Benevolent Creator God?

[R00tKiT]

They simply dismiss prophets as delusional (at best), or charlatans (at worst).

If you dismiss by default any individual who claims being the recipient of some divine revelation, then you will be begging a basic theological question: did God send prophets or not? 

According to you, we're supposed to immediately assign all such grandiose claims to psychopathology. You need to actually make a case for that, or at worst withhold judgement on what religious experiences should mean. We are all somewhat delusional, finite brains like ours can't nail down reality with 100%, modern science already exposed many thresholds of knowledge (the uncertainty principle in physics, for example) that we can never exceed. All people who lived before Einstein were delusional about time and gravity, for example,

So, delusion being an umbrella term for many things, you need to find better reasons to dismiss prophets.

I think you got it backwards.
Mankind has evolved as a social species. Think that chimps, bonobos, gorillas, etc. have all also evolved as social species. This means that humans were social far before being humans.
As mankind evolved and became aware of the world and its own mortality, along with the desire to remain alive, surely many attempts were made to explain the mind, death, and all the physical phenomena around them. Without the right tools for that job, many of those explanations must have been nothing more than guesswork. Some more outlandish, some less.... some stuck around, some were forever forgotten.

As I said before, repeatedly : natural explanations don't preclude supernatural explanations. The fact that we know how and why lightening occurs actually doesn't negate Thor's existence. You are stuck with agnosticism with regards to the supernatural whether you can explain natural phenomena or not.

So, mentioning how our understanding of the world evolved is completely irrelevant to whether there is a creator of this world, or to whether religious interpretations of natural phenomena should be accepted.

As a social species, one would expect those individuals who were more suited to accept the prevailing explanations to be accepted into the society and thus have better chance at surviving and mating. This forms a feedback loop where selection acts in such a way as to prefer individuals that are ever more accepting of those explanations. This acceptance of the unproven, this belief, became embedded in the human brain and we see it today as a particular structure seemingly dedicated to belief.

Although this point of view is interesting, the problem with it, and with other natural explanations of religion, is that they can be seen both ways. It could be that a creator equipped us with brains that are tilted to memetics and feedblack loops, in such a way that religious ideas like the afterlife survive and become widespread.

Wouldn't you expect the contents of a divine message to somewhat click with the brains of the recipients of this divine message- us ? 

From my point of view, if there was to be a powerful being as god is supposed to be, I'd expect that being to be able to communicate with everyone equally and unequivocally. If the guy is said to be so convincing to those who became known as prophets, what's to stop him/it from doing the same to everyone else? Shyness?..I doubt it. So either there is a god who interacts with the whole of humanity and has done so since the beginning of time (which doesn't seem to have happened), or the god is simply not interacting with anyone... or is non-existent.

The question then seems to become why does anyone accept the messages brought forth by the alleged prophets?

Well it's not really clear that God didn't communicate with us at all, there are arguments for the sensus divinitatis, and the observation that we are tilted towards teleology and forming beliefs seems to support them. 

Besides, it's not really necessary for God to communicate with everyone individually. Almost every fact or true proposition you know about the world came to you through other people, except the very few things you get to experience in your lifespan.

[LadyForCamus]

They simply dismiss prophets as delusional (at best), or charlatans (at worst).

According to you, we're supposed to immediately assign all such grandiose claims to psychopathology.

No, no, no, no, fucking no. You make the claim of divine revelation as the cause of an experience. In the absence of any evidence to support the notion that such a thing is even possible, let alone probable as a candidate explanation for that experience, we are left to make a rational assessment based on what we already know of reality. We know that the brain can produce experiences that don’t comport with the external world. We have mountains of evidence demonstrating that fact. So much evidence, in fact, that we can predict and even induce these experiences under certain manufactured conditions. We have zero evidence of divine revelation. What other choice is the rational skeptic left with other than to err on the side of what appears to be the most likely explanation based on the available evidence? Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. Your inability to make a properly evidenced case for your claim is no one’s failure but your own.

[R00tKiT]

No, no, no, no, fucking no. You make the claim of divine revelation. In the absence of any evidence to support the notion that such a thing is even possible, let alone probable as a candidate explanation for the experience, we are left to make a rational assessment based on what we already know of reality. We know that the brain can produce experiences that don’t comport with the external world. We have mountains of evidence demonstrating that fact. So much evidence, in fact,  that we can predict and even induce these experiences under certain manufactured conditions. We have zero evidence of divine revelation. What other choice is the rational skeptic left with other than to err on the side of what appears to be the most likely explanation based on the available evidence? Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. Your inability to make a properly evidenced case for your claim is no one’s failure but your own.

Are you answering yourself? The charge of delusion is far more than that of the absence of evidence. Procracas took the liberty above of accusing people who lived centuries ago of being charlatans/ delusional. Who has the burden of proof, you think ? 

Nothing the brain produces comports with the external world, if you actually read what you answer to, you would've noticed when I mentioned the very important observation that everyone is wrong about the external world until some genius comes along and fixes a small portion of our delusion, that's why we have science, we are wrong about the external world.

And even if we fully accept that the claims of prophecy are a manifestation of some altered state of the brain, so what? Everything anyone experiences is a manifestation of some state of the brain, prophets or not, it could just be that God's message is a bit too heavy for our consciousness, that the recipients of his message had to receive it subconsciously.

[LadyForCamus]

I’ll make it as simple as possible for you, @Klorophyll :

Theist: I had experience X.

Skeptic: Oh, cool.

Theist: It was god talking to me.

Skeptic: How do you know that? How did you rule out natural causes?

Theist: I can’t rule out natural causes.

Skeptic: Do you have any evidence that it was a god?

Theist: No.

Skeptic: Then I’m not convinced the cause was a god.


Where’s my claim? Explain to me how my reasoning is flawed and yours is sound.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I’ll make it as simple as possible for you, @Klorophyll :

Theist: I had experience X.

Skeptic: Oh, cool.

Theist: It was god talking to me.

Skeptic: How do you know that? How did you rule out natural causes?

Theist: I can’t rule out natural causes.

Skeptic: Do you have any evidence that it was a god?

Theist: No.

Skeptic: Then I’m not convinced the cause was a god.


Where’s my claim? Explain to me how my reasoning is flawed and yours is sound.

It isn't they simply don't like the results

[vulcanlogician]

Nothing the brain produces comports with the external world,

If you believe that, you're a solipsist.

I didn't read Poca's post, but here's the deal. It is more plausible to think "healers" in ancient times were charlatans than to think that they might have actually had healing powers. Why is it more plausible? Look around. We have the same shit going on nowadays. Faith healers and the like. But never do they turn out to be provably genuine.

But they do turn out to be provably charlatans sometimes. What makes you think ancient times were any different?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I’m perfectly willing to accept the possibility that prophetic (or any other kind of) revelations are god-derived. The trouble is, there doesn’t seem to be any reliable method to distinguish divinely inspired rhetoric from the rantings of a lunatic or a confidence trickster. 

If a man calling himself The Divine Light Of Jesusania stands on a street corner wearing robes made of old bath towels and says that God wants us to change are underwear every four hours (and wear it on the outside so He can check), there’s no way to prove him wrong. Similarly, if a 40 year old Arab merchant says that an angel appeared to him in a cave, we have no way to prove him right.

Boru

[R00tKiT]

I’ll make it as simple as possible for you, @Klorophyll :

Theist: I had experience X.

Skeptic: Oh, cool.

Theist: It was god talking to me.

Skeptic: How do you know that? How did you rule out natural causes?

Theist: I can’t rule out natural causes.

Skeptic: Do you have any evidence that it was a god?

Theist: No.

Skeptic: Then I’m not convinced the cause was a god.


Explain to me how my reasoning is flawed and yours is sound.

Fair enough, let me explain it to you : All experiences come from God, a deity being the source of all things. The most insane delusion of a mental patient also comes from God. The particular religious experiences we're talking only differ from the rest of experiences by their content. The revelations of prophets have material that is so culturally impressive as to be considered to be a message from God. Each individual perceive these religious experiences differently, accepting or dismissing them is the very divine test all religions are about.

For example, some people are prepared to reject Muhammad's message simply because he conducted wars, not because they think he didn't provide enough evidence, this tells more about their moral compass and intellectual honesty than about Muhammad. Wars can have valid reasons, and are irrelevant to truth.

And a small reminder here: we are presupposing God's existence in this discussion.

[LadyForCamus]

No, no, no, no, fucking no. You make the claim of divine revelation. In the absence of any evidence to support the notion that such a thing is even possible, let alone probable as a candidate explanation for the experience, we are left to make a rational assessment based on what we already know of reality. We know that the brain can produce experiences that don’t comport with the external world. We have mountains of evidence demonstrating that fact. So much evidence, in fact,  that we can predict and even induce these experiences under certain manufactured conditions. We have zero evidence of divine revelation. What other choice is the rational skeptic left with other than to err on the side of what appears to be the most likely explanation based on the available evidence? Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. Your inability to make a properly evidenced case for your claim is no one’s failure but your own.

Are you answering yourself? The charge of delusion is far more than that of the absence of evidence. Procracas took the liberty above of accusing people who lived centuries ago of being charlatans/ delusional. Who has the burden of proof, you think ?

I’m certain Poca can support that claim. We have far more evidence for liars and delusional individuals than we have for any god, as I stated above. Confidence and certainty aren’t synonymous. I feel like you should be able to grasp that distinction. 

Nothing the brain produces comports with the external world, if you actually read what you answer to, you would've noticed when I mentioned the very important observation that everyone is wrong about the external world

And some people are demonstrably more wrong than others.

And even if we fully accept that the claims of prophecy are a manifestation of some altered state of the brain, so what? Everything anyone experiences is a manifestation of some state of the brain, prophets or not, it could just be that God's message is a bit too heavy for our consciousness, that the recipients of his message had to receive it subconsciously.

Sure, it could be. But in the absence of any evidence, or even a reliable method to make such a distinction, you have no good reason to believe that it is, and a well-evidenced reason to seriously doubt that it is. Yet you jump on wagon number one every single time.

[R00tKiT]

If you believe that, you're a solipsist.

I didn't read Poca's post, but here's the deal. It is more plausible to think "healers" in ancient times were charlatans than to think that they might have actually had healing powers. Why is it more plausible? Look around. We have the same shit going on nowadays. Faith healers and the like. But never do they turn out to be provably genuine.

But they do turn out to be provably charlatans sometimes. What makes you think ancient times were any different?

Well, healing and receiving a message are two different things, in general, it's not difficult to expose charlatans. Not the same can be said about sincere people who can or cannot be delusional.

The beginning of Muhammad's religious experience is well-known, and he himself thought in the beginning that he had some mental illness, it's clear that he didn't want to be the recipient of the Qur'an. Now, what are we to make of his religious experience? His sincerity and devotion to his own message is not really disputed by anyone, so we're left with either delusion or accepting his message at face value. Evaluating the content of his message and whether he could up with the Qur'an from knowledge that is available locally is the way to proceed.

Muhammad also had a military career and was a successful statesman, which means he definitely didn't have some debilitating mental illness or something like schizophrenia. Also, epileptic seizures are followed by memory loss, Muhammad produced the revelations immeditely after his reported agitated states of receiving revelation, so they are unlikely to be symptoms of epilepsy.