sure, but my point was what is effectively the same type of reasoning is involved in parsing the probable color range of apples and the probable truth of ancient miraculous claims. all-powerful is pretty vague. judging is vague. but still assuming you mean this in the traditional religious sense i would point to among other things all of cosmology and evolution as evidence the universe including humans and human behavior are cogs in a giant indifferent machine leaving nothing to judge, & neuroscience as evidence the mind is a physical construct. this seems like unnecessary semantic wiggling. a question that is in principal testable but currently is not due to limitation of resources or technology isn't answered by philosophy or religious revelation or other means either. it doesn't become another type of question. so why infer that it does by saying it isn't scientific?
"Probable" color range? You've lost me. In order to speak of any kind of objectivity, we have to at least accept that our current measurements have meaning. There's a huge difference between disproving stories of the ancient past (however improbable as they may be) and establishing (and being able to repeatedly test) the frequency of light shining from an apple in my hand. But this is all tangential to our original question -- I agree with you that science can evaluate the probability of those kinds of claims, even if it cannot falsify them. Cogs? "Indifferent machine"? I see no empirical test here. I see metaphor and subjective descriptions. Show me the science! But it is, and it does! You and I may not accept those answers, but that is exactly what philosophy and religion do. Everything may "in principle" be testable, but so what? If a question cannot be tested objectively and empirically, it cannot be called a scientific question. Subjective value judgments ("humans appear to be cogs in an uncaring machine") do not count.
I just love this debate between trip and crow. I will not interrupt so the subject doesn't change. Very interesting!!!
They were desperate for something they knew to be a lie? I don't understand, I believe all but one of Jesus' apostles wasn't martyred for what they claimed to have seen on the cross and then the days and weeks followed. The book of Acts is a remarkably accurate historical document (written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke) and gives insight on what the Apostles endured in their preaching of the Gospel.
[video=youtube;sTU7MfOgDKM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTU7MfOgDKM[/video] ^Worth watching this man has quite a story to tell And his website if you're interested: http://www.aglimpseofeternity.org/
although details of method may be different, my point was i don't see any effective difference in how we think about the outcome. there's probability involved in any question, and how we judge the probability of ancient miraculous claims comes from measuring the world we see now in the same (if more general) way as how we measure frequency of light waves from apples. not important. the evidence from evolution, cosmology, biology is empirical. cogs and indifferent machine are just ways of saying the evidence from these fields (all of science really) strongly indicates that the hypothesis of the existence of an all-powerful being who purposefully designed and created the universe including humanity, intervenes in the lives of and responds to prayers of individual humans, and is concerned with judging humans and directing the dispersal of their souls after death based on details of their behavior, is improbable. whether you mean to specifically or not, you (like Gould) by saying this end up directly implying to/agreeing with religious people that science has a constant fixed domain that constrains it, and that actual knowledge of questions about objective reality that are outside that domain can be obtained by other means. i see this as detrimental pandering, lending respect to and aiding the perpetuation of bad or in some cases blatantly destructive ideas. in my view it is better to set the example for religious people by saying questions about the nature of objective reality that can't be answered by science can't be answered at all, and there's nothing wrong with saying we simply don't/can't know the answers. when you worry about semantics of what is or isn't a scientific question you end up doing the opposite.
Well, there's a fine word: improbable. Me? Since receiving Christ, I've never lived a more fulfilling life. As I had mentioned before, I'm not into religion. I'm into a relationship. The existence of that relationship has been proven to me time and time and time again. The closer I get to Christ, the more fulfilling it becomes. I'm not talking about an inward relationship. I'm talking about one that involves others....and the world in which we live/share together. As Dick Vitale might exclaim, "It's awesome, baby!" You certainly have every right to think and believe the way you believe. If I'm reading you correctly, though, to say that, because I believe the way that I do, I'm potentially involved in "detrimental pandering, lending respect to and aiding the perpetuation of bad or in some cases blatantly destructive ideas..."? Hmmm.....with all due respect, I cry poppycock. I'm really quite surprised that you would make such a seemingly ignorant declaration. Setting an example? How about, rather, simply stating your opinion on the matter? To me, that sounds a bit more apt description. People will share ideas and debate these matters until (fill in the blank here...). It really won't change a thing, though. It is what it is what it is. Relatively speaking, "is" is as is does....or something like that.
there's no shortage of humans that develop strongly emotional personal relationships with a wide variety of unseeable entities, most of them mutually exclusive. that demonstrates that humans are prone to self delusion in this way. as an outsider i'd ask why you think your relationship with Christ is not a delusion while everyone else's similar relationship that happens to be mutually exclusive with christianity is necessarily delusional. how do you differentiate? you're not in this case, no offsense. that post was meant for someone who would lend authority to science when it is available, which you don't.
Because I believe that all of creation began exactly the way the Bible prescribes. That said, if I'm gonna believe part of it, I'm gonna believe "all" of it. Makes no sense to me to simply cherry pick what I want (or don't want) to believe in. All this, coupled with the fact that my life took on meaning, relevance, and personal satisfaction the moment I chose to submit myself to Christ. Up to that point in time, I lived aimlessly, selfishly, and, in some cases, a regretful experience. (this, certainly not to say that everyone would have the same conversion experience as myself. The road to Christ stems from many paths/walks....) My personal walk with Christ has been proven out, and grown, day-by-day, year-by-year through experiences and results.....amazing results! If you'd like to call that delusional thinking, then knock yourself out. As they say, to each their own. That all said, I understand the purpose of this thread to be one about the sharing of (and, in some cases, defended) "personal" beliefs. This is exactly what I have done.
It's pretty simple to explain a relationship is not delusional; just as one would explain their relationship with their daughter, wife or girlfriend. Or you can go even further and see how people like us have a relationship with the blazers. I think it's a little arrogant for someone to assume that believing in God is a delusion. It would be like me telling you that you don't live your mother.
if your mother was invisible and undetectable by any means other than your personal emotional response that might almost make sense. in what way is it arrogant to consider relationships with invisible friends potentially delusional? as noted many of them are mutually exclusive so there's clearly at least a large amount of delusion involved in the phenomena, and humans are demonstratably prone to it. i just asked how someone goes about determining that their invisible friend is objectively real and those of others aren't.
Nope. I'm quite certain that most of them believed it with all their heart. Sadly, the willingness to martyr oneself does not guarantee the truth of one's cause.
I don't think you are arrogant. I don't think you are right, though. Thomas had to see the nail holes in Jesus' hands before he would believe. John 20:29 describes that moment like this: If everything were absolutely provable, then there would be no apparent reason for faith. I think God knew this all along.
Alas, I also alluded to many, many personal experiences and miracles, which have substantiate my beliefs over, and over, and over again, my friend. In our court system, we often rely on witnesses, who provide testimony of what they have experienced and/or seen/hear. Provided they are not lying under oath, it is not our place, nor necessarily our right, to discount what they have said. They are simply stating the facts of their experience(s) as they know them to be.
I'll play, though. Here's how it works: crowTrobot: You are delusion in believing in your invisible friend. ABM: Really? Delusional? OK, prove to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that God didn't create the heavens and the earth. crowTrobot: I'll have to get back to you on that.
