BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 07 - 11:08 PM

a brief synopsis of Kant's system

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 07 - 12:52 AM

Kant really couldn't; his principles of maxims and unversizability are awkward at best and unworkable at worst.

But that does not mean that the core assumpiton that individual human reason can provide a sense of ethics and right action is wrong.

Like anything else people come in an infinite gradient of degrees of self-realization and free ability. My observation has been that the freer they are in their exercise of ability, reason and emotion, the more natively and naturally they tend to seek optimum ethical solutions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 May 07 - 09:33 AM

When pushed for specifics, you insult, rather than answer. This is often an indication that there are no specifics. - please give me an example of this. I have been rereading my posts and do not see anything insulting, nor do I see any requests for specifics that went unanswered.

You made some very inflamatory statements above--the effect being that we should no longer tolerate beliefs, faith, and anything not based on "empirical evidence". Disturbing stuff--because it is a message of profound intolerance. What I think should no longer be tolerated is the insistence that if empirical data contradict someone's faith, then those empirical data should not be used because it would be disrespectful to that faith. I think it too dangerous in today's world, I think it harmful to humanity and to the biosphere, and I do not agree that if what you are not respectful of is faith-based then you ought not voice your disrespect. I have, and I have repeatedly said that I have, no argument with faith qua faith - what I object to is the argument that faith is reasonable and based on data. If there were data supporting people's mythologies then we wouldn't need faith, we could draw intelligent conclusions. So I guess I wouldn't consider it "profound" intolerance - it is intolerance of one specific thing, which is placing dogma ahead of intelligent thought. I think intelligence is more worthy of respect than blind adherence to authority in the absence of evidence, and even more so in the presence of counter-evidence.

I've been questioning you, hoping that you could present some basic ideas about how ethics and morality can be based in reason, rather than faith. As an academic with an interest in these matters, one assumes you've studied, and can discuss the various views on this. Instead, your ideas seem unformed and off-the-cuff. I have answered your actual questions. I have not responded to silly statements with question marks after them. Please go back thorugh the posts and find an example of a question you have asked that I didn't answer with data-based reasoning.

In contrast, your disadain for people of faith, and the anger that you have toward them, is very clear. Again, my disdain is with people who deny reality to protect their beliefs. I don't have problems with those who accept that their faith is faith-based and has no rational basis (which is, after all, the definition of faith). And I am not ashamed of my opinion that continued adherence to old god stories when discoveries of the natural world contradict them is bad for the human race, is anti-intelligence, and should no longer be tolerated. We can't afford the luxury anymore. We must deal with reality as it is, rather than as we wish it were.

Which is not to say that people shouldn't try to change the world to make it a better place. As a matter of fact, that is what I am trying to do - move the world in the direction of where I wish it were. But what I am *not* doing is holding to an illusion that the world *already is* the way I wish it were, despite empirical evidence to the contrary.

And I find that those who feel insulted by this point of view are those who *do* hold to their old god stories, and who think that their beliefs should still be respected despite the demonstrated wrongness of those beliefs. However, I do not think I have insulted them by stating that I don't respect their views. I do not feel insulted by your not respecting mine - but I do object to your mischaracterization of my arguments. If you want more details, ask a specific follow-up question, please, and I will be more than happy to provide some.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 07 - 10:33 AM

A scrappy young lady named Mrrzy
Would rebut and refute, vicey-versey.
The thrust of each letter
Was to make the world better.
Or at least, keep it from growing Wrrzy.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 May 07 - 10:35 AM

"Kant really couldn't; his principles of maxims and unversizability are awkward at best and unworkable at worst."

Well, then...we will just apply C.S. Peirce and Will James...... Pragmatism ....to any of Kant's maxims which seem confusing!

I'm easy to get along with!

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 May 07 - 10:59 AM

Nice, Amos!

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: M.Ted
Date: 10 May 07 - 11:11 AM

I've read what you've said, and while it isn't clear what you think about, say, Kant's ideas about transcendental realism, and the limits that they place on your "empirical evidence"--your opinions about people of faith are very clear, and still disturbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 May 07 - 11:14 AM

Agreed. It's the lack of tolerance that bothers me. Some of these clear thinking people may as well be Southern Baptists.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 May 07 - 12:11 PM

In other words, M.Ted, you can't counter my arguments, so you're talking about me instead. Not surprising, but disappointing.

I would probably have more tolerance were I better tolerated... but then again, maybe not.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 May 07 - 12:22 PM

Daylia, the scientists that claim they have proof of "near death experiences" are charlatans.

Well, I doubt any bona-fide scientist would be dumb enough present a personal experience as any sort of scientific proof, but you never know I guess.   If that were the case, I agree with you somewhat. And Bill's right -- the article I posted is only an anecdote and the mainstream media is certainly no fountain of wisdom or truth -- let alone fact.

But I do think 'charlatan' is too harsh a judgement. I give em a break, because like so many many other people on this planet - from scientists to ditchdiggers, theologians to folk musicians    :-) I know what it's like to have unexplainable (to date), awesome life-changing spiritual experiences and the ecstatic fervour that can take hold afterwards -- the burning desire to tell the whole world what one has just most joyfully discovered.

At least, that's usually what happens to the uninitiated. And believe me, I also know its a long long way down, and how much satisfaction some people derive from instigating and witnessing the tragic -- and oh-so-predictable - tumble   

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 07 - 12:30 PM

M. Ted:

While I appreciate that, as a man of faith, you find Mrzzy's views discomfiting, I think it is nevertheless important that you clearly identify truthfully what it is in her statements which discomfits.

I believe her emphasis throughout has been on desiring to curtail proselytization, not individual conviction. The issue she raises is stated well here: "My issue is with those who take their myths as fact, not as metaphor. Those are the ones that have been disproven."

The common denominator is the abandoment of responsible ratiocination. It doesn't matter whether this occurs in the grip of the Disney Channel or the Church of Rome, it lowers the ability of the individual.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 May 07 - 03:53 PM

I understand your position, Daylia but here's the problem. It's the religious camel's nose under the tent, Afterlife and what people do to accomodate it. I think you will see more opposition by non-believers in the coming years because of the insistence of the religious radical right on this issue.

Some of the non-belief language may seem harsh but for years society has restricted any decent discussion of the role of religion by saying "hands off". It is not allowed to be questioned and this goes for the Afterlife postulate.

Until we have a decent scientific verification of the "near death experience", we only have hearsay to confirm it. Now the fundamentalist preacher will pound the pulpit and storm exhorting the congregants to fear as he claims to know what lies beyond "this mortal coil".
Here, we have a big problem.

There are "scientists" of every religious stripe who claim to have proof about evolution, ("the earth is only 10,000 years old", the bible, and the Afterlife. There are a lot of charlatans out there.

That said, there is no argument to dispute what you have experienced because it starts and stops with you and there is no way to scientifically verify it.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 07 - 04:06 PM

That said, there is no argument to dispute what you have experienced because it starts and stops with you and there is no way to scientifically verify it.



Frank:

Individual spiritual experience -- or even "spiritualoid" experience -- is not religion. It has no nose to stick into the tent in the way you mean. If individual spiritual experience were ONLY that, instead of being developed into a body of data, practice, and dogma called "religion", we'd be far better off. I guess it is a semantic distinction, but mayhap an important one.

If five per cent of a population are certain of OOB adentures of one kind or another, it would give me pause -- I would not throw the data out because 95% did not report it. Because there is no scientific principle that says individuals in a population will have uniform experiences.

One easy explanation would be that it was a function of emotional state or some such variable.

While the data being anecdotal IS grounds for skepticism and a demand for some sor tof more rigorous pursuit, providing anecdotal data does not, by any means, make someone a charlatan even if you disagree with the information. OR its implications.

That my two bits, anyway.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: M.Ted
Date: 10 May 07 - 04:15 PM

Mrrzy expresses disdain, contempt, and intolerance for people based on what they believe--that's bigotry. That's what "discomfits", Amos.   Nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 May 07 - 04:21 PM

I agree with Amos. (surprise!) Religion, to my mind, is a catchall term. (Kind of like 'ghost', when it comes to that. My notion is that there are a number of very different beings which, for convenience or out of ignorance, we call ghost.)

But leave religion out of it. I know NOTHING of religion. I do know something of the 'other side'.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 May 07 - 04:24 PM

No, no, and no. I do not have disdain for people based on what they believe. I have an opposition to people *not* thinking. Please actually read my posts; you are putting ideas out there as mine, and they aren't.

It isn't bigotry till I have disdain BEFORE finding out whether people are thinking or not. As I have repeatedly said but obviously must repeat, I have no argument with faith. My argument is with the mistaken idea that faith is the same thing as rational belief. My argument is with people who refuse to accept reality when it conflicts with their dogma, rather than adjusting their views to include what is demonstrably reality. And I have a serious objection to the theocratic insertion of mythology into the teachings, outside of philosophy classes, as if it were fact, in public schools in this country.

Please take one -any one- of my *actual* postings and demonstrate how it shows contempt for people based on what they believe. If you can't, then who is it who's using insults instead of actually arguing their case? Not I, said the little fat pig.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 07 - 04:45 PM

Mrrzy:

You aren't fat, are you? Nor, I am sure, a pig.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 May 07 - 08:04 PM

"My argument is with people who refuse to accept reality when it conflicts with their dogma, rather than adjusting their views to include what is demonstrably reality."


"It is difficult to tell the difference between people who can't think, and those who won't think."

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 May 07 - 09:15 AM

It's a quote, Amos!

Right - and my argument is with those who won't.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: GUEST,NDEbeliever
Date: 12 May 07 - 04:26 AM

Dr. Kenneth Ring's NDE Research of the Blind

Vicki Umipeg, a forty-five year old blind woman, was just one of the more than thirty persons that Dr. Ken Ring and Sharon Cooper interviewed at length during a two-year study just completed concerning near-death experiences of the blind. The results of their study appear in their newest book Mindsight. Vicki was born blind, her optic nerve having been completely destroyed at birth because of an excess of oxygen she received in the incubator. Yet, she appears to have been able to see during her NDE. Her story is a particularly clear instance of how NDEs of the congenitally blind can unfold in precisely the same way as do those of sighted persons. As you will see, apart from the fact that Vicki was not able to discern color during her experience, the account of her NDE is absolutely indistinguishable from those with intact visual systems. The following is an excerpt from Dr. Ring's latest book reprinted by permission.

Vicki told Dr. Ring she found herself floating above her body in the emergency room of a hospital following an automobile accident. She was aware of being up near the ceiling watching a male doctor and a female nurse working on her body, which she viewed from her elevated position. Vicki has a clear recollection of how she came to the realization that this was her own body below her. The following is her experience.

I knew it was me ... I was pretty thin then. I was quite tall and thin at that point. And I recognized at first that it was a body, but I didn't even know that it was mine initially.


Then I perceived that I was up on the ceiling, and I thought, "Well, that's kind of weird. What am I doing up here?"


I thought, "Well, this must be me. Am I dead? ..."

I just briefly saw this body, and ... I knew that it was mine because I wasn't in mine.


In addition, she was able to note certain further identifying features indicating that the body she was observing was certainly her own.

I think I was wearing the plain gold band on my right ring finger and my father's wedding ring next to it. But my wedding ring I definitely saw ... That was the one I noticed the most because it's most unusual. It has orange blossoms on the corners of it.


There is something extremely remarkable and provocative about Vicki's recollection of these visual impressions, as a subsequent comment of hers implied.

"This was," she said, "the only time I could ever relate to seeing and to what light was, because I experienced it."


She then told them that following her out-of-body episode, which was very fast and fleeting, she found herself going up through the ceilings of the hospital until she was above the roof of the building itself, during which time she had a brief panoramic view of her surroundings. She felt very exhilarated during this ascension and enjoyed tremendously the freedom of movement she was experiencing. She also began to hear sublimely beautiful and exquisitely harmonious music akin to the sound of wind chimes.

With scarcely a noticeable transition, she then discovered she had been sucked head first into a tube and felt that she was being pulled up into it. The enclosure itself was dark, Vicki said, yet she was aware that she was moving toward light. As she reached the opening of the tube, the music that she had heard earlier seemed to be transformed into hymns and she then "rolled out" to find herself lying on grass.

She was surrounded by trees and flowers and a vast number of people. She was in a place of tremendous light, and the light, Vicki said, was something you could feel as well as see. Even the people she saw were bright.

Everybody there was made of light. And I was made of light. What the light conveyed was love. There was love everywhere. It was like love came from the grass, love came from the birds, love came from the trees.


Vicki then becomes aware of specific persons she knew in life who are welcoming her to this place. There are five of them. Debby and Diane were Vicki's blind schoolmates, who had died years before, at ages 11 and 6, respectively.

In life, they had both been profoundly retarded as well as blind, but here they appeared bright and beautiful, healthy and vitally alive.

And no longer children, but, as Vicki phrased it, "in their prime."

In addition, Vicki reports seeing two of her childhood caretakers, a couple named Mr. and Mrs. Zilk, both of whom had also previously died. Finally, there was Vicki's grandmother - who had essentially raised Vicki and who had died just two years before this incident. In these encounters, no actual words were exchanged, Vicki says, but only feelings - feelings of love and welcome.

In the midst of this rapture, Vicki is suddenly overcome with a sense of total knowledge.

I had a feeling like I knew everything ... and like everything made sense. I just knew that this was where ... this place was where I would find the answers to all the questions about life, and about the planets, and about God, and about everything ... It's like the place was the knowing.


As these revelations are unfolding, Vicki notices that now next to her is a figure whose radiance is far greater than the illumination of any of the persons she has so far encountered. Immediately, she recognizes this being to be Jesus. He greets her tenderly, while she conveys her excitement to him about her newfound omniscience and her joy at being there with him.

Telepathically, he communicates to her.

"Isn't it wonderful? Everything is beautiful here, and it fits together. And you'll find that. But you can't stay here now. It's not your time to be here yet and you have to go back."


Vicki reacts, understandably enough, with extreme disappointment and protests vehemently.

"No, I want to stay with you."

But the being reassures her that she will come back, but for now, she "has to go back and learn and teach more about loving and forgiving."

Still resistant, however, Vicki then learns that she also needs to go back to have her children. With that, Vicki, who was then childless but who "desperately wanted" to have children (and who has since given birth to three) becomes almost eager to return and finally consents.

However, before Vicki can leave, the being says to her, in these exact words, "But first, watch this."

And what Vicki then sees is "everything from my birth" in a complete panoramic review of her life, and as she watches, the being gently comments to help her understand the significance of her actions and their repercussions.

The last thing Vicki remembers, once the life review has been completed, are the words, "You have to leave now."

Then she experiences "a sickening thud" like a roller-coaster going backwards, and finds herself back in her body.

Such reports, replete with visual imagery, were the rule, not the exception, among Ring and Cooper's blind respondents. Altogether, 80% of their entire sample claimed some visual perception during their near-death or out-of-body encounters. Although Vicki's was unusual with respect to the degree of detail, it was hardly unique in their sample.

Sometimes the initial onset of visual perception of the physical world is disorienting and even disturbing to the blind. This was true for Vicki, for example, who said:

I had a hard time relating to it (i.e., seeing). I had a real difficult time relating to it because I've never experienced it. And it was something very foreign to me ... Let's see, how can I put it into words? It was like hearing words and not being able to understand them, but knowing that they were words. And before you'd never heard anything. But it was something new, something you'd not been able to previously attach any meaning to.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Bee
Date: 12 May 07 - 06:42 AM

To give Mrrzy a little backup here:

I don't care what most people believe - they have the right to believe any damfool thing they care to, and I can usually be polite even if someone describes to me the little spirits that look after their garden (true incident).

But there aren't a huge number of garden fairy believers. The belief is harmless to others. The big religions - Islam, Christianity, Hinduism - are far from harmless, and can and do impact people who don't believe in them, through such things as the oppression of women and minorities (all three undervalue women, Hindi caste system), the suppression of science (particularly medical science: opposition to birth control, opposition to HPV vaccine, also evolution), and restriction of freedom (especially sexual freedom: see treatment of gays in Islam).

Why should I hold my tongue and pretend to respect a belief that says some kinds of people have less value than others? Why should I hold my tongue and pretend to respect a belief that tries to hinder science? Why should I hold my tongue and respect a belief that threatens me with death if I don't conform to the rules of that belief?

Why shouldn't I vigorously oppose such beliefs and call them wrongheaded, nonsensical, mediaeval?

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 07 - 07:42 AM

Bee:

I can't think of a any reason except manners. Depends on the circumstances. I wouldn't choose a kasbah as a site for my soapbox.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: *daylia*
Date: 12 May 07 - 08:10 AM

Bee, some wise person whose name eludes me right now taught that our greatest gold lies hidden, at the bottom of our deepest wounds. I've found that this holds true, for religiously-inflicted wounds as well as any other variety.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 May 07 - 01:35 PM

Thanks, Bee. XXXX ((())) and well put.
Nice NDE story, too. My grandmother was in a coma as a young woman when grandfather rolled the car with my dad and uncle still little boys in the backseat, no seatbelts. In her coma she experienced coming down a high mountain and seeing her father-in-law, the only man who had ever been kind to her (her words) coming down teh facing mountain towards her. They met in the valley and she wanted to go with him to his mountain, but he wouldn't let her. He told her it wasn't time yet, that she had to go back. She was very upset but then came out of her coma.
She told this story in her Russian accent, turning from the waist because her neck didn't turn (kind of like an owl) since the accident. It was very real to her, but not being a theist, she thought of it as a very real dream. Yes, my great-grandfather was dead by then, but since she didn't believe in life after death, and although she experienced him as real during her coma, once she came to she didn't speak of it as meeting him in the afterlife, only of meeting him in her mind during her coma. Her story also has that wonderful wanting to stay feeling, and almost every element of your story. Just a different interpretation.
Ever done exstasy, MDA, MMDA, or any other good serotonin boost? You wouldn't want to come back either.
Of the two interpretations - dream versus life-after-death - which is more realistic, given the state of today's knowledge about the brain? I'm not saying it couldn't be a supernatural experience. I'm just saying it isn't as reasonable to go with that interpretation than to go with the more likely one. Now, what we need to do is stick these poor nearly-dying people in an actual tube - an fMRI tube - and see if their serotonin-producing neurons work overtime during such an episode... Not ethical without consent, so we'd need to add the possibility into, say, a DNR order... I don't know that I would actually volunteer for such a study myself, though!
And while the gold may be under the gore, that does not justify the inflicting of the wound in the first place. What gives another the right to mine gold in *my* person, even if the gold is for me? Sure, we can learn really good lessons from the damage inflicted by the institutionalization of faith - doesn't make said institutionalization a good thing. I'd rather not have the damage in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 07 - 01:55 PM

just saying it isn't as reasonable to go with that interpretation than to go with the more likely one.

There are two reasons.

One is that the large collection of anecdotal evidence indicative of a spiritual beingness which transcends material form is often persuasive even if not scientific enough for a medical journal, and often includes knowing of past or remote things that are difficult to explain, and constitute anomalies against the standard brain-is-self model.

The second is that the limitation of selfhood to the body provides no explanation for certain normal phenomena of cognitive life, including, in the final analysis, understanding and communication in its better forms. Abilities of perception cannot be fully explained by chains of molecular and electrical interactions. The physical life-sciences approach this conundrum by (generally speaking) arguing that the complexity of the system enables this apparent qualitative gap, and that when enough of the transactions andf simultaneous chemical and electrical interactions of the complex brain are identified, all will become clear.

But this is a long stretch, and in my view is so long a stretch as to verge on the improbable.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 May 07 - 03:33 PM

I think that if one questions another's "faith" it shouldn't be taken as an insult or an attack. If their "faith" is as deep as they say it is, then nothing anyone could say could change it.
But to take it personally as if they had been inflicted with a wound because someone questioned it makes me think that their "faith" is precariously shallow.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: GUEST,Gza
Date: 12 May 07 - 03:43 PM

Just one little thought here: To believe in life after death or in "the soul"...or for that matter, in ghosts or other such paranormal or spiritual phenomena...does not necessarily make one a theist.

One could be an atheist (someone who doesn't believe in a "supreme being" or a "God" who is in charge of everything), and still believe that everyone has a soul which survives physical death, and perhaps returns again in other physical lifetimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 07 - 05:03 PM

Douglas Hofstadter -- a very smart man, Pulitzer Prize winner and author of Godel, Escher and Bach-- talks about the problem of understanding the nature of an "I" in this recent interview, which I recommend highly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: *daylia*
Date: 12 May 07 - 06:32 PM

Amos, thats a fascinating article. Thanks!

What gives another the right to mine gold in *my* person, even if the gold is for me?

Mrzzy, no one can mine* your greatest gold but yourself, unless you allow otherwise.

We're not just talking regular ole gold here -- you know, the kind that makes any ole rules. We're talking the Gold that makes YOU *Rule*, and the only person with any real interest in that is yourself.

I think that if one questions another's "faith" it shouldn't be taken as an insult or an attack.

Using words like "crazies", "charlatans" on anyone who believes, behaves, thinks, or knows differently than yourself is an insult and an attack, no matter how you slice it Frank. And a sweeping generalization as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: *daylia*
Date: 12 May 07 - 06:46 PM

Oops, it was Riginslinger who used the word "crazies". I think. I ain't searching through hundreds of posts to make sure, though!

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 May 07 - 07:41 PM

" ...the limitation of selfhood to the body provides no explanation for certain normal phenomena of cognitive life, including, in the final analysis, understanding and communication in its better forms. Abilities of perception cannot be fully explained by chains of molecular and electrical interactions."

These statements are half-truths, Amos. There are indeed experiences and abilities that have not been adequately explained yet, but it is far from clear that they cannot be explained by molecules and electrons and chemistry. It seems to me that the number & types of assumptions that need to be made in order to explain them without physical phenomena gets faily large & subjective.....and finally becomes rhetorical/linguistic. People have experiences that 'seem' to be non-physical, so they (naturally) create language to refer to them - then they act as if the naming confers some sort of 'truth'. (You will probably agree this happens in religious claims...it is just hard to bite the bullet and admit it 'might' happen in your own experiences.)

   Let me be clear...I am not **claiming** that this is always the case, only that it IS possible to describe theoretical causes for such experiences in ways other than metaphysical, subjective language.
   I am the eternal skeptic in these matter, but being a LONG term Sci-Fi reader, I would love to have my doubts overridden with some sort of proof...or at least evidence that *I* can't imagine other possible explanations for. I would jump for joy if ESP and OOB & Clairvoiance and Past Lives and Spirits/Souls etc..could be verified and explained!

It is a fine line I walk insisting on skeptical analyses and offering other 'theories', while not absolutely denying some possibilities. I think this is sorta what Science is/does.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 07 - 11:59 PM

Indeed it is, Bill. But it is only a single postulate that is required, rather than the long weave of complexity required by the biochemical postulate. Viz, that a human being is a spiritual being operating a physical body, not a physical body dreaming in some unknown way about being a spiritual being when it isn't. Viewed from this perspective, the rule of simplicity and elegance is on the side of the additional postulate, because defining ordinary cognitive experience otherwise is so unwieldy, as well as riddled with anomalies.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Bee
Date: 13 May 07 - 09:10 AM

"I can't think of a any reason except manners. Depends on the circumstances. I wouldn't choose a kasbah as a site for my soapbox.
" - Amos

Neither would I. It is quite possible to engage followers of Islam (and I have) in Canada, The US, or the UK, without subjecting myself to the worst aspects of that faith. (It is also possible to be polite in stating one's objections to religion, but it seems often just stating the objection is considered insulting to the believer.) I assume you are implying that Christianity (I may be wrong) is a far kinder and less dangerous set of beliefs, and I should be grateful to be 'allowed' to get up on my soapbox in consequence. That speaks volumes.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 May 07 - 09:51 AM

"Why should anyone believe in 'God'?"


             I can't imagine.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 07 - 10:56 AM

Bee:

I chose a kasbah on the spur of the moment. I wouldn't put up my soapbox in a farmer's market in Indiana, either. I am sure some large and burly tractor repairman would feel it his divine duty to lift me off it by my collar, and perhaps thrash me to teach me Grace. :)

That said, though, I believe in its present state that Islam is more prone to solve the problem of non-belief with ciolence than most other religions.

I recommend three excellent current books around these themes:

Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Monkey Girl by Edward Humes

Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett

Regards,


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 May 07 - 10:56 AM

Daylia you say:

"I think that if one questions another's "faith" it shouldn't be taken as an insult or an attack.

Using words like "crazies", "charlatans" on anyone who believes, behaves, thinks, or knows differently than yourself is an insult and an attack, no matter how you slice it Frank. And a sweeping generalization as well."

Nonsense, Daylia. Charlatan applies only to scientists who claim scientific verification of their data, not an attack on religion.

"Crazies" are people like Pat Robertson or Falwell. I didn't impute that to all religious people. You are being inaccurate and unfair.

If you take any of my criticisms personally I suggest you look into the depth of your own convictions.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 May 07 - 11:02 AM

"...But it is only a single postulate that is required, rather than the long weave of complexity required by the biochemical postulate. "

ummmm...now there is where I suggest you are hiding true complexity by rhetorical means. ..... You freely grant that the biochemical thesis is complex, but try to present the spiritual/conciousness model as 'simple' because you phrased it in one sentence. What I assert is, that in order to make that claim, there are many assumptions embedded logically in the statement, whether listed individually or not. You must assume things about the nature of 'spirit', from WHETHER it exists to how causation works with it, how it CAN operate a body, why it 'exists' at all, how 'different' conciousnesses are defined (that is, how mine can be different from yours)[which is easy to do with physical frameworks]), ...etc...

   You see, positing a 'spirit' to 'operate' a body is really little different than positing a 'God' to operate everything, and a "Son of God" to relieve us of our sins...once you decide it exists, YOU are in control of the characteristics, and ambiguities and contradictions are just handled by linguistic altering of the explanations. You just state "that's how it works", and it is impossible to prove you wrong. (As in, 'you can't prove a negative')

It's a funny set of ideas....I can see why it is tempting as an explanation for experiences that are intense, but hard to explain...yet it's also the sort of explanation that has no real boundries or rules to know whether you are close to 'right'.

Occam's Razor has to be used carefully, or it will cut you in awkward patterns!

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: GUEST,NDEbeliever
Date: 13 May 07 - 02:58 PM

Praying for somebody who is ill can make them better, research suggests.

A study carried out by the University of Maryland in the US has found prayer and spiritual healing may reduce pain and speed up the recovery of patients.




To continue to haul the notion that there is nothing to these interventions is not really tenable




Dr John Astin, University of Maryland

Researchers analysed the results of 23 clinical studies which examined the effect of prayer, spiritual healing and other unconventional treatments on patients' health.


More than half of these studies - 57% - found a positive impact on patients.

The highest number of positive results was found in studies which examined spiritual healing, in particular a technique where the "energy field" around a person's body is treated.

As part of this therapy, a practitioner moves their hands over a patient's body to promote healing.

Dr John Astin, who carried out the study and describes himself as an "open-minded sceptic", described the results as "intriguing".

Of the 23 studies he analysed, 11 examined therapeutic touch, five the effectiveness of prayer, and seven tested a variety of other unconventional treatments.

Dr Astin, an assistant professor on the university's complementary medicine programme, said all the studies included placebo controls and were chosen for the scientific quality of the research.

In one study of nearly 1,000 heart patients, those who were being prayed for without their knowledge suffered 10% fewer complications.

'Conservative interpretation'

"The results are very intriguing. In some respects the findings are surprising in that we attempted to look at the strongest studies and came away with the conservative interpretation that the findings suggest there may be benefits."

He said the effect of prayer and spiritual healing could not be dismissed.

"To continue to haul the notion that there is nothing to these interventions is not really, in my mind, tenable. I think more work needs to be done in this area."

But he said the results were not conclusive and should be interpreted with caution.

A spokesman for the UK's National Federation of Spiritual Healers welcomed the findings.

"We welcome any sort of research like this. We know that spiritual healing works because of clinical evidence like this and also because of its results.

"Spiritual healing is increasing in popularity all the time because people are hearing about evidence like this."

The study is published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: GUEST,Mrr on someone else's computer
Date: 13 May 07 - 03:07 PM

Anything the patient knows about - hope, prayer, dancing and drumming - helps recovery. Prayer does not work if the patient doesn't know about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 07 - 03:48 PM

Actually there have been documented instances where it did. They are described in Dr Larry Dossey's books on the subject. But this is not an argument in support of God, but an argument in support of the impact and the non-local nature of live attention. I've known some dogs who had healing powers just by looking at you with their sad eyes.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 May 07 - 07:30 PM

Frank, it is possible to disagree with or fail to comprehend another person's ideas, behaviours and experiences without resorting to name-calling and/or sweeping generalizations.

And what benefit do you gain from questioning the depth of someone else's perceptions? A distraction from examining the depth and validity of your own, perhaps?

In any case, the depth of my perceptions is for me to know and you to find out. IF you care to, and if I allow it, that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: GUEST,ndeBELIEVER
Date: 14 May 07 - 01:59 AM

CLICKY

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:18 AM

57% of 23 is chance level - 13/23 is about what you'd expect if you tossed a fair coin. Not impressive, in other words.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:31 AM

It's an exercise in futility to try to impress anyone who is determined not to be impressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:28 AM

By far the largest experiment (as far as I know) conducted on a double blind basis to prove the power of prayer (or otherwise) was $2.4 million spent by the Templeton Foundation. 'Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients'.American Heart Journal 151:4, 2006 934 - 942

There were three groups: Group 1 received prayers and didn't know it; Group 2 received no prayers and didn't know it; Group three received prayers and did know it.

Prayers were delivered by three congregations distant from the hospitals.

The results were clear cut. There was no difference between those prayed for and those not. There was a difference between those who knew they were being prayed for and those who did not know one way of the other, but it went in the wrong direction. Those who knew they had been the beneficiaries of prayer suffered significantly more complications than those who did not.

The experimenters suggested they were stressed out because of "performance anxiety".

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:31 AM

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer

That's the newest and largest study with a failry good (though not perfect) design.

the researchers found no differences between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not...a significantly higher number of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for — 59 percent — suffered complications, compared with 51 percent of those who were uncertain.

The study has not been performed by skeptic out for a negative finding:
The study cost $2.4 million, and most of the money came from the John Templeton Foundation, which supports research into spirituality.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 May 07 - 12:07 PM

Daylia, it is impossible to carry on any legitimate conversation with you if you continue to accuse me of name-calling or generalizing.

You haven't substantiated your points with factual scientific data but simply opinions.

You will believe what you believe regardless but apparently will continue to be offended if someone challenges you on your logic. This is the case with so many "religious" types. They expect their ideas to be considered and accepted and if not, they have their feelings hurt. Why should ideas that have no basis in reality be accepted as being truthful?

I haven't called you crazy. I haven't called you any names. I only referred to the scientific data produced by unscientific methods which is done by pseudo-scientific charlatans. I see no reason to give their ideas any credence.

Nonetheless, I respect you as a person. I see no correlation to a person's religious beliefs and their ability to function as a moral person. No gods or spirits can make a person better or worse. They are who they are.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Bill D
Date: 14 May 07 - 12:26 PM

just to be clear..Frank suggested:

"....I suggest you look into the depth of your own convictions."

not perceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 May 07 - 12:42 PM

Thanks for pointing that out, Bill. I do make it a point to avoid conviction       :-)    while enjoying as many perceptions as possible.

Daylia, the scientists that claim they have proof of "near death experiences" are charlatans.

Frank, that statement is an insult, an attack, and a sweeping generalization. I am not a scientist. I do not take it personally.

WHy do you make assumptions about other people's feelings, by the way?

OF course I have provided no scientific facts here. That's because I have yet to make a scientific claim on this thread. I've posted a personal anecdote or two, expressed my points of view, and defended what I perceive as the 'underdog' on this thread (ie God and believers in God).

And that's all I intend to do on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 07 - 01:20 PM

Those numbers are most interesting, and appear to rebut the cases I referred to from Dossey; but I would have to dig them back out again and I don't have the book available.

However, they ALSO raise another interesting question. If the individual can increase his probability of healing by being told he is being prayed for, whether he is or not, then what does that power of healing-by-postulated-information say about the biomechanical limits of the organism? Seems to me it leaves a wee door into other universes open in the back.

A