fairy tales and lies

[Lek]

Have you ever considered the Placebo Effect?

Yes.

The natural sciences are the way we understand our world and our universe. The stuff "beyond" it (the supernatural) either a) does not exist or b) exists but cannot interact or have an effect on the natural world, thus making it useless and inconsequential to believe in. Why is the second statement so? Because if something exists beyond the natural world (supernatural) and it intervenes in the natural world, then that intervention becomes natural, and subject to natural laws. It becomes testable and measurable by science, because science is the tool used to study the natural world. However, because there is no evidence for such interventions, and because most of it can be explained by an individual's brain simply believing it to be true, it's doubtful that god exists and is doing things for you himself. Once again, refer to the Placebo Effect or the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.

The natural sciences are one of the ways we understand our world and our universe.  Since all supernatural intervention becomes testable and measurable by science, are you saying that if God reveals his existence to me, and I come to know him, I must be able to show you in a scientific manner that this really happened?  I am not to trust my experience unless science can prove it?  And you will completely disregard my testimony if it violates the laws of nature?

[drfuzzy]

No, I'm saying it's stupid to say you know loads of things about God while not giving any evidence as to how you could possibly know any of it (or even that it exists at all).

It comes down to what we consider to be evidence Rob.  I see the existence of life as evidence to support my belief in God.  I see his intervention in my life as evidence for his existence.  I see the testimonies of others as to how he has worked in their lives as evidence.  You have your criteria as to what it would take to make you believe, and these things don't meet that criteria.  Okay.  I agree that these things are not evidence according to how you define evidence, but you can't go inside others and experience what they experience.  It is also true that if you are unwilling to step outside the boundaries of natural sciences, then you won't experience God because God is outside the boundaries of natural science, and that's your prerogative to do so.

When I still believed, I did the same thing.  I clearly remember driving to school one day, and suddenly pulled my car over into an empty space on the grass by the road.  A car careened by, driving erratically and way too fast, missing the back of my car by inches.  I remember telling my friends that an angel must have been looking out for me, and gave me a nudge.  It was a lovely little story, and a lovely little feeling, to think that some supernatural being was saving me from danger.  Funny how I just dismissed the idea that I saw a car coming up way too fast in my mirrors.
         It's easy to point to things that could be coincidences, and massage your ego by telling yourself a deity is working in your life.  It's really hard for anyone to prove that these things are actual god-interventions, which makes them even more attractive for a lot of folks.

[robvalue]

I have no idea what "step outside the boundaries of natural science" is supposed to mean. I don't know the difference between that and just making stuff up, or believing stuff people tell me while they present no verifiable evidence. God is hiding from me, this is what I hear. That's his problem. If he wants to communicate with me, I'm right here.

Fallacious arguments and personal experience are very poor types of evidence, but no, I can't stop people considering them good enough. They mean nothing to anyone (scientifically minded) but the person themselves if they can't be investigated.

[Vincent]

The natural sciences are one of the ways we understand our world and our universe.  Since all supernatural intervention becomes testable and measurable by science, are you saying that if God reveals his existence to me, and I come to know him, I must be able to show you in a scientific manner that this really happened?  I am not to trust my experience unless science can prove it?  And you will completely disregard my testimony if it violates the laws of nature?

It's not that I don't trust you or the sincerity of your testimony. But the brain is not perfect, nor is it always giving us an accurate image of reality. To put this into perspective for you: every year, dozens of people report having seen UFO's or extraterrestrials visiting earth. However, when we actually examine these instances beyond just one witness's testimony, we find that there is virtually always a rational explanation behind it that is NOT aliens. Now, if we were to take these people's word as gospel truth, everyone would freak the fuck out, correct? We'd all be thinking we're going to be invaded.

It works the same way here. For most things, testimony is reliable. If you told me you witnessed a car accident, or a person survive a heart attack, I'd have little reason to not believe you. Since both of those things are in the scope of natural laws. However, when it comes to the shit that goes beyond the natural order, yes, I will always want further proof, as you would if someone told you they had seen a unicorn.

To steal a quote from Christopher Hitchens: "What is more likely? That the laws of reality have been suspended in your favor, and in a way that you approve, or that you've made a mistake?"

[robvalue]

People can say whatever they want about what they think they experience.

But they shouldn't expect me to take it at all seriously unless they provide me with evidence I can investigate. Evidence "to them" is not credible evidence outside their own brain.

I'm not saying people don't have experiences, of course they do. I'm not saying they don't believe that those experiences involve god, or whatever. I'm sure people do believe that. I just think they are wrong. It's the far simpler and vastly more likely possibility. Everything I hear can be explained easily by psychology. If people think they are capable of correctly remembering and interpreting one-off events which don't mesh with the general experience of reality, they are sorely mistaken.

[IATIA]

Personal experience ... Hmmmm ... How are the ramblings of a so-called god any different than a dream or hallucination? I may believe the stuff of dreams or hallucinations while engaged, but once I return to reality, I know the 'visions' were just that. The mind is a funny place though, and sometimes it blurs the real and unreal. I have had some dreams that were sane enough for me to question the reality or unreality of a memory.

[robvalue]

Yup. It seems some people can't tell the difference between "I thought I experienced X" and "I actually experienced X". It's to declare yourself not only infallible, but able of analysing and categorising things totally outside the scope of current human knowledge.

Sorry, you can convince yourself but not me. I'm all too familiar with how unreliable the human brain is, and of our tendency to spot patterns and assign agency when there is none.

Imagine a kid who tells you they really did meet Santa. The actual magical Santa. This is absolutely no different. Would you believe them, just on their say so?

[Lek]

Yup. It seems some people can't tell the difference between "I thought I experienced X" and "I actually experienced X". It's to declare yourself not only infallible, but able of analysing and categorising things totally outside the scope of current human knowledge.

Sorry, you can convince yourself but not me. I'm all too familiar with how unreliable the human brain is, and of our tendency to spot patterns and assign agency when there is none.

Imagine a kid who tells you they really did meet Santa. The actual magical Santa. This is absolutely no different. Would you believe them, just on their say so?

Not too many people have claimed to see Santa or UFOs, but millions upon millions have believed in God and christianity. In fact, many if not most, of the greatest minds of western civilization in the last 2,000 years have been christians or theists of one kind or another.

[Cyberman]

Note the conflation between seeing and believing.

[Vincent]

Yup. It seems some people can't tell the difference between "I thought I experienced X" and "I actually experienced X". It's to declare yourself not only infallible, but able of analysing and categorising things totally outside the scope of current human knowledge.

Sorry, you can convince yourself but not me. I'm all too familiar with how unreliable the human brain is, and of our tendency to spot patterns and assign agency when there is none.

Imagine a kid who tells you they really did meet Santa. The actual magical Santa. This is absolutely no different. Would you believe them, just on their say so?

Not too many people have claimed to see Santa or UFOs, but millions upon millions have believed in God and christianity. In fact, many if not most, of the greatest minds of western civilization in the last 2,000 years have been christians or theists of one kind or another.

Argumentum ad populem. Popularity =/= truth. The whole civilized world also used to believe the sun revolved around the Earth, until science proved that wrong.

It is also worth pointing out that the majority of famous scientists currently alive today cobsider themselves either agnostic or atheist. No matter how brilliantly intelligent people are, they are still susceptible to popular opinion, or simply being raised in a religious household. Most of them did not actually conduct tests or research to ensure that their God existed. Most were either raised in a religion or fell prey to its influence in their society. That is the reason most were theist.

Let's think about the spread of Christianity. How long ago did it start? Something like 2000 years ago. A time when science was primitive and people believed rain was the act of a deity. Since humanity as a whole was a lot more ignorant, it was easy for people to accept the religion. And there are a lot of appeals in it that were absent in other faiths, and that helped it spread, unrelated to its acual validity. So spread it did.

But the question more prevalent is, why is it still popular today? It MUST be true in that case. But no. You see, a fair majority of Christians are Christians for the same reason you are: they were raised into it. Indoctrinated from birth, and raised in an environment that encouraged and advocated that religion. The second majority are the people who live in a Christian area like America, who live in a society where Christianity is, again, encouraged. These people are absorbed into the religion by friends or family members. The third major portion of believers are those who are raised in a Christian-prevalent society and who "come to Jesus" in a period of hard times, whether it be money, school, or relationship issues. Religion is like a coping mechanism for these individuals.

This is why your religion is still popular. Because, you might have failed to realize, there are rarely, if ever, people who come into the religion by just talking with Jesus or meeting with him, never knowing him to exist in the first place. Jesus does not speak to anyone directly. They are either indoctrinated or they are influenced. Taught not to question.

So it isn't much of an argument to say that your religion is true because a lot of people believe it. You are Christian because you were raised in the right country. If you were born in India, you'd most likely believe in the Hindu gods. If you were born in Africa, you'd worship the deities of the African tribes. And if you had been born during the height of the Greek empire, you'd be believing in Zeus.

Does this make sense?