Supernatural experiences with guest Jesse Cowell

[NH Baritone]

My point is, even if I could find powerful enough evidence of one miracle to show that miracles are possible and send me back to square one in my understanding of physics, that would prove less than nothing. All it would do is open up several worlds of bewildering possibilities.

(If you'd grown up on Neil Gaiman, you'd think like this, too.)

This thread has burgeoned with responses, and so I haven't had the time to follow it fully. However (with or without the Neil Gaiman reference, because I'm 5 years older than he is), your response encapsulates the chief difference between true believers and those of us who are skeptics/atheists. The willingness to accept (or clamor for) a supernatural explanation (instead of search endlessly until a natural explanation is found) is the mark of a superstitious brain. Supernaturalism is essentially, at its core, unadulterated intellectual laziness.

It is a revealing fact that modern day Christians consider finding a parking place close to their destination a miracle, when in the Bible the believers required entire seas to part.

[spongebob]

NHB said:

Supernaturalism is essentially, at its core, unadulterated intellectual laziness.

I just thought that line was so poignant that it deserved repeating.

[NH Baritone]

NHB said:

Supernaturalism is essentially, at its core, unadulterated intellectual laziness.

I just thought that line was so poignant that it deserved repeating.

Thanks. I actually thought the last line carried the message with greater grandeur. I suppose pure vehemence sometimes outshines poetry.

[Mr. Sluagh]

NHB said:

Supernaturalism is essentially, at its core, unadulterated intellectual laziness.

I just thought that line was so poignant that it deserved repeating.

Hm. I think "lack of imagination" is more to the point.

[NH Baritone]

NHB said:

Supernaturalism is essentially, at its core, unadulterated intellectual laziness.

I just thought that line was so poignant that it deserved repeating.

Hm. I think "lack of imagination" is more to the point.

You obviously have not been listening to the same podcasts and reading the same blogs that I have this weekend.

[Matt]

Gee, matt. I'm sorry, but special pleading just isn't convincing. "Oh, no, you don't understand how my magic works....it only works on Tuesdays when the moon is..."

I am sorry that you don't have a category for miracles. Since 90% of the world does, I don't see how it is "special" pleading.

OK, till then I reserve the right to remain skeptical. Next?

NP. That's your prerogative. You don't have to agree with me to be my friend.

OK, but now you're confusing me. Most of the "gods" claim not just superiority, but absolution. YHWH certainly does. That's kind of different from what I'm asking and different from what you seem to be saying. If they are saying "different" things about god, then one of them is saying the others are lying. Something doesn't add up.

Perhaps my language was unclear. When I said that "all gods aren't created equal," I meant YHWH≠Allah≠Brahma≠Baal. They are not just "different names for the same thing." The Muslim concept of Allah is different than the Christian concept of YHWH. Is that clearer?

Some of the religions (like most Christians) claim that the others are lying. Post Vatican II Roman Catholicism says that the other religions are distortions of the true religion, Roman Catholicism. Hinduism has no problem saying that Christianity is true, they just add Jesus to their pantheon. Some religions, however, ARE mutually exclusive. Islam is not compatible with Hinduism, for instance. Hinduism says there are thousands of gods, Islam says that there is only one. They can't both be right.

On that note, Christianity (perhaps with the exception of post-Vatican II RC) is incompatible with most other religions, since it argues that YHWH is the only true god.

Now you are being contradictory. If all gods are in fact part of the whole god, then why are they competing? That makes no sense at all.

That is not what I was saying. I think we missed each other somewhere. I do not believe that all gods are part of the true god (as in Hinduism). Nor do I believe that they are all legit (pantheism). Nor am I saying that they are all legit, yet subject to YHWH (henotheism). I am saying that we have to remain skeptical. (The difference between me and you, however, is that I have a category for the supernatural.) They could be legit. Baal has just as much right to claim supremacy as YHWH, and we have to weigh their claims. When their claims compete, only one can be right. But we have to keep an open mind about which one (if any) is right.

I could accept that they are all images of god trying to communicate valuable information to humans, but humans just keep misunderstanding the message. But to claim that one is "better" than the rest just goes right back to the jealousy of the Jesus god, which claims a negation of all gods, who supposedly had valid things to say in the past. And this one that is "better" keeps telling his flock that followers of those other gods don't qualify for the goodies at recess. Not buying it.

From a skeptics position, we have to keep an open mind that perhaps Baal's worshippers are right (or Thor's, for that matter, or YHWH's). Perhaps Elijah really called down fire, perhaps it was all smoke and mirrors. We have to be open to both possibilities.

When I say that "Baal has a right to claim deity," I can say this because I don't know for sure that Baal is not the true god (or even that he claimed to be the exclusive god, but that's another matter). There is a chance that he is. I don't think he is. I think YHWH is. I don't know for sure, but the resurrection of Jesus made a great case for YHWH. If YHWH says that Baal isn't real, then I am comfortable taking His word for it. Even still I can't say for sure. When YHWH brings history to consummation, then I will know for sure that Baal is not real. Until then, it's only fair to talk about Baal as if he could be legit.

There is a good chance that a lot of this is convoluted. This is because while I do believe in Christianity, I want to keep an open mind that I may be wrong. I have beliefs--even strong beliefs--even beliefs that I would die for. But any of these beliefs could be wrong and I want to be honest about that.

[Matt]

Why do trust YHVH so much just because he pulled a fairly cool (although not exactly earth-shattering) miracle and was able to stick up for his people?

I think the resurrection is more than just "fairly cool"--it shows YHWH's power over sin and death.

Much greater miracles have been attributed to other deities

Examples? Support for them? (Christianity has the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances.)

Why must only one of the gods be the "true" God?

Christianity claims that YHWH is the only true god. If Christianity is true, then the other religions are necessarily false. But Christianity could be false.

You can make first cause/prime-mover/intelligent designer arguments for a deistic God, but why must you identify that God with any of these mysterious aliens who go around performing occasional miracles while taking credit for natural phenomena and claiming that they could do even more if they wanted to?

I agree. While I think that the burden of proof is on the atheists for saying that there is no god at all, the burden of proof is on the Christians for saying that god is YHWH.

YHVH appears to be an extremely successful god who has pulled a massive coup against the world's other deities, thereby gaining an unprecedented number of worshipers*. Of course he wants you to think he's all-powerful; that helps demoralize his competition. And all he has to do to convince people is resurrect one rabbi!

The resurrection of said rabbi was a pretty sweet deed. I guess it doesn't prove his omnipotence, but I don't know what else could.

*Who knows why gods need worshipers, but apparently they all do. Maybe they feed on faith through some kind of psychic vampirism. The Olympians were always jonesing for smoke from sacrifices, but they didn't eat smoke; they ate mana. Is smoke a drug for gods? YHVH apparently doesn't need it anymore. Has he quit? Perhaps smoke was just a visual indicator of how much faith the Olympians were absorbing that they used when bragging to each other. YHVH now has other ways of evaluating people's loyalty, and doesn't need to brag. Or maybe they don't feed on faith, they just want influence in the world. That's right, YHVH is trying to end this drama permanently, burn everyone who opposes him, and establish his kingdom on Earth. Oh well, it would probably all make sense if I was a god.

Why is it that atheists resort to ridicule so often? Do you really think that this is a legitimate form of argumentation? (Maybe it's the only good weapon in your arsenal.)

[NH Baritone]

Gee, matt. I'm sorry, but special pleading just isn't convincing. "Oh, no, you don't understand how my magic works....it only works on Tuesdays when the moon is..."

I am sorry that you don't have a category for miracles. Since 90% of the world does, I don't see how it is "special" pleading.

OK.

LOGIC 101: Logical fallacies are arguments that when employed, are insufficient to prove your point or move the debate forward. They simply serve as distractions, attempts to muddy the waters, or circular reasoning. These include straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, arguments from authority, appeals to popularity (see your statement above for a fine example of that one) and special pleading.

SPECIAL PLEADING occurs when you seek exemptions from rules that apply to EVERYONE ELSE, but for your own unique example, the rules don't apply. Here's an example: No human amputee has ever had a limb regrow, so to have one regrow would be a miracle. John is a Christian who is an amputee. He prays for a miracle to have his arm regrow. However, in 6 months he says that God told him that the greater miracle was his learning to live as an amputee, so God actually performed a miracle by not growing his limb back.

[Matt]

I get your argument, but it is highly speculative (that any of those claims were indeed made by God, and that they occurred as advertised).

I would obviously disagree.

But for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Again, the question remains: what if a truly powerful God stays hidden? What if "showing off" for the humans is not a sign of power, but of weakness, thus proving that you are not the one true God, but one of these minor poser deities?

You understand what I'm saying? Perhaps according to the one-upmanship criteria that humans value, such a god would seem powerful. But who knows if that's the criterion of power for gods?

I understand and I grant that this may be the case. But to use the atheist argument against Deism, what is the point of a god who doesn't show himself?

There are an infinite number of hypothetical explanations for reality, but we have to settle on one. Radical skepticism is a self-defeating position.

The radical skeptic's greatest sin is to make a decision without proof.

However, "proof" is often a chimaera, and most decisions require a bit of "faith" (not the technical term, the way atheists use it).

For instance, in the movie Terminator 2, Arnold comes face-to-face with Sarah Connor for the first time and says, "Come with me if you want to live." Sarah has a decision to make. Let's pretend that she is a radical skeptic, and her worst sin is to make a decision without proof.

She doesn't know for sure that Arnold isn't deceiving her. In fact, she has a lot of evidence that Arnold wants to kill her (Terminator 1). This would suggest that she run to the liquid metal guy. On the other hand, she doesn't have proof that Arnold hasn't changed. Perhaps the liquid metal guy wants to kill her.

She has a decision. Choice A means going with Arnold. But she doesn't have proof that he is trustworthy. Choice B means going with the liquid metal guy. She doesn't have proof that he won't kill her.

A refusal to make Choice A for "lack of proof" is essentially Choice B. There is no other option. Since she does not have proof that Choice B is safe, she has committed the radical skeptic's worst sin. Her position is self-defeating.

[TheFonz]

Thanks Ninar, welcome. And welcome to Fonz and Matt, and anyone else I might have missed. It's sometimes hard to keep up with the forum whilst learning to chase ambulances. But if any of you get hit by a car while in Oregon, call me.

Fonz, I think you mentioned that it takes as much faith to believe there is no God, as it does to believe that there is one. Neither can ultimately be proven.

As an atheist, however, my claim is not so much that there is no God at all. I can only be agnostic about that, since I will never encounter all possible definitions of God. But I do claim to be atheistic toward the Christian definition of God. So if that is a leap of faith atheists have not adequately supported (since we can't prove the Christian god doesn't exist), would you consider your similar lack of faith in other gods (such as Zeus or Thor) likewise insupportable?

Incidentally, we both disbelieve in Thor. How are we to legitimize that disbelief?

Thanks Emery. I am enjoying the forum and the podcast sounds great.

It took me a while to respond to this question; mainly because I don't have a great answer. It is a great question; and after perusing the boards it seems to be a point the atheists bring up many times.
After much pondering, here is what I got...

My lack of faith in other gods is not insupportable due to my presuppositions about the true God (Jesus). My faith that the Bible is true and the historical evidence that supports it allows me to denounce other gods while on solid ground. I realize that my solid ground (faith) means nothing to atheists or other naysayers. However, I am not bound by the empiracal evidence or "science" that the atheists keep talking about (but not giving any specific examples). IOW, I don't rely on empiracal evidence to substantiate my faith, so I do not need to support my disbelief in other gods.
I hope that makes sense.
I fully realize that mosts atheists laugh at my line of reasoning and may even dismiss me as an uninformed or uneducated person who refutes science. But when it comes down to it, science doesn't really matter to me; just as faith doesn't really matter to you.
Fonz

[stickmangrit]

I get your argument, but it is highly speculative (that any of those claims were indeed made by God, and that they occurred as advertised).

I would obviously disagree.

But for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Again, the question remains: what if a truly powerful God stays hidden? What if "showing off" for the humans is not a sign of power, but of weakness, thus proving that you are not the one true God, but one of these minor poser deities?

You understand what I'm saying? Perhaps according to the one-upmanship criteria that humans value, such a god would seem powerful. But who knows if that's the criterion of power for gods?

I understand and I grant that this may be the case. But to use the atheist argument against Deism, what is the point of a god who doesn't show himself?

There are an infinite number of hypothetical explanations for reality, but we have to settle on one. Radical skepticism is a self-defeating position.

The radical skeptic's greatest sin is to make a decision without proof.

However, "proof" is often a chimaera, and most decisions require a bit of "faith" (not the technical term, the way atheists use it).

For instance, in the movie Terminator 2, Arnold comes face-to-face with Sarah Connor for the first time and says, "Come with me if you want to live." Sarah has a decision to make. Let's pretend that she is a radical skeptic, and her worst sin is to make a decision without proof.

She doesn't know for sure that Arnold isn't deceiving her. In fact, she has a lot of evidence that Arnold wants to kill her (Terminator 1). This would suggest that she run to the liquid metal guy. On the other hand, she doesn't have proof that Arnold hasn't changed. Perhaps the liquid metal guy wants to kill her.

She has a decision. Choice A means going with Arnold. But she doesn't have proof that he is trustworthy. Choice B means going with the liquid metal guy. She doesn't have proof that he won't kill her.

A refusal to make Choice A for "lack of proof" is essentially Choice B. There is no other option. Since she does not have proof that Choice B is safe, she has committed the radical skeptic's worst sin. Her position is self-defeating.

holy fucking shit, did you just pull out Terminator 2 as an argument for faith?

by and large, i agree with you. as an agnostic and a deist, i parted from christianity on moral reasons(i.e. even if he is all-powerful, i cannot bring myself to love and worship a deity who believes that incing genocide by "hardening hearts" is an acceptable solution to land disputes). however, as a student of sociology, i would argue that belief in something larger then ourselves is a primal need of the human condition. for many, religion fills this need. for me, it's cinema. i get the same sensations of solidarity and group reinforcement from a midnight premiere of The Dark Knight that most people get from attending a church service. my chief problem is with organized religion. the stratification and system of norms inherent to such a system tends to lead to very fallible humans preaching interpretations of scriptures that result in a negative effect on society at large. fundamentalists of any stripe tend to breed varying levels of intolerance.

i would post more, but i'm several whiskeys and beers past coherent argument. however, i will say that debating with you is likely going to be a lot more fun than i've had on this forum for quite some time.

[Matt]

by and large, i agree with you. as an agnostic and a deist, i parted from christianity on moral reasons(i.e. even if he is all-powerful, i cannot bring myself to love and worship a deity who believes that incing genocide by "hardening hearts" is an acceptable solution to land disputes).

Cute, but there was obviously more going on than just a "land dispute."

I can't argue against your decision to leave Christianity on these grounds. You have the right to read those texts as you see fit, and reject the god of those texts if you don't like their implications. But you have to admit that others come to different conclusions both on the interpretations of said texts and the implications.

as a student of sociology, i would argue that belief in something larger then ourselves is a primal need of the human condition

As not a student of sociology, I have no way of evaluating this statement. I think Christianity argues this though. Romans 1? Plus, this says nothing of the source of this need. Is it from God? Is it from evolution? Sociology can't answer that question.

for many, religion fills this need. for me, it's cinema.

That's kind of profound. It also supports Paul's argument in Romans 1, that God has revealed himself to all people, but that people reject God and try to replace him with other stuff.

i get the same sensations of solidarity and group reinforcement from a midnight premiere of The Dark Knight that most people get from attending a church service

Me too. Most church services are pretty lame (and I hear Batman is pretty good). But I wouldn't necessarily call the warm fuzzies we get from the Christian rock show a "supernatural experience." Perhaps it could be sometimes. But the feeling is easy to reproduce with the right music and/or rhetoric.

the stratification and system of norms inherent to such a system tends to lead to very fallible humans preaching interpretations of scriptures that result in a negative effect on society at large

Absolutely. But sometimes it brings down Apartheid without any violence.

fundamentalists of any stripe tend to breed varying levels of intolerance.

I don't like the word "fundamentalist." It is used by different people to mean anything from "conservative" to "terrorist." I think it has lost its meaning and we should use other terms to avoid confusion.

i would post more, but i'm several whiskeys and beers past coherent argument.

Been there.

however, i will say that debating with you is likely going to be a lot more fun than i've had on this forum for quite some time.

I hope so.

[spongebob]

Matt,
I think NHB did a good job of defining “special pleading”. Basically, it’s just a way of fending off logical debate/argument without actually providing any real information. When you argue that miracles are not commonplace because if they were they wouldn’t prove much, you are engaging in special pleading. You are setting up a criteria of your own for miracles, that claims they work in a special way. In actuality, there is no consensus on what makes a miracle. I’m sure different religious sects have their criteria, but those criteria don’t necessarily agree and they often serve special purposed for that sect, furthering some assertion they make. So, it’s not so much that I don’t have a “category” for miracles. I am aware of the almost infinite criteria that do exist. While 90% of the human race may believe in miracles, you couldn’t possible get a consensus of them to agree.

NP. That's your prerogative. You don't have to agree with me to be my friend.

Right, I totally agree. The point is that it isn’t logical or even rational to use a promised or prophesied claim as evidence. If Jesus does return and make himself known and demonstrate his power in a way that is convincing, then I’ll be right there with you. But until then, it behooves everyone to be skeptical of such claims.

Perhaps my language was unclear. When I said that "all gods aren't created equal," I meant YHWH≠Allah≠Brahma≠Baal. They are not just "different names for the same thing." The Muslim concept of Allah is different than the Christian concept of YHWH. Is that clearer?

Disappointingly, yes. This is not pluralism, which is where I thought you were going.

On that note, Christianity (perhaps with the exception of post-Vatican II RC) is incompatible with most other religions, since it argues that YHWH is the only true god.

This is my understanding as well.

…I do not believe that all gods are part of the true god (as in Hinduism). Nor do I believe that they are all legit (pantheism). Nor am I saying that they are all legit, yet subject to YHWH (henotheism). I am saying that we have to remain skeptical. (The difference between me and you, however, is that I have a category for the supernatural.) They could be legit. Baal has just as much right to claim supremacy as YHWH, and we have to weigh their claims. When their claims compete, only one can be right. But we have to keep an open mind about which one (if any) is right.

But how do we weigh those claims? What evidence or instruments do we have to measure them? And for that matter, how do we know that only one can be right? What objective evidence do we have that one god exists or that many gods exist? This strikes at the very heart of the atheist’s thinking process. God may exist in some form, but we have no way of objectively determining this. Other than philosophy, which certainly yields some good arguments for why a god should exist, we really have no evidence at all. We have holy books and oral stories, but these could have many sorts of faults and falsehoods; they cannot be verified. We have no physical evidence, no evidence of miracles or magic. The only other form of “evidence” we have are claims of personal experiences or “feelings” about their relationship with god/Jesus/Mohammad…etc. These, too, are inadequate because of their subjectivity. So, while I agree with the beginning of your logic, that if one god exists, many more could and we should look to evaluate them equally; I don’t see how you hope to do this. It’s like a sea sponge trying to evaluate the best computer operating system.

From a skeptics position, we have to keep an open mind that perhaps Baal's worshippers are right (or Thor's, for that matter, or YHWH's). Perhaps Elijah really called down fire, perhaps it was all smoke and mirrors. We have to be open to both possibilities.

I like that skeptical attitude, matt, but where’s the skepticism regarding supernaturalism and magic? Why do you consider that a given?

When I say that "Baal has a right to claim deity," I can say this because I don't know for sure that Baal is not the true god (or even that he claimed to be the exclusive god, but that's another matter). There is a chance that he is. I don't think he is. I think YHWH is. I don't know for sure, but the resurrection of Jesus made a great case for YHWH. If YHWH says that Baal isn't real, then I am comfortable taking His word for it. Even still I can't say for sure. When YHWH brings history to consummation, then I will know for sure that Baal is not real. Until then, it's only fair to talk about Baal as if he could be legit.

But why, matt? Why are you comfortable with YHWH’s word? Have you heard this word in your own ears or are you just working with the same biblical information the rest of us have?

There is a good chance that a lot of this is convoluted. This is because while I do believe in Christianity, I want to keep an open mind that I may be wrong. I have beliefs--even strong beliefs--even beliefs that I would die for. But any of these beliefs could be wrong and I want to be honest about that.

Again, your skepticism is good, but it seems arbitrarily halted at the question of a supernatural god. Why is that? Why are you so convinced that this, too, is not a figment of your imagination?

[spongebob]

My lack of faith in other gods is not insupportable due to my presuppositions about the true God (Jesus). My faith that the Bible is true and the historical evidence that supports it allows me to denounce other gods while on solid ground. I realize that my solid ground (faith) means nothing to atheists or other naysayers. However, I am not bound by the empiracal evidence or "science" that the atheists keep talking about (but not giving any specific examples). IOW, I don't rely on empiracal evidence to substantiate my faith, so I do not need to support my disbelief in other gods.
I hope that makes sense.

I fully realize that mosts atheists laugh at my line of reasoning and may even dismiss me as an uninformed or uneducated person who refutes science. But when it comes down to it, science doesn't really matter to me; just as faith doesn't really matter to you.

Fonz, you are making a couple of assumptions here that I think you are unaware of. First of all is this assumption that faith does not matter to atheists. Faith is certainly part of an atheist's life; we engage in it as often as most theists do, just not where supernatural gods are concerned. We have no faith in the supernatural because, as far as we can tell, it does not exist. But the concept of faith is not unknown to us and we are as capable of it as anyone else.

Second is this idea that science doesn't matter to you. Man, I hate to break it to you, but your very life depends on science. Certainly, a vast amount of your daily life does unless you are a practicing Ahmish or Quaker that rejects all but the most primative forms of science. If science really means nothing to you and you have no concern about it, then I suggest you consider living the life of a Quaker. If nothing else I think it would generate a better appreciation for science. You may not find science interesting or inspirational, but if you are living in the modern world, you are as dependent upon it as everyone else. Declaring a lack of concern for it is kind of insulting to the many people who have worked hard to develop the valuable technologies that we all depend on.

Regarding your disbelief in other "gods"; your argument is weak. First, you claim that you are not bound by the laws of science as the rest of us, but then you claim that your faith and belief in the bible gives you ample ground to choose which god you want to believe. Well, Fonz, your "faith" is, by it's on definition, belief in things not seen. IOW, it is grounded on nothing, no evidence. So, you are saying that you are basing your belief in Jesus-god on nothing. We're not even talking about science here. All of those other gods are just as well supported as yours by faith and ancient tales of magic and miracles, as well as personal experiences and emotions. IOW, all gods claim the same kinds of evidence, so how can you choose one over another, especially if you have not personally committed yourself to them all. If a personal committment to Jesus Christ is necessary to truly understand and become a True Christian, then the same requirement is necessary to become any other kind of theist. Some religions do not require this because they don't actually have a deity at their center, such as Buddhism. If a god requires you to become personally committed before he is fully revealed to you, then you may be missing out on the one true god and committing yourself to a false god. And how would you know, since you have only faith (a belief based on nothing) to back you up?

[spongebob]

...however, as a student of sociology, i would argue that belief in something larger then ourselves is a primal need of the human condition. for many, religion fills this need. for me, it's cinema. i get the same sensations of solidarity and group reinforcement from a midnight premiere of The Dark Knight that most people get from attending a church service.

OK, now I understand why you are so sensitive about super hero movies.