Evidence Evaluation

[carlo]

You may be right about bookmakers but you can't carry this illusion into religion/spirituality.

You assume a hierarchy of "knowledgists" who should be looked to in matters of contention. THEY are the best, the brightest, the wizards of the world. They are smart and contain all the attributes (1-4) listed and therefore have the best grasp of any consideration.

But this in no way considers life in it's entirety. The" smartness" of Einstein compared with that of Francis of Assisi look to be of different nature but are they?

In consideration of Francis of Assisi an understanding of qualities such as personal humility,prudence in action,teaching of truth, control of desires, avoiding vain hope and conceit,, obedience and discipline, avoiding talkativeness, use of adversity,resisting temptations, etc. is of great importance and will make this man "smart". In fact in the above and others is the road to "smartness".

In consideration of Einstein this is not meant to imply that he lacks the above and indeed I am sure he carries in his character these very qualities but it should indicate that the religious speaks of other things which are not necessarily the work of a scientist or "smart one".

In the modern day the realms of understanding are separated but no progress will be made until the religious and scientist combine into what can become sacred science in which the scientist's laboratory will indeed become a religious experience.

By the way, for those inclined, these qualities and more can be appreciated by reading "Imitation of Christ" by Thomas A Kempis. This little book has acted as inspiration for many Christians including Ignatius Loyola(founder of the Jesuits)-note Catholic, John Wesely(founder of Methodism)-note Protestant and others as mentioned in the introduction.

carlo

Awesome post. I think I know the only good Christian Apologetical response to this, but I'll let the Christians respond first. RJT: you are missing the point: he's not judging whether the beliefs are true, he's judging which believers are more accurate in their beliefs.

This post leads to a similar point made by Paul Phillips in the ID debate.

It's not any particular scientific theory that I espouse to, nor do I need to know the details of every scientific theory to compare it to religion. It is the supremacy of the scientific method, which requires verifiable, testable, objective analysis -- this is what matters to me. Religious faith is not based on such a method, but relies on the teachings of less objective and less skilled linesmakers, in DS' vernacular. Scientific progress is based on doubt, religious doctrine is based on the absence of doubt. Which is likely to lead to more accurate conclusions?

But DS has gone one step further and exposed another cracked pillar. How can the Christian doctrine be "objectively and obviously true" if so many objective and reasonable intellectuals cannot come to the same conclusions when evaluating the very same evidence? Clearly, the evidence is not obviously true (although this does not imply that it cannot be true) -- thus, those who claim to know for certain (or even with high probability) that the Christian god is the true god, MUST be self-delusional (or somehow given evidence not privy to everyone else, in which case their claims are moot to the rest because they haven't been selected by god for this additional revelation anyway.)

[David Sklansky]

"You may be right about bookmakers but you can't carry this illusion into religion/spirituality."

But I'm not talking about spirituality. I'm talking about the truth or falsity of specific facts or events that various people of various religions say happened.

[David Sklansky]

"thus, those who claim to know for certain (or even with high probability) that the Christian god is the true god, MUST be self-delusional (or somehow given evidence not privy to everyone else, in which case their claims are moot to the rest because they haven't been selected by god for this additional revelation anyway.)"

To be fair, many religious people, including most Catholics, I think, agree with this. The problem arises when the religion says that nonbelievers are punished even as God is fair. For that to be true requires a belief that the belief makes sense to unbiased, independent, expert observers. This little conumdrum forced Felson, the smartest devout Christian on the forum, (I say that because of his poker and math posts) to withdraw from further debating.

[carlo]

Yes, you are talking about spiritual events. There is no way your experts could judge the truths of these events for the evidence is they do not have the tools to do so.They can only be skeptical. The test is not how many of your "rational" judges decide yea or nea and therefore by vote declare the truth. The truth stands by itself irrespective of who judges.

The real question is, can any shread of understanding about the past be understood in the manner of modern day scientists,historians,geologists, sociologists,etc.. . The answer is NO. Find one that doesn't project modern thinking into the past which is really indicative of whats happening NOW(their own personality) and completely loses sight of the PAST.

It's true, modern believers can have as much of a difficult time understanding these Biblical events as a naysaying skeptic but closer perceptions finds that they may carry something with them which states"there is something real here" and from this comes varying types of reactions(the whole enchilada of opinions,acts, sects,etc.).

Their logic is no more dysfunctional than the modern skeptic(I won't say objectifying rationalist for they are in both camps ). The skeptical plate is barren.

The major question is: Can Man see into the past and the answer is YES. The truths of these events, even if this truth turns out to be something that no one expected can be ascertained by Thought but that is another story.

"Sing in me, Muse and through me tell the story
of that man skilled in all ways of contending,
the wanderer, harried for years on end,
after he plundered the stronghold
on the proud heights of Troy."

When Homer asks the Muse to sing in him do you really believe this to be some "major fantasy" like some Steven King novel? The man was there in that hidden region of the world where the truths are hidden and thusly the Iliad and the Odyssey were expounded. I can assure your uplifting in the reading of these tomes which relate realities unreached at the present time.

carlo

[carlo]

Something I missed-yes, you consider these events earth bound as apposed to the spiritual world(heaven,etc.) The two are not separate-what you see in the world is the physical manifestation of spiritual realities.

carlo

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]

3. He is more knowledgeable about the specific subject or event that the linemaking is addressing.

4. He is less biased about the subject

[/ QUOTE ]

These criteria are as important as the others. And you have previously acknowledged in your posts that such evaluators may well not have taken the time to fully investigate religious claims and may be predisposed against them. Thus the figure of MILLIONS shrinks dramatically to THOUSANDS at best.

[andyfox]

"such evaluators may well not have taken the time to fully investigate religious claims and may be predisposed against them."

Predisposed against, maybe, but they would still be nowhere near as biased as those who have the Faith. Thus we are back to millions.

[BluffTHIS!]

That still doesn't change the fact that very few such supposed evaluators have actually examined the detailed claims of a specific religion well enough to have an informed opinion. Which is why the opinion of an 180 IQ Fields medal winner on the truth of religion would carry no weight if he had not made such an examination. Same with physicists. You have to actually examine all the claims/evidence in order to evaluate it properly. And with most of the world's mainstream religions, this means evalutating historical evidence in the original languages when there is not as much evidence one way or the other extant as one would like.