Christian and Skeptic??

[TLN]

So, by "prayer works", you mean in a way that's personal to you and wouldn't really be detectable outside of you since it's a personal experience and not an external, physical one (like, I prayed for Mom and she got better), is that correct?

 

[TLN]

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.

Oh, and I am not having a conceptual difficulty. Someone praying to a God who also claims to be skeptical of paranormal claims is a complete contradiction.

You are not applying skepticism to your God or your personal experiences. You're selectively shutting it off because it suits you.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Jmercer,

A lot of posts have intervened since I asked my questions and you reacted.

I did not, and do not, mean to be disrespectful, nor did I, or do I, see myself, or anyone else, for that matter, attacking you or ask you to substantiate claims you didn't make.

I was, however, questioning the rationale behind your belief in deity because I simply cannot tell the difference between your wording in that (by now pretty old post of yours I based my question on, and the typical wording of a believer in astrology, crystal healing, aftelife, homeopathy or any other concepts that people believe in but which are either unsupported by evidence (empirical observations or experiment), which fly in the face of the whole body of existing knowledge and/or which are inherently self-contradictory or illogical.

I just want to try to understand why people are selective in their beliefs, in particular when the rationale for said beliefs is indistinguishable from the rationale for any other faith-based belief. I'm sorry, I just don't understand your rationale for faith and how you select what to believe and what not to believe, that's all.

I'm grateful that you are participating in this debate - and, to reiterate, no, I am not attacking your person or your, or anyone else's beliefs, I am merely trying to understand the rationale for belief (religious faith) and selctivity in belief.

If you will not, or feel you cannot answer my original question, I will accept that in good grace.

 

[jmercer]

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?

From my perspective... it was a logical process that ended up being unsettling more than anything. I'd love to say it was satisfying, but it actually created a more difficult life for me as I tried to reconcile my views on it at a time when I really didn't need the additional burden. And I wasn't really trying to explain anything so much as I was trying to determine a valid path for myself, and I figured "Well, I should at least look at this to see if there's anything to it."

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

Correct, and perceptive. Thank you.

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.

Unquestionably there had to be an expectation of what kinds of things I could encounter. Heck, you can't begin to look at something like God and religion without picking up some ideas about what to expect.

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.

Generally speaking, I would agree with you. But I found my experiences so compelling and unusually specific that I simply couldn't keep writing them off.

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 .

It's a fairly good appraisal, except for the investment part. The only thing that really forces me to stand behind it is my sense of integrity. I simply can't toss it out because intellectually I know it's based on subjective evidence from my own experience. Regardless of the fact that anecdotal evidence is easily compromised and misunderstood, it's still a personally powerful self-testimony, and it remains there stubbornly unless something happens to disprove it.

I can tell you this with all honesty - if the house falls, I won't try to pick it up.

 

[Ashles]

Incredible!

5 pages into a debate about religion between people with very different views and everyone appears to be still talking politely and repectfully with everyone else.

Can we save this thread for posterity?

 

[TLN]

I simply can't toss it out because intellectually I know it's based on subjective evidence from my own experience.

Why not?

Consider: I give you 200 micrograms of acid, you trip, and have a powerfully moving and spirtual experience (I've had a lot of these). Would you be able to dismiss it then?

Regardless of the fact that anecdotal evidence is easily compromised and misunderstood, it's still a personally powerful self-testimony, and it remains there stubbornly unless something happens to disprove it.

Again, we cannot prove a negative nor can we disprove an experience that's completely internal to your personal perception.

 

[jmercer]

Jmercer,

A lot of posts have intervened since I asked my questions and you reacted.

I did not, and do not, mean to be disrespectful, nor did I, or do I, see myself, or anyone else, for that matter, attacking you or ask you to substantiate claims you didn't make.

I was, however, questioning the rationale behind your belief in deity because I simply cannot tell the difference between your wording in that (by now pretty old post of yours I based my question on, and the typical wording of a believer in astrology, crystal healing, aftelife, homeopathy or any other concepts that people believe in but which are either unsupported by evidence (empirical observations or experiment), which fly in the face of the whole body of existing knowledge and/or which are inherently self-contradictory or illogical.

I just want to try to understand why people are selective in their beliefs, in particular when the rationale for said beliefs is indistinguishable from the rationale for any other faith-based belief. I'm sorry, I just don't understand your rationale for faith and how you select what to believe and what not to believe, that's all.

I'm grateful that you are participating in this debate - and, to reiterate, no, I am not attacking your person or your, or anyone else's beliefs, I am merely trying to understand the rationale for belief (religious faith) and selctivity in belief.

If you will not, or feel you cannot answer my original question, I will accept that in good grace.

Hey, no problem - I didn't feel attacked by you, and I'm sorry if you got that impression in any way. I honestly don't know if I can give you an answer that will satisfy you beyond all the posts I've made here.

I've played with Ouiji boards, looked at astrology, tarot, etc. I went with my friends to supposedly haunted houses, and sure enough, experienced some spooky things - which afterward, were clearly the result of an overactive imagination combined with a small group of excited kids... half of them attractive girls, so those old hormones were flying, too.

In fact, I did a lot of research on the Occult when I was in my teens - it was a fascinating subject, especially for a teenager growing up in the 60's. Despite all of that, I never developed a belief in any of it - although it was fun imagining stuff.

If there is a difference between my beliefs and what people who believe in spirits have... perhaps it's in the fact that I recognize the possible fallacies in my position, and that I don't insist that I'm correct about it. My faith, such as it is, is not absolute, unshakeable, or blind, nor am I complacent about it. I hope that's come out in this thread, at least.

Probably not the best answer, and it may not give you what you want. Perhaps you're correct, and there is no difference... even if I'm right about God.

 

[TLN]

Hey, no problem - I didn't feel attacked by you, and I'm sorry if you got that impression in any way. I honestly don't know if I can give you an answer that will satisfy you beyond all the posts I've made here.

I've played with Ouiji boards, looked at astrology, tarot, etc. I went with my friends to supposedly haunted houses, and sure enough, experienced some spooky things - which afterward, were clearly the result of an overactive imagination combined with a small group of excited kids... half of them attractive girls, so those old hormones were flying, too.

In fact, I did a lot of research on the Occult when I was in my teens - it was a fascinating subject, especially for a teenager growing up in the 60's. Despite all of that, I never developed a belief in any of it - although it was fun imagining stuff.

If there is a difference between my beliefs and what people who believe in spirits have... perhaps it's in the fact that I recognize the possible fallacies in my position, and that I don't insist that I'm correct about it. My faith, such as it is, is not absolute, unshakeable, or blind, nor am I complacent about it. I hope that's come out in this thread, at least.

Probably not the best answer, and it may not give you what you want. Perhaps you're correct, and there is no difference... even if I'm right about God.

Which I think reduces the conversation to why you have faith at all if you understand all the things you listed above about the Occult and the nature of belief. I'm gratified that you're not unequivocal about your faith, but again, why believe at all in the face of other explanations that don't include the paranormal or supernatural?

 

[jmercer]

Why not?

Consider: I give you 200 micrograms of acid, you trip, and have a powerfully moving and spirtual experience (I've had a lot of these). Would you be able to dismiss it then?

Heck, yes. On the other hand, what if I'm totally straight, wide awake, completely serious, completely healthy and actually expecting nothing to happen - and then have a powerfully moving and spiritual experience? Neither scenario is evidential, but the second one has more credibility.

And after experiencing a number of those, the credibility becomes personally substantial enough to generate belief.

Again, we cannot prove a negative nor can we disprove an experience that's completely internal to your personal perception.

I agree fully. If I had verifiable evidence I could present either way, I'd do it in an instant. I wish I did have some.

 

[TLN]

Heck, yes. On the other hand, what if I'm totally straight, wide awake, completely serious, completely healthy and actually expecting nothing to happen - and then have a powerfully moving and spiritual experience? Neither scenario is evidential, but the second one has more credibility.

No, it has no more credibility.

Both experiences took place entirely within your mind. As such, they may not be real at all, drug induced or not.

If you can so easily dismiss an artificial hallucination or feeling, why not a natural one?

And after experiencing a number of those, the credibility becomes personally substantial enough to generate belief.

See above; multiple personal experiences do not combine to produce evidence.

 

[jmercer]

Which I think reduces the conversation to why you have faith at all if you understand all the things you listed above about the Occult and the nature of belief. I'm gratified that you're not unequivocal about your faith, but again, why believe at all in the face of other explanations that don't include the paranormal or supernatural?

Primarily because none of them ever provided experiences that I couldn't dismiss. Everything else I've encountered over the years had alternative explanations that fit the situation.

The experiences in this particular area have potential alternative explanations, of course. But they don't fit well enough for me to simply dismiss my experiences out of hand. So, as I wrote earlier, I'm left with data that I can't dismiss, but data that's anecdotal, and therefore suspect.

 

[jmercer]

No, it has no more credibility.

Both experiences took place entirely within your mind. As such, they may not be real at all, drug induced or not.

If you can so easily dismiss an artificial hallucination or feeling, why not a natural one?

Uh... not all of them were entirely within my mind. I'd rather not talk about the specifics, though.

 

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by jmercer
I suspect that I've compromised my credibility with some of you here by my postings on this subject. Having said that, it would truly be hypocritical of me to conceal my viewpoint about God and pretend that it's different than it is... and I'm not by nature a deceitful person anyway.

You've stated your case as best you can. No shame in that at all. On the question of credibility, with all due respect, I still can't help but wonder how someone can be skeptical of a spiritualist, and believe in a heaven, and a god? The spiritualist afterlife and a heaven are the same concept, life after death. The spiritualist believes in communication with spirits, as do alot of christians as well. Most come to their conclusions the same way, through faith. Albeit, some are hoodwinked into it, but even then, they put their faith in the idea that the medium is being honest.

Originally posted by jmercer
I do not want to live in a theocracy. (Hey, my up-north cousins - can I become Canadian if that happens? Please??

Only if you renounce your heretical catholicism and embrace everlasting cynicism, come into the light jmercer.

Originally posted by jmercerThe only evidence available to me is anecdotal, subjective, and personal. (Personal both in the context of the experience, and personal in the sense of how it was experienced.)

Can you understand why I see no difference between someone who believes in ghosts and a christian? How they arrive at their beliefs are usually the same way. Ruling out hypocrasy, I just don't understand how a person can believe in god, but then doubt the existance of ghosts, a spiritualist version of the afterlife, or something like out of body experiences. Are they not all subject to personal, subjective and anecdotal evidence.
I think that believers are well capable of being skeptical, I think most people are CAPABLE of it. But that does not necessarily mean they are skeptics, they do not apply skepticism in all facets of their lives. As far as I'm concerned, you can apply skepticism to all facets of your life. This does indeed make a very cautious person to say the least. But I do think it is viable, I think that's part of what being a skeptic is all about, consistency in how you apply your worldview.

Originally posted by BethOne thing I've noticed is that the posters here who are self-declared christians are not ones who attack others for their beliefs. Further, I notice that many of the posters who insist that belief in god is incompatible with being a self-declared skeptic are among those who do attack others for their beliefs, whatever they may be. (Disclaimer - I haven't done a scientific survey. That's just my general impression. Individual results may vary.)

I disagree with your impression. Please provide some evidence as to what you've noticed. Because I tell you now, that I can provide evidence of a christian badgering a spiritualist on this forum. I think that skeptics and believers do get into heated debates, but that's par for the course. Sometimes a thick skin is required.

 

[TLN]

Primarily because none of them ever provided experiences that I couldn't dismiss. Everything else I've encountered over the years had alternative explanations that fit the situation.

The experiences in this particular area have potential alternative explanations, of course. But they don't fit well enough for me to simply dismiss my experiences out of hand. So, as I wrote earlier, I'm left with data that I can't dismiss, but data that's anecdotal, and therefore suspect.

Right, which bring us back to the question of--in the face of this evidence that you call "suspect"--why you believe.

 

[Beth]

Heck, yes. On the other hand, what if I'm totally straight, wide awake, completely serious, completely healthy and actually expecting nothing to happen - and then have a powerfully moving and spiritual experience? Neither scenario is evidential, but the second one has more credibility.

And after experiencing a number of those, the credibility becomes personally substantial enough to generate belief.

While reading up on syesthesia (mentioned in another thread - fascinating subject) I came across the following quote at http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-10-cytowic.html :

My usual response to those who ask if synesthesia is "real" is, "Real to whom? To you, or to those who experience it?" Questioning its reality without first having some technological confirmation shows how ready we are to reject any first-hand experience. We are addicted to the external and the rational. Our insistence on a third-person, "objective" understanding of the world has just about swept aside all other forms of knowledge.

Those with synesthesia experience the world differently from the rest of us, but it is just as real and consistent to them as our perceptions are to us. Synesthsia is consistent enough, at least within an individual, that it can be confirmed. It's not imaginary, people really do have those perceptions, it's just that their perceptions are different from the rest of us.

Subjective experience is the primary way we all understand and interpret the world. Even when someone understands the science and the equations and what it all means, it's reasonable that people would consider their own subjective experiences valid despite conflict with what science deems possible, probable, or proveable.

 

[TLN]

Uh... not all of them were entirely within my mind. I'd rather not talk about the specifics, though.

Yes they were.

I'm being a bit flippiant here, but even if it was something you saw or heard or tasted or smelled or touched it was in your mind.

 

[jmercer]

You've stated your case as best you can. No shame in that at all. On the question of credibility, with all due respect, I still can't help but wonder how someone can be skeptical of a spiritualist, and believe in a heaven, and a god? The spiritualist afterlife and a heaven are the same concept, life after death. The spiritualist believes in communication with spirits, as do alot of christians as well. Most come to their conclusions the same way, through faith. Albeit, some are hoodwinked into it, but even then, they put their faith in the idea that the medium is being honest.

It's mostly because of the claims made by them... and I'm also skeptical of many of the claims and beliefs of the Catholic Church (and others) as well. And - if I had no experiences of my own - and someone related to me my experiences as theirs, I would absolutely be skeptical.

But they're not someone else's experiences... they're mine, and therefore not so easily dismissed. It's a very uncomfortable position to be in, especially here... but I can't let discomfort be the deciding factor in my beliefs. Not and live with myself afterward, anyway.

Only if you renounce your heretical catholicism and embrace everlasting cynicism, come into the light jmercer.

Well, if Jeb gets crowned in four years, you betcha!

Can you understand why I see no difference between someone who believes in ghosts and a christian?

Absolutely.

How they arrive at their beliefs are usually the same way. Ruling out hypocrasy, I just don't understand how a person can believe in god, but then doubt the existance of ghosts, a spiritualist version of the afterlife, or something like out of body experiences. Are they not all subject to personal, subjective and anecdotal evidence.
I think that believers are well capable of being skeptical, I think most people are CAPABLE of it. But that does not necessarily mean they are skeptics, they do not apply skepticism in all facets of their lives. As far as I'm concerned, you can apply skepticism to all facets of your life. This does indeed make a very cautious person to say the least. But I do think it is viable, I think that's part of what being a skeptic is all about, consistency in how you apply your worldview.

I'm not sure that it's possible to successfully apply skepticism to every aspect of life. For example, can you imagine being a skeptic toward your spouse every time s/he made a statement that you didn't know the accuracy of? I suspect that the relationship between the two of you would become strained, at the least.

Also, as a martial artist, I can state for the record that faith in yourself, your training and your art are necessary until you reach a level of self-confidence that eliminates the need for it. Those that don't have that faith usually don't reach the level of self-confidence, and drop out. Then there's SETI... if I apply skepticism to the concept of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, then SETI makes no sense. Worse, skepticism would force me to take a worldview where the earth is the only planet with life in the entire universe, because there's no proof otherwise.

Don't get me wrong - skepticism is a wonderful and enlightening process, and I prefer it over just about any other approach. However, I also believe that most people are not self-consistent in all the things they do or believe... and I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing, either.

Well, speaking of life and spouses, mine's telling me that I'd better get off the computer and pay attention to her... and from my personal experience, that's something I'd better go and attend to immediately.

"See" you folks tomorrow.

 

[jmercer]

Yes they were.

I'm being a bit flippiant here, but even if it was something you saw or heard or tasted or smelled or touched it was in your mind.

Argh... no, it's too private, sorry. While it meant nothing special to the other people present, some of the experiences I went through were observed by others, who commented on them. It was special to me because it was specific to me in a private way. And we need to leave it at that, I'm sorry - I know it sounds like a cop-out, and maybe it is, but as I've been saying, these things are personal in the truest sense, and very private.

 

[voidx]

From my perspective... it was a logical process that ended up being unsettling more than anything. I'd love to say it was satisfying, but it actually created a more difficult life for me as I tried to reconcile my views on it at a time when I really didn't need the additional burden. And I wasn't really trying to explain anything so much as I was trying to determine a valid path for myself, and I figured "Well, I should at least look at this to see if there's anything to it."

I think the "from my perspective" is particularily key. I tend to be rather distrustful of my perspective especially when it comes to experiences. I try to be very analytical and objective when it comes to my own thoughts and experiences. However I realize that on some level I only consciously perceive a certain level of what perhaps my senses take in. And that those things I do perceive cannot always be trusted. I find that to be a sobering, if at least initially, a little off putting, concept.

Unquestionably there had to be an expectation of what kinds of things I could encounter. Heck, you can't begin to look at something like God and religion without picking up some ideas about what to expect.

I would agree, I think it would be difficult to seperate experiences that were originaly to you, and those which perhaps became self-fulfilling because of previous expectation.

Generally speaking, I would agree with you. But I found my experiences so compelling and unusually specific that I simply couldn't keep writing them off.

I really think this is as far as we can go. It would seem that perhaps even you don't understand what fully makes them so compelling. Perhaps you do not have a deep enough conscious recollection to explain why they were so compelling, you merely feel that they are. And you've now seen and incorporated them into a larger structure of a path of inquiry that leads to a belief in something. I think the potential danger here is that experiences modify over time, at least I'd argue very strongly that they do. And the more time passes, the more likely it is that they modify ever so slightly, and ever so continiously to fit with expectation. And as such seem more and more personally compelling to you, making them harder and harder to challenge. I do not think anyone does this intentionally, and I do not put it forth as a refutation to what you experienced, but I think you would acknowledge this as a valid concern, especially from someone else's perspective.

It's a fairly good appraisal, except for the investment part. The only thing that really forces me to stand behind it is my sense of integrity. I simply can't toss it out because intellectually I know it's based on subjective evidence from my own experience. Regardless of the fact that anecdotal evidence is easily compromised and misunderstood, it's still a personally powerful self-testimony, and it remains there stubbornly unless something happens to disprove it.

Fair enough.

I can tell you this with all honesty - if the house falls, I won't try to pick it up.

No I don't imagine you would, that would require you to compromise the before mentioned integrity I would imagine. I think you've pretty much stated your position as well as can be stated. As mentioned all we really can do is inquire after the justifications for the belief itself, but then this is the part that delves into personal territory, and admittedly, its usually where such discussions end. I can say that for myself I have never, and cannot fathom and experience that would seemingly lead me down the path to belief such as you say you have and so almost inherently I cannot grasp it.

I still feel personally that this is a weakness of personal belief. That it is perhaps an intentional, if not fully conscious aspect people build into their beliefs because on some level it keeps them safe from external, and even to a large extent personal, scrutiny. I can't really say anything about your personal experiences and your conclusions based on them, I can merely try and understand them. I am of the opinion that I would not come to the same conclusions as you based on similiar experiences because of perhaps a difference of basic assumptions. However I cannot say that for sure. However, it has been interesting.

 

[Chocolate Chip]

I'm not sure that it's possible to successfully apply skepticism to every aspect of life. For example, can you imagine being a skeptic toward your spouse every time s/he made a statement that you didn't know the accuracy of? I suspect that the relationship between the two of you would become strained, at the least.

That scenario borders on the cynical. In all seriousness, that is a matter of trust. You trust your spouse, AFAIC, through experience. If he/she has PROVEN to be trustworthy, then statements you don't know the accuracy of you take on trust, because he/she has ALREADY PROVEN to be trustworthy and honest. If that trust is broken, then yes I would be skeptical again, the onus is then on the one who broke trust to regain it, or leave. Or perhaps it would also be my choice to leave as well. Once something is proven, there is no need to be skeptical of it, is there? Now if you say that I would have to check the accuracy of her statements because she was INCOMPETENT, then I would be skeptical of her statements. In this case, the next step would be how do I act on it? If I thought it was important, I would check into it, if not important, I may let it slide. Either way, I would point out to her the inaccuracy, (in the oh so subtle ways these situations demand) and hopefully her accuracy improves, and she PROVES herself competent.

Also, as a martial artist, I can state for the record that faith in yourself, your training and your art are necessary until you reach a level of self-confidence that eliminates the need for it. Those that don't have that faith usually don't reach the level of self-confidence, and drop out. Then there's SETI... if I apply skepticism to the concept of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, then SETI makes no sense. Worse, skepticism would force me to take a worldview where the earth is the only planet with life in the entire universe, because there's no proof otherwise.

As for SETI, because you are searching for life, does not mean that you already believe that there is life out there. You can be searching to see IF there is life out there. This is acceptable to me as being skeptic. If you search for life in space with a preconceived belief that life exists already, then you are NOT being skeptical, you are just trying to justify your belief after the fact.
From spending 5 1/2 years as an infantryman in the armed forces reserves, I can tell you that faith in yourself is based on what you know you can do ALREADY, and PROVING what you can do in addition. You must try, make the effort to run that extra klik, if you can do it, then you have PROVEN yourself, thus your confidence in yourself is justified, and is not false confidence. It's all about PROVING yourself AFAIC.

edited for grammar