Faith: the evidence of things not seen

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?