Little Evidence =Evidence?

[David Sklansky]

Just wanted to point out the ultimate example of the lengths to which some religious people will go to rationalize their beliefs. They say that the fact that there is little or no evidence for their God derives from the fact that strong evidence would make it easy to believe in him. And since they say God demands "faith", it is incumbent on God to avoid giving out strong evidence since, if he did, little "faith" would then be required to believe. The net result is that anyone who brings up anything new about how the workings of the universe does not require God, or how various "miracles" can be naturally explained, is told that this is part of God's scheme to test faith. In other words, lack of evidence turns into evidence.

Of course when someone reverts to this argument the debate is over. Your points become his points.

Now I don't say that all religious people use this argument. Amazingly though bossjj once did.

Meanwhile the argument makes no sense. I'm guessing it had to be recently concocted. Because what about all those miracles in biblical times? In the case of the Jews the whole Nation was supposedly exposed to something that would convince even hard core skeptics. (Which is why boss jj's words seemed so strange.) Until 2000 years ago or so, God didn't seem to mind revealing things that would eliminate someone's need to have strong faith. So why would he stop now? Meanwhile religious people say that there are occasional miracles and that prayers are answered. (When they say prayers are answered the assumption is made that they are answered at a higher rate than probability would predict. Thus we know that prayers are not answered regarding roulette, since casinos are not out of business.) But everytime there is such a miracle or miraculous answered prayer, some skeptic [eg a witness or a friend or relative of the prayer], figures to become a believer. So even now, let alone 2000 years ago, some lucky few get a chance to believe without having their faith tested.)

But the biggest point is this: Until about 100 years ago or so, it did not take any leap of faith to be a believer. The mere goings on of the universe, the earth, and living things, seemed like a constant miracle. No one realized, to take a simple example, that the majestic beauty of mountains could be easily predicted by a tivial Mandelbrot equation. Or that the laws of physics, the motions of the planets, the workings of the heart, could similarly logically be derived from a few simple assumptions.

Nowadays religious people fall back to saying that the original laws were set up by God. And most of them even would admit that if God turned his back on us tomorrow to attend to business on Alpha Centauri for the next million years, there would be no way of knowing that. But until recently it seemed inconceivable that the things going on both inside and outside our bodies wasn't constantly monitered and interfered with from time to time. And that prayer or sacrifices might alter this interference. Put another way, to be an atheist seemed idiotic.

But that being the case, a belief in God back then was not a strong test of faith. People weren't scientists but their common sense told them there was a god who was busy with them. In their mind there was plenty of evidence. Which means that God was perfectly content to have most people believe in him without any strong faith in their minds.

So this whole notion of using lack of evidence by today's scientific and statistical standards as yet another reason to believe is just nonsense. If you can't do better than that you are in big trouble, debatewise.

[ QUOTE ]

Nowadays religious people fall back to saying that the original laws were set up by God. And most of them even would admit that if God turned his back on us tomorrow to attend to business on Alpha Centauri for the next million years, there would be no way of knowing that. But until recently it seemed inconceivable that the things going on both inside and outside our bodies wasn't constantly monitered and interfered with from time to time. And that prayer or sacrifices might alter this interference. Put another way, to be an atheist seemed idiotic.

So this whole notion of using lack of evidence by today's scientific and statistical standards as yet another reason to believe is just nonsense. If you can't do better than that you are in big trouble, debatewise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pairtheboard's liberal Christianity?

[malorum]

Good point.
I still see God in everything around me.
When I see the hills and mountains he formed, I think "big hands"
When I did my geology course those rock strata they showed us reminded me of when I sprinkle hundreds and thousands on a cake.
I put forward the "three bowls" hypothesis.
One for the big rocks, one for the shells, one for sand etc.
Isn't it obvious to anyone who ever decorated a cake how god made those layers in the cliffs.

remember you're rational 'insight' is an albeit indirect product of the influence of those dark satanic mills (Oxford and Cambridge Universities).

God Bless

We are still praying for you David.

[Luzion]

Good post. I used to wonder what was the explanation for the bounty of miracles performed in the Old Testament and then the sudden decline in recent times. I learned a lot of different explanations for this when I attended catholic school and was forced to take classes on Catholicism.

Anyway, I learned long ago it is pointless to have a debate with religious people. Most of their arguments are based on circular logic, and they are always willing to overlook contradictions. Logic is never the reason people decide to become a Christian; its always faith. No one ever goes, hey this turn the other cheek stuff makes a lot of sense. Not to mention this body of Christ we are eating and his blood we are drinking. They learn to reinforce these beliefs later with explanations and after awhile, it becomes irrefutable truth to them.

[David Sklansky]

"So this whole notion of using lack of evidence by today's scientific and statistical standards as yet another reason to believe is just nonsense. If you can't do better than that you are in big trouble, debatewise."

"Pairtheboard's liberal Christianity?"

I did not have that in mind. Meanwhile where did Pair the Board ever say he believed in Liberal Christianity? Don't make the same mistake I did. The only thing he has ever unequivocably admitted to believing in is Santa Claus.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"So this whole notion of using lack of evidence by today's scientific and statistical standards as yet another reason to believe is just nonsense. If you can't do better than that you are in big trouble, debatewise."

"Pairtheboard's liberal Christianity?"

I did not have that in mind. Meanwhile where did Pair the Board ever say he believed in Liberal Christianity? Don't make the same mistake I did. The only thing he has ever unequivocably admitted to believing in is Santa Claus.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always thought this idea that god hides so that you can better prove your faith was nonsense. A similiar line of thinking I find most insalubrious is the idea that god puts people through difficulties in order to "test their faith". To my way of thinking, if you're going to believe in something you should believe in something that's psychologically healthy and is going to help you live better and be happy. Like Santa Clause for example.

Where I've tried to expand people's thinking around here is with the viewpoint that Christian Faith need not be about believing in a Trickster god who does Magical Miracles. Have you ever heard the saying, "you've gotta have faith"? There's the kind of faith that amounts to just a positive outlook on life. The "Christian" faith I'm talking about is something that can't be explained by science, has nothing to do with Magical Miracles, but everything to do with the condition of a person's heart and a decision to choose a life's vocation of love. It's this Faith that is the focus of Liberal Christianity. If god plays a part in this then he produces plenty of evidence in people who are touched by this Faith Now. And he gives evidence in the historical story of people who have been touched by this faith since its conception in Jesus.

Liberal Christianity is capable of doing just like Sklansky does when he accepts premises that don't conflict with the conclusion he seeks to show in his debates. Science shows there was no flood? ok. Not important to the faith. Science shows man evolved from earlier creatures? ok. Not important to the Faith. Science insists on no physical virgin birth. ok. Not important to the Faith. Science insists on no physical ressurection. ok. Not important to the Faith.

Even dogmas like hell can be abadoned as an enlightened age shows them to be psychologically unhealthy.

Many fundamentalists will say that if you abandon these things you are no longer a Christian. Liberal Christians disagree.

Sklansky will say that if you abandon these things he has nothing left to argue against. Too bad David. I can't help it if you were debating the wrong things.

PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]

Liberal Christianity is capable of doing just like Sklansky does when he accepts premises that don't conflict with the conclusion he seeks to show in his debates. Science shows there was no flood? ok. Not important to the faith. Science shows man evolved from earlier creatures? ok. Not important to the Faith. Science insists on no physical virgin birth. ok. Not important to the Faith. Science insists on no physical ressurection. ok. Not important to the Faith.

Even dogmas like hell can be abadoned as an enlightened age shows them to be psychologically unhealthy.

Many fundamentalists will say that if you abandon these things you are no longer a Christian. Liberal Christians disagree.

Sklansky will say that if you abandon these things he has nothing left to argue against. Too bad David. I can't help it if you were debating the wrong things.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

as explained here liberal christians sound more like agnostics who place alot of importance in jesus the mans life. i suspect many of them would call themselves agnostic if it didnt offend their family or community.

not trying to be unduly harsh on the liberal christians...i think they have a great philosophy for life. i just dont think many people will confuse it for christianity as traditionaly defined.

[NotReady]

What was the first thing Israel did after they were delivered from Egypt, having witnessed so many miracles?

[PairTheBoard]

chrisnice --
"as explained here liberal christians sound more like agnostics who place alot of importance in jesus the mans life. i suspect many of them would call themselves agnostic if it didnt offend their family or community.

not trying to be unduly harsh on the liberal christians...i think they have a great philosophy for life. i just dont think many people will confuse it for christianity as traditionaly defined. "



I strongly disagree. I think you should read this link to get a better idea of some of the historical development and breadth of just one aspect of Christian thought - Faith vs Reason.



Faith and Reason

I especially liked these passages from a couple of 20th Century thinkers:

Hick:
"From these similarities and differences between faith claims and claims of reason, Hick concludes that religious faith is the noninferential and unprovable basic interpretation either of a moral or religious "situational significance" in human experience. Faith is not the result of logical reasoning, but rather a profession that God "as a living being" has entered into the believer's experience. This act of faith situates itself in the person's material and social environment. Religious faith interprets reality in terms of the divine presence within the believer's human experience. Although the person of faith may be unable to prove or explain this divine presence, his or her religious belief still acquire the status of knowledge similar to that of scientific and moral claims. Thus even if one could prove God's existence, this fact alone would be a form of knowledge neither necessary nor sufficient for one's faith. It would at best only force a notional assent. Believers live by not by confirmed hypotheses, but by an intense, coercive, indubitable experience of the divine."

And I was very impressed with this:

"Sallie McFague, in Models of God, argues that religious thinking requires a rethinking of the ways in which religious language employs metaphor. Religious language is for the most part neither propositional nor assertoric. Rather, it functions not to render strict definitions, but to give accounts. To say, for example, "God is mother," is neither to define God as a mother nor to assert an identity between them, but rather to suggest that we consider what we do not know how to talk about--relating to God - through the metaphor of a mother. Moreover, no single metaphor can function as the sole way of expressing any aspect of a religious belief."


PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

"What was the first thing Israel did after they were delivered from Egypt, having witnessed so many miracles?"

If you are saying they misbehaved and you accept the stories as true (which I wouldn't even if I believed in God) that still makes my point from the other direction. Because it shows that God need not restrict his miracles to unclear ones if he wants to test faith.

The almost certain truth is that God's vague miracles of today are not miracles. And that the reason Jews misbehaved after the ten plagues is that the plagues did not happen the way the bible they said they did. And that anyone who believes otherwise is either uninformed about science and probability, is flat out stupid, or has a disease where the brain fights desperately to believe something because the alternative is too painful.