Faith: the evidence of things not seen

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Blind faith would be choosing to believe a proposition where no evidence exists for it, or where the person exercising the faith can see that it probably isn't true.

For example, you could choose to believe that next year you are going to get married to Jessica Alba. You have no evidence to support such a belief. Indeed, given your track record with average-looking women we could say that you know that the probabilities are stacked against you getting past first base with anyone as hot as Ms Alba. Therefore your belief is blind faith.

No evidence according to who though?

There is never really a case where there is no evidence to support a belief if you standards of evidence are flexible.

I obviously think I'm marrying Jessica Alba for some reason, no matter how deranged that reason is. Say I think she is looking at me from the cover of FHM. That, to me, is evidence.

To everyone else it isn't, it is silly blind faith completely off the wall.

Or say I believe I'm going to win the Lottery this week because I have " a feeling". People could dismiss this as silly blind faith. I could say that my feeling is all the evidence i need and say that therefore my belief is purely rational.

Again like so many of these discussion it comes back to standards

Under your definition of blind faith there really isn't such a thing because anyone can say that they always have a reason for believing something and that this reason is evidence for their belief.

Sam Vimes

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.

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.

So, for example, many people first make contact with Christianity because they lack a sense of community, and they find that sense of community in a church setting - even though they initially don't care much about the beliefs of the Church.

Then they might observe that their new friends in the Church testify to their prayers being answered. This prompts them to try praying for themselves - and they find that it works!

The realisation that prayer works can then lead them to take the next step. They say, "I'm going to give this Jesus thing a go. What's the worst that can happen? If it's all make-believe then I might waste some of my time, but I'll soon realise so if that's the case." So they make a prayer of commitment to Christ, even though they haven't that much idea who Jesus is.

Then, seeing the benefit in their lives of having taken such a step, they begin to engage in discipleship. They learn more about this new-found faith, and start studying the Bible.

Now, it might drive nuts those who treat everything as if it were a laboratory experiment - but it is often only at this point that many people start to consider the actual question of God's existence. So they say, "OK, so given my experiences to date - do I think it more likely or not that God exists?"

I think you're absolutely right there. The thing is though that the same could be said for a follower of pretty much any religion. Religion fills a gap in some people's lives for purpose and community and I can say with relative certainty that that if I prayed to a carton of milk they would be answered with roughly the same frequency with which my prayers to god were. So it essentially boils down to which was the first religion they tried out in that manner, which would explain why the overwhelming majority of people stick with the religion they were raised with. If other religions didn't bring people similar levels of satisfaction as christianity they wouldn't have survived.

Religion fills a gap, it can make people happier, it can bring communities together, it can even save people from the brink of despair but none of that makes it true

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Religion fills a gap, it can make people happier, it can bring communities together, it can even save people from the brink of despair but none of that makes it true

I'm getting a sense of deja vu. Is no-one willing to address the topic of blind faith?

I think possibly the problem is that atheism is, by definition, about one subject and one subject alone - the existence or non-existence of God. Therefore your conditioning causes you to drag everything back to that one issue. It's a pity really, because there are so many other things we could talk about - like the subject of this thread.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

No evidence according to who though?

There is never really a case where there is no evidence to support a belief if you standards of evidence are flexible.

I obviously think I'm marrying Jessica Alba for some reason, no matter how deranged that reason is. Say I think she is looking at me from the cover of FHM. That, to me, is evidence.

To everyone else it isn't, it is silly blind faith completely off the wall.

Or say I believe I'm going to win the Lottery this week because I have " a feeling". People could dismiss this as silly blind faith. I could say that my feeling is all the evidence i need and say that therefore my belief is purely rational.

Again like so many of these discussion it comes back to standards

Under your definition of blind faith there really isn't such a thing because anyone can say that they always have a reason for believing something and that this reason is evidence for their belief.

Which essentially boils down to saying that the majority of the world exercises blind faith because they disagree with you. Any evidence that causes them to disagree with you must, by definition, be silly - therefore it's blind faith.

Nice one.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I'm getting a sense of deja vu.

was thinking the same thing

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Which essentially boils down to saying that the majority of the world exercises blind faith because they disagree with you.

No it essentially boils down to pointing out that you have just defined yourself out of practicing blind faith by coming up with a definition that doesn't actually apply to anyone

Who has ever believed something with absolutely no evidence or reason at all for their belief? I imagine that is not even possible given the way our brains work.

Even a deranged schtophrenic paranoid fantasist has a paranoid fantasy as the reason, the evidence as he would see it, for his beliefs.

A child who accepted everything they are told by their parents or a priest without ever exploring if it is actually true or not would say they use the evidence that they trust their parents who have told them true things in the past as support for why this is not blind faith, using your definition, despite that being the classic example of blind faith.

PDN wrote: »

Any evidence that causes them to disagree with you must, by definition, be silly - therefore it's blind faith.

"Evidence" is in the eye of the beholder, that is the point.

Would you consider Jessica Alba's picture in Heat winking at me as evidence I'm going to marry her next year, and thus my belief is not in fact blind faith but a rational conclusion?

I doubt it, because you don't consider that as evidence in support of my assertion using any proper standard of evidence.

To you it isn't evidence for this at all, to me is the whole reason believe it to be happening.

So basically what you are saying is blind faith is believing I'm going to marry Jessica Alba with no good evidence to support such a belief, good evidence being evidence that comes up to some commonly held standard.

Guess what, I think the same thing, though possibly what I consider good evidence and what you consider good evidence are wildly different.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

I'm getting a sense of deja vu. Is no-one willing to address the topic of blind faith?

I think possibly the problem is that atheism is, by definition, about one subject and one subject alone - the existence or non-existence of God. Therefore your conditioning causes you to drag everything back to that one issue. It's a pity really, because there are so many other things we could talk about - like the subject of this thread.

As others have said, blind faith in its strictest sense does not exist in the real world. We all know of many people in the world who hold positions that are totally off the wall and often demonstrably false both in and out of religion but they believe them anyway because when someone has an overwhelming desire to believe something they lose their objectivity; what would normally be considered irrelevant or extremely weak is clung to as compelling evidence and excuses and ad hoc hypotheses are formulated to explain away things that would cause any objective observer to immediately dismiss the position. I saw things like this all the time during the Lisbon treaty campaign where the most ludicrous notions involving worldwide conspiracies were trotted out to explain how the EU was going to destroy our country and steal our fish as soon as they tricked us into voting yes
. These are arguments were invariably supported by out of context quotes and made up facts and figures, much like creationism, but they were supported nonetheless

Faith is not blind, there are arguments to support it but these arguments are extremely weak and can often be applied to any religion equally. The emotional connection and desire to believe prevents people from looking at the situation objectively and realising just how weak these arguments are. I suppose you could say there are none so blind as those that will not see

postcynical

PDN's explanations are spot on.

I probably fall into the blind faith category more than most Christians who post here. As a Catholic, I believe that what my church teaches is true. So I believe that Mary lived a life without sin. There is no biblical evidence for this and I'm not aware of any compelling arguments from tradition for this to be the case. I have no personal evidence to support this position, like I do for more fundamental matters of faith. It is also a detail in my faith to which I have not invested much importance. Nevertheless, the fact remains that I believe that Mary lived without sin and although I have not suspended my reason, I can live happily with that belief.

NosVeratu's OP is adequate in my opinion. I presume the OP would claim that a vital requirement of any good scientist is faith, as hypothesising requires the facility to assume the truth of an indetermined proposition.

postcynical

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Some of my beliefs are based on blind faith. Your second statement is also false as believers are perfectly capable of remaining objective.

It's easy for Christians to laugh up their sleeves at the Greeks who believed that Zeus actually existed. It's also easy for them to believe that the "evidence" for the existence of the Abrahamic God is quite sound, and that their Christian belief is a very different matter—when, in fact, it isn't.

As a Christian I would not mock the ancient Greeks for their beliefs; neither do I mock Buddhists or animists for their beliefs. As PDN has pointed out, it is possible that the basis for a Buddhist's belief system, or an atheist's philosophical position, or an animist's position to be just as sound as the Christian position. The (disputed) fact that Christianity is actually true does not undermine the soundness of the bases for the other belief systems at all. So perhaps we are in agreement that it is not a different matter.

postcynical

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Religion fills a gap in some people's lives for purpose and community and I can say with relative certainty that that if I prayed to a carton of milk they would be answered with roughly the same frequency with which my prayers to god were.

Is relative certainty an oxymoron?;)

Seriously have you ever tried this experiment? I bet you you'll be surprised at the outcome.

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

...if I prayed to a carton of milk they would be answered with roughly the same frequency with which my prayers to god were.

Lame YouTube video.

Sam Vimes

postcynical wrote: »

Seriously have you ever tried this experiment? I bet you you'll be surprised at the outcome.

One person is statistically insignificant. Widespread studies have been done into the effects of prayer. I vaguely remember one involving patients in a hospital and iirc the people who were prayed for actually did slightly worse. As far as I'm concerned it's just confirmation bias, where you remember the one or two times you got something after praying but forget all the times you didn't get it

And people from other religions have prayer stories too so the choices are:

1. Their god also exists
2. Your god is answering their prayers posing as their god thereby strengthing their faith in their own religion and so deliberately dooming them to hell
3. Their god is answering prayers posing as your god thereby dooming you to the hell of another religion
4. No one is answering any prayers and sometimes unlikely things just happen

I like option 4. Come back to me when a prayer can reliably and repeatably cause someone to spontaneously regrow an amputated limb and I might change my position. Telling me that unlikely things sometimes happen after you pray is unimpressive, unlikely things happen anyway. Stephen Gately randomly dropped dead a few months ago and that was extremely unlikely but no one calls that a miracle because the unlikely event didn't happen to be beneficial

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One person is statistically insignificant. Widespread studies have been done into the effects of prayer.

Maybe TetraPack has hired you to do some exhaustive research on this? Because I´m wondering why you feel your personal opinion about the effectivness of praying to a milk carton is any more valid than postcynical´s belief that praying to God actually works.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I vaguely remember one involving patients in a hospital and iirc the people who were prayed for actually did slightly worse. As far as I'm concerned it's just confirmation bias, where you remember the one or two times you got something after praying but forget all the times you didn't get it.

I remember that too. I also recall other studies that did find a positive correlation.

(Following copied from another thread - http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63012853&postcount=15)

But such experiments are a waste of time and money. I would even say the same of the below meta analysis of various studies into the effects of intercessory prayer that found a positive correlation. http://asunews.asu.edu/node/1545

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.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And people from other religions have prayer stories too so the choices are:

1. Their god also exists - Perhaps their god does exist, which means that Christians are incorrect, but that isn´t what this thread is originally about.
2. Your god is answering their prayers posing as their god thereby strengthing their faith in their own religion and so deliberately dooming them to hell - You are making an assumption, one that people like myself have attempted to refute in the past. We simply don´t know the fate of people from other religions. Your syllogism isn´t one that I think is compatable with the Christianity I know.
3. Their god is answering prayers posing as your god thereby dooming you to the hell of another religion - I would wonder why any god would do such a thing, or why the outcome necessariy involves hell. Like above, you are creating needlessly extreme choices simply to hammer your point home.
4. No one is answering any prayers and sometimes unlikely things just happen
   - Yes, it certainly is a possibility. Christianity could be wrong. Shock! Horror!

Sam Vimes

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.

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8

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

This is the type of thing I mean when I say very weak evidence that would not be accepted by an objective observer is exaggerated by those who have a desire to believe in something

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.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

If for example they attribute their rottenness to Buddha's concept of suffering being a symptom of longing for material goods that has nothing to do with the Christian explanation. So how have they "believed God", let alone accepted he exists and accepted his offer of salvation?

The conclusion "I am rotten" must, of course, arise out of a self-comparison w.r.t. the standard of God (that standard being installed in everyone whether they like/believe it or not). Consider a simple example: if the person rails at themselves for their failure to "do unto others.." then they will in fact be comparing themselves to Gods standard - irrespective of whether they've gleaned that notion from Buddha's sayings, their upbringing, considering atheistic rationale for morality, etc. For it is from God that that notion "do unto others.." is sourced originally (we would be supposing for the sake of argument)

If, on the other hand, Hitler thinks he is rotten because he failed to eradicate the worlds Jewry he wouldn't be (let's suppose for the sake of argument) be comparing himself to God's standard ... and so his feeling of rotteness has no salvific value.

It is worth underlining two things I made reference to in my last post (see below). The first underlining refers to the point made above - conviction of rotteness isn't necessarily salvific. The conviction must be a God-sourced conviction and it must be a terminal, end-of-the-line conviction. The second underlining points to God's aim in utilising conviction of rotteness in salvation. The purpose of conviction is to bring to an end, independent-of-God-living. And conviction of rotteness is but one of the ways God has for achieving that: despair, sickness, approaching death, addiction, pain, fear are some of the others. Let's face it, a person brought to the end of reliance on self will be more inclined to place their reliance on another. Which is God's aim for man: that man be dependent on God - as child is on parent.

antiskeptic wrote:

* note that that feeling oneself rotten isn't a sure sign that they've reaching the point of salvation. There is a end-of-the-line-hopelessness about the place a person need reach in order to arrive at the bottom of the barrel at which God may be found. God is the one who knows when that line has been crossed and the persons independent-of-God life has been shattered irrevocably.

And how does someone who doesn't believe God exists "believe God"?

It's actually very easy and you do it often yourself!

If you yourself believe murder is wrong then you believe God on this matter. He is the one who installed that notion in mankind (via conscience). Corresspondingly, if you truly believe murder isn't wrong (say you're a Nazi camp guard) then what you've done to enable this belief is suppress your God given conscience.

Conscience is another way of saying "a knowledge of good and evil". It's a God-given knowledge, installed in you by God - not something you arrive at by other means. You can either heed it or suppress it.

Say I think, for what ever reason, that I'm rotten to the core, but I don't think God exists, I don't think my rotteness has anything to do with the Christian explanation, nor do I believe in heaven hell or salvation.

You seem to be saying that I am saved and will get this 6th sense to know God exists. How does that work?

What I've said above should explain what this is not so - to a degree.

a) not all sense of rotteness is God-connected.

b) not all sense of rotteness is so serious as to result in a hopeless despair about the state one has fallen into.

It's only when one has no place left to turn, when the weight of rotteness becomes too much to bear, that there exists the opportunity for a surrender to take place. All that the person who would avail of this opportunity needs now is someone to surrender to, someone to take this unbearable burden away from them.

For they are prepared to pay the price asked. Which is merely surrender. The alternative is to refuse to surrender and escape the unbearable burden by way of suicide. Suicide, in that case, could be supposed to be the final refusal to surrender - the persons last wilful act being to prevent that possibility (which is not to say that suicide will always have this purpose)

At some point a person has to go from believing there is something rotten about them or humanity to believing that there is something rotten about them or humanity and the Christian explanation for this is correct and true, God exists, the Fall happened, Satan, Adam Eve etc etc

That information comes post surrender. Take me for example. I reached the point of surrender one night about 8 years ago. My mother (a Christian of about 8 years at that point) has some years before given me a pamphlet called "Why Jesus". My hand reached for this long forgotten pamphlet (which fell to hand), I read it and prayed the prayer at the back. And went to sleep. The next morning I knew something had changed and embarked on the journey of finding out about this God and this Jesus and this salvation.

At the time of my praying the prayer however, I didn't believe in God. What I believed what that if God didn't exist then there was absolutely no way out of my predicament (I hadn't considered suicide at that point but might have gotten around to it). My prayer was sincerely offered up in the hope that God existed. No believing in God required at that point.

The heart of the issue is the heart - not the pamphlet and not the prayer. If I was a sheep herder on the side of a mountain in Tibet who'd never heard of the Bible or the God of that Bible then it would make no difference. God can be surrendered to anywhere, anytime by anyone who He's brought to their knees.

That is the step you missed out. You jumped from someone not believing the Christian explanation to someone believing the Christian explanation.

The question then is how does someone go from A to B without reason or evidence, since you seem to be saying the reason and evidence comes after the point of salvation.

Objections? Questions?

antiskeptic

Seoid wrote: »

Antiskeptic, I'm with Wicknight on this one - I think you are missing an important step here and I'm not sure why you think that a false believe somehow equates to a false God.

If the belief is false then it doesn't connect to God. In this instance we are talking about salvation and if the belief is false then it doesn't connect to God and the God of that particular belief doesn't exist. That part of him is false.

None of us have 100% correct belief in God as God is but that doesn't stop us from having faith in the right God, nor does it stop God from saving us.

If you believe (and persist in acting on the belief) that you are saved by your works then you have not only a false belief and a false God (in that regard). You also won't be saved by practicing that belief.

Do you think Jews today are worshipping a false god because they don't have Jesus Christ? I don't.

Do you believe the Jews are worshipping God. Or do you think they are carrying out religious duties? Do you think God values the praises of the unsaved?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The conclusion "I am rotten" must, of course, arise out of a self-comparison w.r.t. the standard of God (whether or not the person is aware that that is the standard they are comparing themselves to).

How does a person become aware that they have failed a standard when they are not aware that this was the standard they are comparing themselves too?

I may fail the Icelandic standard for literacy, but I've no idea I've done that and as such would be none the wisher.

Again your position is highly cyclical. You are asserting that certain criteria are being met that require a belief on the part of the person at the stage before they believe. Why would anyone think they are rotten compared to God's standard if they don't accept God's standard due to not believing in it or being aware of it?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Consider a simple example: if the person rails at themselves for their failure to "do unto others.." then they will in fact be comparing themselves to Gods standard - irrespective of whether they've gleaned that notion from Buddha's sayings, their upbringing, atheistic rational. For it is from God that that notion "do unto others.." is sourced originally.

But that is irrelevant if you don't believe that it is from God that this notion is sourced originally.

I could fail the Icelandic literacy test but since I've no idea I have or not I can't do anything with this information.

If a person simply feels bad about themselves but does not accept that it is God's standard they should compare themselves to then feeling they are rotten can serve no purpose to salvation, any more than I can pass Icelandic literacy without knowing I've failed it in the first place.

A person first has to believe and accept God's standard is the true and the one they should be measuring themselves against in order to connect the dots so to speak from I feel rotten inside to I feel rotten inside because of the Fall and now look what Jesus is offering me.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It is worth underlining two things I made reference to in my last post. The first underlining refers to the point made above - conviction of rotteness isn't necessarily salvific. It must be God-connected conviction and it must be terminal, end-of-the-line conviction.

Well yes and that is my point. You are not connecting the dots between conviction of rotteness, believing there is something wrong and God-connected conviction of rottenness, believing there is something wrong with you compared to the standard taught by Christianity.

You have just jumped that step, where as that step is the central act of faith

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's easy. If you believe murder is wrong then you believe God.

No, that doesn't make sense. If I believe murder is wrong I may be unknowingly agreeing with God, but I don't "believe God" because I am not accepting as true what I have been told by him since I don't think he exists and thus I could not accept as true something sourced from something I don't believe exists.

Imagine I've gone to see a film and I think it is pretty good. Unknown to me my friend goes to see the film as well and he thinks it is pretty good.

By your logic you are saying that when I say the film was good I believe my friend. That of course is nonsense. I am at the very most unwittingly agreeing with him, but it is impossible to say I believe him since I have not had an opportunity to even assess if I accept as true his position

To believe someone requires that I accept as true what they have told me. Coincidently agreeing with them is not the same thing.

And again this is the step you are skipping over, how someone accepts as true what they are told by God or Christianity.

antiskeptic wrote: »

All that the person needs now is someone to surrender to, someone to take this unbearable burden away from them.

And what rational reason do they have for picking Christianity as someone to take this burden away when ever other religion promises the same thing?

This again is the central question. If their 6th sense is turned off or whatever what reason do they have for picking Christianity as the religion to turn to?

antiskeptic wrote: »

That information comes post surrender.

Ok, so why have they surrendered to Chrisitanity in the first place?

I can't help but get the feeling that you simply have not considered that any other religion exists and offers the same thing as Christianity.

The central question here is why believe Christianity is true, why believe the offer of salvation is valid, if you have no rational bases to do so?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Take me for example. I reached the point of surrender one night about 8 years ago. My mother (a Christian of about 8 years at that point) has some years before given me a pamphlet called "Why Jesus". My hand reached for this long forgotten pamphlet (which fell to hand), I read it and prayed the prayer at the back. And went to sleep. The next morning I knew something had changed and embarked on the journey of finding out about this God and this Jesus and this salvation.

So you basically just picked the first religion at hand, which is how most people do it they start following the religion of their parents. Which is fair enough, but it goes back to my point above, you seem to be thinking about all this as if Christianity was simply the only option available.

antiskeptic wrote: »

At the time of my praying the prayer however, I didn't believe in God. What I believed what that if God didn't exist then there was absolutely no way out of my predicament (I hadn't considered suicide at that point but might have gotten around to it). My prayer was sincerely offered up in the hope that God existed. No believing in God required at that point.

Well you see that is the thing, you did believe because when you felt better you attributed to you praying. A non-believer wouldn't have done that. So it is a bit disingenuous to say you didn't believe, though I accept that at the time you may have not consider it a rational believe that God exists.

You believed at some level, probably because you were in Christian culture, that all this prayer stuff works a certain way.

So you were already passed the step I'm talking about you skipping over without even knowing you were, which is possibly why you are having such trouble with that step.

If I prayed to God and woke up the next morning feeling completely different I wouldn't attribute that to me praying to God because I don't believe that is the way things work.

To do that you have to believe in the concept of prayer, believe that it works that way. You have already accepted a large part of Christian doctrine possibly without even realising it because of your parents. You are simply running a test to confirm what you already believed or hoped was true. And not surprisingly it was confirmed for you through confirmation bias

antiskeptic wrote: »

The heart of the issue is the heart - not the pamphlet and not the prayer.

No it isn't. The heart of the issue is the believe. You accepted the explanation presented by Christianity around God and prayer.

You prayed and you felt better so you attributed that to the praying because that is what our Christian culture had taught you to accept.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If I was a sheep herder on the side of a mountain in Tibet who'd never heard of the Bible or the God of that Bible then it would make no difference. God can be surrendered to anywhere, anytime by anyone who He's brought to their knees.

It would because you wouldn't have accepted the causality based on correlation that you accepted being in a Christian culture.

You need to try and think about what it would be like if you did not have the Christian basis to begin with.

If you hadn't why would you have prayed to God at all and why would you have attributed feeling changed to praying to God?

You didn't go from A to B because you were already starting at B. You went from A to B long before that night praying because you had been raised in a Christian culture and already accepted so may Christian concepts such as God and prayer as plausible rules of nature, even if you had some doubts if it actually worked like that.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

How does a person become aware that they have failed a standard when they are not aware that this was the standard they are comparing themselves too?

Again your position is highly cyclical. You are asserting that certain criteria are being met that require a belief on the part of the person at the stage before they believe. Why would anyone think they are rotten compared to God's standard if they don't accept God's standard due to not believing in it or being aware of it?

Conscience (a.k.a. a knowledge of good and evil - as defined by God). Everyone has one and can measure themselves according to it and in doing so, can determine whether they are rotten or not according to God's standard. Whether they believe in God or not.

Why one persons conscience will trouble them about action x whilst anothers doesn't is a different, although associated, matter. We can go into it if you like - given that this would form a likely route of your next objection.

But that is irrelevant if you don't believe that it is from God that this notion is sourced originally.

How so irrelevant? If God speaks via conscience (even though you don't believe it to be God speaking) and you believe what he is saying then you believe God surely.

I mean, since when does not believing something to be the case alter it being the case?

Well yes and that is my point. You are not connecting the dots between conviction of rotteness, believing there is something wrong and God-connected conviction of rottenness, believing there is something wrong with you compared to the standard taught by Christianity.

You have just jumped that step, where as that step is the central act of faith

Hopefully the above has bridged the gap somewhat?

No, that doesn't make sense. If I believe murder is wrong I may be unknowingly agreeing with God, but I don't "believe God" because I am not accepting as true what I have been told by him since I don't think he exists and thus I could not accept as true something sourced from something I don't believe exists.

Okay, lets agree that you "unknowingly agree with Gods view" on the matter (so as to get around this semantical obstacle).

That God considers murder a selfish act is something you agree with in your believing murder is wrong - no doubt? That God considers it an unjustified act is something you also agree with I'd imagine. When God considers no man having the right to take anothers life, you too agree with him. You agree with him (he says - not me) because he has installed in you the same abhorrence for murdering another that he has regarding men murdering men.

What is occurring in you in your believing murder to be wrong, is the image and likeness of God - in which you were made - manifesting itself. You'd agree here to that your believing this or not doesn't impact on it being the case.

And again this is the step you are skipping over, how someone accepts as true what they are told by God or Christianity.

In our study we aren't concerned so much with this. The reason for believing what they are told by God arises only after God has turned up personally for the saved individual (his turning up being a satisfactory explanation as to why they accept what he says as true - at the postsalvation point). There is no need to reference God in ones satisfying the criterion by which they are saved in the first place.

And what rational reason do they have for picking Christianity as someone to take this burden away when ever other religion promises the same thing?

I'm dealing with God's salvation over which he has controlling interest. That a person run to this religion or that philosophy because they are burdened in some general sense isn't the case I am dealing with. I'm dealing with God's mechanism of salvation and his ensuring that a person meeting his criterion for salvation will be saved and will find him revealing himself to them.

Once the person has met the criterion for salvation God ensures they turn to him - whether that person is me living in a Christian-aware land. Or a sheepherder in Tibet who's never heard of God or Jesus or Salvation.

I can't help but get the feeling that you simply have not considered that any other religion exists and offers the same thing as Christianity.

The central question here is why believe Christianity is true, why believe the offer of salvation is valid, if you have no rational bases to do so?

Our focus is on God's way of salvation and what a man must unknowingly believe/unknowingly agree on .. in order to meet God's criterion of salvation. We are not concerned with whether Christianity is true or not - we're merely looking at the evidence-based way in which faith/belief/agreeing with operates at the pre-salvation stage.

Clearly, once God turns up post-salvation the evidence-based nature of one's faith should be apparent.

Well you see that is the thing, you did believe because when you felt better you attributed to you praying. A non-believer wouldn't have done that. So it is a bit disingenuous to say you didn't believe, though I accept that at the time you may have not consider it a rational believe that God exists.

Note that I'm merely discussing a mechanism of salvation which follows rational lines at the various key points (eg: a person having a rational reason for concluding themselves rotten).

I'm not that interested in broadening the topic to proving this is the case and my apologies if you supposed I was. The reason for citing my own case was to illustrate the process steps - not the suppose you believe there isn't another reason for my concluding as I do.

No it isn't. The heart of the issue is the believe. You accepted the explanation presented by Christianity around God and prayer.

The heart of the issue was that I concluded myself rotten before I read any pamphlet and before I prayed any prayer. Could we keep on the subject of mechanism?

It would because you wouldn't have accepted the causality based on correlation that you accepted being in a Christian culture.

You need to try and think about what it would be like if you did not have the Christian basis to begin with.

If you hadn't why would you have prayed to God at all and why would you have attributed feeling changed to praying to God?

The Bible speaks of sheep not of this fold (ie: not the visible Christian church) who will be collected up in the end time. They will be surprised at where they find themselves (not having had the privilege of being able to read all about it in advance like I do). This doesn't affect them being sheep however and they were saved by the same God and by the same mechanism as me.

And so I suppose a sheep herder up the side of a mountain in Tibet can be saved just like me.

You didn't go from A to B because you were already starting at B. You went from A to B long before that night praying because you had been raised in a Christian culture and already accepted so may Christian concepts such as God and prayer as plausible rules of nature, even if you had some doubts if it actually worked like that.

Could we return to the topic at hand: the mechanism of salvation that is based on evidence at all points along the way?

postcynical

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One person is statistically insignificant.

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

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.