Supernatural experiences with guest Jesse Cowell

[stickmangrit]

and for the record, the Terminator 2 analogy is quite flawed. unless my recollection is completely off, it's not until Sarah sees John with the T-100 and vouching for it that she begins to trust it. then, when she sees the T-100 fight the T-1000, she understands that it's help is a necessity. it is not until her fears are quelled by the objective confirmation of her son, along with the objective observation of the T-100's actions that she is convinced that it's not trying to kill her. her decision is not based on a subjective whim of faith, but objective observations of the events unfolding in front of her.

[spongebob]

I think this is going in an interesting direction. Has everyone here seen the film, Signs? If not, just check out the Wikipedia article on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signs_(film). In the climactic scene, Graham regains his lost faith because he believes he's seen a true miracle, an act of god. But the film makers constructed this scene deliberately in an ambiguous way. To the skeptic there appeared to be no miracle, but to the believer, yes, it could have been a miracle. But it certainly wasn't the kind of miracle that would cause news flashes and take the cover of Time Magazine. It was more on the order of an every day coincidence. The kind that can easily be explained by normal circumstances. Also, the kind that seems arbitrary. So, if this is the only kind of miracle we can hope for, then I will likely never be convinced because it looks just like every day events. In this way, we must be seeing miracles almost every day.

[spongebob]

and for the record, the Terminator 2 analogy is quite flawed. unless my recollection is completely off, it's not until Sarah sees John with the T-100 and vouching for it that she begins to trust it. then, when she sees the T-100 fight the T-1000, she understands that it's help is a necessity. it is not until her fears are quelled by the objective confirmation of her son, along with the objective observation of the T-100's actions that she is convinced that it's not trying to kill her. her decision is not based on a subjective whim of faith, but objective observations of the events unfolding in front of her.

Awesome logic!

[NH Baritone]

<my $.02>

I for one would LOVE to see a real, honest to goodness, walk-on-water, loaves-and-fishes kind of miracle. It would make my job a whole hell of a lot easier.

</my $.02>

Scott,

See my comment earlier in the Fellowship Hall's "Test of Scientific Understanding" thread where I suggest following the evidence.

[Rian]

The kids are watching SpongeBob ...

*hugs SB*

[spongebob]

The kids are watching SpongeBob ...

*hugs SB*

Everybody loves Spongebob!

except for Squidward...

[whoosanightowl]

Yes and no ... I think you'd still get plenty of people refusing to accept it because they believe that there MUST be a naturalistic explanation. I think you'd also get the "hangers-on" types of people, too.

I don't know, Rian, if there were numerous objective witnesses followed by studies which all verified that there was no natural explanation and the possibility of tricks were ruled out, people would be more likely to at least consider that it might be a miracle, I think. Although hopefully not before the evidence was thoroughly checked out and confirmed by people with nothing to gain from it one way or the other.

[whoosanightowl]

...but I could be wrong.

[Rian]

*hugs Sue, too*

[stickmangrit]

and for the record, the Terminator 2 analogy is quite flawed. unless my recollection is completely off, it's not until Sarah sees John with the T-100 and vouching for it that she begins to trust it. then, when she sees the T-100 fight the T-1000, she understands that it's help is a necessity. it is not until her fears are quelled by the objective confirmation of her son, along with the objective observation of the T-100's actions that she is convinced that it's not trying to kill her. her decision is not based on a subjective whim of faith, but objective observations of the events unfolding in front of her.

Awesome logic!

like i said, i loves my movies.

[Matt]

Gar. Too much to go through it all. I'll just touch on a few points.

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.

Yes. The idea that one theistic god must be the deistic god and all other theoi are "false" is itself an artifact of Abrahamic religion. Assuming that gods exist, a religion is essentially a god's propaganda. Before one starts evaluating religions, one must therefore evaluate the gods themselves (not the other way around). One must somehow independently establish exactly what gods are (Aliens? Immortal wizards?) and what motivates a given god. Unfortunately, the only information we have about most if not all gods is their own propaganda. If the Bible is YHVH's word, did it ever occur to you how problematic that makes it? It's like trying to choose a presidential candidate based solely on campaign ads.

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.)

What would consitute evidence of a miracle?

I think Spongebob has addressed this pretty well, but it's not my point at all. For a while now, I've been arguing under the assumption that miracles--including the resurrection--are real. Whether I am actually able to acknowledge this possibility on an intellectual or emotional level is irrelevant for the purposes of this argument.

My point is that if miracles (events that drastically contradict our understanding of the laws of physics beyond compromise) can be verified, all that shows is that we understand much, much less about the world than we think. This doesn't answer any questions, it just shows that there are things out there that want to answer them for us. Your Terminator 2 analogy doesn't work, because my state's governor doesn't claim to be omnipotent and thus able to prove to Sarah why she should trust him. All YHVH did, at most, was resurrect a few people, heal a few more, and stick up for the nation he'd invested in. That is miles from absolute power over life and death and light years from omnipotence. You can argue that most of what he's (claimed to have) done (at least in the New Testament) has been benevolent, but I'm not so quick to trust enlightened despots, especially ones who are so closed-handed.

I have friends who truly take supernaturalism to its logical conclusion. They will go on about fairies, gods, and Illuminati (who may actually all be the same thing) in the same breath as the Iraq war and quantum physics, and then go on to rant about religious creationists, not for being creationists, but because they're too quick to discount aliens. They're in a sort of philosophical alliance with atheists because they don't have much trust for whatever is out there (some of them want to call themselves atheists, but I keep telling them they don't count). This is honest supernaturalism. It provides none of the comfort people tend to get from religion; it's a very disconcerting way to look at the world.

Agreed. This is getting out of hand. Please do not feel the need to respond to everything I say. If I feel that you have passed over something important, I will let you know. Allow me the same liberty?

I see three issues raised in your post:
How do we know the gods? (I will continue to speak in the plural so as not to assume monotheism.)
Why should we believe in miracles?
How do we avoid being duped (by religious charlatans, malevolent deities, con men, etc.)?

How do we know the gods?
I agree with you that the gods are most appropriately known through the religions that claim allegiance to them. If I want to know what Thor is like, I should find out by studying Norse religion, not Christianity's caricature of that religion. That's only fair to Thor.

With regard to religious literature and propaganda, I understand. Too often people accept uncritically the claims of religious leaders and religious literature. I don't think the Bible and Christianity should be exempt from critical scrutiny. "The Bible can't be true because it is biased" doesn't seem like a good argument, because often biased people are right. I may not accept a political pamphlet written by Barak Obama himself as "objective proof" of his superiority for president. But is it fair for me to say, "Unless a Ron Paul supporter like the Fonz convinces me of Obama's superiority, I won't believe"? When we approach the Bible, we recognize its bias, but we ask ourselves, "Are the claims of this book true?" I have found them to be true.

Why should we believe in miracles?
I don't necessarily think you should. I don't think Spongebob is stupid for rejecting miracles. (I think he has made assumptions that IMO are inappropriate, but I don't think he's stupid.)

But we have to ask the alternate questions, "Why shouldn't I believe in miracles?" So far, all the atheists have produced is "we shouldn't believe in miracles because they don't exist." That's not very convincing IMO. So, miracles may be; they may not be. We have to make a decision. Spongebob has made his. I have made mine.

There is always the possibility that a "miracle" is just something we don't understand. This is how atheists can and do reject them. But there is also the possibility that a miracle is evidence of the divine. And atheists have not been able to disprove this, except by predetermined rules that they have established themselves and the majority of the world rejects as inappropriate. No one can tell you how to discern between the two options. You have to decide that for yourself.

How do we avoid being duped (by religious charlatans, malevolent deities, con men, etc.)?
People can and do accept uncritically the claims of religious charlatans. Perhaps Christians are particularly vulnerable to this mistake because of their belief in miracles. But we don't have to check our brains at the door. The empty tomb stands. The resurrection appearances to hundreds of people (and specifically to non-believers like Saul of Tarsus) further support that the empty tomb was due to resurrection. We could probably add the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian community as support that something has changed. If someone found Jesus' body it would have scientifically disproven the resurrection. Then, like the Apostle Paul said, we would be crazy for being Christians.

But I would also add my now infamous Terminator 2 argument about radical skepticism. The position that demands absolute proof before making a decision is self-defeating. The truth is that most people (atheists included) are not that skeptical. We make decisions all the time without complete evidence, and we can't avoid being duped on occasion.

[spongebob]

Matt, thanks for the summary, but you are still misunderstanding my position on miracles.

Why should we believe in miracles?
I don't necessarily think you should. I don't think Spongebob is stupid for rejecting miracles. (I think he has made assumptions that IMO are inappropriate, but I don't think he's stupid.)

I don't think I understand what assumptions I've made regarding miracles and why you find them inappropriate.

But we have to ask the alternate questions, "Why shouldn't I believe in miracles?" So far, all the atheists have produced is "we shouldn't believe in miracles because they don't exist." That's not very convincing IMO. So, miracles may be; they may not be. We have to make a decision. Spongebob has made his. I have made mine.

This is where I think you've misunderstood the most. If I use the term "Miralces" to describe events that don't abide by the known laws of the universe, then I can comfortably say that none have ever been objectively verified and documented. It doesn't mean that none have ever occured, or that they were not witnessed. There are plenty of tales of miracles, but my problem with them is that the method used to report and document them does little to verify them. How do we know the account is factual? How do we know it isn't exaggerated? How many people witnessed it and from what perspective? These types of accounts represent anecdotal evidence. For me, this is a very weak form of evidence and not convincing at all.

In fact, I do hold the position that we should not accept events that seem to break the known laws of the universe unless they have been verified and documented as such. This is not the same as saying we should reject them because they don't exist. If something occurs, however strange it may seem, then we have something to be explained. So far, everything I know of has an explanation. In fact, don't you think it's curious that no event has ever occurred that clearly, with no gray area whatsoever, simply cannot be explained by science? People see strange lights that do really weird things--that can be explained. But has a human being ever disappeared and reappeared in another location, hundreds of miles away? Has a dog suddenly started speaking English? Has a glacier suddenly turned into red wine? Actually, anything that clearly, without question, can't fit within our known laws. I just think it's very convenient that miracles are generally very easy to explain in purely mundane ways.

Of course, everything depends on your definition of "Miracles", doesn't it? If one defines "Miracles" as strange events that have emotional significance and may or may not be highly improbable, then sure, those things happen a lot. But I see no reason to attribute them to supernatural powers because they are explainable within the known laws of the universe. My reference to Signs is an example of this.

There is always the possibility that a "miracle" is just something we don't understand. This is how atheists can and do reject them. But there is also the possibility that a miracle is evidence of the divine. And atheists have not been able to disprove this, except by predetermined rules that they have established themselves and the majority of the world rejects as inappropriate. No one can tell you how to discern between the two options. You have to decide that for yourself.

Matt, do you have any examples of "miracles" that we cannot understand and cannot be explained within the known laws of the universe? Or how about events we just don't understand? Give us some examples to dicsuss.

How do we avoid being duped (by religious charlatans, malevolent deities, con men, etc.)?
People can and do accept uncritically the claims of religious charlatans. Perhaps Christians are particularly vulnerable to this mistake because of their belief in miracles. But we don't have to check our brains at the door. The empty tomb stands. The resurrection appearances to hundreds of people (and specifically to non-believers like Saul of Tarsus) further support that the empty tomb was due to resurrection. We could probably add the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian community as support that something has changed. If someone found Jesus' body it would have scientifically disproven the resurrection. Then, like the Apostle Paul said, we would be crazy for being Christians.

The resurrection could have been a very compelling piece of evidence, if only there were any real evidence. But a 2,000 year old story just is not convincing, matt.

The work of the Holy Spirit in the community is not a good example of even every day miracles. Why? Statistics. Have you listened to Scott and Emery's podcast discussion regarding whether Christians are any different than the rest of the population? Statistics say no, and these don't include cultures where Christianity isn't even a significant portion of the population. Statistically speaking, there isn't enough difference to hang your hat on. So this does not come close to qualifying as anything miraculous.

But I would also add my now infamous Terminator 2 argument about radical skepticism. The position that demands absolute proof before making a decision is self-defeating. The truth is that most people (atheists included) are not that skeptical. We make decisions all the time without complete evidence, and we can't avoid being duped on occasion.

Oh, I get what you mean, now. Well, you've misunderstood again, and let me make it very clear to you so you'll know in the future.

Matt, we skeptics do not, in any way, expect "Absolute Proof" of anything. We look for realiable objective evidence.

And we do often treat religiuos claims with the same scientific scrutiny and methods as we do a purely natural claim. This is because science is the best known methodology for separating nonsense from facts. As soon as a better system is developed, we'll be happy to try it out.

Please, don't take my word on this. I would like to hear every other non-theist on this board have their say on this. Am I, Spongebob, telling it like it is? Do you agree with me?

If we really did expect such a thing as absolute proof, we would essentially be paralyzed. We wouldn't be able to make a decision or choice. Nothing is aboslute, not even my statement that nothing is absolute. We go with the best and most complete and objective information available. What is bothersome for you is that we simply find all the information and evidence about god/Jesus/miralces to be inadequate.

[JustJim]

Has a dog suddenly started speaking English?

Well, maybe not "suddenly", but I swear I've seen more than one dog say "I love you" on America's Funniest Animals videos! See? Miracles can be verified!

"A man who doesn't believe in miracles is not a realist." - David Ben-Gurion, former prime minister of Israel

Jim

[Mr. Sluagh]

How do we know the gods?
I agree with you that the gods are most appropriately known through the religions that claim allegiance to them. If I want to know what Thor is like, I should find out by studying Norse religion, not Christianity's caricature of that religion. That's only fair to Thor.

With regard to religious literature and propaganda, I understand. Too often people accept uncritically the claims of religious leaders and religious literature. I don't think the Bible and Christianity should be exempt from critical scrutiny. "The Bible can't be true because it is biased" doesn't seem like a good argument, because often biased people are right. I may not accept a political pamphlet written by Barak Obama himself as "objective proof" of his superiority for president. But is it fair for me to say, "Unless a Ron Paul supporter like the Fonz convinces me of Obama's superiority, I won't believe"? When we approach the Bible, we recognize its bias, but we ask ourselves, "Are the claims of this book true?" I have found them to be true.

It would be much better to use relatively unbiased news sources and independent information such as a candidate's previous actions in political offices and his sources of campaign funding (which, in the case of political candidates, can be verified by sources other the candidates themselves, regardless of what the candidates may say). There is little, if any similar independent information about gods. That doesn't make the biased information any more reliable. However, the fact that our only knowledge of the gods is what they want us to know is itself telling in that it implies that the gods have something to hide.

Why should we believe in miracles?
I don't necessarily think you should. I don't think Spongebob is stupid for rejecting miracles. (I think he has made assumptions that IMO are inappropriate, but I don't think he's stupid.)

But we have to ask the alternate questions, "Why shouldn't I believe in miracles?" So far, all the atheists have produced is "we shouldn't believe in miracles because they don't exist." That's not very convincing IMO. So, miracles may be; they may not be. We have to make a decision. Spongebob has made his. I have made mine.

There is always the possibility that a "miracle" is just something we don't understand. This is how atheists can and do reject them. But there is also the possibility that a miracle is evidence of the divine. And atheists have not been able to disprove this, except by predetermined rules that they have established themselves and the majority of the world rejects as inappropriate. No one can tell you how to discern between the two options. You have to decide that for yourself.

How do we avoid being duped (by religious charlatans, malevolent deities, con men, etc.)?
People can and do accept uncritically the claims of religious charlatans. Perhaps Christians are particularly vulnerable to this mistake because of their belief in miracles. But we don't have to check our brains at the door. The empty tomb stands. The resurrection appearances to hundreds of people (and specifically to non-believers like Saul of Tarsus) further support that the empty tomb was due to resurrection. We could probably add the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian community as support that something has changed. If someone found Jesus' body it would have scientifically disproven the resurrection. Then, like the Apostle Paul said, we would be crazy for being Christians.

But I would also add my now infamous Terminator 2 argument about radical skepticism. The position that demands absolute proof before making a decision is self-defeating. The truth is that most people (atheists included) are not that skeptical. We make decisions all the time without complete evidence, and we can't avoid being duped on occasion.

You keep accusing people of not having categories for miracles. This seems nonsensical, as the very definition of a miracle is essentially "an event that falls into no preexisting category". Even if the resurrection happened, that tells us nothing until we can figure out how YHVH did it and why. YHVH has a very simplistic and convenient explanation of how, but there are no independent sources through which to corroborate it. (And your excuse for him is, as far as he can tell, that he is omnipotent, and thus incapable of offering further proof?) His explanation of why is, in very sunny terms, that he wants human allies for when he invades Earth, burns everyone who opposes him, and rules over his followers in an eternal totalitarian kingdom. And you're willing to pledge your life, soul, and absolute trust and devotion to this entity just because he's offered you immortality (evil sorcerers for Christ?).

I don't know about Spongebob, but my skepticism is nowhere near radical. I'm merely considering the source.

[whoosanightowl]

Spongebob wrote:

Please, don't take my word on this. I would like to hear every other non-theist on this board have their say on this. Am I, Spongebob, telling it like it is? Do you agree with me?

If we really did expect such a thing as absolute proof, we would essentially be paralyzed. We wouldn't be able to make a decision or choice. Nothing is aboslute, not even my statement that nothing is absolute. We go with the best and most complete and objective information available. What is bothersome for you is that we simply find all the information and evidence about god/Jesus/miralces to be inadequate.

Yes I agree with you, Spongebob, I am willing to consider a miracle category as soon as there is verifiable, objective evidence of a real miracle. Not something like "I almost was hit by a truck, but God miraculously intervened in time and the driver swerved to miss me". Or "I had this lump, and now it's gone, so I'm sure God performed a healing miracle on me".
No, I don't need absolute proof, science can't even provide that, but I do need something valid to base my belief on. If there were really hundreds of people who witnessed seeing the risen Jesus, where are their written testimonies? It looks more to me like Paul was just blowing smoke, making such claims in order to gain more converts. They were after all his bread and butter. And since the people he was writing to already believed in supernatural miracles, they probably didn't feel the need to check out the authenticity of his claims, just like many people today who believe just about anything they're told.