Christian and Skeptic??

Donks said:
Until you can present some evidence that homeopathy works in a DBPC study, or a fantastic reason why any effects it has can't be measured (other than there are no effects), forget your mass observations.

Since you couldn't yet understood "Prime source of all energies" & other several 'not yet known in science', there seems to be a 'miss, weakness or vested interest' in measuring the science of these. DPBC studies can be inferior/invalid to 'practical & time testings, observations & experiances' as many healing sustances fails, banned, show adverse/toxic results of real applications.

You have not replied :What millions of patients taking homeopathic treatments says about its effectiveness?

Moreover, proving symptoms, effects, aggravations etc. as appears during homeopathic applications do not resemble with other so called placebo effects as of sprituals etc? I feel, effects of differant energetic healing systems are differant in apperant symptoms.
 
Kumar, this thread is about Christianity and skepticism. If you want to discuss homeopathy, do it elsewhere.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Kumar, this thread is about Christianity and skepticism. If you want to discuss homeopathy, do it elsewhere.

Hans
Sorry, you're right. I'll stop replying to Kumar in this thread.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Kumar, this thread is about Christianity and skepticism. If you want to discuss homeopathy, do it elsewhere.

Hans
Indeed, my last post simply faded into oblivion behind the derail... :(

PS: In my previous post, I quoted jmercer - it mysteriously disappeared from the quote text :)
 
MRC_Hans said:
Kumar, this thread is about Christianity and skepticism. If you want to discuss homeopathy, do it elsewhere.

Hans

But you, & some people related it with homeopathy. Moreover, there can be some common consideration of this topic with homeopathy i.e. Unclear concepts in science Vs. Skepticism. Anyway if you don't want to reply, then it is ok.
 
Placebo said:
What I still find a problem with is this:

In order for us to be 'saved', we need to acknowledge God and his will for how we live our lives.

However, if he cannot provide reasonably convincing evidence of his existence and uncontestable statements as to his will (without confusion) - how can we be fairly judged when disregarding it all as woo?

In other words - to have faith in any god in order to be attract his good will seems not far from playing the lottery.
None of them provide any firm basis to know their complete will for certain.

Please keep in mind that I'm not referring to 'Do not murder' - that can be argued in a separate vein of thought. I'm referring to eg. religions that preach that we need to 'spread the good news'.
How can we possibly know that with the non-existent solid evidence available? And how can God expect us to?

To me this is the insoluble problem of religion. To counter the attacks on religion based upon lack of evidence, we have the well used cop-out "Proof denies faith."

So, if I must have faith, which one? Every major religion seems to have hundreds of variations. Can they all be right?

A question for gecko: You say that you have had an experience which affirmed/created a solid faith in God. I don't deny your experience, but how did you know it was the Judeo-Christian God speaking to you? How do you know it wasn't Kali or Zeus?

To me, living you life by any document that claims divine inspiration is tantamount to insanity. Simply containing some good advice amongst a sea of incosistency and downright sick advice hardly seems a basis for reverence.
 
I think that the skeptical approach to various articles of the faith is that what we must follow is the overall requirements for a decent life, which are more or less universal to all religions. What we happen to call God can hardly matter to the creator of the universe. Likewise, which decoration adorns the church we enter, or which kinds of psalms are sung, must be immaterial.

If we do chose to attend a certain church and follow a certain ceremonial procedure, it is not because we believe that this is the only true and right way to worship God, it is just the symbol we opted to use doing it. Whether our worship is true an genuine is not dependent on which church we do it in, of even whether we do it in a church at all, but it depends on the fram of mind in which we are doing it.

Hans
 
Well said, however..

MRC_Hans said:
Likewise, which decoration adorns the church we enter, or which kinds of psalms are sung, must be immaterial
The decorations and traditions seem to be immaterial.
However the beliefs and the fruits of those beliefs are not.

Churches usually believe in worshipping God in truth and knowledge. In that case, you need to have knowledge of that one being worshipped. We don't have that knowledge with any degree of certainty. I see this as unfair of God to expect, under the circumstances.

Many other churches also believe that God's will for others is in preaching about God and his purposes.
Once again, there is no such sure knowledge of his will.
These churches often believe that those who do not practice God's will (preaching) will not be saved.
Is that fair of a God that did not provide sufficient evidence of his will?

I guess my point is that God has not provided any reasonable information to us that can be used to know how to worship him.
Logically, that means we can't know how to worship him.
And in many religions, that conclusion results in apparent condemnation.

I'm open to criticism on my logic, but I feel that is ample reason to be suspicious of any christian religion requiring me to worship their god/God
 
ilk said:
To me, living you life by any document that claims divine inspiration is tantamount to insanity. Simply containing some good advice amongst a sea of incosistency and downright sick advice hardly seems a basis for reverence.
Amen, brother! ;)

Jen
 
new drkitten said:
Be very very careful in what you claim here, because you are verging on something that may be testable.

One of the classic studies from the Victorian ages (by some early athiests) involved the study of "the power of prayer" to effect healing. The author, whose name and citation details I have unfortunately forgotten, compared the life expectancy and infant mortality rates of English clergy (who would be expected both to be praying and prayed-for) with income- and lifestyle-matched control groups. There were no observed differences. In other words, praying to God to save the life of one's ailing baby, even when done by the entire parish of St. Grottlesex, was not observably effective as medical treatment.

Oh, found the author. Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911). Similar effects have been observed more recently : (E.g -- A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes In Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit, W. S. Harris, et al. Arch. Intern. Med. 1999, 159, 2273-2278. Thirty six-measured parameters, of which one tested significant at the p=0.04 level, a result compatible with chance.) So there's objective, clinical evidence that prayer does not effect healing.

Does it effect guidance? Unfortunately, your claim that "however, when we're lost and beaten along the track that is life, if we sincerely ask for his guidance and help, it can come" verges on the testable. I could, for example, set up a Harris-like experiment where some group of demonstrably "lost and beaten" people, perhaps the incarcerated criminals or people in various halfway houses and homeless shelters, are prayed for and tracked, and see if they do better at getting their act together than the control group.

If I ran such an experiment and got an equally negative result, what would your reaction be?

Absolutely fascinating post, dr kitten. I'd heard about the prayer test, but never knew the reference - gotta make a note of it. :)

Unlike the "prayer for healing" test - which sounds like it's 100% valid - I don't think you can answer the guidance question using a similar approach, though, for a couple of reasons.

1) Defining what "getting their act together" means and measuring that would be problematical

2) According to the "rules", they (the subject) has to sincerely pray for guidance, and not an outside group

3) Guidance is advice, and guidance given to groups of people who have consistently made poor choices - no matter who it's from - would likely be ignored.

(Edited to clarify point three, since I had postus interruptus by my boss. ;))
 
jmercer said:

Unlike the "prayer for healing" test - which sounds like it's 100% valid - I don't think you can answer the guidance question using a similar approach, though, for a couple of reasons.

1) Defining what "getting their act together" means and measuring that would be problematical

2) According to the "rules", they (the subject) has to sincerely pray for guidance, and not an outside group

3) Guidance is advice, and guidance given to groups of people who have consistently made poor choices - no matter who it's from - would likely be ignored.

Well, that's part of why I was careful to describe "verging on the testable" -- because I wasn't willing to sit down and take the time to design a perfectly valid experiment. But let's look a little bit more closely at this.

I don't think counterargument 1 is valid; depending upon the population we chose, we could choose any number of proxies for "getting their act together that would be easily measurable. For example, the ability to stay drug-free, the ability to stay out of prison, or the ability to hold down a job would all be legitimate measures of getting it together. A properly done experiment would track several simultaneously. Similarly, unless you're willing to postulate that guidance given to poor choosers would universally be ignored, there should still be enough people who choose to act on the advice (even if they are the minority), to skew suitably chosen measures like recidivism. (If the control group has a 100% recidivism rate, while the experimental group has a 98%, that can be highly significant in a large enough experiment.) I therefore don't think counterargument 3 is valid, either.

But counterargument 2 would be valid if the rules you describe were, in fact, how God works (and how gecko believes the world works, perhaps more importantly). Christian practice, however, definitely encourages people to pray not only for ourselves, but for others as well. (It's not clear whether or not that practice has scriptural sanction. Our only injunction as given by the Gospels is to pray for ourselves as a group -- "give us this day our daily bread, forgive us something upon which we can't agree, lead us not into temptation, and deliver us from evil.") So while I can certainly accept counterargument 2 as an argument against the particular experiment proposed upthread, I'm not sure that most Christians would be happy with the limitation it implicitly places on the Divine.

Galton has some similar statistical analysis that tested the divine guidance question as well, by examining the life-expectancy of missionaries. To quote :

A further inquiry may be made into the duration of life among missionaries. We should lay greater stress upon their mortality than upon that of the clergy, because the laudable object of a missionary’s career is rendered almost nugatory by his early death. A man goes, say to a tropical climate, in the prime of manhood, who has the probability of many years of useful life before him, had he remained at home. He has the certainty of being able to accomplish sterling good as a missionary, if he should live long enough to learn the language and habits of the country. In the interval he is almost useless. Yet the painful experience of many years shows only too clearly that the missionary is not supernaturally endowed with health. He does riot live longer than other people. One missionary after another dies shortly after his arrival. The work that lay almost within the grasp of each of them lingers incompleted.

It must here he repeated, that comparative immunity from disease compels the suspension of no purely material law, if such an expression be permitted. Tropical fever, for example, is due to many subtle causes which are partly under man’s control. A single hour’s exposure to sun, or wet, or fatigue, or mental agitation, will determine an attack. Now even if God acted only on the minds of the missionaries, his action might be as much to the advantage of their health as if he wrought a physical miracle. He could disincline them to take those courses which might result in mischance, such as the forced march, the wetting, the abstinence from food, or the night exposure, any one of which was competent to develope the fever that struck them down. We must not dwell upon the circumstances of individual eases, and say “this was a providential escape,” or “that was a salutary chastisement,” but we must take the broad averages of mortality, and when we do so, we find that the missionaries do not form a favoured class.

Here his claim is almost directly that God, in his capacity of divine guide, should be able to tell him "don't go into that marsh and allow yourself to be bitten by that mosquito." (And, of course, that God apparently doesn't.). Similarly,

Again, there is a large class of instances where an enterprise on behalf of pious people is executed by the agency of the profane. Do such enterprises prosper beyond the average? For instance, a vessel on a missionary errand is navigated by ordinary seamen. A fleet, followed by the prayers of the English nation, carries reinforcements to quell an Indian mutiny. We do not care to ask whether the result of these prayers is to obtain favourable winds, hut simply whether they ensue in a propitious voyage, whatever may have been the agencies by which that result was obtained. The success of voyages might be due to many other agencies than the suspension of the physical laws that control the winds and currents; just as we showed that a rapid recovery from illness might be due to other causes than direct interference with cosmic order. It might have been put into the captain’s heart to navigate in that course and to perform those acts of seamanship which proved links in a chain that led to eventual success. A very small matter would suffice to make a great difference in the end. A vessel navigated by a man who was a good forecaster of weather and an accomplished hydrographer would considerably outstrip another that was deficient in so accomplished a commander, but otherwise similarly equipped. The perfectly instructed navigator would deviate from the most direct course by perhaps some mere trifle, first here, then there, order to bring his vessel within favouring slants of wind and advantageous currents. A ship commanded by a captain and steered by a sailors whose hearts were miraculously acted oupon in answer to prayer would unconsciously, as by instinct, or even as it were by mistake, perform these deviations from routine, which would lead to ultimate success.

The missionaries who are the most earnestly prayed for are usually those who sail on routes where there is little traffic, and therefore where there is more opportunity for the effects of secret providential overruling to display themselves than who sail in ordinary sea voyages. In the usual sea routes a great deal is known of the peculiarities of the seasons and currents, and of the whereabouts of hidden dangers of all kinds; their average risk is small, and the insurance is low. But when vessels are bound to ports like those sought by the missionaries the case is different. The risk that at attends their voyages is largely increased, and the insurance proportionately raised. But is the risk equally increased in respect missionary vessels and to those of traders and of slave-dealers? The comparison between the fortune that attends prayerful and non-prayerful people may here be most happily made. The missionaries are eminently among the former category, and the slave-dealers and the traders we speak of in the other. Traders in the unhealthy and barbarous regions to which we refer are notoriously the most godless and reckless (on the broad average) of any of their set. We have, unfortunately, little knowledge of the sea risks of slavers, because the rates of their insurance involve the risk of capture. There is, however, a universal testimony, in the parliamentary reports on slavery, to the excellent and skilful manner in which these vessels are sailed and navigated, which is a reason for believing their sea risks to be small. As to the relative risks run by ordinary traders and missionary vessels, the insurance offices absolutely ignore the slightest difference between them. They look to the class of the vessel, and to the station to which she is bound, and to nothing else. The notion that a missionary or other pious enterprise carries any immunity from danger has never been entertained by insurance companies.
 
Traveller said:
Open Mind, this is nonsense. Go find yourself a Christian to explain it all to you. Although I no longer count myself a Christian I was raised as a Catholic and went to a Catholic school until I was 18, so I have a good grasp of Christian teachings.

Firstly, while there may indeed be some Christians who believe that non-believers (in God, presumably, although that isn't clear from your post) will suffer eternal damnation that is very far from being the mainstream belief, which is that anyone who leads, by their lights, a good life and refrains from doing what they consider wrong makes it into Heaven, or at least into Limbo, which is defined as a place of purely natural happiness, as opposed to the supernatural spiritual happiness of communion with God.

Secondly, not only Jesus saves. Few Christians would believe that devout Moslems, for example, would suffer eternal damnation.

Thirdly, I suppose there are christian creationists, but I would bet they would be outnumbered by the christian evolutionists. As far as the catholic church is concerned the present Pope declared in (I think) 1996 that evolution was perfectly compatible with christianity.

A recent thread here had cleared up some things about what Christians believe -- it's a much more varied arena that I had assumed.

But, having gone to CS for 8 years myself, I later found that a lot of Catholic teachings are not always the same as Christian teachings, and that, in fact, a lot of Christians don't consider Catholics to be Christians. (something I don't quite understand or agree with but I've had many Chrisitans tell me that.) I've had, very recently, Christians tell me that they believe everyone non-Christian is going to hell. I'm not suggesting that all Chrisitans believe or think this way, as you've pointed out, and as some on the other thread have. But there are plenty who do, as well.

(The Vatican also came out and said they accept that ET is real. :)
 
turtle said:
A recent thread here had cleared up some things about what Christians believe -- it's a much more varied arena that I had assumed.

But, having gone to CS for 8 years myself, I later found that a lot of Catholic teachings are not always the same as Christian teachings, and that, in fact, a lot of Christians don't consider Catholics to be Christians. (something I don't quite understand or agree with but I've had many Chrisitans tell me that.) I've had, very recently, Christians tell me that they believe everyone non-Christian is going to hell. I'm not suggesting that all Chrisitans believe or think this way, as you've pointed out, and as some on the other thread have. But there are plenty who do, as well.

(The Vatican also came out and said they accept that ET is real. :)

Yeah, gone are the days when Kings formed their own versions of the Church just so they could get divorced. :D Fundamentalist Christians are like Fundamentalist Muslims or Jews - utterly intolerant of adverse viewpoints, and completely ready to condemn you to hell for having one.

The RCC, for all of it's numerous faults, has become one of the more adaptive (if still painfully slow!) religious institutions out there. Your example of ET is a good example of that - some time ago, the Catholic Church's "management team" was convinced that it was only a matter of time before mankind detected intelligent life on other worlds. Thus began a debate about if intelligent aliens would have souls, or would simply be intelligent animals... and if they had souls, should the Church attempt to bring them to God?

I'm not sure how it turned out - or if it's still in process. But the fact that they think in those terms is a big difference between them and the fundies, I think. :)
 
jmercer said:
<snip>
Your example of ET is a good example of that - some time ago, the Catholic Church's "management team" was convinced that it was only a matter of time before mankind detected intelligent life on other worlds. Thus began a debate about if intelligent aliens would have souls, or would simply be intelligent animals... and if they had souls, should the Church attempt to bring them to God?

I'm not sure how it turned out - or if it's still in process. But the fact that they think in those terms is a big difference between them and the fundies, I think. :) [/B]

This will probably have to go in another thread, but I found this:

Dialogue in Bellaria :SITCHIN AND VATICAN THEOLOGIAN DISCUSS UFO's,
EXTRATERRESTRIALS, ANGELS, CREATION OF MAN, Report by Zecharia Sitchin

In what must be a historic first, a high official of the Vatican and a Hebrew scholar discussed the issue of Extraterrestrials and the Creation of Man, and though different from each other in upbringing, background, religion and methodology, nevertheless arrived at common conclusions:

~ Yes, Extraterrestrials can and do exist on other planets
~ Yes, they can be more advanced than us
~ Yes, materially, Man could have been fashioned from a pre-existing sentient being


http://www.sitchin.com/vatican.htm
 
From that link

I then quote the Sumerian texts that say that the Anunnaki (“Those who from heaven to Earth came”) genetically improved an existing being on Earth to create the being that the Bible calls Adam
Ah. What a perfect example of changing their story to fit a situation they can't explain by conventional means.

God creates primitive man (a monkey perhaps?), extraterrestrials who are actually angels (messengers of God) arrive and genetically modify primitive man into Adam - modern man.

And I thought it was far fetched before this :p

(Edited to correct quote)
 
Well, I'd take that particular quote (and description of the conversation) with a rather large dose of salt... since the whole thing cited by turtle is FROM the website of Sitchin himself.

A little self-promotion going on there, methinks. :D
 
Hi. I'm new in town.

I've scarcely begun to read this lengthy thread, and have hesitated to do so (ref. my "Are there any threads..." post), but it was suggested as a rare exception to the typical religious thread that is infested with kiddie trollers and similarly pointless strained beet spittings vs actual discussion. Anyway, thought I'd throw out a few general thoughts FWIW. Pardon if I duplicate anything already discussed:

As for the matter at hand, I'd have to better understand what we mean by "skeptic," esp. as it relates to this thread. My understanding is it means someone who doesn't accept things blindly as true, but requires some kind of evidence, proof, or at least logical reasoning to buy into it to any significant degree. I also think it means staying as objective as possible and keeping an open mind, but I've noticed that a fair number self-proclaimed "skeptics" on the forums here are frankly not very objective at all, close-minded, and quite smug/arrogant in their foolishness to boot. This is not a skeptic; this is someone trying to look smart/clever by not only refusing to believe something, but even in the possibility of it...even when presented with possible (repeat: "possible") evidence or reasoning supporting it. Why? It just doesn't fit their allegedly "smart" beliefs...and perhaps more importantly, it'd be a very unpopular thing to dare even consider believing due to the terrible fear of banishment from their fellow rocket scientists.

:rolleyes:

OK mini-rant over, pardon. My point is that if by "skeptic" here we mean "questions belief in God"....well pffff, I seriously doubt anyone on this Earth, regardless of religious beliefs, has no doubt whatsoever. That isn't a slam or to say their faith isn't strong. It's just human nature to have at least a little doubt about most if not all things, I think.

If we mean something beyond the smallest of doubts, like "I really have no strong belief that God definitely exists or definitely doesn't exist. Flip a coin." .....that's an agnostic. In the interests of clarity, couldn't we just call them that pls?

If instead by "skeptic" you mean "doesn't believe in God's
existance," that's an atheist, and again, in the interest of clarity, could we just call em that?

Next I would like to remind everyone of a fallacy which I'm amazed is so common: lumping all Christians together as the same (meaning beyond the obvious, ie they believe Jesus was the Christ). Beyond the very basics, they are VERY different. Catholics are different from Protestants who differ from Jehovah Witnesses, etc etc etc. To look at them as all the same is simply ignorant. Heck even within denominations they can vary greatly (esp. among Protestants). Not saying that's good or bad per se, just something that should be kept in mind.

Thx. Back to reading.
 
Just a minor point bigred.

I've noticed that a fair number self-proclaimed "skeptics" on the forums here are frankly not very objective at all, close-minded, and quite smug/arrogant in their foolishness to boot.

I think you could easily replace this description with "impatience with a certain type of poster" in many cases.

I think you'll find that many of the people you are describing as closed minded are simply sick and tired of repeating the authoritative refutations of the more common paranormal claims. From what I've seen in my short time, if someone presents a genuinely interesting phenomenon in a non-proseltyic way, the same people who have the least tolerance for repeat offenders are the most interested in discovering more about the event/idea.

Asking for evidence isn't being close minded.
Calling out people who repeatedly make claims without backing them up isn't being closed minded.

A last point, tolerance of idiots who waste people's time with the same crud over and over again isn't being open minded. It is being soft on the kind of thinking that leads to intolerance, bigotry and other Bad Thingsâ„¢.
 
No arguments on any of your points and thanks for the reminder. I can see how repetition of the same old stuff could wear down one's patience/objectivity (although I would suggest simply bypassing such posts, but anyway.....).

Actually my "bad" here was that I came to this thread based on a recommendation (after posting a gripe about a lack of worthwhile threads in the Religion forum) and failed to notice I was pointed to the "Paranormal" forum instead. d'oh.
 

Back
Top Bottom