been asking for 20 years now for evidence and as I said on the thread that inspired this one, I would estimate that well over 95% of what I have been offered has fallen under this category.

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However I am directing what I am espousing at the groups of people who not only do not engage in these things themselves, but attempt to prevent others from too, engage in hate speech against those people, or worse even murder them. There are people who do this with NO OTHER basis other than this god they believe in. I therefore do not think it out of line to request that such evidence by provided that this god in fact exists anywhere but in the heads of those who say it does.

I don't think you are directing it at them. You are posting in the Christianity forum in a thread about 'blind faith'. None of the Christians who post in this forum AFAIK are oppressing others, engaging in hate speech, or murdering anyone. Therefore these kind of distractions make it well nigh impossible to discuss the subject at hand.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, I'm saying that these studies are bad science and I outlined why.

How do you suggest the effectiveness of prayer can be determined in an objective way?

I could start a business tomorrow telling people that I can predict the sex of their baby as long as they truly believe I can do it and statistically 50% of my customers will be satisfied and testify to the truth of my claim. I might even get lucky and get over 50% and whenever it fails I can just say the people didn't believe strongly enough. People actually do make money off that btw. Anecdotal evidence like that is the lifeblood of pseudo-science and paranormal phenomena so how can we test prayer to see if it's different?

postcynical wrote: »

Not to that person. So why don't you actually try this experiment and see what happens?

I'll tell you what, I'll try your experiment if you try mine. Instead of praying to god pick a random object lying around your house and pray to that instead and see if you still occasionally get the things you would have prayed to god for. You have to give it a decent shot though and pray for the same types of things that you would have prayed to god for. There's no point asking for everyone in the world to be spontaneously cured of cancer because that wouldn't happen if you prayed to god either.

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

I don't think you are directing it at them.

Thankfully I know my own mind better than you and I am well aware at what my words are directed at. So what you think they are directed at is irrelevant. You can think what you want but I am telling you who I am directing those comments at.

However even though they are directed at such people, I want them to be READ by other people which might be where your confusion at my motives and targets lies. My reasons for posting on a forum like this, although off topic for this thread, are pretty clear. I think that people such as I describe are the purview of religious moderates to deal with.

You guys speak the speak, walk the walk etc. I am raising my concerns on forums such as these in order to educate all and sundry about these problems so that when Atheist and Theist alike meet these people they can deal with them.

However there are such people on these forums and I meet them often. I have had arguments put to me based on nothing but god against things such as Teaching Evolution, engaging in homosexuality, and availing of abortion to name but a few.

I hear some people say things like, for example, homosexuality is wrong because the sex organs were “designed” for one purpose. This assumption they were designed of course implies a designer and they have offered no evidence that such an entity exists. Therefore their argument fails.

However as I said this is all off topic. So in an attempt to go back on topic I repeat my position. Of all the arguments offered for a god I estimate 95% of those offered to me only work as evidence if you first assume there is a god and then use said evidence to show there is a god.

I wait in hope that some day someone can offer me evidence that does not fall into this category. But let me repeat as this can not be stressed enough. I have no issue at ALL with people who think there is a god. Not one. It is only when they do or say something that requires I believe it too that I stand up and demand evidence. I am aware of people who would delight in going around removing faith from as many people as they can. This is not me.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

I don't think you are directing it at them. You are posting in the Christianity forum in a thread about 'blind faith'

Er.. the thread is actually about faith being completely other than blind.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er.. the thread is actually about faith being completely other than blind.

Hehehe, in PDNs defense, that still means it is a thread ABOUT blind faith does it not?

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I hear some people say things like, for example, homosexuality is wrong because the sex organs were “designed” for one purpose. This assumption they were designed of course implies a designer and they have offered no evidence that such an entity exists. Therefore their argument fails.

Which brings us back to the topic at hand. The topic at hand involves the suggestion that evidence is available to some (the saved) that is not available to others (the unsaved). This arising from a condition whereby the unsaved are down one of their "sensory devices"

Now the saved cannot prove their position to the unsaved - because of a lack of ability in the unsaved to discern the evidence. That is not the saved's fault however. And so, they are entitled to assert as they do given the evidence they have that the designer intended his design to operate in the way they say he did.

To suppose otherwise (as you do) is to occupy the higher ground - without telling us how you got there.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hehehe, in PDNs defense, that still means it is a thread ABOUT blind faith does it not?

If you think that then the OP (which is built around a quote by you) is for you.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you think that then the OP (which is built around a quote by you) is for you.

I was being facetious. I just meant that if this thread is about faith not being blind then technically it is ABOUT the area of blind faith. Just like if I had a conversation about an apple not being green, I am still having a conversation about the greenness of the apple. It was meant to be funny, just to lighten the mood before it gets argumentative etc. Do not take it too seriously.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which brings us back to the topic at hand. The topic at hand involves the suggestion that evidence is available to some (the saved) that is not available to others (the unsaved). This arising from a condition whereby the unsaved are down one of their "sensory devices"

Now the saved cannot prove their position to the unsaved - because of a lack of ability in the unsaved to discern the evidence.

Indeed but it must be pointed out then that I have seen no reason to think that some people have some source of evidence available to them that is denied to me. If the evidence is there surely it can be shown and discussed. If it can not then surely even if evidence of absence is not evidence of absence (though it can be argued this is not entirely true) that at least absence of evidence is strong evidence for… well… absence of evidence.

To me someone saying that another has some “lack of ability to discern the evidence” is nothing but a cop out. It is just another example of “I have evidence but….” Or “I would show you the evidence only…..”

Thankfully we do not exercise this thinking in any other area of our discourse. I would be appalled to see, for example, in a court of law the prosecutor standing up and saying “I have evidence he is guilty, but I do not think the court has the ability to discern it. Could you all pretty please just believe me anyway?”

It really is just an amazingly and profoundly awful line of reasoning for us to expect anyone to accept.

Not to mention that it suffers from supreme arrogance by assuming that theists have some capability and skill denied the rest of us. As if they are somehow better than us and truth is not available to us lesser mortals. I would be ashamed if I were to catch myself espousing such a position. Totally ashamed of my self.

It, alas, smacks of someone just lying outright to you and to avoid the onus of evidence just declares there is some deficiancy on your part to even expect to be shown any. The bible itself engages in this line of thinking in many places, not the leasst of which is "The fool hath said in their heart there is no god". No evidence is offered but in its place a suggestion that the unbeleiver is somehow foolish or deficiant. It can be noted modern advertising uses the same techniques by suggesting "This offer is so great you would be a fool to miss it". Why give any evidence that the offer is in fact any good really, if you can just make people feel idiotic for not taking your word on it?

Saying as you do "That is not the saved's fault however." takes this out of the realm of mere arrogance and into the realm of "Oh look at the poor poor unbeleiver. How we pity them, but it is not THEIR fault. Woe is them. It is not our fault we were created with all our facultys intact and they came with one missing".

Of course, if this god does exist, and the unbeliever was somehow created deficient, it should be pointed out that this creator was the one who made them that way. They quite literally are going to hell because they were created to go to hell. Lovely. Way to give a guy a fair chance huh?

nozzferrahhtoo

Sam Harris defines faith as the following, should anyone be interested…

“Faith is a conversation stopper. Faith is a declaration to immunity from the powers of conversation. It is a reason why you do not have to give reasons for what you believe. This is a problem because when the stakes are high we literally have a choice between conversation… or violence… It is the only area of discourse where immunity to conversation is considered a virtue.”

It is from this definition that I get my belief that there is nothing more dangerous in conversation that doing or saying something that will end it. That is why in the other thread I said I think that the phrase “Faith is belief without evidence” to be so wrong AND so dangerous.

Atheist really need to realise these people think they have evidence and you need to discuss that evidence with them and keep conversation open, not just sweepingly declare they have none and end all talk or hope of having talks.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed but it must be pointed out then that I have seen no reason to think that some people have some source of evidence available to them that is denied to me.

"I have seen no.." is the same thing as saying "I have not seen.." which is a statement which follows naturally from one who is blind. Supposing for a moment you are blind then..

If the evidence is there surely it can be shown and discussed.

Surely not. It is not possible to show a blind person the evidence for the quality we call "red". One can talk of wavelengths all they like but such a thing cannot evidence the quality "red".

If it can not then surely even if evidence of absence is not evidence of absence (though it can be argued this is not entirely true) that at least absence of evidence is strong evidence for… well… absence of evidence.

To me someone saying that another has some “lack of ability to discern the evidence” is nothing but a cop out. It is just another example of “I have evidence but….” Or “I would show you the evidence only…..”

Whilst it is true that this discussion can only end in stalemate, it is not a cop out to posit the problem lying with a deficiency on the detecting apparatus.

Thankfully we do not exercise this thinking in any other area of our discourse. I would be appalled to see, for example, in a court of law the prosecutor standing up and saying “I have evidence he is guilty, but I do not think the court has the ability to discern it. Could you all pretty please just believe me anyway?”

In such a court, it is a given that all are in possession of the same detection eqiupment. But can you imagine a sighted man in the dock talking to a court made up of blind men - and trying to support his defence utilising the quality "red"?

It really is just an amazingly and profoundly awful line of reasoning for us to expect anyone to accept.

True. But that line of reasoning is a strawman. It doesn't deal with the dilemma. The dilemma is you presume yourself sighted and no evidence in existance. Whilst you have no concrete basis for doing so.

Not to mention that it suffers from supreme arrogance by assuming that theists have some capability and skill denied the rest of us.

If what I say is the case, it isn't an arrogance. It's a fact. It is not an arrogance for a sighted man to talk of "red"

As if they are somehow better than us and truth is not available to us lesser mortals. I would be ashamed if I were to catch myself espousing such a position. Totally ashamed of my self.

Again, you deal in strawmen. Not the dilemma facing you.

It, alas, smacks of someone just lying outright to you and to avoid the onus of evidence just declares there is some deficiancy on your part to even expect to be shown any. The bible itself engages in this line of thinking in many places, not the leasst of which is "The fool hath said in their heart there is no god". No evidence is offered but in its place a suggestion that the unbeleiver is somehow foolish or deficiant. It can be noted modern advertising uses the same techniques by suggesting "This offer is so great you would be a fool to miss it". Why give any evidence that the offer is in fact any good really, if you can just make people feel idiotic for not taking your word on it?

Saying as you do "That is not the saved's fault however." takes this out of the realm of mere arrogance and into the realm of "Oh look at the poor poor unbeleiver. How we pity them, but it is not THEIR fault. Woe is them. It is not our fault we were created with all our facultys intact and they came with one missing".

Of course, if this god does exist, and the unbeliever was somehow created deficient, it should be pointed out that this creator was the one who made them that way. They quite literally are going to hell because they were created to go to hell. Lovely. Way to give a guy a fair chance huh?

I'm supposing you'll continue in the same vein in what you say above. Perhaps the time has come to address the issue head on. Is it that there is no evidence or are you blind?

I suggest the end result will be stalemate (for want of an objective way to determine which it is). In which case those who suppose belief by blind faith can keep it zipped.

Fanny Cradock

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sam Harris defines faith as the following, should anyone be interested…

“Faith is a conversation stopper. Faith is a declaration to immunity from the powers of conversation. It is a reason why you do not have to give reasons for what you believe. This is a problem because when the stakes are high we literally have a choice between conversation… or violence… It is the only area of discourse where immunity to conversation is considered a virtue.”

Yet here we are talking about faith...

There are countless books, debates, lectures, forums, sermons and, yes, conversations that seek to explain, expound and even justify faith. Walk into a bookshop and for every book Harris releases there is probably another one released that seeks to refute it. So if I'm to understand the context in which his quote is framed, his words are either self-referentially incoherent or deliberately misleading.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... keep conversation open, not just sweepingly declare they have none [evidence] and end all talk or hope of having talks.

I applaud this if it's done in a civil manner.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How do you suggest the effectiveness of prayer can be determined in an objective way?

I've no idea! Is it a requisite that I should have an alternative before my criticism is taken seriously? Perhaps someone smart will devise an innovative experiment. Though the possibility of such an experiment being any more successful presupposes that we can know the plans of a infinitely superior being. Until then I'm happy to point out holes when I see them - whichever side happens to be making the claims.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I could start a business tomorrow telling people that I can predict the sex of their baby as long as they truly believe I can do it and statistically 50% of my customers will be satisfied and testify to the truth of my claim. I might even get lucky and get over 50% and whenever it fails I can just say the people didn't believe strongly enough. People actually do make money off that btw. Anecdotal evidence like that is the lifeblood of pseudo-science and paranormal phenomena so how can we test prayer to see if it's different?

Given my stated position it is clear that your analogy fails. I've not made the claim that God will conceivably answer all prayers. Instead, I've suggested that he answers prayers that serve a greater end. In other words, prayers that are part of a move towards something larger than us. Again, bone up on Christian eschatology if you are unsure about what I could possibly mean.

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've no idea! Is it a requisite that I should have an alternative before my criticism is taken seriously? Perhaps someone smart will devise an innovative experiment. Though the possibility of such an experiment being any more successful presupposes that we can know the plans of a infinitely superior being. Until then I'm happy to point out holes when I see them - whichever side happens to be making the claims.

The thing is, if you take the position that prayer cannot be tested then you''re leaving yourself open to the problem of how can one even know if prayer works if there's no objective way of testing it? I mean you can tell me that prayer works, I can say that is does but Sam may disagree with it. Seems like none of us can ever actually know who is right. If this is the case, then what do you think of Christians who say prayer works and quite literally won't take too kindly to someone saying that it is impossible to "know" whether prayer actually works or not.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

The thing is, if you take the position that prayer cannot be tested then you''re leaving yourself open to the problem of how can one even know if prayer works if there's no objective way of testing it? I mean you can tell me that prayer works, I can say that is does but Sam may disagree with it. Seems like none of us can ever actually know who is right. If this is the case, then what do you think of Christians who say prayer works and quite literally won't take too kindly to someone saying that it is impossible to "know" whether prayer actually works or not.

Most of us, in our daily lives, test things by simple personal experimentation. It doesn't matter whether it's a hangover cure, a chat-up line, or the best way to fry eggs - we find out whether something works for us or not by trial or error. Such experimentation might not meet the standards required if you want to submit an article to a peer reviewed journal - but it's the way we all live out our lives.

The person who tests whether prayer works for them or not in a spirit of honesty enquiry will find an answer one way or another. It may not be sufficient to convince the antagonistic sceptic - but that isn't actually the subject of this thread, the subject of this thread is whether Christians are operating in blind faith or are taking positions because the evidence has, to their satisfaction, pointed to a particular conclusion.

It would be very difficult to conduct a study under laboratory conditions to prove whether prayer in general works or not. But it is certainly possible for me to experiment as to whether a particular method of prayer works for me or not.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

It would be very difficult to conduct a study under laboratory conditions to prove whether prayer in general works or not.

One would also have to assume that God desired himself to be objectively demonstrated so, before deciding to embark on such a task. The fact that he would clearly have had opportunity aplenty to reveal himself 'objectively' - but equally clearly hasn't yet done so - should provide the would-be experimenter with reason to reconsider.

nozzferrahhtoo

Antiskeptic,

Your analogy entirely fails I am afraid. There are two reasons for this.

1) In the case of someone who is blind we are fully aware of, and can show, the sense that they are without. You however, can not.
2) We can still discuss the evidence of “red” with a blind person. They just arrive at this evidence and conclusion by a different route from us. You are basically falsely asserting that someone can not see the evidence for a conclusion unless it is exactly the same evidence. There is a multitude of ways to show what red is to a blind person and prove its existence without the need for sight. You are not only inventing a sense, but declaring by fiat that ALL relevant evidence for the entity in question falls under this sense and this sense alone.
3) A blind person is more than aware of lacking the sense in question. I am aware of lacking no sense which you apparently have except possibly an over active imagination?

What you are doing is hiding from the fact there is no evidence by declaring there is a “sense” for which you ALSO have no evidence and then just declaring that the lack of one is the reason for the lack of the other.

Or in short, you are covering your lack of evidence for X by inventing Y which you also have no evidence for. This is not helpful.

Thankfully there is no area of discourse other than this where you can invent something and if people disagree you just pretend they are lacking something you have. Imagine what people would get away with if this was allowed anywhere else?

Again, the problem here is that this line of reasoning is just another example of “I would show you the evidence but….”

nozzferrahhtoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yet here we are talking about faith...

Er yes, and so was the quote from Sam Harris. I am not sure what you are trying to tell me here?

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've no idea! Is it a requisite that I should have an alternative before my criticism is taken seriously? Perhaps someone smart will devise an innovative experiment. Though the possibility of such an experiment being any more successful presupposes that we can know the plans of a infinitely superior being. Until then I'm happy to point out holes when I see them - whichever side happens to be making the claims.

But the whole idea of god answering prayers presupposes that you know the plans of an infinitely superior being. When good things happen people are more than happy to say that god got involved but when bad things happen the old "god works in mysterious ways" card gets pulled out.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Given my stated position it is clear that your analogy fails. I've not made the claim that God will conceivably answer all prayers. Instead, I've suggested that he answers prayers that serve a greater end. In other words, prayers that are part of a move towards something larger than us. Again, bone up on Christian eschatology if you are unsure about what I could possibly mean.

Actually no that's the whole point of my analogy. If I could successfully predict the sex of every baby I wouldn't need the excuse that people didn't believe strongly enough to explain away the times that I failed and similarly if every prayer got answered then you wouldn't need to speculate and try to think of reasons to explain all the ones that weren't answered. As I said that's how pseudo-science and paranormal phenomena survive: the phenomenon happens about as much as would be expected by probability alone (or slightly higher if some tricks are used) and an untestable theory is formulated to explain all the times it doesn't work. So how can I tell that prayer is different to, say, psychics who say random things that are more vague than they first appear and keep trying until they get a hit? I heard one on the radio a few weeks ago ask someone if the number 7 meant anything to them :rolleyes:

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Actually no that's the whole point of my analogy. If I could successfully predict the sex of every baby I wouldn't need the excuse that people didn't believe strongly enough to explain away the times that I failed and similarly if every prayer got answered then you wouldn't need to speculate and try to think of reasons to explain all the ones that weren't answered. As I said that's how pseudo-science and paranormal phenomena survive: the phenomenon happens about as much as would be expected by probability alone (or slightly higher if some tricks are used) and an untestable theory is formulated to explain all the times it doesn't work. So how can I tell that prayer is different to, say, psychics who say random things that are more vague than they first appear and keep trying until they get a hit? I heard one on the radio a few weeks ago ask someone if the number 7 meant anything to them :rolleyes:

All of which demonstrates the limitations of your presuppositions and testing methodology - but says nothing about the effectiveness or otherwise of prayer.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

All of which demonstrates the limitations of your presuppositions and testing methodology - but says nothing about the effectiveness or otherwise of prayer.

Which is why I asked Fanny how he would test the effectiveness of prayer. How would you do it?

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Which is why I asked Fanny how he would test the effectiveness of prayer. How would you do it?

That comes back to what kind of testing you are talking about. The kind of testing most of us do in our everyday lives for most things in life is quite simple. Many of us have done it.

If you are talking about a fully scientific test, then it would be possible, but the wider the scope of the prayer you are testing the harder it would be. Finances, logistics, and most importantly ethics would make it difficult in anything except a totalitarian society.

For example, if you want to test the effectiveness of the prayers of one particular group - let's say the Little Wiggleton Baptist Church - then that would be fairly straightforward.

You could get them to pray for a sufficiently large number of seriously ill cancer patients (let's say 100 of the poor souls) while ensuring that an equal number of equally sick cancer patients have no-one praying for them at all (just in case they have relatives who pray in the same manner as Little Wiggleton Baptists do). How would you ensure that the other 100 have no-one praying for their condition? The only way I can see would be to ensure that no friends or family have been informed of their condition or diagnosis - which certainly raises some ethical issues.

Then, by measuring the survival and longevity of each group you could come to a conclusion about the effectiveness of the prayers of Little Wiggleton Baptist Church when it comes to cancer.

If you repeated this experiment with many other religious groups, and praying for different kinds of needs, then you could collect sufficient data to ensure whether certain kinds of prayer produce statistically significant results.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

That comes back to what kind of testing you are talking about. The kind of testing most of us do in our everyday lives for most things in life is quite simple. Many of us have done it.

If you are talking about a fully scientific test, then it would be possible, but the wider the scope of the prayer you are testing the harder it would be. Finances, logistics, and most importantly ethics would make it difficult in anything except a totalitarian society.

For example, if you want to test the effectiveness of the prayers of one particular group - let's say the Little Wiggleton Baptist Church - then that would be fairly straightforward.

You could get them to pray for a sufficiently large number of seriously ill cancer patients (let's say 100 of the poor souls) while ensuring that an equal number of equally sick cancer patients have no-one praying for them at all (just in case they have relatives who pray in the same manner as Little Wiggleton Baptists do). How would you ensure that the other 100 have no-one praying for their condition? The only way I can see would be to ensure that no friends or family have been informed of their condition or diagnosis - which certainly raises some ethical issues.

Then, by measuring the survival and longevity of each group you could come to a conclusion about the effectiveness of the prayers of Little Wiggleton Baptist Church when it comes to cancer.

If you repeated this experiment with many other religious groups, and praying for different kinds of needs, then you could collect sufficient data to ensure whether certain kinds of prayer produce statistically significant results.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that's what they did in the experiment that Fanny called bad science. As he points out:

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've said it before, but the test fails the basic requirements of any trial. Why? Because you can't guarantee that the group supposed not to received prayer isn't actually being prayed for. For instance, any child who prays at night for God to "help all the sick people in the world to get better" puts the kibosh on the idea that there are distinct test groups.

Besides this, if one is of the opinion that God is chiefly concerned with working towards fulfilling his own plan of salvation, redemption, judgement, new creation and whatever else (all of which just so happens to be good for us), rather than curing our physical maladies (including regrowing limbs), then it becomes difficult to establish exactly what prayers he should be answering and how often. I think it perfectly reasonable to suggest that in some divinely inspired butterfly effect, God heals those who will directly or indirectly aid his mysterious plans.

All in all a tremendous waste of money.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that's what they did in the experiment that Fanny called bad science. As he points out:

I'm pretty sure they didn't. There would have been a howl of protest if relatives of sick people were kept in the dark about their loved ones' conditions in order to carry out an experiment. Unless it was in China, or Nazi Germany, ethical concerns would have prevented such a thing.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they didn't. There would have been a howl of protest if relatives of sick people were kept in the dark about their loved ones' conditions in order to carry out an experiment. Unless it was in China, or Nazi Germany, ethical concerns would have prevented such a thing.

Oh right I missed the bit about not telling the relatives to ensure they didn't pray. So really it ranges from difficult to impossible to get an objective view of whether prayer works.

Do you think it's ethical for god to allow someone to die because a relative didn't pray for them? Presumably he already knows the person is sick and already knows that you would prefer this wasn't the case whether you explicitly tell him or not? And presumably the ethical compulsion to help without prayer would be even greater if the relatives were kept in the dark so the experiment you describe also fails?

All that of course presumes that god does occasionally help people even if they didn't pray for it

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oh right I missed the bit about not telling the relatives to ensure they didn't pray. So really it ranges from difficult to impossible to get an objective view of whether prayer works.

Only if we are bound by your presuppositions and methodology.

Do you think it's ethical for god to allow someone to die because a relative didn't pray for them? Presumably he already knows the person is sick and already knows that you would prefer this wasn't the case whether you explicitly tell him or not?

I think it would be perfectly ethical for God to let every single sick person die. He is under no obligation to miraculously intervene or to heal anyone.

If He does sometimes intervene, for example in response to prayer, then that is a bonus for the people involved, but that does not imply anything unethical in the other cases.

Fanny Cradock

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Er yes, and so was the quote from Sam Harris. I am not sure what you are trying to tell me here?

That it's clearly not a conversation stopper.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Antiskeptic,

Your analogy entirely fails I am afraid. There are two reasons for this.

1) In the case of someone who is blind we are fully aware of, and can show, the sense that they are without. You however, can not.

How can those who discern the property "redness" show a blind man that he can't discern it. How, apart from him displaying faith in what they tell him at some point in proceedings, I must stress.


Remember it's the blind man who needs to be shown that he's blind. Us Christians know we can see.

2) We can still discuss the evidence of “red” with a blind person. They just arrive at this evidence and conclusion by a different route from us. You are basically falsely asserting that someone can not see the evidence for a conclusion unless it is exactly the same evidence. There is a multitude of ways to show what red is to a blind person and prove its existence without the need for sight. You are not only inventing a sense, but declaring by fiat that ALL relevant evidence for the entity in question falls under this sense and this sense alone.

What way would you show the existance of the quality "redness" to a blind person - without acts of faith being involved on the part of the blind man.

The other presumption you hold is that the God sense should be convertible into one of the empirical senses. In your trust-filled experiement involving the blind man and the quality "redness" you rig up a gadget which produces sounds of varying pitch associated with varying wavelengths of light. The wavelength "redness" produces a sound of pitch x - and your trusting blind subject takes your word for it. You've converted redness into something comprehensible for the blind man (albeit it by faith) due to the interconnectivity of redness/sound.

The lack of connectivity between the God-sense and the other senses cannot be helped. But that lack of connectivity doesn't affect the analogy. Because you are blind, and because there is no other way to detect God other than to have this sense, you cannot see.

3) A blind person is more than aware of lacking the sense in question. I am aware of lacking no sense which you apparently have except possibly an over active imagination?

See above. That the sound of screeching brakes (sense 1) interconnect with the impact of a vehicle (sense 2) renders a blindperson (sense 3) knowledgable about their lack doesn't affect the analogy.

What you are doing is hiding from the fact there is no evidence by declaring there is a “sense” for which you ALSO have no evidence and then just declaring that the lack of one is the reason for the lack of the other.

Stalemate is the only honourable position left for both of us to take.

Resistance is futile

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Remember it's the blind man who needs to be shown that he's blind. Us Christians know we can see.

What way would you show the existance of the quality "redness" to a blind person - without acts of faith being involved on the part of the blind man.

So are you telling us that an objective and unbiased observer cannot be convinced of the truth of christianity, that effectively you must bring yourself to believe in it and only then will you find it convincing?

And if that is what you're saying, is that not a circular argument?

lugha

With regard to the question of testing the effectiveness of prayer, surely you much first hypothesis the nature of any effect.
Is it the case that a single prayer for a cause will be sufficient? It seems plausible that this would be so, presumably God does not need to be nagged! But if this is the case then would it not suffice for a single individual to offer a single prayer for all good intentions, as I was encouraged to do as a child, and thus all other prayers would be redundant. Or are such non-specific prayers pointless
Alternatively, is the effectiveness of prayer proportional to the amount of praying done, or to the numbers offering prayers? It would appear that as least some Christians think so, otherwise why implore others to pray for some cause when the can pray themselves? And if this is the case, then I think testing is possible. If prayer does have an effect, and if God declines to sabotage such a test, then you should observe the effectiveness of prayer rising in proportion to the amount of praying done. Yes, there may be some additional prayers offered for both the control group and treatment group, if I can call them that, but on balance, if the groups are compiled randomly, then the effect of outside prayers can be accommodated in a statistical analysis.

herbiemcc

Just to pick up the 'blind person in court vs red' idea. If I was a sighted person in the dock in a court of blind people I could easily prove I have another sense they cannot comprehend. They don't need to experience the sense itself but can be shown it's effect.

I would give them 2 cards. Completely identical other than one is red and one is white and on the back of the red card is a braille dot so they can differentiate between them. They could swap the cards around behind a screen and I could then, without touching or even coming near them, pick the 'red' card - a concept they cannot fathom - with 100% accuracy.

That would give my testimony considerable weight.

antiskeptic

herbiemcc wrote: »

Just to pick up the 'blind person in court vs red' idea. If I was a sighted person in the dock in a court of blind people I could easily prove I have another sense they cannot comprehend. They don't need to experience the sense itself but can be shown it's effect.

I would give them 2 cards. Completely identical other than one is red and one is white and ...

From their perspective, you could also have given them two white cards saying one is red and one is white. They wouldn't be able to tell.

Edit: Oops - error in my thinking noted! In which case I'll repeat what I said above

The other presumption you hold is that the God sense should be convertible into one of the empirical senses. In your trust-filled experiement involving the blind man and the quality "redness" you rig up a gadget which produces sounds of varying pitch associated with varying wavelengths of light. The wavelength "redness" produces a sound of pitch x - and your trusting blind subject takes your word for it. You've converted redness into something comprehensible for the blind man (albeit it by faith) due to the interconnectivity of redness/sound.

liamw

antiskeptic wrote: »

From their perspective, you could also have given them two white cards saying one is red and one is white. They wouldn't be able to tell.

No, becuase you can tell them whether they are holding up the card with the braille dot or not. That shows that there is a visual distinction between the cards

antiskeptic

liamw wrote: »

No, becuase you can tell them whether they are holding up the card with the braille dot or not. That shows that there is a visual distinction between the cards

Gotcha.

See edit to my last post

herbiemcc

Sorry I don't follow you antiskeptic. Do you mean the "red wavelength / sound gadget" statement still stands?

In my opinion you're comparing 2 different things. Trying to explain the colour 'red' to a person blind from birth - or even to another sighted person for that matter - isn't possible directly - we agree.

Your example has a sighted person 'translating' their impression of the colour red into a sound. This involves trust or faith on the part of the listener (blind person) that this interpretation is correct.

The second example involves no trust or faith. If someone can predict an event with 100% accuracy then while that in itself might not be satisfactory proof it would seem reasonable to look into the matter further. It's clear, unamibiguous and makes no comment about the character, moral fibre or intelligence of the other party but simply isolates their missing sense.

I imagine if the world was populated with blind people a person with a completely verifiable and testable sense would be something exciting to investigate and would not require the word 'faith' in any sense.

I probably don't need to expand on how this applies to religion but if one of the requests is to "spread the word" (and I'm not saying that is your purpose) then it seems to add unnecessary obstacles to make the word by definition un-provable, un-testable, un-questionable and such that it cannot be 'found' unless you have already 'found' it.

It doesn't really seem a fair and 'grown up' way of going about things and I would ask again why is religion different from all other areas of human endeavour?

nozzferrahhtoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That it's clearly not a conversation stopper.

Yes because this is a conversation ABOUT faith. What I mean by conversation stopper however is when it is USED in other conversations.

For example here are two imaginary conversations:

Conversation 1 – Good

Person 1: Homosexuality is bad because of Result X of Study Y.
Person 2: Can you show me this study, its methodology and conclusions?
Person 1: Yes here it is, let us now discuss its data, methodology and conclusions further…..

Conversation 2 – Bad

Person 1: Homosexuality is bad because it is against the will of god and his created order.
Person 2: Ah can you show me evidence for this god and that this is in fact its will?
Person 1: I have no such evidence, but I have faith it is true.
Person 2: Ah….

What I have always wondered is why it is not valid for Person 2 to invent his own god, which is the polar opposite in EVERY way to Person 1s god on issues such as this, thus negating Person 1s god and forcing everyone back to Conversation 1 by default. I guess this is because people of faith only lend credence to their own faith and dismiss it entirely in others.

Why, for example, anyone with "faith" in Christ and Christianity is any more valid than someone with "faith" in Mohammad and Islam is entirely beyond me. They each have offered the same amount of evidence and data for their claims (none to my knowledge) and yet they both are entirely convinced the other is wrong and that the others "faith" is not good enough. If you accept faith for one, why is it not accepted for all?

nozzferrahhtoo

Antiskeptic,

Again you are missing the point. Sight is a real sense. We can show its existence and show that a person lacks it. Its existence is showable AND falsifiable.

This is not so with your “Sense” of god. Given that you have provided no evidence for this entity or this sense, it seems both are entirely made up and one made up thing is being used to support the existence of the other made up thing. The argument is entirely circular.

Until you can show the existence of one, you can not use it to show the existence of the other. Both appear to entirely assumed. Not only is this circular but suffers from infinite regress. Why can I not see evidence for god? Because I lack the sense required to see it? Why can I not see the evidence for this sense? I guess because I also lack the sense to see it? Why can I not see evidence for THAT sense..... ad infinitum. It appears I am not lacking 1 sense, but an infinite number of them huh?

The other presumption you hold is that the God sense should be convertible into one of the empirical senses.

Errr false. How can I have a presumption about something that I have been shown no reason to think exists at all? The only presumption I hold is that this “sense” is entirely invented by you and that you have provided no evidence that such a thing exists.

*I make this small because it is off topic and I include it only for your interest. And yet you could very easily show the existence scientifically of “red” to a blind person using some very simple physics experiments involving the splitting and dispersion of white light and registering the differences between the results of each wavelength.

You could then show biologically the difference in how elements in the body register and perceive each of the wavelengths differently. This would conclusively show that light comes in different wavelengths which are differently perceived by the brain and hence the brain can distinguish between different wavelengths.

That is all you need to do. Proving that the brain discerns between wavelengths and perceives those differernces is all that is necessary.

“Color” is, after all, not a THING, it is just a word we put on to describe the human subjective interpretation of an objective difference between types of light. Color is not something that actually exists. It is not a thing, it can not be measured or found. We can for example be 100% sure that when I see red and you see red that we are both seeing light and we both are receiving it at the same wavelength. What you can not show is that what I experience when I see “red” is what you experience when you see it. Maybe you see what I would think of as green.

Your error in thinking you can not “show” redness to a blind person is bourne of the mistaken notion that “redness” is an actual thing that exists. It is not. It is a concept in the brain used to describe different perceptions and such perceptions are entirely achievable without direct observation. You would do well to read more about the concept of Synesthesia where people hear colors and see sounds. Their perception is no less valid than ours, they just have a subjective interpretation of an objective range of differences in light and sound. They just arrive at this perception by a different avenue.

However this is entirely off topic which is, as I said, why I include it as a footnote only.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Most of us, in our daily lives, test things by simple personal experimentation.

And some of us realise that personal experimentation is a deeply flawed process and thus don't base entire belief systems around the "evidence" gathered from such experimentation.

To conclude that a hang over cure might be doing something is a world away from concluding God exists and should be worshiped, or that homeopathy can cure disease or that ghosts exist and talk to us or all the other supernatural or paranormal conclusions people reach after accepting conclusions based on personal experimentation.

To lump everyone together equally and say we all do this in an attempt to validate what theists do is frankly ridiculous and mildly insulting.

PDN wrote: »

It would be very difficult to conduct a study under laboratory conditions to prove whether prayer in general works or not. But it is certainly possible for me to experiment as to whether a particular method of prayer works for me or not.

No it isn't, not to any proper standard of epistemology. That is the point.

You will get an answer but you have no idea if that answer is accurate or not because personal assessment is a deeply flawed process that you cannot trust to give you accurate results.

Yet you accept the result anyway, and thus operate on blind faith, since you are blindly accepting the results from your personal experiment despite reason telling us you don't know if they are accurate at all.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

And some of us realise that personal experimentation is a deeply flawed process and thus don't base entire belief systems around the "evidence" gathered from such experimentation.

I dunno Wickknight. Everytime I drive my bike I utilise the evidence of my own eyes to tell me where it is I should point it. So far (26 years and a quarter million miles or so and I'm still alive and unbroken), personal, subjective evaluation regarding the reality I occupy seems to be hitting the mark consistantly.

What is it with the empiricists? Seems nothing can be taken as being the case unless it appears in a peer reviewed journal. Life, as PDN seems to be pointing out, just doesn't operate that way.

Fanny Cradock

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes because this is a conversation ABOUT faith. What I mean by conversation stopper however is when it is USED in other conversations.

For example here are two imaginary conversations:

Conversation 1 – Good

Person 1: Homosexuality is bad because of Result X of Study Y.
Person 2: Can you show me this study, its methodology and conclusions?
Person 1: Yes here it is, let us now discuss its data, methodology and conclusions further…..

Conversation 2 – Bad

Person 1: Homosexuality is bad because it is against the will of god and his created order.
Person 2: Ah can you show me evidence for this god and that this is in fact its will?
Person 1: I have no such evidence, but I have faith it is true.
Person 2: Ah….

You obviously don't understand science if you think it can be used to determine if X is morally good or morally bad. Whether it is deliberate or not, you are conflating the role (and output) of science with the role (and output) of philosophy and theology. Simply put: science can build bombs but it can't tell us if it is good or bad to use them. For this we need some sort of moral and ethical framework. Christianity happens to be one such moral framework.

Also the question as to whether homosexuality is good or bad isn't confined to religious people, it presses down on the secular world also. I have known some thoroughly irreligious people (possibly these are the type of people who are as far removed from a religion like Christianity as they are from something like humanism) who are homophobic.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What I have always wondered is why it is not valid for Person 2 to invent his own god, which is the polar opposite in EVERY way to Person 1s god on issues such as this, thus negating Person 1s god and forcing everyone back to Conversation 1 by default. I guess this is because people of faith only lend credence to their own faith and dismiss it entirely in others.

If you want to start praising the SFM then knock yourself out. I would think that any fair-minded Christian would be happy to debate the merits of your beliefs in comparison to theirs. Indeed, you can visit this website (among many) to see your usual atheist v theist debates and some ecumenical debates between people of different religions. Closer to home debating the merits of one faith over another (and I'll include atheism in this for the purposes of this post) is exactly what we do here every day. But in an ironic twist you seem to assume the worst of religious people - that religious people always dismiss X and never at the expense of their own beliefs. Quite frankly, that is pompous nonsense. And I dare suggest that you are actually very close to describing your own stance when you make such generalisations.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Why, for example, anyone with "faith" in Christ and Christianity is any more valid than someone with "faith" in Mohammad and Islam is entirely beyond me. They each have offered the same amount of evidence and data for their claims (none to my knowledge) and yet they both are entirely convinced the other is wrong and that the others "faith" is not good enough. If you accept faith for one, why is it not accepted for all?

I would suggest that you are wrong. Both Christianity and Islam do provide evidence for their claims. To state otherwise means you either haven't bothered to look - thus assuming what I see to be a default position amongst certain types of posters - or you aren't being objective in your analysis. It doesn't matter if you personally decided that the bible, philosophical arguments for God, personal testimonies or whatever are about as trustworthy as an OJ Simpson testimony. They remain as types of evidence all the same, albeit untrustworthy evidence from your perspective. Also that there are competing claims between religions doesn't mean that all are necessarily wrong and there is no truth.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would suggest that you are wrong. Both Christianity and Islam do provide evidence for their claims. To state otherwise means you either haven't bothered to look - thus assuming what I see to be a default position amongst certain types of posters - or you aren't being objective in your analysis. It doesn't matter if you personally decided that the bible, philosophical arguments for God, personal testimonies or whatever are about as trustworthy as an OJ Simpson testimony. They remain as types of evidence all the same, albeit untrustworthy evidence from your perspective. Also that there are competing claims between religions doesn't mean that all are necessarily wrong and there is no truth.

That there are competing claims doesn't mean that all are necessarily wrong, that is true, but every religion has its share of personal testimonies, every religion has its sacred texts or stories, many just as independently verifiable as those of christianity if not more so and the philosophical arguments pretty much all argue for a generic creator type being and can be applied to any religion. The existence of so many other religions does not necessarily make them all wrong but it does make it all but impossible to make an objective decision as to which one is true.

When you get right down to it you have to pick one religion and apply a lower standard of evidence than you would to anything else in order to accept it. Usually the perceived benefits that the religion brings to a person's life allows them to do this but of course religions are designed to fulfil certain needs in people and provide these perceived benefits so if they'd started off looking deeply into a different religion they would most likely have had the same needs fulfilled* and would now believe in that religion just as strongly as christianity

*assuming the social aspect could be fulfilled which would be difficult if there was no community of that religion in the area

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I dunno Wickknight. Everytime I drive my bike I utilise the evidence of my own eyes to tell me where it is I should point it. So far (26 years and a quarter million miles or so and I'm still alive and unbroken), personal, subjective evaluation regarding the reality I occupy seems to be hitting the mark consistantly.

In 26 years and a quarter million miles or so you have never read a map, or a street sign, or got lost, or taken a wrong turn, or got disorientated, or lost your way?

That is impressive, you must be a robot sent from the future to destroy us all :rolleyes:

antiskeptic wrote: »

What is it with the empiricists? Seems nothing can be taken as being the case unless it appears in a peer reviewed journal.

Again you guys only accept what you conclude because you want it to be true, not because you have actually determined it is. Blind faith in your abilities to determine things based purely on wishful thinking. It is possibly that initially people could simply be ignorant at the flaws in accepting personal evaluation, but in this day and age when such flaws are pointed out all the time that excuse no longer holds.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Life, as PDN seems to be pointing out, just doesn't operate that way.

Well actually it does, as demonstrated by the huge amount of different supernatural and paranormal things people believe in, from UFOs to homeopathy.

People are wrong far more than they are right. Far far far far more. Personal evaluation of phenomena (ie a person observing a phenomena and working out on his own what has happened) is ridiculously flawed, even before we get to the supernatural.

It is the "I was able to ride my bike to work so I should also be able to work out God exists/ghosts are real/astrology works/ufo abductions happen etc etc" type of logic that gets people into trouble.

But again, you guys don't care. Thus blind faith.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

In 26 years and a quarter million miles or so you have never read a map, or a street sign, or got lost, or taken a wrong turn, or got disorientated, or lost your way?

That is impressive, you must be a robot sent from the future to destroy us all :rolleyes:

That I have erred form relative trifles considering the billions of correct perceptions required to ensure my current status of "living being"

Again you guys only accept what you conclude because you want it to be true, not because you have actually determined it is. Blind faith in your abilities to determine things based purely on wishful thinking. It is possibly that initially people could simply be ignorant at the flaws in accepting personal evaluation, but in this day and age when such flaws are pointed out all the time that excuse no longer holds.

As ever, the point of objection focuses on the wrong target. It has been pointed out in this thread, the basis on which a believers faith is estabished & sustained. It would be by act of God in revealing himself to a person. The person believes in Gods existance because God has demonstrated his existance - in other words. You should agree in principle that:

a) God (assuming he exists for the sake of arguement) can reveal himself to a person.

b) God doing so ensures the person knows it's him and not a delusion.

c) God so revealed is objective, real, known.

Note that there is no reliance on the person correctly evaluating anything in this process - meaning that all your objections that focus on the unreliability of the persons perceptions reduce to nought. You're barking up the wrong tree. Rather, since all relies on God, you need to point your objections at Him and His abilities.

Since there is no profit in you ploughing that particular furrow, the best I can suggest you do is accept that such discussions terminate at stalemate. I assert God exists and you have little choice but to remain agnostic on the subject of whether my faith is evidenced or whether it is blind. Unless you've a mechanism (such as listed in a), b), c) above) that is, which permits you to assert "blind".

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

That I have erred form relative trifles considering the billions of correct perceptions required to ensure my current status of "living being"

Not really, because I imagine you didn't do any of what you are claiming based solely on your own perception. You didn't map out Dublin (or where ever you live), or leave markers on the route to find our way around (street signs) or determine your own directions.

What you have done all these years is rely on the empirical work of others. Others have empirically measured and mapped and posted and signed so you didn't have to because left to our own devices people are actually pretty bad with directions and perceiving where they are and where they are going.

And I've no problem if you want to do that with God as well but of course no one has empirical work in relation to God. Which is the whole point.

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) God (assuming he exists for the sake of arguement) can reveal himself to a person.

b) God doing so ensures the person knows it's him and not a delusion.

c) God so revealed is objective, real, known.

You cannot determine B is true or even accurate.

If you accept it is true that is an act of blind faith since almost by definition you cannot determine it is true or even likely or accurate.

You cannot determine the difference between you merely thinking God has revealed himself to you and God actually revealing himself to you as there is no test for this external to your own perception and personal conclusion.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Note that there is no reliance on the person correctly evaluating anything in this process

Of course there is, B requires that a person correct evaluate that God has revealed himself to them and that this is not a delusion as there exists no test for this external to one's own personal evaluation.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really, because I imagine you didn't do any of what you are claiming based solely on your own perception. You didn't map out Dublin (or where ever you live), or leave markers on the route to find our way around (street signs) or determine your own directions.

I was thinking more of the countless observations and calculations based on same that must have been performed to stop me falling over, turning right when I should have turned left, accelerating when I should be braking, continuing when I should have been avoiding.

You cannot determine B is true or even accurate.

I wasn't really asking you to respond to what I'm able to do. I was asking you to respond to what God is able to do (assuming he exists for the sake of argument). And so I'll repeat B in the form of a question

Is God able to reveal himself to a person in such a way that they know he isn't a delusion? I mean, what is "knowledge" but the arrangment of neural networks in your brain into a particular pattern? Whether God arranges my neural network "directly" so that I know God exists or whether he writes "God exists" in by-natural-means-impossibly-large letters in the sky so that I know he exists isn't particularily relevant.

Beware of suggesting that the God who created this Universe wouldn't be able to accomplish the relatively paltry task of making himself known to someone, in your answer.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really, because I imagine you didn't do any of what you are claiming based solely on your own perception. You didn't map out Dublin (or where ever you live), or leave markers on the route to find our way around (street signs) or determine your own directions.

What you have done all these years is rely on the empirical work of others. Others have empirically measured and mapped and posted and signed so you didn't have to because left to our own devices people are actually pretty bad with directions and perceiving where they are and where they are going.

And I've no problem if you want to do that with God as well but of course no one has empirical work in relation to God. Which is the whole point.

In all fairness, WK, I think you are looking a little too selectively at the analogy. As far as I can tell the word map has only ever used by you. Interestingly, when you think about it a map is in itself an analogy of reality.