What would it take to make you believe in a supernatural entity?

Northclare · 13-02-2012 10:32PM

Pwpane wrote: »

To quote Zombrex's post from the Christianity forum:

Anything could exist, anything could be true, particularly if we suppose that this thing can have any property imaginable and exist outside of space time and not conform to any laws of nature.

Supposing that this is or isn't likely is rather irrelevant. The only thing you need to do is demonstrate that the most accurate explanation for why humans believe is that they are really interacting with a deity. Anything else is just philosophical smoke and mirrors.

This makes sense to me. Is there any evidence that people are interacting with God, rather than just their feeling that they are? I know people who believe in God because of His response to prayer, and because of good things that have happened to them. They also say 'I can FEEL Him, I KNOW He's there'. When He doesn't respond to prayer and when bad things happen to them, this is taken as evidence of human inability to understand the mind of God.

I also know someone who believes in certain superstitions (eg Fi 13th) because of the documented evidence that they are correct and because of things that have happened to them. The fact that bad things happen on other dates also makes no impression on their conviction.

Because they are friends, I can't query these beliefs too far without causing offence. It's also like fighting fog.

That's why I appreciate your input Peregrinus, Mark and Zombrex. Many believers can't stand back and observe from the outside, they are too far within it. They also can't take the implication that their struggle is in vain; they sincerely think 'if there is no God, what's it all for?'

I don't think it's a good enough reason to believe in a deity, that I would feel useless and abandoned without one.

I was once a person who lost the belief of God and heaven.
But when my life was in turmoil back in the early noughties due to a motor accident.
I was told by the top orthopedic surgeon in Ireland ill never work again but I had some kind of spiritual awakening and since then I came to believe in God and my belief is a v gradual one not a eureka type moment.

I'm very wary of people who push their beliefs on others as its a personal thing to those who believe in God.

And its personal to those who don't believe in God.

John Moriarty wrote a lot about God he seemed to be able to describe God in a very non threatening way to non believers.

There is a movie about him at the Film Festival in Dublin this month.

robindch · 13-02-2012 11:46PM

Northclare wrote: »

John Moriarty wrote a lot about God he seemed to be able to describe God in a very non threatening way to non believers.

Was that the John Moriarty of Nostos fame?

Northclare · 14-02-2012 12:02AM

robindch wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

John Moriarty wrote a lot about God he seemed to be able to describe God in a very non threatening way to non believers.

Was that the John Moriarty of Nostos fame?

Yes John from Kerry....

Pwpane · 14-02-2012 12:52AM

Northclare wrote: »

I was once a person who lost the belief of God and heaven.
But when my life was in turmoil back in the early noughties due to a motor accident.
I was told by the top orthopedic surgeon in Ireland ill never work again but I had some kind of spiritual awakening and since then I came to believe in God and my belief is a v gradual one not a eureka type moment.

I'm very wary of people who push their beliefs on others as its a personal thing to those who believe in God.

And its personal to those who don't believe in God.

John Moriarty wrote a lot about God he seemed to be able to describe God in a very non threatening way to non believers.

There is a movie about him at the Film Festival in Dublin this month.

Thank you for sharing that, Northclare.

Maybe I too will experience a spiritual re-awakening some day, I don't rule it out.

I looked up John Moriarty and he seems very sincere as many religious people are. I started to read Crossing the Kedron, but I didn't get very far - I found it very hard to take. That kind of thinking is just alien to me, I'm afraid. He had an emotional experience and from that developed a whole mysticism, it seems. Reading his Serious Thoughts, it feels like drowning.

I'm afraid I don't think that his intensely emotional experience means that any of his mysticism is true, no matter how beautiful it may seem.

sephir0th · 14-02-2012 01:22AM

Pwpane wrote: »

Maybe I too will experience a spiritual re-awakening some day, I don't rule it out.

Hopefully if you do you will be skeptical and, unlike northclare, appreciate that the human brain is naturally predisposed to these 'experiences' as evidenced through neurobiology.

e.g. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741

Northclare · 14-02-2012 01:43AM

sephir0th wrote: »

Pwpane wrote: »

Maybe I too will experience a spiritual re-awakening some day, I don't rule it out.

Hopefully if you do you will be skeptical and, unlike northclare, appreciate that the human brain is naturally predisposed to these 'experiences' as evidenced through neurobiology.

e.g. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741

It's at times like this when I get a good chuckle, scientists have been looking through microscopes and telescopes for hundreds of years. They still can't figure out how we can all live in peace have enough food to eat that isn't poisoned with chemicals, were being told now not to eat too much fish because of mercury in the water....

All due to scientists in their suits making up our minds for us nice one yeah "unlike northclare"

Have you ever set foot on your own planet and had a mind of your own I think not you just follow the scientist's take their word for it like a good chap....

aidan24326 · 14-02-2012 01:54AM

sephir0th wrote: »

Hopefully if you do you will be skeptical and, unlike northclare, appreciate that the human brain is naturally predisposed to these 'experiences' as evidenced through neurobiology.

e.g. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741

Yet it's the same neurobiology that gives rise to these experiences. So that predisposition exists for a reason. Either as something directly beneficial or as something that's co-evolved along with something else more obviously useful. Throughout history a majority of humans have believed in superstition and irrationality and that probably didn't happen by accident.

From frequenting these forums I've noticed that religious people, especially those who've had some sort of epiphany, really do seem genuinely convinced that it's real, and the lack of a full understanding of how the brain works makes refuting their (imo) delusions difficult. To them it's real, and aaying 'it's your brain playing tricks on you' isn't a good enough rebuttal.

Mark Hamill · 14-02-2012 02:06AM

Northclare wrote: »

It's at times like this when I get a good chuckle, scientists have been looking through microscopes and telescopes for hundreds of years. They still can't figure out how we can all live in peace

People in power don't listen to scientists.

Northclare wrote: »

have enough food to eat that isn't poisoned with chemicals,

Norman Borlaug, a geneticist who worked on highly resistant types of wheat, is credited with saving the lives of over a billion people.

Northclare wrote: »

were being told now not to eat too much fish because of mercury in the water....

I normally consider it a good thing to be warned when something I'm going to eat or drink contains mercury.

Northclare wrote: »

All due to scientists in their suits making up our minds for us nice one yeah "unlike northclare"

That's not scientists, that's religious leaders.

Northclare wrote: »

Have you ever set foot on your own planet and had a mind of your own I think not you just follow the scientist's take their word for it like a good chap....

I'd rather take the word of someone who can demonstrate why they're right rather than a snake oil salesman who would denounce you as immoral and cry oppression for merely asking why.

Mark Hamill · 14-02-2012 02:16AM

aidan24326 wrote: »

Yet it's the same neurobiology that gives rise to these experiences. So that predisposition exists for a reason. Either as something directly beneficial or as something that's co-evolved along with something else more obviously useful. Throughout history a majority of humans have believed in superstition and irrationality and that probably didn't happen by accident.

From frequenting these forums I've noticed that religious people, especially those who've had some sort of epiphany, really do seem genuinely convinced that it's real, and the lack of a full understanding of how the brain works makes refuting their (imo) delusions difficult. To them it's real, and aaying 'it's your brain playing tricks on you' isn't a good enough rebuttal.

If you can show that these "epiphanies" are explained in terms of brain chemistry then its a perfect rebuttal to them coming in from god. Rebutting that with an intelligent design style argument ("the predisposition is there for a reason") is what isn't good enough. Evolution is an undirected, unintelligent process over millions and millions of years, no-one ever says that biting your tongue is a predisposition that must exist for a reason and therefore implies god.

Northclare · 14-02-2012 02:21AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

It's at times like this when I get a good chuckle, scientists have been looking through microscopes and telescopes for uhundreds of years. They still can't figure out how we can all live in peace

People in power don't listen to scientists.

Northclare wrote: »

have enough food to eat that isn't poisoned with chemicals,

Norman Borlaug, a geneticist who worked on highly resistant types of wheat, is credited with saving the lives of over a billion people.

Northclare wrote: »

were being told now not to eat too much fish because of mercury in the water....

I normally consider it a good thing to be warned when something I'm going to eat or drink contains mercury.

Northclare wrote: »

All due to scientists in their suits making up our minds for us nice one yeah "unlike northclare"

That's not scientists, that's religious leaders.

Northclare wrote: »

Have you ever set foot on your own planet and had a mind of your own I think not you just follow the scientist's take their word for it like a good chap....[/QUOTE

I'd rather take the word of someone who can demonstrate why they're right rather than a snake oil salesman who would denounce you as immoral and cry oppression for merely asking why.

Well it just goes to show how your wiring works can you scientifically explain how your neuro transmitters came up with that one,demonstrate it according to your sound thinking it sounds good.....

Pwpane · 14-02-2012 02:24AM

Northclare wrote: »

sephir0th wrote: »

Hopefully if you do you will be skeptical and, unlike northclare, appreciate that the human brain is naturally predisposed to these 'experiences' as evidenced through neurobiology.

e.g. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.

It's at times like this when I get a good chuckle, scientists have been looking through microscopes and telescopes for hundreds of years. They still can't figure out how we can all live in peace have enough food to eat that isn't poisoned with chemicals, were being told now not to eat too much fish because of mercury in the water....

All due to scientists in their suits making up our minds for us nice one yeah "unlike northclare"

Have you ever set foot on your own planet and had a mind of your own I think not you just follow the scientist's take their word for it like a good chap....

I find it hard to believe this is the same person who wrote the previous post by Northclare. It's not even literate.

I'm sorry I was so careful in framing my reply. Respect now gone.

Peregrinus · 14-02-2012 02:51AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Really? I've seen some pseudo-philosophising bs from theists to avoid simple questions, but this is ridiculous. When I say "what use is it?" I'm asking what is it for? If something has no use, if it is for "nothing", then while it may be subjectively interesting, it remains objectively pointless.

You mean it remains subjectively pointless, I think, since “use” is a subjective quality.

Besides, “it’s useless” is a long way from saying “it’s unreal".

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But the probative value is in how it can be useful for the real world. Its all well and good having some mathematical proof, if it has no real world applications, then it has no probative value.

Nonsense. The probative value of any method of investigation is a question of how effective it is at answering questions; how much value it has a a mechanism for finding answers. The probative value of the scientific method is extremely high in relation to questions pertaining to observable reality. This is true regardless of the “real world application” of the answer.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not an unscientific argument, its just logic.

“Just logic” is unscientific, Mark, because “just logic” does not necessarily proceed from or operate on observable data.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Things that are non empirically observable are, by definition, indistinguishable from not existing.

By definition of what, exactly?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If something cannot, ever, in any way, be measured in terms of any effect on any substance or force it may have, then it has no effect on any substance or force and therefore might as well not exist. And if they have no effect then how do you examine them? . . . If something causes some empirical effect, then we can observe that thing by that effect . . .

But the God-claim postulates that God does have an effect - viz, the phenomenon of existence, which is observable (and, by any definition, useful). Consequently we cannot say that God might as well not exist unless we can first refute the God-claim. And it is not refuted simply by pointing out that it cannot be scientifically verified.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I can see you are trying to use empirical science to try and argue that maths isn't empirical, therefore not scientific, therefore science isn't applicable to certain things, therefore god exists. The scientific method needs empirical evidence when testing an empirical environment, but when it is examining a human defined abstract environment, such as maths? Well you still observe, hypothesise and test.

No, you don’t. The whole point of something like maths is that it deals with things which are not observable, like numbers. Since science proceeds from observations, the scientific method cannot be used to test mathematical propositions. It seems to me that you are taking, e.g., mathematical reasoning and arbitrarily labeling it as an example of science purely in order to maintain your assertion that science is all-encompassing.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not trying to prove the fundamental assumption, I'm using it to prove a specific empirical event as a reason for something else to happen, so why is that an issue? Science never tries to prove the fundamental assumption, as that would require complete omniscience. It just recognises that you must make the assumption in order to construct models about the universe and to be able to determine, with any measure of surety, whether what you claim has caused something, has actually caused something. Is there any alternative method that can offer the same surety without such an assumption?

You’re defending the making of fundamental assumptions here, Mark, and you don’t need to. I’ve already said that I accept the scientific method has to proceed from some fundamental assumptions, and I think the same is true of any method of enquiry or observation.

The point is not that there shouldn’t be fundamental assumptions, but that we have to acknowledge that there are assumptions. Every scientifically-derived conclusion can be taken to be preceded by a recitation of the fundamental assumptions of science - “Assuming that the universe is not illusory, and assuming that it is organized in a way that makes it to some extent predicable and assuming that our sensory perceptions accurately map the objective reality of the universe and assuming [etc] then given [empirical observations] we can reliably infer that a molecule of water contains two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen.”

Right. Any statement which starts with this list and then concludes that one item in the list is established is a circular argument. It doesn’t cease to be circular merely because you take the list as read, and don’t spell it out.

In your earlier post you said that “when you give the reason for something, you are explaining the empirical event that cause it”. That statement is true if and only if all reasons are empirical events. Your conclusion, that reasons are scientifically examinble, also depends on that assumption. And that assumption is, of course, just a special case of the general assumption that everything real is empirical.

So, we can fairly restate your position as “If everything real is empirically observable, then all reasons are empirical events which can be scientifically examined”. But that’s trite. And it’s wholly uproven, since it’s just a particular application of an unproven general assumption.

Peregrinus · 14-02-2012 03:12AM

Pwpane wrote: »

Semantics problem again - science is not half hearted about its interest in existence.

I think it’s not a problem of semantics, but of epistemology. If, as Mark says, it’s a fundamental assumption of science that everything real is observable, then science cannot investigate the reality of unobservable things - not only can it not refute their reality, but it cannot prove it either. We cannot, through science, know whether a postulated unobservable thing is real or not.

In that sense, science is not “interested” in the reality of unobservable things - i.e. it does not concern itself with that question.

Pwpane wrote: »

Agreed. This is what I was trying to say. 'Why', as you use it, assumes an intention, a sentient being.

It doesn’t necessarily assume an intention, does it? My example involves an intention, certainly, but is there any fundamental reason why the “why” could not be something intangible, and yet not an intention?

Pwpane wrote: »

So why start from the position that God exists? Considering the non-sense that has resulted from deductive reasoning from the assumption that God exists, I think it is safer to work on the 'how'. Safer as in the reliability of the results, and safer as in the well being of humans. Safer, as the only evidence for God seems to be subjective and subjective evidence is highly suspect.

I don’t start from the assumption that God exists. I interrogate the proposition that God may exist by considering what would follow if that proposition were true, but that’s a thought-experiment, not an assertion or assumption about the truth of the proposition.

When you say that it’s “safer to work on the ‘how’”, my response is that you are creating a false dichotomy. The “how” might be an easier question to answer, or at least to make progress in, but we’re not confined to addressing one question or the other. And the fact that the “how” is easier might highlight the difficulty of the “why” question, but the fact that a question is difficult to answer doesn’t mean that it is unimportant or uninteresting.

Pwpane wrote: »

Yes, I think faith is a choice. It seems to be based on a discomfort in believing in chance, a discomfort in believing that our lives have no purpose. To my mind (and gut feeling), when things are not adequately accounted for it is not reasonable to assume something non - natural is the cause and on that scaffold erect a whole system of thinking and life regulation. To my mind it is more reasonable to say 'the world is a mystery, let's investigate it' than to say 'God is a mystery, we cannot know His purposes, let's worship Him'

Well, I think the reasons why people have faith are many and various, and I think it may be a little simplistic to asset in general terms that it “seems to be based on a discomfort in believing in chance”. This may be the case in some or many instances, but I think the phenomenon of faith is more complex than that, and probably deserves a fuller account.

Besides, could the argument not be very easily reversed? Faith is a choice, and the choice may be “yes” or “no”. If the “yes” choice can be said to be “based on a discomfort in believing in chance”, cannot the “no” choice be said, with equal justification, to be based on a discomfort in believing in the unknowable? Are not the skeptics chasing after the comfort and security of believing that everything is ultimately knowable, ultimately examinable, ultimately explicable? Are they not running from the idea of mystery, not as something that isn’t known, but as something that cannot be known? Are they committed to the (unproven) notion that everything is empirically knowable because they would very much like that to be the case?

I don’t actually believe that this is a full account of why people don’t believe, any more than your account of faith is a full one. But as a factor which may influence some people’s stance on this question, I believe it is just as plausible as your account of faith.

Peregrinus · 14-02-2012 03:45AM

Pwpane wrote: »

I don't think it's a good enough reason to believe in a deity, that I would feel useless and abandoned without one.

And that’s fair enough. The reason you give for your unbelief is entirely subjective, which I think is correct, and entirely honest, and I cannot think of a single argument against it that I would expect to weigh with you.

And my reasons for my stance are similarly subjective. I’m perfectly aware of the fact that my religious beliefs could be wrong. But I don’t find this a terribly helpful observation since, if my religious beliefs were all the exact opposite of what they are, they could still be wrong. And I don’t see that this is ever going to change, so I see no point in chasing after certitude.

I don’t find the ”null hypothesis” particularly helpful here, either. That’s a thought experiment, a technique used in the disciplined interrogation of a proposition; it’s not an assertion about reality. Still less is it evidence about reality. Those who treat it as such display a childlike faith which a biblical literalist should envy.

The same goes for things like the fundamental assumptions of science. They are assumptions, by definition unproven and unprovable. They are adopted because they are useful in constructing a disciplined way of examining empirical reality. They don’t get us very far at all when employed beyond that sphere. Again, attempts to treat them as universal statements of reality are basically acts of faith.

So, I find myself in a position where certainty is impossible, and the challenge for me (and I think for everyone) is not how to dispel that uncertainty, but how to live with it.

You might think that this would tend towards agnosticism, and perhaps to some extent it does. But - as the existence of an “Atheism and Agnosticism” board perhaps testifies - there are really only two positions; belief and unbelief. Atheism and agnosticism are two accounts of why people adopt unbelief.

(OK, perhaps there is a third position; indifference. As in, I have no opinion, I don’t care, the question has never occurred to me and it doesn’t interest me. But I think people on both sides of the discussion we are now having have passed the point where that is an honest option for them. If they didn’t care, they wouldn’t be here.)

So, I have to choose belief or unbelief, and I have to do so knowing that I cannot know that my choice is correct.

I choose belief, ultimately, because I would rather live as a believer, and be wrong, than live as an unbeliever, and be wrong. Not in the Pascal’s wager sense of gambling on heaven - if heaven turns out to exist, I expect it to be full of unbelievers, and I don’t think I would load the dice against myself by being an unbeliever.

It’s always hard to analyse one’s own subjective motivation, but when it comes down to it the best thing I can say is that I am a believer because I value meaning and significance, and I would rather live in a universe in which everything is invested with meaning and significance than one in which it is not. If my beliefs are basically right, then everything is indeed invested with meaning and significance; if they are wrong, then perhaps I invest things with meaning and significance myself by living as a believer. I’ll settle for that, if it turns out I have to.

Dades · 14-02-2012 11:16AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s always hard to analyse one’s own subjective motivation, but when it comes down to it the best thing I can say is that I am a believer because I value meaning and significance, and I would rather live in a universe in which everything is invested with meaning and significance than one in which it is not. If my beliefs are basically right, then everything is indeed invested with meaning and significance; if they are wrong, then perhaps I invest things with meaning and significance myself by living as a believer. I’ll settle for that, if it turns out I have to.

Isn't that intellectually dishonest?

The words "choose" and "belief" do not belong in the same sentence. You seem like a reasonable guy/gal, how do you reconcile claiming to actually believe something when that belief is based on little more than a wish that it be true?

Liamario · 14-02-2012 11:31AM

Originally Posted by Peregrinus
It’s always hard to analyse one’s own subjective motivation, but when it comes down to it the best thing I can say is that I am a believer because I value meaning and significance, and I would rather live in a universe in which everything is invested with meaning and significance than one in which it is not. If my beliefs are basically right, then everything is indeed invested with meaning and significance; if they are wrong, then perhaps I invest things with meaning and significance myself by living as a believer. I’ll settle for that, if it turns out I have to.

Isn't this the theological equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming until you "win"?

Sarky · 14-02-2012 12:18PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

And my reasons for my stance are similarly subjective. I’m perfectly aware of the fact that my religious beliefs could be wrong. But I don’t find this a terribly helpful observation since, if my religious beliefs were all the exact opposite of what they are, they could still be wrong. And I don’t see that this is ever going to change, so I see no point in chasing after certitude.

You're perfectly aware that you might be wrong, but not willing to make any attempt to find out? Why not? The only possibilities I can think of would be laziness or fear. Are there others I'm missing?

Northclare · 14-02-2012 01:25PM

Sarky wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

And my reasons for my stance are similarly subjective. I’m perfectly aware of the fact that my religious beliefs could be wrong. But I don’t find this a terribly helpful observation since, if my religious beliefs were all the exact opposite of what they are, they could still be wrong. And I don’t see that this is ever going to change, so I see no point in chasing after certitude.

You're perfectly aware that you might be wrong, but not willing to make any attempt to find out? Why not? The only possibilities I can think of would be laziness or fear. Are there others I'm missing?

Why are some of ye hell bent on the fact there isn't any God and yet those who do believe seem to be more content with their lives.

It's been scientifically proven by Dr Zakir Naik I would like to see some of you non believers stand up in front of ten thousand people and debate with him.

He would be far too intelligent for the non believers I'm a Christian but agree with his debates with non believers about the existence of God.

Sarky · 14-02-2012 01:33PM

Whoah, who said I'm not content? Life is pretty awesome right now. I got my awesome life by questioning everything and throwing out the stuff that doesn't hold up.

Have you tried not being a Christian recently? It's terribly liberating. The extra things you can do with the hour you'd normally spend praying or in a church lamenting your horrible sinner's imperfection are frankly amazing.

robindch · 14-02-2012 01:46PM

Northclare wrote: »

It's been scientifically proven by Dr Zakir Naik I would like to see some of you non believers stand up in front of ten thousand people and debate with him.

Given that Naik's view (as reported here) that non-believers should be executed, I'm inclined to think that self-preservation might trump any wish to debate some bleating, minor islamic fundamantalist.

Northclare · 14-02-2012 01:47PM

Sarky wrote: »

Whoah, who said I'm not content? Life is pretty awesome right now. I got my awesome life by questioning everything and throwing out the stuff that doesn't hold up.

Have you tried not being a Christian recently? It's terribly liberating. The extra things you can do with the hour you'd normally spend praying or in a church lamenting your horrible sinner's imperfection are frankly amazing.

My understanding of being a Christian is different to yours its more liberating to be the opposite of what you understand of being a Christian.

I don't go to church or pray for hours .

LOL the reason your so content is because someone is praying for you

Northclare · 14-02-2012 01:49PM

robindch wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

It's been scientifically proven by Dr Zakir Naik I would like to see some of you non believers stand up in front of ten thousand people and debate with him.

Given that Naik's view (as reported here) that non-believers should be executed, I'm inclined to think that self-preservation might trump any wish to debate some bleating, minor islamic fundamantalist.

I'm talking about the existence of God not the holy book he reads your off on a tangent about religion which is for another forum

robindch · 14-02-2012 01:58PM

Northclare wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

John Moriarty wrote a lot about God he seemed to be able to describe God in a very non threatening way to non believers.

Was that the John Moriarty of Nostos fame?

Yes John from Kerry....

Pleasant chap. Used to live a few miles from him and he'd drop over occasionally and once or twice the topic of science arose. While his knowledge of his own religious experiences was unsurpassed and he wrote about them at prodigious, not to say eye-watering, length, his knowledge of science was sub-zero. In a manner familiar to Fenyman, I recall him explaining to me at great length one day, that understanding a flower by studying it, its environment, its life cycle, history etc, reduced the beauty of the flower to meaninglessness and that true appreciation could only be had by considering it in the same way he did. He then explained to the table that science and scientists were arrogant in claiming to understand the world better than non-scientists. I gave up talking with him at that point.

True story, btw.

robindch · 14-02-2012 02:00PM

Northclare wrote: »

your off on a tangent about religion which is for another forum

Uh, no. I'm replying, debating-hall style, to a silly point you made about some minor middle-eastern religious nutcase.

Northclare · 14-02-2012 02:20PM

robindch wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

John Moriarty wrote a lot about God he seemed to be able to describe God in a very non threatening way to non believers.

Was that the John Moriarty of Nostos fame?

Yes John from Kerry....

Pleasant chap. Used to live a few miles from him and he'd drop over occasionally and once or twice the topic of science arose. While his knowledge of his own religious experiences was unsurpassed and he wrote about them at prodigious, not to say eye-watering, length, his knowledge of science was sub-zero. In a manner familiar to Fenyman, I recall him explaining to me at great length one day, that understanding a flower by studying it, its environment, its life cycle, history etc, reduced the beauty of the flower to meaninglessness and that true appreciation could only be had by considering it in the same way he did. He then explained to the table that science and scientists were arrogant in claiming to understand the world better than non-scientists. I gave up talking with him at that point.

True story, btw.

I'm sure that didn't bother John LOL he often spoke about the way some people didn't understand him but he seen the funny side of that .

I have friends who are non believers and I respect them just as much as I respect believers.

This debate could go on and on but there will be no winners....

Northclare · 14-02-2012 02:40PM

robindch wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

your off on a tangent about religion which is for another forum

Uh, no. I'm replying, debating-hall style, to a silly point you made about some minor middle-eastern religious nutcase.

What was the silly point I made ?

robindch · 14-02-2012 02:55PM

Northclare wrote: »

I'm sure that didn't bother John [...] he often spoke about the way some people didn't understand him

No, he was grandly unconcerned by the fact that in most the conversations we shared, he didn't have the faintest clue what he was talking about, nor that he was guilty of a far greater arrogance that what he liberally accused me of.

Still, as I said, other than that, he was a nice guy.

Northclare · 14-02-2012 02:59PM

robindch wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

I'm sure that didn't bother John [...] he often spoke about the way some people didn't understand him

No, he was grandly unconcerned by the fact that in most the conversations we shared, he didn't have the faintest clue what he was talking about, nor that he was guilty of a far greater arrogance that what he liberally accused me of.

Still, as I said, other than that, he was a nice guy.

Yes from listening to him his heart was in the right place just like all of us here in this discussion I'm sure we are all good people whether we believe or not LOL

Dades · 14-02-2012 03:01PM

Northclare wrote: »

Why are some of ye hell bent on the fact there isn't any God and yet those who do believe seem to be more content with their lives.

Ignoring your unsubstantiated claim for the moment, perhaps the question as to which is the most 'comfortable' belief isn't part of the criteria we use to determine what is actually true.

Northclare · 14-02-2012 03:08PM

Dades wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

Why are some of ye hell bent on the fact there isn't any God and yet those who do believe seem to be more content with their lives.

Ignoring your unsubstantiated claim for the moment, perhaps the question as to which is the most 'comfortable' belief isn't part of the criteria we use to determine what is actually true.

Maybe you might have the answer then !

What would it take to make you believe in a supernatural entity?

Comments