Christian and Skeptic??

[TLN]

A little autocratic, aren't we? No, that's as serious as I get when discussing myself. Deal with it or not. Your choice. I bared my soul and gave plenty of thought to my answer. I'm a little peeved, but not at all surprised, at seeing the entire thing snipped and ignored after I decided to actually take the time to give an honest answer about very personal things.

Can you tell me why you think I would feel any interest to obey your little foot-stomping demand just because my first (probably unread) response failed your unstated criteria? Why would any rational human being feel compelled to respond to this distasteful display?

Again, you inject emotion into my posts that simply isn't there.

I asked you for your beliefs so we could discuss them and you gave me an "only-slightly facetious" summary. I took that to mean "not serious". If I'm mistaken, I apologize.

If it is indeed a serious list I would ask you if you had any evidence regarding the efficacy of prayer.

 

[Harlequin]

What if a well-designed, double-blind test demonstrated that there was no result from prayer? Would that in any way change your belief in God? Would you make excuses like "Prayer doesn't always work" or "God doesn't care about the JREF money"?

 

[voidx]

Definitely not a predetermined conclusion. I was exploring the concept and during the exploration process came to a conclusion based on my experiences. Regarding post hoc justification, it's one of those areas that are difficult to quantify due to the nature of the experiences. I can say, however, that I didn't have an "aha!" after these subjective experiences.

Fair enough. Did the subjective experiences come before or after the exploration of the concept, or did they all sort of happen mismash overtime?

I don't deliberately mean to be mysterious about it, but the details are very personal.

I wouldn't ask you too bare your soul as it were just for the sake of arguement. You semm acknowledge that there is nothing convincing there for anyone else but likely yourself because you just have no way to quantify the experience to others. That's the catch-22 of personal beliefs in my opinion. And perhaps why they tend to have such staying power over time.

Sure, as long as you strike 'very much'. I simply expect it... but I'm by no means certain or sure I'm correct.

Fair enough. What fuels the expectation?

 

[TLN]

What if a well-designed, double-blind test demonstrated that there was no result from prayer? Would that in any way change your belief in God? Would you make excuses like "Prayer doesn't always work" or "God doesn't care about the JREF money"?

Indeed. I'm curious as to how you reconcile the statement "prayer works" with your previous statement...

With religious hypotheses, the nature of the questions and the hypotheses is inherently untestable and of course unfalsifiable. One may find it inconsistent that a person who likes science (the world of the falsifiable hypothesis) could still hold unfalsifiable beliefs. But there is no inconsistency in world view.

 

[tommyz]

What if a well-designed, double-blind test demonstrated that there was no result from prayer? Would that in any way change your belief in God? Would you make excuses like "Prayer doesn't always work" or "God doesn't care about the JREF money"?

Right on, Halequin. Prayers don't produce results; taking meaningful action can only do that!

 

[jmercer]

What if a well-designed, double-blind test demonstrated that there was no result from prayer? Would that in any way change your belief in God? Would you make excuses like "Prayer doesn't always work" or "God doesn't care about the JREF money"?

Hm... I don't think that this kind of approach would work unless you had some way to compel God to respond (if He exists). If you could show that God would be constrained to respond - and He didn't - then it would sure change my mind.

 

[voidx]

What belief are you asking about?

Sorry, was out for lunch and missed this. Your belief in God, whatever your definition.

 

[jmercer]

Fair enough. Did the subjective experiences come before or after the exploration of the concept, or did they all sort of happen mismash overtime?

Actually, it was during the exploration. It was a logical step in the process (for me) of determining if there really was a God or if it was all a bunch of nonsense. (In all honesty, though, I had a vested interest in determining this beyond the intellectual.)

I can also truthfully say that I never expected any of these experiences to happen, and I certainly never expected to have more than one of them. No one was more surprised than me - I really expected to come up with nothing, which is probably why it's had such a profound effect on me.

I wouldn't ask you too bare your soul as it were just for the sake of arguement. You semm acknowledge that there is nothing convincing there for anyone else but likely yourself because you just have no way to quantify the experience to others. That's the catch-22 of personal beliefs in my opinion. And perhaps why they tend to have such staying power over time.

Thanks... and yeah, I agree. Personal experiences probably have that staying power because there's no real way to validate or invalidate them in the end. Even dismissing them without real reasons is an act of faith, in an odd way.

Fair enough. What fuels the expectation?

Basically, the expectation is fueled by the belief, which in turn is supported by the experiences. If the experiences turn out to be false (or misinterpreted by me, more likely), then the entire thing collapses. Until I find out one way or the other, though, the structure - fragile as it may be - remains standing.

 

[rppa]

If it is indeed a serious list I would ask you if you had any evidence regarding the efficacy of prayer.

Yes. Subjective experience, subjective results. Completely unverifiable and unmeasurable.

Not at all the kind of thing being tested for in those silly medical experiments. I don't believe that 10 people pressing their hands together in the next room are going to make Aunt Martha's goiter smaller. I don't believe that praying for a million dollars is going to make it happen. I don't believe that, as I remember the "Peanuts" character "Linus" saying many years ago, back when Charles Shultz was funny "I think I've discovered that if you hold your hands upside down when you pray, you get the opposite of what you pray for."

That's why I said "note that I haven't defined 'prayer' or 'works'".

I think that what the meditational, almost non-verbal act which I call "prayer" has in the past led to some remarkable subjective experiences which I am not at all inclined to report here, but which were good for me and efficacious in the purpose being sought. In other words, it was a good thing to do, and I'll continue to do it.

On the other hand, I won't tell you that the hypothesis I have "God listens when I pray" can't just as easily be replaced with "it's Satan", "it's aliens", "it's the ancient spirit of Cleopatra", "it's angels", "it's your nosy telepathic neighbor", or "it's nobody at all, just a useful intuitive state accessible within the minds of all humans". I accept that the evidence for or against all of those hypotheses is equally absent. I choose #1, and my world view wouldn't come to a crashing halt if you somehow proved to me it was #6.

If you're looking for a fundamentalist to pick a fight with, you're in the wrong place.

Originally posted by Harlequin
What if a well-designed, double-blind test demonstrated that there was no result from prayer?

Then I would believe that the experiment had shown that what was being termed "prayer" for purposes of the experiment did not result in the result being sought. To the best of my knowledge, that's been the ultimate outcome of all medical studies purporting to show a medical effect of prayer.

Would you make excuses like "Prayer doesn't always work" or "God doesn't care about the JREF money"?

Certainly not. As I said, I'm pretty sure and not at all surprised that the results of double-blind tests to dates have been that "prayer" doesn't "work" as "prayer" and "work" were defined for those studies.

Despite TLN's insistence that he won't allow me to be, I am a skeptic. Please don't put woo-woo words in my mouth.

 

[rppa]

Indeed. I'm curious as to how you reconcile the statement "prayer works" with your previous statement...

That's because, as near as I can guess, you're apparently loading the words "prayer" and "works" with meanings which I didn't assign them.

But being an uncooperative and contrary bastard I'm not going to help you out beyond what I've already said here.

It may amuse you to note that the last time I described my "Christian" beliefs in this forum, I was informed I was describing agnosticism. If that makes your head explode with frustration while looking for whatever fight you're looking for, so be it. (May Cthulhu have mercy on your soul).

 

[voidx]

Actually, it was during the exploration. It was a logical step in the process (for me) of determining if there really was a God or if it was all a bunch of nonsense.

Is it possible though that this concept or need to determine the validity of God is as much caused by culture and shared experience, than as an actual useful tool too helping you explain anything? Was it a logical process or merely a satisfying one?

(In all honesty, though, I had a vested interest in determining this beyond the intellectual.)

I'm sure that would be illuminating, but I suspect it's likely personal.

I can also truthfully say that I never expected any of these experiences to happen, and I certainly never expected to have more than one of them. No one was more surprised than me - I really expected to come up with nothing, which is probably why it's had such a profound effect on me.

It sounds as though you had some expectation though of what kind of experiences could happen, through your exploration, through sharing of personal experiences from others. Perhaps these are as likely a trigger for your own experiences than anything else? Every culture is generally quite familiar with their particular concept of God, and its generally ingrained more than we think. I think this plays apart in making this rather unusual intuitive leap to relating personal experiences to a belief in God.

Thanks... and yeah, I agree. Personal experiences probably have that staying power because there's no real way to validate or invalidate them in the end. Even dismissing them without real reasons is an act of faith, in an odd way.

I wouldn't say we should dismiss them, but I also wouldn't say we should always take them as a foundation for unquantifiable beliefs either.

Basically, the expectation is fueled by the belief, which in turn is supported by the experiences. If the experiences turn out to be false (or misinterpreted by me, more likely), then the entire thing collapses. Until I find out one way or the other, though, the structure - fragile as it may be - remains standing.

So you've invested some belief in this structure, and know that it might very well be fragile and shaky. But you have experiences tied to it. And so you will stand behind it unless it collapses in front of you, or when in your perception it no longer seems capable of standing on its own. That's as honestly as one can put it I think .

 

[voidx]

Posted by rppa
On the other hand, I won't tell you that the hypothesis I have "God listens when I pray" can't just as easily be replaced with "it's Satan", "it's aliens", "it's the ancient spirit of Cleopatra", "it's angels", "it's your nosy telepathic neighbor", or "it's nobody at all, just a useful intuitive state accessible within the minds of all humans". I accept that the evidence for or against all of those hypotheses is equally absent. I choose #1, and my world view wouldn't come to a crashing halt if you somehow proved to me it was #6.

I think all the options listed above are too absolute. The pattern I'm seeing is that for lack of a definitive explanation of everything, I'll just pick one that seems best to me, until such time as its proven right or wrong, or I change my mind. I think I've come to a point where I'm more than satisfied with saying, I don't know. I just don't feel the need to have to make a concrete choice at this time. To do so would be to do so on faith, belief, or my own subjective preference. Perhaps that is where we differ most.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

rppa -- What would be the purpose in this "discussion"? I already know your opinion, that I'm a Bad Person for holding different views on this from you.

Where did you get this impression from? I don't see anyone labelling you as a Bad Person in this thread.

 

[rppa]

I think all the options listed above are too absolute. The pattern I'm seeing is that for lack of a definitive explanation of everything, I'll just pick one that seems best to me, until such time as its proven right or wrong, or I change my mind.

Sure. Just as with every other decision in our life, from our policies on child-rearing, to whether to drink caffeinated coffee, to our opinion on the SETI question. Being humans, most of the time we choose a hypothesis to believe until such time as proven right or wrong.

To me, that's the scientific method. You choose a hypothesis, you might be right or you might be wrong, and you see where the data leads you. If you're a good scientist, you draw a conclusion based on the data whether or not it agrees with your preconceptions. But there's no law against having a preconceived expectation about the outcome. There *IS* a law against letting it prejudice the experiment.

I think I've come to a point where I'm more than satisfied with saying, I don't know. I just don't feel the need to have to make a concrete choice at this time.

Well, I feel I've taken an especially long-winded way of saying "I don't know". I don't know if I'm praying to God, myself, or Cthulhu. I certainly have no opinion on the existence of the God of either the Old or New Testaments as related to the meditative experience I have chosen to label "God". But whether I know the unknowable truth or not, I have to make a decision on whether or not to take the time and mental effort to engage in these practices. I think they're good things to do, so I do. Just as I continue to drink mint tea when I have a cold, even though I have no proof for or against its efficacy. You may say you make no decision when you don't know, but you DO make a decision in the actions you choose. You either do or don't drink mint tea.

To do so would be to do so on faith, belief, or my own subjective preference. Perhaps that is where we differ most.

No, just in the labels for what I suspect are largely the same attitudes. As I said, what I've chosen to call "religious views" have been labelled in this forum as classic agnosticism. I accept that label may be valid, but I'm still going to call it my religion and call myself a Christian.

 

[Sharon]

I always struggled in the past understanding how you could have your cake and eat it, so to speak. By that I mean be a sceptic and believe in God/a god. I suppose I just thought you surley can't cherry pick what you do and do not believe in based on evidence.

Last year I read one of Martin Gardner's books (can't put the title on here as the book is in the girls room and they are fast asleep, purple cover I think?) Really enjoyed it, opened my eyes as did Carl Sagans Demon Haunted World. I then read Michael Shermers's How We Believe, Search For God. On page 9 he explains how in an interview with Martin Gardner that Gardner calls himself a fideist, someone who believes in God for personal or pragmatic reasons (what does pragmatic mean?). So I supose I'm saying I do believe you can have your cake and eat it as to me Martin Gardner is a sceptic as they come on everything other than his personal belief about God?

Sharon

 

[Harlequin]

That's because, as near as I can guess, you're apparently loading the words "prayer" and "works" with meanings which I didn't assign them.

Can you give us an example of what you mean by "prayer" and "works"?

For example, is my fervant but silently expressed wish to win the lottery a "prayer"? If I go to a cathedral and light a votive candle for my dying-of-cancer mother, is that "prayer"? If I sit quietly in my bedroom and meditate on the glory of a possibly existing deity, is that "prayer"?

As for "working", I could see that winning the lottery would certainly "work" for me! But, if not-winning will ultimately make me a happier and better person, then would that really be my prayer "working"? If my mother dies (and I believe she's gone to a better place) then is that my "prayer" working or not? Is feeling peaceful and content a result of my meditative "prayer" actually "working"?

I'm just trying to get a feeling for what you believe. If you think prayer works, then there should be some sort of example you can give. In my experience, most people that are logical thinkers and also Christians have only consistently experienced the third form of "prayer", which is actually a consistent experience across many religions, even those that don't believe in a god.

Hey! It works whether you believe in God or not, doesn't that prove God exists? (just kidding)

 

[TLN]

Despite TLN's insistence that he won't allow me to be, I am a skeptic. Please don't put woo-woo words in my mouth.

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree. Not when said "skeptic" says "prayer works" then follows it up with...

Yes. Subjective experience, subjective results. Completely unverifiable and unmeasurable.

This is not the least bit skeptical. Indeed, it's the very definition of belief.

This is not a personal attack. I'm not trying to be nasty. But there's no way to reconcile the statements "I'm a skeptic" with "prayer works" in any logical way that I can see.

 

[voidx]

Sure. Just as with every other decision in our life, from our policies on child-rearing, to whether to drink caffeinated coffee, to our opinion on the SETI question. Being humans, most of the time we choose a hypothesis to believe until such time as proven right or wrong.

Our knowledge is limited. That much we can all agree on. And so we hypothesize. Most of the examples above though can be quantified, or can be calculated or taken on the basis of probability. Some we cannot quantify, or verify or accurately define, and so we much question at least to ourselves, what their usefullness is. What is their actual function? And are they the only path.

To me, that's the scientific method. You choose a hypothesis, you might be right or you might be wrong, and you see where the data leads you. If you're a good scientist, you draw a conclusion based on the data whether or not it agrees with your preconceptions. But there's no law against having a preconceived expectation about the outcome. There *IS* a law against letting it prejudice the experiment.

I'd argue that most hypothesis must generally agree with some stated observation. We may take a completely counter-intuitive path to reaching what agree's with observation, but creating hypothesis that agree with nothing we can ever observe is merely to be internally consistent at best, and not particularily useful.

Well, I feel I've taken an especially long-winded way of saying "I don't know". I don't know if I'm praying to God, myself, or Cthulhu. I certainly have no opinion on the existence of the God of either the Old or New Testaments as related to the meditative experience I have chosen to label "God". But whether I know the unknowable truth or not, I have to make a decision on whether or not to take the time and mental effort to engage in these practices. I think they're good things to do, so I do. Just as I continue to drink mint tea when I have a cold, even though I have no proof for or against its efficacy. You may say you make no decision when you don't know, but you DO make a decision in the actions you choose. You either do or don't drink mint tea.

Could you not meditate simply because of how it makes you feel and leave God out of it? I'm not saying this too change your mind, I'm merely asking if you think its possible. I feel that you could, and still retain the perceived benefits. Its relaxing and restorative mentally. Praying too something or meditating in order to connect with something undefinable like God is merely an arbitrary choice. Not a logical conclusion. Drinking or not drinking mint tea is too simplistic. What I can profess to know about the nature of tea is more accurate. And if you want to dig far enough that must logically follow all the way back through a consistent structure of the universe that first allowed you to end up at this construct of "tea". And when we get to the very root of it, you have an extra assumption that I don't. Your undecided about it, yet you hold it nonetheless.

No, just in the labels for what I suspect are largely the same attitudes. As I said, what I've chosen to call "religious views" have been labelled in this forum as classic agnosticism. I accept that label may be valid, but I'm still going to call it my religion and call myself a Christian.

I also think our attitudes are likely more similiar than we might think. However I think there is more to your concept of God than a mere label. I really do think its a rather fundamental difference in what we choose to take as our base assumptions.

 

[rppa]

Can you give us an example of what you mean by "prayer" and "works"? For example, is my fervant but silently expressed wish to win the lottery a "prayer"?

No, but clearing your mind despite the ongoing money troubles that made you think winning the lottery was the only answer, opening yourself up to creative solutions without preconceptions -- that could be prayer.

And as for "work"? No, it's hard for me to talk about this without getting way too personal. I can only talk in generalities, and this will open me up to ridicule. I get more mystical in this arena than is my normal wont. But I'll try:
- sometimes when you can't get the answer to a question, it's because you're asking the wrong question. In prayer, you may find the right question bursts in upon you.

- There's a biblical verse about God speaking not in thundering crashes and burning bushes (I forget exactly how it's phrased) but in a "still small voice". By "prayer" I mean seeking internal stillness so you can hear that voice. By "works" perhaps I mean hearing it.

- the answers, the thoughts, the questions, the things that come to you in this process don't feel like your normal thoughts. I have plenty of experience with the back-burner intuitive "Aha!" engine inside that solves difficult problems, and it doesn't feel like that either.

If I go to a cathedral and light a votive candle for my dying-of-cancer mother, is that "prayer"? If I sit quietly in my bedroom and meditate on the glory of a possibly existing deity, is that "prayer"?

Maybe. I'm not sure what I'd say for "works" in that case, though, unless it was inner peace where before you were in turmoil.

As for "working", I could see that winning the lottery would certainly "work" for me!

More typically it's a positive outcome but not the one you were anticipating.

If my mother dies (and I believe she's gone to a better place) then is that my "prayer" working or not? Is feeling peaceful and content a result of my meditative "prayer" actually "working"?

Beyond my pay grade. No idea.

I'm just trying to get a feeling for what you believe.

That there is a meditative state which puts you in touch with guidance which is fundamentally different from either your normal brute-force problem solver, or your back-burner intuitive problem-solver. That listening to the hunches you get in this state always turn out well. That there is never, in retrospect, any magical explanation for the outcome but that nevertheless it's a direction you typically wouldn't have thought of going in.

If you think prayer works, then there should be some sort of example you can give.

Too personal.

In my experience, most people that are logical thinkers and also Christians have only consistently experienced the third form of "prayer", which is actually a consistent experience across many religions, even those that don't believe in a god.

It is certainly the case that the subjective experience I think I've experienced, I've read about described by many authors from very different traditions, who put very different labels on it, some of them not involving religion or a god. I think it is a consistent experience. I think it crosses religious lines. As it is too embarrassing to admit some of the stuff I've read, I won't tell you just how diverse some of these sources were. But the subjective descriptions were remarkably similar.

And of course there's plenty of woo in this arena, authors who will describe "knowing" things they "couldn't possibly have known" for instance. I'm making no such claim. Only that in muddling through life there's the regular problem-solver which has its purpose for 80% of what we come across, there's the "aha!" engine which definitely has its purpose, good for another 10% of our knottier issues, and then there's... something else. Which is very rare to actually encounter, and very powerful if you've ever had it happen.

 

[rppa]

This is not a personal attack. I'm not trying to be nasty.

No? Perhaps not.

But there's no way to reconcile the statements "I'm a skeptic" with "prayer works" in any logical way that I can see.

I'm well aware you're having this conceptual difficulty. However, the operative phrase is "that I can see". This and similar statements are statements about yourself, with which I fully concur.