The "Need To Believe;" It Cuts Both Ways

[Interesting Ian]

Yes this is what I believe. Everything we do, are, and think has ultimate significance. The most trivial of our actions has consequences for all other human beings and for all other things. Nothing we do is insignificant. Nothing. Our lives have ultimate meaning and purpose. We are all embarked on a great adventure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sometimes, I wish I could believe that too. [/B]

Why don't you? This is what NDE's teach us for example. And even if there is no God, no life after death, and the Universe and our lives are inherently absurd, I don't think you can deny that the most seemingly trivial of our actions has consequences whose reach extend far beyond what we naively imagine. Just like waving your little finger in the air could be responsible for producing a tornado on the opposite side of the planet a few months later (chaos theory).

 

[Upchurch]

But would you agree that she was held up?

Yep. Primarily because there was supporting evidence for the event. Her purse and several other items were missing. Also, her roommate/landlord saw the kid's shoes as he ran past the basement window.

If she had told the police and I this same story about a kid stealing her purse and yet she still had her purse, I'd question whether or not it actually happened. Just like when she remembered the kid stealing her car keys. She still has her car keys, so I doubt that event occured like she remembers, as does she.

Now consider, what evidence does Mrs. Howard have to support her own recollection of the event?

 

[ehbowen]

Now consider, what evidence does Mrs. Howard have to support her own recollection of the event?

No more evidence than I have to support my own recollection of my meeting with George Takei. Or that I toured the Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building in New York City. Or that I used to climb up on the roofs of Union Station and the Cotton Exchange Building in Houston. Or that I once climbed the Astroneedle at Six Flags Houston. Or that I had the best piece of fish I ever had in my life in the dining car aboard the Broadway Limited between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Or that my favorite television show when I was three was "Astroboy." Or that I was taken up in the cab of a diesel locomotive when I was two. I could go on....

I will freely grant that my memory could be faulty in the details. The fish, for example. I believe it was red snapper, but I am by no means certain. I am certain, however, that it was not beef or pork or lamb. I couldn't give the plot of a single "Astroboy" episode. I couldn't tell you who it was who took me up in the cab of that locomotive. But while I can agree with you about details, I cannot concede your point about essential facts. I consider any argument that I am incompetent to observe and to relate the essential defining experiences in my life to be groundless and without merit. Based on my own experience, I have no rational reason for concluding that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are not likewise competent observers of their own life experiences.

 

[Bluegill]

No more evidence than I have to support my own recollection of my meeting with George Takei. Or that I toured the Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building in New York City. Or that I used to climb up on the roofs of Union Station and the Cotton Exchange Building in Houston. Or that I once climbed the Astroneedle at Six Flags Houston. Or that I had the best piece of fish I ever had in my life in the dining car aboard the Broadway Limited between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Or that my favorite television show when I was three was "Astroboy." Or that I was taken up in the cab of a diesel locomotive when I was two. I could go on....

I will freely grant that my memory could be faulty in the details. The fish, for example. I believe it was red snapper, but I am by no means certain. I am certain, however, that it was not beef or pork or lamb. I couldn't give the plot of a single "Astroboy" episode. I couldn't tell you who it was who took me up in the cab of that locomotive. But while I can agree with you about details, I cannot concede your point about essential facts. I consider any argument that I am incompetent to observe and to relate the essential defining experiences in my life to be groundless and without merit. Based on my own experience, I have no rational reason for concluding that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are not likewise competent observers of their own life experiences.

But there are lots and lots of films and photos of George Takei, taken from different angles and at different times. There are records of interviews that are consistent with one another. There are lots of records of his appearances at Star Trek conventions, where he has given autographs.

At least as many people have claimed to have seen angels, but where are the photos? Why don't they stick around to be introduced to friends? I bet if I sent mail to George Takei, I might get a letter back from him, his puclicist, or something (OK, that might be wishful thinking. But I hear he's a swell guy.) You could take blood samples or DNA samples from George Takei. He's famous, lots of people meet him, so it's easy to believe that you've met him. But if you told me that he appeared in your kitchen and then disappeared again, I'd want supporting evidence (Like a police bulletin saying that George Takei was suspected of breaking into kitchens in your area and stealing Cool Ranch Star Trek Salad Dressing.)

 

[Upchurch]

Pardon the non-linear reply

Based on my own experience, I have no rational reason for concluding that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are not likewise competent observers of their own life experiences.

Except that the following can be demonstrably shown to exist:

• George Takei
• Statue of Liberty
• Empire State Building
• Union Station in Houston
• Cotton Exchange Building in Houston
• Astroneedle at Six Flags Houston
• fish
• dining car
• the Broadway Limited between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh
• television show "Astroboy"
• the cab of a diesel locomotive

As opposed to the following which have not yet been demostrably shown to exist:

• angels
• UFOs/aliens
• Bigfoot
• the Lock Ness Monster
• pixies
• fairies
• elves
• leprechauns
• dragons
• unicorns
• magic (not the stage kind)

If someone you trusted told you that they saw a UFO, Bigfoot, or a unicorn, would you believe that they had? You avoided this question last time I asked it. Please consider it now.

I consider any argument that I am incompetent to observe and to relate the essential defining experiences in my life to be groundless and without merit.

Going back to the central point of this thread, this is the primary reason why believes will never be as objective as skeptics when considering an issue. Your assumptions about the world immediately cut you off from a range of possibilities to consider when interpreting a situation or event.

As I've mentioned before, I don't even trust my own memories all the time if something comes up that suggests I may be remembering it incorrectly. As such, I'm willing to question and change my own preconceptions to fit what is actually going on, rather than changing what is actually going on to fit my preconceptions.

edited to add: Just thought of a great example of this. In high school, I would occasionally have these dreams about something happening that were so completely real to me that I would go to school the next day and expect my friends to react to what had happened. It was only when they didn't react that I realized I must have dreamed it. Until that point, I would be convinced that it had. I once even went so far as to appologize to someone for what I had done and they had no idea what I was talking about.

You're methodology takes an event that may have been an angel, false memories, or a dream and forces it to be an angel despite the fact that the other possibilities are just as valid, if not more so, since the others are well documented and studied.
<hr>
edited to add:

I'm not saying that there aren't closed minded people who call themselves skeptics but don't question their own beliefs as well as those of others. What I am saying is that skeptics who are skeptical, or critical, even of themselves will always be in a better position to analyze a situation for truth value and are really the only ones who are truely open minded.

 

[Bluegill]

Pardon the non-linear reply
(snip snip)
Except that the following can be demonstrably shown to exist:[list[*]television show "Astroboy"
(snip snip snippity)

And as a skeptic who has never heard of "Astroboy" except from someone who remembers watching it was a 3-year-old, I have slight doubts that there was such a show. So slight that I won't bother to look it up to confirm it's existence. It's a cool title, though.

 

[Upchurch]

So slight that I won't bother to look it up to confirm it's existence. It's a cool title, though.

A quick google of Astroboy. I can't say I'm familiar with the show either, but I've seen some of the magna and the occasional pop culture reference.

But see? Supporting evidence. ehbowen didn't dream Astroboy.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I was surprised to see that Astroboy is on TV here in Japan. New episodes are on every Sunday.

I wonder, do people that give their kids good credibility believe that their child really saw a monster in the closet?

 

[Bluegill]

A quick google of Astroboy. I can't say I'm familiar with the show either, but I've seen some of the magna and the occasional pop culture reference.

But see? Supporting evidence. ehbowen didn't dream Astroboy.

Now hold on a second. I just googled "angels" and got over 6.5 million hits.

Even if you assume that half of the hits have to do with sports teams or Michael Landon or Victoria's Secret, that leaves a LOT unaccounted for.



So we have a stupendous amount of evidence that angels do, in fact, exist-- as cultural creations, as fictional characters, as mythological entities, and as right fielders. Sometimes, as in the movie "Angel in the Outfield," they fall into more than one of those categories. Heh.

We also have evidence that angels exist as servants of God--but this evidence is of a very poor nature. How can we get the angels up to the level of Astroboy?

 

[Upchurch]

Now hold on a second. I just googled "angels" and got over 6.5 million hits.

heh. I wondered if anyone was going to catch that.

The difference is that over the internet, you can view Astroboy the magna or the cartoon directly and repeatedly. You cannot directly view an angel the physical or, heck, even spiritual being over the internet. What we can do, as you point out, is view angels the cultural creation and mythological entities (and as right fielders) over the internet.

We also have evidence that angels exist as servants of God--but this evidence is of a very poor nature. How can we get the angels up to the level of Astroboy?

Again, the evidence that angels exist in the physical or (not sure the proper way to put this) in the "real" spiritual realm is purely anecdotal from the Bible. Worse, it is second hand information at best.

edited to add:

Just realized I never finished answering the question. We get angels up to the level of Astroboy by making them as available as Astroboy.

 

[Elind]

ehbowen

"I can understand that a number of you are nearly apopleptic at this point. Very well; I encourage you to express yourselves. However, I must state up front that any argument or reasoning which is based upon the proposition that "angels do not exist" is more likely than "Mrs. Howard is a liar" will fall completely flat with me. I consider it neither impossible nor unlikely that angels exist; I consider it very highly unlikely that Mrs. Howard would lie to me. While you are mulling over your responses, I invite you to consider yet another story:"


This reminds me of an incident a few years ago. I was in a waiting room to get my drivers license renewed. Half a dozen or so average mix of people, bored, also waiting. Then a little old lady, probably in her 70's and looking nice, normal and clean, comes up to me with a smile and says "I can see the sign of the king in the light around you and you will receive great blessing...." etc. I said thank you and looked around to see who else was looking, but no one seemed to have heard. I got my license soon after and left, and that was it, except I haven't won the lottery yet.

She was totally sincere and no doubt saw auras around many people all the time, but I haven't been included in whatever was going on and feel no worse or better for the experience.

But it proves to me that it only takes a little bit of hallucination (or need for laser surgery) for many to see proof of god

 

[Fun2BFree]

Pardon the non-linear reply

Except that the following can be demonstrably shown to exist:

• George Takei
• Statue of Liberty
• Empire State Building
• Union Station in Houston
• Cotton Exchange Building in Houston
• Astroneedle at Six Flags Houston
• fish
• dining car
• the Broadway Limited between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh
• television show "Astroboy"
• the cab of a diesel locomotive

As opposed to the following which have not yet been demostrably shown to exist:

• angels
• UFOs/aliens
• Bigfoot
• the Lock Ness Monster
• pixies
• fairies
• elves
• leprechauns
• dragons
• unicorns
• magic (not the stage kind)

If someone you trusted told you that they saw a UFO, Bigfoot, or a unicorn, would you believe that they had? You avoided this question last time I asked it. Please consider it now.

yes answer the question and add to the list of life defining events that people are convinced actually happened to them for which we have no demonstration of reality-

faith healing of any variety of ills-every single one of which has been either shown to never have been healed, never to have existed in the first place or never adequately demonstrated to trust in it's having occured...ever --for thousands of years...

So why should we only believe the life defining events that correspond to Western Christian theology myth and not give EQUAL weight to these other claims??? We skeptics give them all equal weight---

I am beginning to doubt the existence of some people's ability to see their own biases...sort of like colorblindness...about 10% of people cannot perceive color differences- the neural pathways are not there...maybe the neural pathways that might allow eric to see how ridiculously prejudiced his approach is as compared to a skeptical approach are just not there...

 

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by ehbowen

Based on my own experience, I have no rational reason for concluding that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are not likewise competent observers of their own life experiences.

Except that the following can be demonstrably shown to exist:

But that is the point in question. You are, once again, presuming the answer based on your own preconceptions.

Being a bit non-linear myself:

You're methodology takes an event that may have been an angel, false memories, or a dream and forces it to be an angel despite the fact that the other possibilities are just as valid, if not more so, since the others are well documented and studied.

You've got that entirely backwards. I am perfectly willing to consider a non-supernatural explanation for these events and for a host of others. I simply have no rational reason for believing that these explanations are more likely than the plain facts of the case as stated by the observers. It is your methodology which forces you to find some other explanation--any other explanation--to protect you from having to deal with the possibility of an occurence which does not fit neatly inside the box of your own world view.

As opposed to the following which have not yet been demostrably shown to exist:

• angels
• UFOs/aliens
• Bigfoot
• the Lock Ness Monster
• pixies
• fairies
• elves
• leprechauns
• dragons
• unicorns
• magic (not the stage kind)

If someone you trusted told you that they saw a UFO, Bigfoot, or a unicorn, would you believe that they had? You avoided this question last time I asked it. Please consider it now.

First off, let's winnow this list down. We can start by eliminating the items for which there is no one currently making serious claims on their behalf. This takes care of pixies, fairies, elves, leprechauns, dragons, and unicorns. (I am perfectly willing to consider the possibility that dragons, unicorns, etc. existed in the past, but that's a subject for another discussion.) Secondly, we can eliminate those items which would be of trivial impact upon the world were they true. If Bigfoot and Nessie were found tomorrow it might make an interesting diversion for a few zoologists for a while, but they would likely have no greater impact upon human society at large than do the existence of the coelacanth and the grizzly bear. That leaves UFOs, angels, and magic. Angels we have already discussed at sufficient length. I am quite willing to consider the possibility that magic exists, but I do not believe it exists as an independent phenomenon; in my understanding as a Christian it is inextricably linked with fallen angels, aka demons. So while I do not discount all such reported instances of it, it is a subject which I consider off-limits for safe investigation.

That leaves UFOs. What are the possibilities there? Well, I think you would agree with me about two of them. One is that they are all bunk, and that people are either fabricating their accounts or else are victims of hallucinations/false memories/etc. The other is that they are real and that they are of a physical nature like us. But in that case, why is there no hard evidence? Why is there no undeniable contact? We can postulate "prime directives" and so forth, but an examination of human nature and human history would lead us to the conclusions that if they are benevolent, they would want to contact us in order to aid our civilization and that if they are not benevolent then they would want to invade and conquer us quickly in order to prevent us from developing star travel independently and becoming a threat. Provided that these are the only two possibilities, I would have to conclude that the first conclusion is most likely correct: It's all bunk.

But in my world view, I am able to seriously consider another possibility: That UFOs do in fact exist, but that they are of spiritual/supernatural origin. Is there any reason to believe this? Well, first, the parallels of comparison with stories of angels and other supernatural encounters is uncanny. These UFOs and aliens do wonders for which we have no scientific explanation and they leave no evidence behind which would compel belief by those who are not inclined to believe. Is there any reason that a spiritual being would want to appear in the guise of a UFO? Indeed there is; should Satan want to openly appear in this world do you think he would be likely to stand up and say, "Here I am! The Devil, Old Nick, the Prince of Darkness! Come to me and be my slave forever!"? Wouldn't he likely have more success and win more followers by proclaiming himself to be Klaat Xerount, a superior being from Omicron Ceti III? Once upon a time--think War of the Worlds--if he'd tried that he would likely have been met with pitchforks and shotguns. After seventy years of preparation and indoctrination, were he to try that tomorrow a plurality of people (Westerners, at least) would probably fall at his feet and hand him the keys to the planet.

So, based upon the information I have, I believe that in those UFO encounters where the stories do not break down upon closer examination (which is a tiny minority, I will agree) the people involved are witnessing a legitimate phenomenon, but that it is one of spiritual and supernatural origin. Were aliens to appear openly tomorrow, I would consider it most likely that they were fallen angels or demons in disguise.

Could I be persuaded that I was wrong? Oh, most certainly. If those aliens shared the same physical vulnerabilities we do--if they could get sick, bleed, die, etc.--that would be a strong indicator that they were of physical origin. If they were to take no actions to win followers in a religious sense, if they left human religions in general and Christianity in particular to operate normally, then that would be another strong indicator in their favor. If they had technology which could be studied, understood, duplicated and put to use by us, I would consider that virtually conclusive; I believe that Satan does not have either the inclination or the patience to develop and master technology.

So there are a lot of things which could persuade me that I am wrong. But I do not consider this area an area which is worth the time to investigate and pursue as I do angels; if the aliens are in fact purely physical then there are no real steps I could take to contact them that SETI and others are not already trying. And if they are, as I suspect, fallen angels--then trying to get in touch with them would be counterproductive and dangerous.

Going back to the central point of this thread, this is the primary reason why believes will never be as objective as skeptics when considering an issue. Your assumptions about the world immediately cut you off from a range of possibilities to consider when interpreting a situation or event.

Once again, you've got that backwards. It is your assumptions about the world which immediately cut you off from a range of possibilities when considering events such as this. I would have no problem whatsoever mastering the disciplines of and assimilating information from the fields of chemistry, physics, biology, engineering, and so on. How likely are you to seriously consider the possibility that UFOs are fallen angels?

 

[ehbowen]

Just realized I never finished answering the question. We get angels up to the level of Astroboy by making them as available as Astroboy.

And that's what I'm working on. Maybe that's what it took all these years: Somebody with the persistence to chase that rabbit all the way to ground. We shall see.

 

[Bluegill]

I think that any rational, intelligent skeptic would be quite willing to admit that the existence of angels is a possibility.

But I also think that any rational, intelligent skeptic would maintain that the foundation of any belief is sound evidence. (Well, OK, there is also another form of belief which I think skepticism has nothing to do with--beliefs that are formed non-rationally and willingly allowed to persist in one's self, but with the admission that there is no evidence that can be clearly shown to others. That goes with the threads regarding Hal Bidlack's deism and skepticism. I think that form of belief has nothing to do with this discussion, though).

Anyway-- as I was saying, skepticism is based on the notion that the most productive and responsible way to form beliefs is by basing them on evidence.

I don't think this creates a bias that keeps them from comtemplating the role of angels. It just helps them put stories about angels in perspective. Angels have not been shown to exist with the same preponderence of evidence that supports the existence of optical illusions, hallucinations, stunningly vivid dreams, mental illness, hoaxes, and other phenomena.

Therefore, it seems to me, a rational skeptic would say that yes, it's possible that an angel appeared in the kitchen. But why believe that it was, when there are so many other possibilities that can explain it?

This, for a skeptic, applies not just to the single incident, but to the whole of the angel phenomenon. I can't prove that angels don't exist. I don't have evidence that angels have never visited human beings. But I've never heard a story or had an experience that was of an angelic nature, which could not be explained through "earthly" phenomena. I'd love to have such an experience because it would be, to say the least, very interesting.

 

[Martin]

Once again, you've got that backwards. It is your assumptions about the world which immediately cut you off from a range of possibilities when considering events such as this. I would have no problem whatsoever mastering the disciplines of and assimilating information from the fields of chemistry, physics, biology, engineering, and so on

You have to understand that before I came to my current ideas I was a doctrinaire YEC. If anyone should persuade me that I am wrong, I would revert to being a YEC. Yes, I am well aware of the disconnect between currently accepted scientific understanding and YEC positions. You must understand, however, that I have made the free will choice to commit my life to God as he is revealed in the Bible. I mentioned above that I had respect for and did not wish to arbitrarily throw out scientific results, but if it comes down to having to make a choice between scientific reason and the revelation of the Bible, I stand with the Bible

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by ehbowen on another thread

You must understand, however, that I have made the free will choice to commit my life to God as he is revealed in the Bible. I mentioned above that I had respect for and did not wish to arbitrarily throw out scientific results, but if it comes down to having to make a choice between scientific reason and the revelation of the Bible, I stand with the Bible

Whoaw!!! What's this?? Do you stand behind this statement ehbowen?? And if so, where do you get the stones to start this thread and claim that all of "us skeptics" are closeminded??

Your position is now laughable in light of YOUR closeminded beliefs. Throwing out scientific reason in favor of "revelation" (which can't be tested, falsified, etc.)?? The mind boggles.

Barkhorn.

 

[Darwin]

Causes of hallucination

-ophtalmological condition;
/Charles Bonnet syndrome
-neurological condition;
/occipital lobe injury
/temporal lobe injury
/brain cancer
/stroke
/dementia
/Parkinson´s
-Psychiatric;
/schizophrenia
/psychosis
/bipolar disorder
/post-traumatic disorder
Other;
/fever
/liver failure
/kidney failure
/drug use
/drug withdrawal
/sleep paralysis
Hallucination of no apparent medical origin;
/sensory deprivation
/emotional stress
/great fatigue
/sleep deprivation

 

[Upchurch]

But that is the point in question. You are, once again, presuming the answer based on your own preconceptions.

Are you suggesting that that those items/places/people can only be demonstrated to exist because of my preconceptions? Are not their reality, or lack thereof, independent of my preconceptions about them?

You've got that entirely backwards. I am perfectly willing to consider a non-supernatural explanation for these events and for a host of others. I simply have no rational reason for believing that these explanations are more likely than the plain facts of the case as stated by the observers.

Irony alert: You are willing to consider a non-supernatural explination but have no rational reason for thinking that a supernatural explination is less likely than a natural one? Further, you assert that the supernatural explination is more likely than a natural one?

The thing is, you haven't been willing to consider natural explinations through your insistance that those natural explinations aren't possible (false memories, for example).

It is your methodology which forces you to find some other explanation--any other explanation--to protect you from having to deal with the possibility of an occurence which does not fit neatly inside the box of your own world view.

ehbowen, please. There is nothing more annoying than someone putting words in my mouth. Did I not just say in my last post that the supernatural, e.g. angels, were a possible explination for the event?

Further, have you not said that natural explinations for the event were not possible? One could start to wonder if you are discounting the natrual possibilities in order to protect your own preconceptions that angels exist.

First off, let's winnow this list [of things that have not been demonstrably shown to be true] down. We can start by eliminating the items for which there is no one currently making serious claims on their behalf. This takes care of pixies, fairies, elves, leprechauns, dragons, and unicorns. (I am perfectly willing to consider the possibility that dragons, unicorns, etc. existed in the past, but that's a subject for another discussion.)

So, you discount them because "pixies, fairies, elves, leprechauns, dragons, and unicorns don't exist"? I seem to remember,

Originally posted by ehbowen
However, I must state up front that any argument or reasoning which is based upon the proposition that "angels do not exist" is more likely than "Mrs. Howard is a liar" will fall completely flat with me.

Less than a century ago, fairies were very strongly considered to exist. Even by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who was a rapt believer. Why the double standard? What is it that differentiates angels from fairies? Because no one currently makes serious claims of their existance at the moment?

Secondly, we can eliminate those items which would be of trivial impact upon the world were they true. If Bigfoot and Nessie were found tomorrow it might make an interesting diversion for a few zoologists for a while, but they would likely have no greater impact upon human society at large than do the existence of the coelacanth and the grizzly bear.

I'd say that it would have a great deal of impact to the theory of evolution, which has a great deal of social impact at the moment, but why quibble?

That leaves UFOs, angels, and magic. Angels we have already discussed at sufficient length. I am quite willing to consider the possibility that magic exists, but I do not believe it exists as an independent phenomenon; in my understanding as a Christian it is inextricably linked with fallen angels, aka demons. So while I do not discount all such reported instances of it, it is a subject which I consider off-limits for safe investigation.

I am tempted to explore these preconceptions based on preconceptions, but dogma isn't really the focus of the thread. So, nevermind.

That leaves UFOs. What are the possibilities there? Well, I think you would agree with me about two of them. One is that they are all bunk, and that people are either fabricating their accounts or else are victims of hallucinations/false memories/etc. The other is that they are real and that they are of a physical nature like us. [Up: Agreed] But in that case, why is there no hard evidence? Why is there no undeniable contact? We can postulate "prime directives" and so forth, but an examination of human nature and human history would lead us to the conclusions that if they are benevolent, they would want to contact us in order to aid our civilization and that if they are not benevolent then they would want to invade and conquer us quickly in order to prevent us from developing star travel independently and becoming a threat. Provided that these are the only two possibilities, I would have to conclude that the first conclusion is most likely correct: It's all bunk.

To recap, if a person claims to have an experience with aliens and/or UFOs, it's probably bunk due to "people are either fabricating their accounts or else are victims of hallucinations/false memories/etc." However, if a person has an experience with angels, you have no rational reason to think they aren't telling the Truth. Interesting.

No double standard here? Let's continue.

But in my world view, I am able to seriously consider another possibility: That UFOs do in fact exist, but that they are of spiritual/supernatural origin. Is there any reason to believe this? Well, first, the parallels of comparison with stories of angels and other supernatural encounters is uncanny. [snip] Indeed there is; should Satan want to openly appear in this world do you think he would be likely to stand up and say, "Here I am! The Devil, Old Nick, the Prince of Darkness! Come to me and be my slave forever!"? Wouldn't he likely have more success and win more followers by proclaiming himself to be Klaat Xerount, a superior being from Omicron Ceti III?

[snip]

So, based upon the information I have, I believe that in those UFO encounters where the stories do not break down upon closer examination (which is a tiny minority, I will agree) the people involved are witnessing a legitimate phenomenon, but that it is one of spiritual and supernatural origin. Were aliens to appear openly tomorrow, I would consider it most likely that they were fallen angels or demons in disguise.

Now who is reaching? Regardless, you're saying that people who experience a close encounter with aliens/UFOs are incorrect about what is actually happening. Doesn't this go against your earlier claim that

people are, by and large, competent observers of the major and significant events in their lives. I am not claiming that they cannot be wrong about details; see below. But without a good reason to believe otherwise, I consider them to be competent to recount the main points of their defining life experiences.

Again with the double standard. If the phenomenon is angels, the observers are competent and absolutely reliable. If the phenomenon is aliens, the observers have been tricked and the phenomenon has an alternate explination. A skeptic would be willing to consider either option if there were something more substantial than antecdotes to go on. Even you seem to recongnize, at least in some situations, that anecdotes cannot always be taken at face value.

Could I be persuaded that I was wrong? Oh, most certainly. If those aliens shared the same physical vulnerabilities we do--if they could get sick, bleed, die, etc.--that would be a strong indicator that they were of physical origin. If they were to take no actions to win followers in a religious sense, if they left human religions in general and Christianity in particular to operate normally, then that would be another strong indicator in their favor. If they had technology which could be studied, understood, duplicated and put to use by us, I would consider that virtually conclusive; I believe that Satan does not have either the inclination or the patience to develop and master technology.

You've very close to a skeptical outlook with the above statement. The difference is that skeptics are not limited to only thinking that aliens are either aliens or angel/demons in disguise. We're also willing to consider the option that they don't actually exist at all.

Originally posted by Upchurch

Going back to the central point of this thread, this is the primary reason why believes will never be as objective as skeptics when considering an issue. Your assumptions about the world immediately cut you off from a range of possibilities to consider when interpreting a situation or event.

Once again, you've got that backwards. It is your assumptions about the world which immediately cut you off from a range of possibilities when considering events such as this. I would have no problem whatsoever mastering the disciplines of and assimilating information from the fields of chemistry, physics, biology, engineering, and so on. How likely are you to seriously consider the possibility that UFOs are fallen angels?

Why just above, I stated that I would be open to it if there were any evidence stronger than andecdotal stories which, as I have shown, can be faulty due to any number of reasons. And those reason, despite what your own preconceptions would like you to believe, have been studied and shown to occur time and time again.

If there were substantive evidence of angels, I would be very willing to give their existance credit. Further, if there were substantive evidence that angels existed but none that aliens/UFOs existed, I would be very willing to give the idea that aliens are actually angels, fallen or otherwise.

Let me counter, how likely are you to seriously consider the possibility that neither aliens nor angels exist? So far, you've given no indication that you would be, or am I mistaken?
<hr>
edited to add:

I feel justified in asking this. After all, your willingness to consider the possibility of false memories resulted in the following reaction:

Originally posted by ehbowen

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, HELL NO, A THOUSAND TIMES: NO!!!

 

[Dancing David]

Eye witnesses have a horrible track record in even serious capital crimes, check out information on Illinois death row.

What eveidence id there other than an eyewitness account, sorry I have met too many liars in my time, too many people with temperol lobe seizures and too many people with organic brain syndrome.

Now if we want to say that 'spiritual' experience is a special category of human perception and that many wierd and wonderful things can happen in human perception: the I agree that angels may exist. But as elements of human perception.

Magic: The Art and Science to cause change to occur in conformity with will.-A. Crowley Does not have to involve 'fallen angel' I suggest you read up on the Quabbalh a little, there are 'daemons' who were there before the demiurgos created the world, they even assisted.

Most magic does not require the trappings of medieveli religion.

 

[ehbowen]

Whoaw!!! What's this?? Do you stand behind this statement ehbowen?? And if so, where do you get the stones to start this thread and claim that all of "us skeptics" are closeminded??

I have deliberately attempted, for the most part, to avoid labeling one group or another with the perjorative terms "open" and "close-minded." I have merely said that we all have preconceptions and that those preconceptions color our responses to information. I have also said that we should attempt to be aware of those preconceptions and to take them into account. I do not exclude myself.

Your position is now laughable in light of YOUR closeminded beliefs. Throwing out scientific reason in favor of "revelation" (which can't be tested, falsified, etc.)?? The mind boggles.

Feel free to go ahead and laugh. We shall see who laughs last.

I accept the scientific method as a very powerful tool. In the 99% of cases where it does not conflict with the plain sense of Scripture, I have no problems with accepting its results at face value. In those cases where there is a conflict, such as the question of origins, I look for a way to reconcile the differences. I believe that the postulate of alternate time tracks coupled with that of conflict between God and Satan throughout time is potentially a valid step in that direction. I don't yet have enough supporting evidence to preach it from a pulpit or teach it to a class, but I am willing to discuss it in an open forum.

But if I am backed into a corner and forced to make a choice which will affect my life and my actions, and my only choices are that between scientific reasoning and the Word of God as revealed in the Bible, I will choose to follow the Bible. And my reason for making that choice is that that path has proven to be satisfactory and trustworthy in my life for the past twenty years. I can understand that you and those like you would disagree with and ridicule me for making it. But it is my choice, and I am satisfied with the results.

(Edit for spelling)

 

[Bluegill]

When people are speaking from such differing premises, I'm not sure anything more can be said, except, "Have a good day."

 

[Fun2BFree]

We shall see who laughs last.

I accept the scientific method as a very powerful tool. In the 99% of cases where it does not conflict with the plain sense of Scripture, I have no problems with accepting its results at face value. In those cases where there is a conflict, such as the question of origins, I look for a way to reconcile the differences..... I don't yet have enough supporting evidence to preach it from a pulpit or teach it to a class, but I am willing to discuss it in an open forum.

,..... I will choose to follow the Bible. And my reason for making that choice is that that path has proven to be satisfactory and trustworthy in my life for the past twenty years.

So for you the ultimate arbiter for truth is the Bible, not evidence but the Bible...your interpretation of the Bible...except you do mention something about evidence..but it appears that ultimately all evidence is only reliable so far as it can be reconciled with the Bible..so again if the Bible and the evidence don't match--the Bible is correct...

The difference between your OBVIOUS need to believe and the skeptical position is that contraty to your original point we do not have any such need for belief---our "preconception" is only that we have evidence-reliable, predictable, reproducible.

Example-when I buy lumber to build a house, I need a tool that will make the measurements the same, not one that changes all the time and has to be reconciled and reinterpreted to get the same measure.

When I go building the foundation for my life I need similar tools-the Bible and the recollections/hallucinations and misperceptions of human beings have been shown to be a very poor tool to get consistently reproducible results. No preconceptions, just more reliable standards for evidence than you demand. As you say -we shall see who laughs last...that sounds like there will be some evidence supporting who is right...but who will be there to record the results accurately?? We are not only laughing last...but we will enjoy laughing all the way to the end at your sillinesss.

 

[Upchurch]

I think it would be instructive at this point to reiterate the premise of this thread.

Originally posted by ehbowen with much snipping by Upchurch
I would submit to you that I, being a believer, am better able to impartially assess and judge these stories than are you, the skeptics.

I have the psychological freedom to examine and consider each individual story on its content and merits, and I feel no pressure to accept or reject any individual story; should any one prove to be false, it calls for no great change in my beliefs. Now if anyone were to be able to show globally that each and every such story was false, it would call for a fundamental revision in my world view. Frankly, though, I do not believe that anyone is able to show this; however, you are welcome to try.

Those of you who see yourselves as skeptics, though, do not have this kind of freedom. I ask you to consider, again, your initial, gut reactions to the stories I presented. Did you conclude that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey were lying, or that they were mentally unstable? Upon what evidence was this conclusion based? If your answer is, "because they saw angels," then your reasoning is circular; you are assuming the point under debate. I ask you to carefully consider how much of your response stemmed from a fundamental, underlying belief that, "these things are impossible; therefore, any other explanation is preferred." Think upon that, and think upon what kind of a psychological stake—a "need to not believe"--you have in the assessment of such a story.

Now, reading back over the thread, has ehbowen made his case? Has he shown that skeptics are less able to impartially assess and judge angel stories than believers are? I say he hasn't, based on two points in the above quote.

• "If your answer is, 'because they saw angels,' then your reasoning is circular; you are assuming the point under debate." I would assert that this is, in fact, precisely what ehbowen has done. ehbowen assumes that angels exist so that he takes the accounts at face value with no further investigation. In other words, he assumes angels exist so the encounter was with angels. The skeptic, on the other hand, investigates other options as well in an attempt to determine what has actually happened, as I have tried to demonstrate in the thread.
  
• "Think upon that, and think upon what kind of a psychological stake—a 'need to not believe'--you have in the assessment of such a story." I believe this is another reverse projection. I think I've shown that I am more than willing to believe that a phenomenon is supernatural in origin once the natural options have been exausted. I, and I think many other skeptics, do not have the deep seated need to not believe that many believers feel that we must have.

Ultimately, ehbowen, I think this is an attempt to marginalize critical thought. If you could show that skeptics have no more validity than a believer, any believer, then it becomes a matter of choice. And all choices are equal.

If, on the other hand, skeptics have more validity because they really do base things purely on critical thought rather than superstition or authority and they often come to the conclusion that aspects of believer's beliefs are inconsistant or even false, then the choices aren't equal. Some choices have more validity than others, don't they?

 

[Yahzi]

ehbowen

and my only choices are that between scientific reasoning and the Word of God as revealed in the Bible, I will choose to follow the Bible.

Can you not see that choosing the Bible, above all empirical evidence, is the very definition of preconception?

Seriously: are you unable to see this, or merely unwilling? Are you neurologically handicapped, or just emotionally immature?

Can you not at least admit that logically you are wrong? We aren't asking you to change your beliefs: just to acknowledge that you have preconceptions which are not necessarily present in a skeptical viewpoint. But as Upchurch said, that would mean you would have to stop pretending that you are as logical as the skeptics.

So here is my question, Eric: why does it matter? Why do you feel the need to be as logical as skeptics? Why can't you just admit your belief is irrational, and that's ok?


Upchurch
Made his point? He has contradicted himself completely. Contrast the quote above with the introductory quote:

I have the psychological freedom to examine and consider each individual story on its content and merits, and I feel no pressure to accept or reject any individual story

This is manifestly false. I think stating that the Biblical position is a priori correct qualifies as "pressure to accept or reject individual stories," at least as far as they contradict or agree with the Bible. The fact that Eric doesn't recognize this demonstrates that either a) he is mentally incapable of remembering what he said, or b) he is emotionally incapable of remembering what he said. IMHO, admittedly without sufficient evidence, I think it's the latter.

 

[Upchurch]

Made his point? He has contradicted himself completely.

Interesting point, but we should give him a chance to counter and/or explain what he meant.

Incidently, I would take his first quote in your post and reword it thus:

"[If] my only choices are that between any explanation (scientific, religious, or otherwise) and the facts as revealed by objective investigation, I will choose to follow the facts."

 

[ehbowen]

Irony alert: You are willing to consider a non-supernatural explination but have no rational reason for thinking that a supernatural explination is less likely than a natural one? Further, you assert that the supernatural explination is more likely than a natural one?

So your position is that any natural explanation is to be preferred over any supernatural explanation, regardless of whether or not we have any specific evidence in this specific case which points to it?

The thing is, you haven't been willing to consider natural explinations through your insistance that those natural explinations aren't possible (false memories, for example).

No, I never said that a natural explanation wasn't possible. I simply said that in these particular cases I had no reason to believe that these particular individuals were the victims of hallucinations, false memories, and so forth. And neither do you.

ehbowen, please. There is nothing more annoying than someone putting words in my mouth.

Sorry. But you do it too:

Further, have you not said that natural explinations for the event were not possible?

For the nth time, NO, I HAVE NOT! I have simply said that I have no reason to prefer these alternate explanations as opposed to the plain facts of the case as recounted by the witnesses. And that in the absence of a reason to believe otherwise, I choose to believe that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are competent to observe and to recount the facts of their own life experiences.

To recap, if a person claims to have an experience with aliens and/or UFOs, it's probably bunk due to "people are either fabricating their accounts or else are victims of hallucinations/false memories/etc." However, if a person has an experience with angels, you have no rational reason to think they aren't telling the Truth. Interesting.

No double standard here? Let's continue.

You overlooked a very important detail; I said: Provided that these are the only two possibilities, I would have to conclude that the first conclusion is most likely correct: It's all bunk. As I went on to discuss, I do not believe that those are the only two possibilities.

And I would further note that you are making global generalizations whereas I have, from the beginning, carefully limited myself to two specific cases. There are any number of so-called angel sightings where I would agree that the natural explanation is most likely. I chose to bring up Mrs. Howard's case because in that case I have direct personal knowledge of the principal and I know that there is no element of financial reward or recognition; I chose Rev. Cathey's case because I considered the elements of his case, particularly that of his daughter's medical experiences, to be especially compelling.

Now who is reaching? Regardless, you're saying that people who experience a close encounter with aliens/UFOs are incorrect about what is actually happening. Again with the double standard. If the phenomenon is angels, the observers are competent and absolutely reliable. If the phenomenon is aliens, the observers have been tricked and the phenomenon has an alternate explination. A skeptic would be willing to consider either option if there were something more substantial than antecdotes to go on. Even you seem to recongnize, at least in some situations, that anecdotes cannot always be taken at face value.

Once again, you make global generalizations when I have limited myself to specific cases. It is my contention that, in these two specific cases, there is no reason to believe that these two specific people are not competent observers of their own situations. And that if the facts as they recounted them are indeed the true facts of the cases, there is no reason to seriously dispute their conclusions that they encountered angels.

You put me at a disadvantage by pressing me to respond in a general sense to the UFO question. If you wish to continue this line of questioning, I ask that you limit it to a specific case, preferably one in which the credibility of the witness and the facts of the case do not break down upon initial examination.

Let me counter, how likely are you to seriously consider the possibility that neither aliens nor angels exist? So far, you've given no indication that you would be, or am I mistaken?

You would first have to convince me that the Bible is not the Word of God. I am convinced that it is, and it is the Bible which tells me that there are angels. In order to do that, you would have to wipe out my memory of the previous thirty-three years and re-play that time span with no answered prayer, no comfort, consolation, insight, and illumination from the Holy Spirit, no instances of providential care and concern, and no evidence of divine guidance and plan. I do not think that you can do this. But you are free to try.

I feel justified in asking this. After all, your willingness to consider the possibility of false memories resulted in the following reaction:

In one specific case. A case in which I had detailed, personal knowledge: My own.

 

[Max560]

You would first have to convince me that the Bible is not the Word of God.

Does your belief that the Bible is the Word of God dictate the actual nature of reality, and all of the possible explanations for your friend's angel anecdote, or does your belief that the Bible is the Word of God dictate your version of reality, and which explanations you will accept for your friends anecdote?

 

[Yahzi]

ehbowen

You would first have to convince me that the Bible is not the Word of God. I am convinced that it is, and it is the Bible which tells me that there are angels.

Now see, the absolute conviction that the Bible is the Word of God, absent any direct evidence, is what we call a "preconception." It is what you have, and what we skeptics do not have.

The evidence you listed for the truth of the Bible simply doesn't apply. None of those things are proof that the Bible is the word of God. The fact that you don't already know that shows you don't understand what "proof" is.

And that in the absence of a reason to believe otherwise, I choose to believe

When you are being rational, without preconceptions, in the absence of evidence, you don't believe. Choosing what you believe because that is what you want to believe is what is called a "preconception." It is what you have, and what we skeptics do not have.


Anyone
Can anyone explain why people who start a thread accusing everyone else of having preconceptions invariably turn out to be the poster children of preconceptions? Is it inevitable human nature that anytime somebody has a character flaw, they accuse the rest of the planet of it, without ever once realizing it might apply to them?

It would funny if it weren't so utterly common.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Since I had a preconception that there are no angels at the begining of this thread, and I still feel the same... Is it now a ' postconception?

 

[Upchurch]

So your position is that any natural explanation is to be preferred over any supernatural explanation, regardless of whether or not we have any specific evidence in this specific case which points to it?

Perhaps it would be instructive at this point to review what "supernatural" actually means. In the link I provided, there are two definitions. The first relates to the supernatural realm. The second relates to events that occur in the natural realm that are of non-natural origins. Since we are potentially talking about non-natural events occuring in the natural world, it is the second definition that is of interest to us. Specifically:

From the above link

2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

In deference to your assumptions, I would amend 2 a to read "... so as to transcend or appear to transcend the laws of nature", so as to account for the possibility that angels do exist and can, in fact, transcend the laws of nature, rather than mearly appearing to.

Given that a supernatural events trancend the laws of nature, there is no way to objectively measure the event, since measuring requires abiding by a consistant pattern of behavior. If an event does not follow the laws of nature, it may not have a consistant pattern of behavior and, thus, may not be measurable. (I'm reiterating the point in another way, not providing justification.)

So, lets assume that a true supernatural event occurs. For instance, an angel visits an old woman. But, since the event is unmeasurable and unrepeatable, we can not be certain that the supernatural entity involved is, in fact, an angel. It could, with equal probability, be a devil, demon, fairie, ghost, phantom or any other supernatural entity. Because supernatural entities transcend the laws of nature, we have no way of knowing what their properties are.

So, yes, natural explinations are preferable to supernatural explinations because they can be verified. However, not just any natural explination is preferable. The natural explination must account for all aspects of the event.

However, I must make a correction. The specific evidence in this specific case (I'm taking to be Mrs. Howard) does not explicitly indicate a supernatural event. It is consistant with a number of natural psychological phenomenon, as I've shown in previous posts. To be honest, the evidence in this specific case does not explicitly indicate anything other than Mrs. Howard remembers seeing what she believes to be an angel.

No, I never said that a natural explanation wasn't possible. I simply said that in these particular cases I had no reason to believe that these particular individuals were the victims of hallucinations, false memories, and so forth. And neither do you.

I didn't say you never said it wasn't possible. I said that you haven't been willing to consider it. There is a difference. The very difference you accuse skeptics of, in fact. (I am attempted to say it's the very difference you project onto skeptics.)

Ask yourself, while there is no reason to believe that Mrs. Howard was the victim of a psychological phenomenon, is there any reason to believe that she wasn't? The thing is, a psychological study of Mrs. Howard might be able to give us an indication if the latter has occured. Then, we might have a reason to consider one way or the other.

Originally posted by Upchurch

ehbowen, please. There is nothing more annoying than someone putting words in my mouth.

Sorry. But you do it too:

... I'm sorry. You are correct. You haven't said that natural possibilities aren't possible.

And that in the absence of a reason to believe otherwise, I choose to believe that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are competent to observe and to recount the facts of their own life experiences.

Then you must recognize that choice is based on your own assumptions. You must further recognize that a skeptic's decision to withold judgement based on lack of information is not tantamount to an assumption that angels don't exist. This is has been your original claim and this is what I'm telling you that you are mistaken about.

You overlooked a very important detail; I said: Provided that these are the only two possibilities, I would have to conclude that the first conclusion is most likely correct: It's all bunk. As I went on to discuss, I do not believe that those are the only two possibilities.

It doesn't matter if there are two or two thousand possibilites, my point was that you have two standards by which judge andecdotal evidence. For those who remember seeing supernatural enitities that are angels, they're 100% competient given no reason to think otherwise. For those who remember seeing supernatural entities that are not angels, they're probably mistaken given no reason to think otherwise.

When considering a situation with an open mind, free of preceptions, why should anecdotal claims about angels have any more credibility than anecdotal claims of fairies, aliens, or running a one minute mile?

And I would further note that you are making global generalizations whereas I have, from the beginning, carefully limited myself to two specific cases.

I disagree. As you've pointed out on a number of occasions, this is not about the specific cases of angel sightings. This is about the general approach that skeptics take vs. the approach that beleivers take. I quote:

I would submit to you that I, being a believer, am better able to impartially assess and judge these stories than are you, the skeptics.

snip]

I simply ask you to be aware that you have them, that you attempt to remain aware of the ways in which they influence your actions, and that you keep open in the back of your mind the possibility that, on that most fundamental level, you could be wrong.

My purpose in this thread it to dispute these statements. When it comes down to it, ehbowen, it is the believer, not the skeptic, who has trouble remembering that, on that most fundamental level, that they could be wrong. Further, I think your arguments on this thread support my counter-argument.

But if we must argue specifics...

There are any number of so-called angel sightings where I would agree that the natural explanation is most likely. I chose to bring up Mrs. Howard's case because in that case I have direct personal knowledge of the principal and I know that there is no element of financial reward or recognition;

Very well. Now, what relevence does your involvement with Mrs. Howard or the fact that no fame or fortune is involved have to do with how Mrs. Howard percieved the event she remembers? It's immaterial to the event itself. It's still anecdotal evidence and it is still unverifiable.

I chose Rev. Cathey's case because I considered the elements of his case, particularly that of his daughter's medical experiences, to be especially compelling.

But then, you have picked the anecdotes that supports your preconceptions. How many anecdotes are there that don't support that angels exist? Assuming there even is a Rev. Cathey or that the story was reported accurately, it is still only anecdotal evidence.

You put me at a disadvantage by pressing me to respond in a general sense to the UFO question. If you wish to continue this line of questioning, I ask that you limit it to a specific case, preferably one in which the credibility of the witness and the facts of the case do not break down upon initial examination.

I have put you at a disadvantage not because I'm not presenting specific anecdotes, but because I'm forcing you to apply your confidence in anecdotal evidence to a subject where you don't necessarily believe the premise is true. When the person is telling you something you don't already believe is true, suddenly the recounted stories of others don't seem to carry as much weight, do they?

If you insist on a specific case, let us reconsider a case I brought up earlier, the Cottingly Fairies. Before the photographic evidence was fully debunked, many people thought as you do: There is no reason to doubt the girls story. Further, they had actual pictures! So, why did, or should, people continue to question the anecdotal and, in this case, physical evidence the girls provided?

Originally posted by Upchurch

Let me counter, how likely are you to seriously consider the possibility that neither aliens nor angels exist? So far, you've given no indication that you would be, or am I mistaken?

You would first have to convince me that the Bible is not the Word of God. I am convinced that it is, and it is the Bible which tells me that there are angels. In order to do that, you would have to wipe out my memory of the previous thirty-three years and re-play that time span with no answered prayer, no comfort, consolation, insight, and illumination from the Holy Spirit, no instances of providential care and concern, and no evidence of divine guidance and plan. I do not think that you can do this. But you are free to try.

This, ehbowen, is known as an Appeal to Authority and it is a logical fallacy. It occurs when a debater can't make an argument stand by its own merits and is reduced to saying their argument is correct because an authority says it is correct. By appealing to the Christian Bible as the ultimate authority on the nature of reality, by saying that angels exist because the Bible tells you that they do, you are commiting this logical fallacy.

Further, it tells me, once again, that you cannot "keep open in the back of your mind the possibility that, on that most fundamental level, you could be wrong," because you are not likely to seriously consider the possibility that angels don't exist.

 

[Upchurch]

Anyone
Can anyone explain why people who start a thread accusing everyone else of having preconceptions invariably turn out to be the poster children of preconceptions? Is it inevitable human nature that anytime somebody has a character flaw, they accuse the rest of the planet of it, without ever once realizing it might apply to them?

It's called Freudian projection (see item 2b. 5)

From the above link

(Freudian) An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but who is unwilling to perceive himself as a protagonist, convinces himself that his opponent feels and would act the same way.

 

[Dancing David]

The easiest path is to say that these are perceprtual/spiritual experiences.

I knew a very famous anthropologist who was attacked by a were jaguar. Seriously, one night on the way home he was attacked by a jaguar, a human masqueradeing as a jaguar or a were jaguar. He never assumed that it was the last possibilty, because he had never seen eveidence that a human can turn into a jaguar. (The funny part of the story is that the only alcohol in twon was the prostitute perfume and so they treated his wounds with that, his wife smeeled the perfume and refused to let him in the house)

So intelligent and rational person that he is if he daid 'It was a were jaguar' that would constitute proof of wre jaguars?\

Sorry given the three choices, i would have to go with the first two, there is eveidence that jaguars exist, there is evidence that people can pretend to be jaguars (huge ones) but at this point there is no evidence for were jaguars.

 

[ehbowen]

Does your belief that the Bible is the Word of God dictate the actual nature of reality, and all of the possible explanations for your friend's angel anecdote, or does your belief that the Bible is the Word of God dictate your version of reality, and which explanations you will accept for your friends anecdote?

I said in the beginning that, "I consider it neither impossible nor unlikely that angels exist; I consider it very highly unlikely that Mrs. Howard would lie to me." That is basically how I view the situations. I consider that the possibility that angels exist and that one of them would want to appear to Mrs. Howard is fairly high; I consider that the possibility that Mrs. Howard would tell me an outright lie or be the victim of a hallucination/false memory/ etc. is very low. I freely state that my views of these probabilities are shaped by my own preconceptions. I simply happen to believe that my preconceptions are closer to the actual truth than those of others on this thread.

More importantly, though, I want to say that I don't believe that it is correct to speak of "my" reality or "your" reality. I am convinced that reality is objective, not subjective. And my goal is to more completely discover that actual, objective reality. What my belief in the Bible dictates is my actions. I have become convinced that the best and fastest way to discover the truth is to earnestly seek after God. I believe that pursuing that path will open the door for me to discover things which could never be learned in a thousand years of laboratory research.

 

[ehbowen]

Since I had a preconception that there are no angels at the begining of this thread, and I still feel the same... Is it now a ' postconception?

It's actually known as a "misconception."

(You have to admit, you set yourself up for that one.... )

 

[ehbowen]

When you are being rational, without preconceptions, in the absence of evidence, you don't believe. Choosing what you believe because that is what you want to believe is what is called a "preconception." It is what you have, and what we skeptics do not have.

Very well. I have never said that I was free from preconceptions. I have said several times that we all have them. My hope from the beginning was that we might all be able to recognize our blind spots and take them into account. But now, shades of John 9:41, you say, "We see." Time will tell.

 

[Yahzi]

Very well. I have never said that I was free from preconceptions. I have said several times that we all have them. My hope from the beginning was that we might all be able to recognize our blind spots and take them into account. But now, shades of John 9:41, you say, "We see." Time will tell.

But we don't have preconceptions, at least not in the sense in which you use the word. We don't have a truth we are a priori invested in being true.

Like somebody said, you can find out all of physics is wrong and still be a physicist, but if you find out your religion is wrong, you can't be a priest anymore.

Of course we have blind spots, but we also have methods for coping with them. You not only have blind spots, you embrace them as the foundation of your truths.

Of course, you will never see the difference. The question I would like to you answer is: why? Why do you simultaneously reject empirical rationalism and yet strive after its credentials?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by ehbowen

I am convinced that reality is objective, not subjective. And my goal is to more completely discover that actual, objective reality. What my belief in the Bible dictates is my actions.

In general, how reliable would you consider the writers of the bible in describing such aspects of objective reality as, say...astronomy? How about geography? ...Medicine?

I have become convinced that the best and fastest way to discover the truth is to earnestly seek after God. I believe that pursuing that path will open the door for me to discover things which could never be learned in a thousand years of laboratory research.

Nor confirmed (or refuted) by a thousand years of scientific testing, and therefore of no more value than any of countless other things that have no more factual basis than their being something somebody thought up, and which by their nature are similarly untestable.

My hope from the beginning was that we might all be able to recognize our blind spots and take them into account.

Once you recognize a blind spot, it ceases to be a blind spot. Locating and eliminating blind spots is practically a definition of scientific investigation and skeptical inquiry. By contrast, Jesus said, "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out".

 

[Fun2BFree]

ehbowen-

All of your so-called proofs depend on believing you or Mrs Holland or Rev Cathay...believing anyone's recollections, interpretations, etc of anything is not called objective evidence of reality--individual's recollections are by definition subjective. Subjective recollections are notoriously not reliable--people remember and interpret things according to their own views not reliably or consistently aligned with objective reality...You think things that happened to you in your life prove God's existence...but would ANYbody observing your life come to the same conclusion? Unless the same conclusion is reached by independent observers it is not reliable information. So Mrs Holland is a reliable eyewitness? Do you suppose a defense attorney would be bothered if she were a witness against his client and told about this angel experience to prove how reliable a witness she was????


that you think that your arguments provide any logical rational basis for your beliefs is the first evidence of how unreliable your interpretation of the world is...with that notion roundly rejected here you should realize how unreliable YOU are to interpret your own life's experiences in anything approaching a rational way---you have built your whole life's foundation on an irrational belief---faith is by definition believing without adequate reason to believe---no reason--without reason--Irrational...This is not just ME the nonbeliever, saying this--read one of the great believers--Immanuel Kant---"I had therefore to remove knowledge, in order to make room for belief." (read his works,not just this quote)

All of your supposed proofs of the Bible and God's grace and answered prayers in your life's events are just YOUR interpretation of events to fit that hypothesis...there are non God, rational explanations for everything that has happened in your life- EVERYTHING that has happened in your life can be explained in a natural way- no God necessary--only YOUR CHOSEN OR INDOCTRINATED BELIEF favors God...answered prayers??? Every prayer answered? Really? Wow, what a record that must be....that should allow you to prove ahead of time what will happen in life by just praying for it and sitting back and watching your every prayer answered...Let me guess---that is not how it works....I am betting that if a prayer went your way--God said yes, if it went against you, God said no...but whatever happened you always interpreted it as prayer answered by God...could never be just random chance....You see that as a fair test of whether prayer is answered???? You recall and interpret life in a way that fits the belief you arbitrarily were born to---but the natural explanations are more likely---that is not preconception that is playing the probabilities...I will quote myself from another thread:

"In the history of man's attempts to understand the world, the supernatural explanations's batting average for being correct so far is ----let me do a little calculation....let me see zero divided by umpteen is what again?"

By correct, I mean so far proven correct---you see, that is the nature of science---it leaves open the door to more and better proof--but as the scientific knowledge has expanded so many supernatural explanations have fallen by the wayside ...science, the natural explanation replacing the supernatural, has a pretty darn good record. The scientific explanation has NEVER been supplanted by the supernatural -never.

Again quoting myself frm the other thread-
"When some one says God- one can substitute the words "no body knows" which is ignorance. I am not sure of the quote but I believe it was Ayn Rand who said something to the effect that taking ignorance and giving it a name does not make it into knowledge..."
(Note- please, I do not use the quote because Ayn Rand is an authority on anything, it is a correct statement because it is demonstrably true, quite succinct, and credit to the original speaker is appropriate.)

 

[evildave]

Do you suppose a defense attorney would be bothered if she were a witness against his client and told about this angel experience to prove how reliable a witness she was????

Actually, according to the jury a defense attorney was likely to draw (and select), an angel story would be "extra damning".

Especially when you consider the defense attorney of that guy who killed his pregnant wife is blaming 'satanists' in a mystery van.

Maybe Scooby Doo was involved....