The Psychological Reasons Maybe

[Keep The Reason]

Yes, but even reasonists are subject to bias. That was my point. Not that reasonists believe in myths too (though I believe that many do), but that we all tend to wrap ourselves in our own worldview, while seeing others' as flawed or outright wrong.

Of course we're subject to bias, but our foundational process is not to abandon the development of conclusions based in evidence. Its the opposite-- when we reach an impasse, we either hold off judgment or seek yet more evidence. The theist does not do this. The theist starts off with faith claims and then looks for evidence. Some is there. A book, an event, a tradition. Fine. There are degrees to which this might be convincing.

But if objections can be found, over and over, and these go unaddressed, and rather than admit the issues, the thest instead keeps running back to the faith mechanism, this is a bias writ large. I may have a bias in things, but what will kill my bias dead is evidence to the contrary.

Here's an example. I was raised a homophobe. It was the way my local culture perceived gays, and I was raised n that culture. then I went to college in Greenwich Village in NYC, and the evidence presented to me was such that these folks were just people. My bias against gays was challenged by my experiences and friendships with people who happened to be gay, and this turned me around 180 degrees (though my intense Christianity at the time was a huge impediment to my success at this).

The evidence to the contrary that theism is valid is science and scientific discovery. There is simply a better explanation as to why existence is, other than the infamous god did it fallacy. And while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, there comes a point where the parallel evidence of other cultures with mythologies simply allows us to see that even the popular mythologies are no more a right view of how things work than are the discarded ones.

The cure for bias is more evidence. More and more and more. Not stopping when you get to where you want to be and saying, "Ok, from this point on? Insert faith here".

[Keep The Reason]

On the other hand Keep the Reason has persistently avoided my challenges to him and I don't know if that is deliberate or because he does not understand what I am saying. He does not seem to see any problem in saying 'All valid truth claims must be demonstrated' and I am weary of pointing out the problems with that. I also find it exhausting having to spend ages arguing points that have been widely accepted as proved for the last few centuries or even the last couple of millennia. I don't have a problem with his challenging received ideas but he does not seem to be aware that these ideas ever have been discussed or how the discussion went. Unless he is using some very subtle Socratic technique and is only feigning ignorance.

I am not avoiding your challenges -- we have wrestled this back and forth. Also, I've conceded that we have to assume Laws of Logic, but let's close this out with a more detailed concession.

I concede that a global statement "valid knowledge has to be demonstrated" should be qualified to "SHARING valid knowledge has to be demonstrated". This means, if I understand you right, that someone can have a valid knowledge claim (like, "I ate a sandwhich 31 years ago on a Sunday afternoon"), and it would be true, that 31 years ago, in private, the person asserting this had eaten a sandwich, and thus was asserting a knowledge claim that is valid.

Now, I have conceded this point. Clearly and unequivocably.

Having said that, I cannot help but come back to the whole point of the word "demonstration". To me, "Demonstration" is the act of sharing a claim with others that passes onto them valid knowledge claims. Philosophically, of course you could forever drearily argue that you saying "you see green" is valid, but I can't know it because you can't demonstrate it to me, but nonetheless it's still true-- because all I need do is look at the "green" myself and concur. Even blind, I could feel the color temperature of green if need be; this, as ephemeral as it might seem, is still light years more demonstration than that of the assertions of: "sin exists" or "there is a god" or "Jesus is the messiah".

But other than this version of the argument, which I concede, there is no actual practical application to it. If you want a claim to be accepted as valid knowledge,m then you have to demonstrate it's true. I can let that standard slide on something like whether or not you ate a sandwich in 1982 because the impact of the assertion is of zero import. But when you make similar claims about the existence of an all powerful, all seeing, all knowing creator of all existence, the claim needs to have a lot more gravitas than that of what sort of lunch you had when punk rock was at its zentih.

Sometimes what's needed is a visual aid, so I created these 3 simple cartoons to illustrate the difference and what I mean by demonstrating a valid knowledge claim.

The first cartoon is a demonstrably valid knowledge claim:

emcsq.jpg (205.41 KiB) Viewed 162 times

The second is an assertion that is made under the "valid knowledge" argument Moonwood affirms; however, to whom it is "valid" and of what value this validitiy may have in any practical sense is totally up in the air:

godexists.jpg (207.34 KiB) Viewed 162 times

And finally, how is it indistinguishable from this claim (is the claim valid knowledge or not? How do we decide?)

napoleon.jpg (205.01 KiB) Viewed 162 times

Cartoon 1 is knowledge being shared and supported by corroborating data.

Versions 2 and 3 are assertions that cannot be shared in any meaningful way, other than they are related stories. We are told them, and we are told they are valid truths, but there is no way to corrborate them. They might as well be invented fictions for the amount of gravitas that exists that they are facts.

But if only the perosn who asserts them can lay claim to their validity, then that may be the case, but it is of little or no practical application. It is the zenith of a Cassandra Complex -- Cassandra may have prophesied the future, but her impact was zero because no one would believe her.

So I hope the challenge is now met; I've conceded where concession is warranted, and I've clearly illustrated my position. We are, I believe, right back to square one. The theist can assert and assert and assert until the crack of doom, but until they can demonstrate the veracity of their assertions, there is no compelling reasons to believe them. None.

[humanguy]

Humanguy makes a really good challenge and I fluff answering him by being too brief and avoiding the thrust of his question. Rian seemed to think I should give him descriptions of my personal experiences and I was willing to do that but would do it knowing that he or Keep the Reason or someone would say, 'But that doesn't demonstrate there is a God.' and of course it does not.

Not fair, Moon, not fair at all, because you do not know what I would say in response to your account of your personal experience that led you to be a Christian, there is no way you could know that.

Even I don't know that, for the basic reason that I can't know what you would say.

Give me a chance.

Where were you when you experienced God in Christ? How did it come about? What happened to you, and why were you absolutely convinced that what happened was in fact experiencing God in Christ?

[Moonwood the Hare]

I am not avoiding your challenges -- we have wrestled this back and forth. Also, I've conceded that we have to assume Laws of Logic, but let's close this out with a more detailed concession.

I concede that a global statement "valid knowledge has to be demonstrated" should be qualified to "SHARING valid knowledge has to be demonstrated". This means, if I understand you right, that someone can have a valid knowledge claim (like, "I ate a sandwhich 31 years ago on a Sunday afternoon"), and it would be true, that 31 years ago, in private, the person asserting this had eaten a sandwich, and thus was asserting a knowledge claim that is valid.

Now, I have conceded this point. Clearly and unequivocably.

We have wrestled with this and to acknowledge that private claims can be valid does move us forward. Such claims can also be valid grounds for action. My belief that in private I stole money can be a valid reason for confessing even if no one saw me. You have shared the claim "SHARING valid knowledge has to be demonstrated". but you have not demonstrated it to be true and given it is a global claim you cannot do that so at the heart of your system there is still an undemonstrated global claim

Having said that, I cannot help but come back to the whole point of the word "demonstration". To me, "Demonstration" is the act of sharing a claim with others that passes onto them valid knowledge claims. Philosophically, of course you could forever drearily argue that you saying "you see green" is valid, but I can't know it because you can't demonstrate it to me, but nonetheless it's still true-- because all I need do is look at the "green" myself and concur. Even blind, I could feel the color temperature of green if need be; this, as epheme as far as I can see this concession does not move us an inch forwardsral as it might seem, is still light years more demonstration than that of the assertions of: "sin exists" or "there is a god" or "Jesus is the messiah".

Yes but you have now agreed that there are several different kinds of claims that we can know by direct experience. These claims are not all of the same kind as they differ from each other in a number of ways. So the next question is whether there is anything they all have in common in which they differ from religious claims or whether each kind of claim has its own kind of justification. If the former then what is this shared factor and if not then you would be saying I accept the laws of logic because I think no one can deny them without implicitly inferring them and the laws of inference because lots of other people accept them and incorrigible self evident beliefs because they are incorrigible and so on and it all starts to sound like special pleading. In other words you can assert that religious claims are different but can you say why they are different.

But other than this version of the argument, which I concede, there is no actual practical application to it. If you want a claim to be accepted as valid knowledge,m then you have to demonstrate it's true. I can let that standard slide on something like whether or not you ate a sandwich in 1982 because the impact of the assertion is of zero import. But when you make similar claims about the existence of an all powerful, all seeing, all knowing creator of all existence, the claim needs to have a lot more gravitas than that of what sort of lunch you had when punk rock was at its zentih.

Yes but there is no reason why claims from personal experience need to be trivial just because you have given a trivial example. If someone claims his life was changed when he heard The Undertones Teenage Kicks or Tom Robinson's Sing if you're Glad to be Gay I don't have grounds to doubt him.

Cartoon 1 is knowledge being shared and supported by corroborating data.

Versions 2 and 3 are assertions that cannot be shared in any meaningful way, other than they are related stories. We are told them, and we are told they are valid truths, but there is no way to corrborate them. They might as well be invented fictions for the amount of gravitas that exists that they are facts.

But if only the perosn who asserts them can lay claim to their validity, then that may be the case, but it is of little or no practical application. It is the zenith of a Cassandra Complex -- Cassandra may have prophesied the future, but her impact was zero because no one would believe her.

Yes corroborating data is important for a scientific theory. We cannot use the data to demonstrate that E=MC5 is true - just keeping the punk theme going. Did you ever hear Kick out the Jams? - but we can use the data to show the theory is valid. But this does not demonstrate that all claims need this data to be valid. The question of how you work with the mentally ill person, how you know he is mentally ill and so on are quite complex but I do not see any case for beginning with doubt and suspicion about his experience.

So I hope the challenge is now met; I've conceded where concession is warranted, and I've clearly illustrated my position. We are, I believe, right back to square one. The theist can assert and assert and assert until the crack of doom, but until they can demonstrate the veracity of their assertions, there is no compelling reasons to believe them. None.

You will see there is one challenge I think you never met. The compelling reasons to believe come from experience, as indeed they do for the schizophrenic. Personally I tend to respect the voices as far as I can though it is not best in all cases. Do you know of any case where a person suffering from the kind of delusion you describe has been cured by the kind of argument you are using. I may not have valid grounds for believing he is Napoleon but that does not mean he does not.

[Keep The Reason]

Yes corroborating data is important for a scientific theory. We cannot use the data to demonstrate that E=MC5 is true - just keeping the punk theme going. Did you ever hear Kick out the Jams? - but we can use the data to show the theory is valid. But this does not demonstrate that all claims need this data to be valid.

I part ways with you here. It's empirically supported. It's the way we know a chair holds you up is both valid and true. It does because it's been shown to. I get the whole ivory tower mishmash about how yopu have toi "proive it every itme" -- I just think that's fine for a classroom discussion, and not reality. So let's set an impasse on that one-- I'm not going to persuade you (though I truly doubt you ever bother to test every chair you sit in before you do so, or every other action -- will you "properly swallow" your next bite of food? Well, you better test the hypothesis-- can't rely on your decades+ experience of eating-- who know, you may choike and the hypothesis would fail!) and you aren't going to persuade me.

The question of how you work with the mentally ill person, how you know he is mentally ill and so on are quite complex but I do not see any case for beginning with doubt and suspicion about his experience.

Of course, this is precisely how we begin to establish someone is mentally ill. We doubt their experience is true. Unless you read minds, there is no other way. If I walk down the street and happen by someone who is behaving erratically and mumbling that they are Kaiser Wilhelm and they must collect daisy flower extract to set off a volcano on the moon Io -- it is precisely this experience they are relating that tells me that the person does not have all his wheels on the tracks.

You will see there is one challenge I think you never met. The compelling reasons to believe come from experience, as indeed they do for the schizophrenic. Personally I tend to respect the voices as far as I can though it is not best in all cases. Do you know of any case where a person suffering from the kind of delusion you describe has been cured by the kind of argument you are using. I may not have valid grounds for believing he is Napoleon but that does not mean he does not.

I think if you think anyone who thinks they are a dead late 18th century French Emperor has any valid grounds for that belief, then you are demanding to be categorized with that person in terms of your grasp of reality. And no, I do not think argument would convince them they weren't Napoleon, but then, argument and even evidence doesn't tend to convince certain theists of their outlandish beliefs either. No matter how much evidence is placed before a YEC for example, it is very rare to argue them out of the delusion that existance is 6,000 years old. And this is a delusion, as far as the definition of "delusion" has any merit or efficacy. Not being able to argue them out of it merely means they are entrenched in their erroneous beliewfs; it doesn't mean that their "experience may be such that they have a valid belief". Poppy-cock.

So if you want to compare what these two types of individuals -- the Napoleon believer and the god believer have in common, then be my guest, but the answer isn't going to be in granting the lunatic some grounding that they might be having not a delusion but a valid epiphany of who they really are. Which is what I opine the theist is forced to do because one of the other options is to admit you might be just as delusional. Which is why you are doing it. Because if the Napoleon-ite is nuts... well, then why aren't you the same?

[Moonwood the Hare]

Humanguy makes a really good challenge and I fluff answering him by being too brief and avoiding the thrust of his question. Rian seemed to think I should give him descriptions of my personal experiences and I was willing to do that but would do it knowing that he or Keep the Reason or someone would say, 'But that doesn't demonstrate there is a God.' and of course it does not.

Not fair, Moon, not fair at all, because you do not know what I would say in response to your account of your personal experience that led you to be a Christian, there is no way you could know that.

Even I don't know that, for the basic reason that I can't know what you would say.

Give me a chance.

Where were you when you experienced God in Christ? How did it come about? What happened to you, and why were you absolutely convinced that what happened was in fact experiencing God in Christ?

Okay. Two more provisos though I do not believe now because of an experience I had then or even a series of past experiences in isolation from what I experience now and I did not have an experience and infer that this was God in Christ, the experience itself was belief producing. So your last question is not likely to get an answer anymore than if I said I had encountered a zebra which is a black and white animal that looks a bit like a horse and you said 'and what made you absolutely convinced this was a black and white animal that looks a bit like a horse?'

I had become quite hostile to Christianity in my late teens. I was never an atheist but although I was practicing a hindu form of meditation some people found some of my attitudes incompatible with that and saw me as a destructive or frightening kind of person. I met some Christians and got talking to them. A lot of them were evangelicals (though not in the American sense where evangelicals are often extreme fundamentalists) and some were Anglo-Catholics. I was drawn to what I saw though repelled by some Christian beleifs and especiallly by Christian exclusivism, the whole this is the only way thing. Encouraged by these people I started to read the Bible and then some one lent me a book. It was by a guy called Michael Green and called 'You Must be Joking' and was frankly not very convincing. It was a sort of catalogue of popular reasons for avoiding Christianity. So I read a few chapters and gave up. Then the Christian Union were having a mission and I went to one of the meetings. By that time I had shifted from hostility to finding Christianity quite attractive so I asked how people get faith. The person gave me what I still feel was a wise answer. She didn't try to give me some reasons for believing Christianity is true but suggested that I ask God to reveal himself to me. A few days later someone came in my room and found the Michael Green book lying around and said she had heard it was a good back (really it isn't though some of Green's books are worth a read). I decided to give it another shot. One night when I was reading about the crucifiction in the book I found there were tears in my eyes. I didn't feel highly emotional but I felt it was time to make a step forward so I got on my knees beside the bed. I said to Jesus that if he was there I wanted him in my life. I was not sure there was anyone there who could do that but then he did come, I felt his presence and a peace I had not known in many years and I knew he was there. I made the mistake many new Christians make of thinking this feeling would last forever in that form and that was not the case but I do still encounter Christ as a living reality for me.

[Keep The Reason]

I was not sure there was anyone there who could do that but then he did come, I felt his presence and a peace I had not known in many years and I knew he was there.

So this stands as a fair example of what atheists mean by "special knowledge". As a one-time Christian myself, I did this type of thing plenty of times, and never felt anything-- no presence, no particular peace, nothing. And I wasn't even hostile to it-- I was "doing god's work" and open to such an experience. But nothing ever came about. And I did it in times of certainty and in times of doubt, in good times and bad times-- but nothing. Consistently nothing.

I've related this to theists before, and generally the replies run the gamut from: "Your fault." (various reasons why, like I was not sincere, or I was testing, or any number of mind-reading assertions that were not true), to, "Gee, I'm sorry you didn't get what you needed." The latter is more sympathetic, but really only underscores that at least in my case, I don't/didn't rate the experience that came to you and others. Maybe god likes you better'n me, lol.

I've certainly had emotional responses to the story of the NT. I couldn't even help not tearing up at Mel Gibson's "Passion" -- though truth be told I also got angry at the endless ways he kept blaming the Jews and presented the Romans as if they were helpless, blameless pawns of the Sanhedrin. But anyway, the story of suffering and love and sacrifice-- these are potent and can bring about emotional responses-- in fact, this is what makes them important myths that can help motivate human actions. It doesn't indicate though that they are objectively truthful versions of reality (and indeed, other mythic traditions also can compel such emotional responses, and this doesn't mean they are true either).

But at the end of the day, if the Christian worldview is valid, then the story of your experience turns on some interesting (or troubling) points: You got the special knowledge. You get saved. I (and those like me) did not get the special knowledge, hence I am (and they are) not saved. You were hostile, yet apparently deserved the presence and the message. I was dedicated, but apparently did (do) not rate the same presence you experienced. Then there are those who were raised with an utterly conflicting/different tradition, who never think to even ask or supplicate; they are unlikely to receive the special knowledge as well, hence are as unsaved as I.

At the very least, I would think that an objective critique of these odd metrics is not outside of a reasonable response. And also it would seem that Hell will be very crowded.

And at this point, it all now seems very silly to me, and the whole thing has much more likely psychological reasons for being extant than the idea of a god, heaven, Jesus, sin, and so on. So if I'm "closed off" to it now, well so be it. I'm certainly happier this way, and more fulfilled, and my actions towards people are not much different than before, so ethically and morally, not a thing has changed (I actually like people more now, though in my conflicts here I suppose that isn't readily evident)

[humanguy]

One night when I was reading about the crucifiction in the book I found there were tears in my eyes. I didn't feel highly emotional but I felt it was time to make a step forward so I got on my knees beside the bed. I said to Jesus that if he was there I wanted him in my life. I was not sure there was anyone there who could do that but then he did come, I felt his presence and a peace I had not known in many years and I knew he was there.

I notice that there are often tears involved, that and a feeling of wanting. I don't know what that means, just making a comment.

It's interesting to me that you said you felt a peace you had not known in many years. This tells me that you had felt such a peace prior to your spiritual experience. I don't know what that means either. Just commenting.

Thank you for sharing that, Moon.

[cleve]

I was not sure there was anyone there who could do that but then he did come, I felt his presence and a peace I had not known in many years and I knew he was there.

So this stands as a fair example of what atheists mean by "special knowledge". As a one-time Christian myself, I did this type of thing plenty of times, and never felt anything-- no presence, no particular peace, nothing. And I wasn't even hostile to it-- I was "doing god's work" and open to such an experience. But nothing ever came about. And I did it in times of certainty and in times of doubt, in good times and bad times-- but nothing. Consistently nothing.

I've related this to theists before, and generally the replies run the gamut from: "Your fault." (various reasons why, like I was not sincere, or I was testing, or any number of mind-reading assertions that were not true), to, "Gee, I'm sorry you didn't get what you needed." The latter is more sympathetic, but really only underscores that at least in my case, I don't/didn't rate the experience that came to you and others. Maybe god likes you better'n me, lol.

I've certainly had emotional responses to the story of the NT. I couldn't even help not tearing up at Mel Gibson's "Passion" -- though truth be told I also got angry at the endless ways he kept blaming the Jews and presented the Romans as if they were helpless, blameless pawns of the Sanhedrin. But anyway, the story of suffering and love and sacrifice-- these are potent and can bring about emotional responses-- in fact, this is what makes them important myths that can help motivate human actions. It doesn't indicate though that they are objectively truthful versions of reality (and indeed, other mythic traditions also can compel such emotional responses, and this doesn't mean they are true either).

But at the end of the day, if the Christian worldview is valid, then the story of your experience turns on some interesting (or troubling) points: You got the special knowledge. You get saved. I (and those like me) did not get the special knowledge, hence I am (and they are) not saved. You were hostile, yet apparently deserved the presence and the message. I was dedicated, but apparently did (do) not rate the same presence you experienced. Then there are those who were raised with an utterly conflicting/different tradition, who never think to even ask or supplicate; they are unlikely to receive the special knowledge as well, hence are as unsaved as I.

At the very least, I would think that an objective critique of these odd metrics is not outside of a reasonable response. And also it would seem that Hell will be very crowded.

And at this point, it all now seems very silly to me, and the whole thing has much more likely psychological reasons for being extant than the idea of a god, heaven, Jesus, sin, and so on. So if I'm "closed off" to it now, well so be it. I'm certainly happier this way, and more fulfilled, and my actions towards people are not much different than before, so ethically and morally, not a thing has changed (I actually like people more now, though in my conflicts here I suppose that isn't readily evident)

KTR,
Another view on the concept being used by Christians - being saved:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFM_Etql ... 431FF4C506
If you understand this, you will have a better understanding as to the multitude of ways that humans can twist the meanings of already-distorted interpretations of translations of the scriptures.

[Keep The Reason]

I'm listening to it (even at 1:45:00!) and will note what I am hearing...

Note: "The problem is you can't translate Greek into English properly" (twice now, by 8 minute mark)

Uh... god is sort of responsible for that issue. Can't he get his word out right? This should be the easiest thing in the world for a super deity... but... apparently, it's not.

Note: At 11 minutes he got into the Mafia and the Kennedys re: Agape. All to explain that Agape cannot be translated into love.

Now I'm left with the logical question: Why does god let so many people mess with his message, especially given that by doing so, millions get the WRONG MESSAGE? Getting nthe wrong messasge here isn't like mispelling a word -- because the "wrong message" according to Christians -- is damnation.

And is it really rational to expect people to ALL learn Greek so everyone of them can get the "real" message? The vast majority of people not only don't know and didn't know Greek, the vast majority didn't even know Greek language existed.

Note: Now he's talking about his family boasting about couches. I'm losing interest. At least the mob stuff was a bit more dramatic than his cousin's couch.

Note: At 19:00, we learn that the bible says no to "self-esteem". That such is not important, and we have turned self-esteem into g-o-o-d. Yeah, there's a good message-- don't have self-esteem. Precisely what a cult leader says in order to maintain control over you. The quesiton nags at me as I sith tohorugh this-- why do people allow themselves to fall into the thrall of such nonsense? What is the driving mechaniusm? Is it a need for deceptiuvely "easy" answers that are not only not easy, but incomprenhensible as well? My disdain for the bible is supported once again. In Greek no less.

At 23 minutes now. This lecture is reinforcing in me that far less people have the method to salvation given the extraordinary specialized knowledge required to decipher this tangled twisting, enigma of a message. I cannot imagine, for instance, the average commuter having any clue that this degree of study is even needed, let alone the idea they would do this degree of research. Now you can blame individuals for that, but why not just make the process simple? Give your life to Jesus, he shows up, shakes your hand and says, "Thanks for joining."

Note: At 31.30 minutes, he's showing how to use a parsing guide, which I already know. And he's stumbling through it himself.

Here's what you do -- tell me what time in the video I can find this explanation on "being saved" and I'll cut to the chase. Otherwise, I'm not throwing away another hour and ten minutes on a mind-numbing sermon that is going nowhere. You believe you have etenrtity to look forward to so you enjoy this. My timespan is finite and I won't be getting these minutes back.

[cleve]

Here's what you do -- tell me what time in the video I can find this explanation on "being saved" and I'll cut to the chase.

1:00:01

[cleve]

I'm listening to it (even at 1:45:00!) and will note what I am hearing...

Note: "The problem is you can't translate Greek into English properly" (twice now, by 8 minute mark)

Uh... god is sort of responsible for that issue. Can't he get his word out right? This should be the easiest thing in the world for a super deity... but... apparently, it's not.

KTR,
What's your reasoning for accusing God of not being able to get his word out right? What are your opinions about the accuracy of the Textus Receptus? Do you think God could have handled the matter regarding the Textus Receptus in a better way? In itself, is the Textus Receptus satisfactory for dealing with the double nature of mankind? What I'm referring to is how God was wise and understanding enough to let man sort out and learn through his own confused (double) nature.
From your perspective, what do you think would have been a better way for God to have us learn about Him (for example, the desciption of mankind's beginning in God's garden)? Based on the book of Genesis, do you think that God wanted us to become like Him? If so, do you think God's way of handling the matter was wrong?

[Keep The Reason]

KTR,
What's your reasoning for accusing God of not being able to get his word out right? What are your opinions about the accuracy of the Textus Receptus? Do you think the way God handled the Textus Receptus was wrong for the duality of mankind?
From your perspective, what do you think would have been a better way for God to have us learn about Him (for example, the desciption of mankind's beginning in God's garden)? Based on the book of Genesis, do you think that God wanted us to become like Him? If so, do you think God's way of handling the matter was wrong?

I believe the entire swath of questions you ask is precisely what one would expect if god is a construct of mankind and a mythology.

It is like asking, "What is the reason for Persephone eating pomegranate seeds condemning her to live with Hades for 6 months of the year?"

[Moonwood the Hare]

Yes corroborating data is important for a scientific theory. We cannot use the data to demonstrate that E=MC5 is true - just keeping the punk theme going. Did you ever hear Kick out the Jams? - but we can use the data to show the theory is valid. But this does not demonstrate that all claims need this data to be valid.

I part ways with you here. It's empirically supported. It's the way we know a chair holds you up is both valid and true. It does because it's been shown to. I get the whole ivory tower mishmash about how yopu have toi "proive it every itme" -- I just think that's fine for a classroom discussion, and not reality. So let's set an impasse on that one-- I'm not going to persuade you (though I truly doubt you ever bother to test every chair you sit in before you do so, or every other action -- will you "properly swallow" your next bite of food? Well, you better test the hypothesis-- can't rely on your decades+ experience of eating-- who know, you may choike and the hypothesis would fail!) and you aren't going to persuade me.

Yes rules of thumb are important in daily life and a lot of routine application of scientific theory. But in the history and application of science on a broader scale these issues become important. So you can use Newton's mechanics or optics for example as long as you are working with things moving fairly slowly and not to near anything with a huge mass like a star. What you cannot do is assume that these laws apply universally in all circumstances and you can't use rules of thumb to decide in a general way what is and is not possible or valid.

The question of how you work with the mentally ill person, how you know he is mentally ill and so on are quite complex but I do not see any case for beginning with doubt and suspicion about his experience.

Of course, this is precisely how we begin to establish someone is mentally ill. We doubt their experience is true. Unless you read minds, there is no other way. If I walk down the street and happen by someone who is behaving erratically and mumbling that they are Kaiser Wilhelm and they must collect daisy flower extract to set off a volcano on the moon Io -- it is precisely this experience they are relating that tells me that the person does not have all his wheels on the tracks.

I don't thinks so. A lot of this is culturally relative. For example the Dalai Lama believes that as well as being who he is now he is someone else, several other people in fact, who lived a long time ago and he bases some of his behaviour on this belief. That does not make me question his sanity. We begin to detect mental health problems by a person's failure to cope.

You will see there is one challenge I think you never met. The compelling reasons to believe come from experience, as indeed they do for the schizophrenic. Personally I tend to respect the voices as far as I can though it is not best in all cases. Do you know of any case where a person suffering from the kind of delusion you describe has been cured by the kind of argument you are using. I may not have valid grounds for believing he is Napoleon but that does not mean he does not.

I think if you think anyone who thinks they are a dead late 18th century French Emperor has any valid grounds for that belief, then you are demanding to be categorized with that person in terms of your grasp of reality. And no, I do not think argument would convince them they weren't Napoleon, but then, argument and even evidence doesn't tend to convince certain theists of their outlandish beliefs either. No matter how much evidence is placed before a YEC for example, it is very rare to argue them out of the delusion that existance is 6,000 years old. And this is a delusion, as far as the definition of "delusion" has any merit or efficacy. Not being able to argue them out of it merely means they are entrenched in their erroneous beliewfs; it doesn't mean that their "experience may be such that they have a valid belief". Poppy-cock.

The definition of delusion is a false belief impervious to reson. The problem is that a lot of people hold these. You do yourself as I have demonstrated several times. This does not make me question your sanity though other people have wondered. Things like delusions and halucinations are symptoms of mental illness but their mere presence does not imply mental illness. If I had a method of knowing the truth that could never deliever a false belief I would have a method that was not only invalid but also infalible. I don't think human beings have a method of that kind.

So if you want to compare what these two types of individuals -- the Napoleon believer and the god believer have in common, then be my guest, but the answer isn't going to be in granting the lunatic some grounding that they might be having not a delusion but a valid epiphany of who they really are. Which is what I opine the theist is forced to do because one of the other options is to admit you might be just as delusional. Which is why you are doing it. Because if the Napoleon-ite is nuts... well, then why aren't you the same?

It's a good question. But unusual beliefs inthemselves are not sufficient grounds for insanity. Nor is the use of reflection on who one is. I was discussing this recently with a health care professional. For reasons I can't go into the idea of belief in Angels came up and she pointed out that she was aware of several senior healthcare workers who believe in angels and act on that belief. If you look at the field of therapeutic psychology you will find people with a whole range of beliefs. Some are materialists as Freud was, some are theists of various kinds, some hold new age beliefs. Rogers and Jung were both involved with mediums at various times. Some of the greatest modern psychological healers have held the kind of non-materialsist views you regard as nuts. Most of the people involved in that kind of work are aware of the importance of the non-rational and non-empirical in human mental health. So the idea that human beings can only be mentally healthy if they base their beliefs on the empirically demonstrable is a hard one to maintain. In the end we determine who is sane and who is insane by looking at paradigm cases of beliefs and behavious not by some kind of checklist of correct belief formation strategies.

[Keep The Reason]

Yes rules of thumb are important in daily life and a lot of routine application of scientific theory. But in the history and application of science on a broader scale these issues become important. So you can use Newton's mechanics or optics for example as long as you are working with things moving fairly slowly and not to near anything with a huge mass like a star. What you cannot do is assume that these laws apply universally in all circumstances and you can't use rules of thumb to decide in a general way what is and is not possible or valid.

And I conceded this. So in terms of the classroom, you're right. In terms of how we actually function on a day to day basis -- I'm right. Let's stop flogging this dead horse, shall we?

I don't thinks so. A lot of this is culturally relative. For example the Dalai Lama believes that as well as being who he is now he is someone else, several other people in fact, who lived a long time ago and he bases some of his behaviour on this belief. That does not make me question his sanity. We begin to detect mental health problems by a person's failure to cope.

I can easily conclude he does have a failure to cope with reality. He may be a nice enough person, but to think you are the reincarnation of someone else and behave accoridn g to that bleief is a very accurate way of defining a perosn's inability to cope with reality. Now, until he can demonstrate to me this "inner voice" or --whatever it is-- of his is something to base validity on, I have no compelling reason to believe him any more or less than I do to believe your "Jesus came to you" story, or the guy who thinks he's Napoleon story.

As we all agree, the only way to share that information in a way that others can accept its validity is by demonstrating it.

The definition of delusion is a false belief impervious to reson. The problem is that a lot of people hold these. You do yourself as I have demonstrated several times.

Where?

This does not make me question your sanity though other people have wondered.

And the way they can discover if I am or not is to reach out and discover more of the information I can deliver. So bring it on, and let's see where it leads. If you're arguing that theists consider me delusional for not seeing their god, then they best have a way to present that god in a truly rational manner. Because that hasn't happened. Even your "awkening" only came to you in an alleged one-on-one that no one can verify. You're either right, wrong, or crazy. I think you're wrong about this experience, p[articularly in that it's not unique to people who call out for "Jesus" as anyone of a contradicting rewligion can easily attest (i.e., there are people who are Moslem, Scientologist, Jewish, Hindu who can all lay claim to similar expertiences that have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus) and that alone stands as evidence that someone your side must be wrong, or deluded.

Things like delusions and halucinations are symptoms of mental illness but their mere presence does not imply mental illness. If I had a method of knowing the truth that could never deliever a false belief I would have a method that was not only invalid but also infalible. I don't think human beings have a method of that kind.

Well, the symptoms indicate the person suffering from them is one step closer to the root cause (mental illness). I do not relate anything that is either delusional nor hallucinatory-- my rejection of religious claims is not based on just something that floated across my mind one day, or a "Visitiation from a spirit" (like your story entails) but rather in a study of the subject and a journey that incorporated what people like you claim is true, and applying it to my life circumstances. None of it has come true or has any inkling of being real, and indeed the vast amount of extant evidence shows it is in no way different from fictions that you yourself even adopt as fiction (myths). So I merely count your religious beliefs amongst the other mythic bleiefs that others have that you reject as fact as well. In this case I may be singularly deluded (we all may be hallucinating) but you are doubly deluded and still a step closer to that mental illness in any event.

It's a good question. But unusual beliefs in themselves are not sufficient grounds for insanity. Nor is the use of reflection on who one is. I was discussing this recently with a health care professional. For reasons I can't go into the idea of belief in Angels came up and she pointed out that she was aware of several senior healthcare workers who believe in angels and act on that belief. If you look at the field of therapeutic psychology you will find people with a whole range of beliefs. Some are materialists as Freud was, some are theists of various kinds, some hold new age beliefs. Rogers and Jung were both involved with mediums at various times. Some of the greatest modern psychological healers have held the kind of non-materialsist views you regard as nuts. Most of the people involved in that kind of work are aware of the importance of the non-rational and non-empirical in human mental health. So the idea that human beings can only be mentally healthy if they base their beliefs on the empirically demonstrable is a hard one to maintain. In the end we determine who is sane and who is insane by looking at paradigm cases of beliefs and behavious not by some kind of checklist of correct belief formation strategies.

And I am not dedicated to the idea of declaring people sane or insane based on these beliefs either. Nor would I say that only empirically demonstrable beliefs acts as sole arbiter of one's sanity. I take Sam Harris' position on this, which is that there is "sanity in numbers". But that opens up a whole can of worms about the nature of morality.

For instance, there are many debates here and elsewhere about the alleged objectivity and subjectivity of morals. Well, this branch of the discussion cements that morality must be subjective, because it ultimately depends upon what a majority of people believe. 2000 years ago, it was not uncommon for 12 and 13 year old girls to be sold into marriage. That was the morality of the day. Today, we'd consider that child abuse. But today, if 6.5 billion people found it to be of no concern or challenge whatsoever, it would NOT be child abuse. Even the 12 year olds sold into marriage would shrug and say, "This is the way of things". We see that now with women forced to wear burkas and not allow themsevles or their daughters to be educated in more primitive Islamic countries. We see it with YECs as well. The religious beliefs hold utter sway and nothing else trumps these.