Posts by hmike

8

HARD WIRED TO BELIEVE?

by fifi40 in

having read through several of the recent threads on gods existence, religious hypochondria and those who simply state that they really dont care i asked myself the question why?.

why do some people have faith and a desire to worship and believe?.

why do some people despise faith and lack any sense of a 'greater' being?.

Interesting articles, as was the one on how sensations interpreted as religious experiences can be created by stimulating the brain with electromagnetism. These articles don't really answer your question, though.

Dr. Newberg has determined what kind of brain activity occurs during certain religious practices. The article seems to assume this means that people in religious faiths have some kind of innate ability, and that leads them into religion, whereas, atheists do not. The test subjects he chose had practiced these activities frequently for perhaps several years. Couldn't this just be something the brain has been trained to do? The brain has been engaged in a specific activity repeatedly long enough to adapt to the needs associated with the activity. I wonder if he could find the same results in brains of atheists engaged in non-religious activities.

While some religions place much emphasis on experiences and sensations—what is felt—any kind of research in this area will have a harder time with Christianity. Christianity has, for the most part, grounded its claims on the accounts of historical events and their interpretations of the events by those directly involved. The significance of experiences and sensations is downplayed, in some cases even denied, as confirmation of doctrine. A feeling that a Christian may claim as evidence of God may also be claimed as evidence by another for a different deity. This research shows us that we do need to exercise caution about how we interpret the experiences, for it may not be something unique to religious practice at all. Interestingly, this comes at a time when the move in Christian circles seems to be towards the experiential, perhaps partly as a response to the need for confirming experience, and parly in response to increasing criticism of the reliability of the historical accounts in the Bible.

What really addresses your question—at least in regards to Christianity—is whether or not some people are naturally more inclined to accept and hold information received from others. Why, indeed, to we have scholars on both sides of this issue? The same evidence is looked at by different people, and they come to different conclusions. Is this related to something innately in the brain—something in the DNA—or is it based on life experiences? Or some combination of both? Is it like drinking alcohol or smoking in that some say "Yes" and some say "No" to the opportunitites?

78

UNDENIABLE LOGIC. Some cherish it while others dismiss it. Which are you?

by nicolaou in

there are so many ways to get into this topic; homeopathy, astrology, feng shui, alien abductions, seances and so on ad nauseum but let's pick a simple one - mathematics.

do you accept the undeniable logic that 1+1 must always equal 2?.

i cannot conceive of a situation where 1+1=3 but there was a time when i did!

hmike

It is not logical to believe that Jesus or Peter walked on water - do you believe it happened? If so then you have thrown logic and rational thinking ability out of the window.

A lot of things are routinely rejected because "I haven't seen it happen...I haven't heard of it happening from a reliable source...it hasn't happened in my world, therefore, it hasn't happened at all...maybe not even ever." Should we so readily dismiss something because it doesn't fit our idea of reality? What if you had told people hundreds of years ago that man could travel to the moon, or transplant a human heart? Not possible in their world, no way, no how. They'd certify you insane and lock you up or run you out of town.

There are a lot of things some people dare to say are impossible now. But in the future...? And maybe in the past.

Impossible because WE can't duplicate it or understand it at this time? Things were done in the ancient world that we marvel at even today.

I submit that your process started with a faulty premise.

45

Destroying One's Faith

by Sunspot in

the jws are always grumbling that former jws are trying to "destroy their faith" and that they have nothing nice to say about the men who write for the watchtower or their peculiar teachings.. but then---jws go to people's homes and try to convince them that they should stop:.

praising jesus,.

celebrating or honoring their lord and savior on his resurrection or on his birth,.

hmike

I don't know if it's ok for me, a Newbie, to start here. If not, please tell me where to go.

Welcome, bluesmurf92!

23

Seeing Patterns That Aren't There?

by hmike in

in his book, how we believe, religious skeptic michael shermer states "in our complex and contingent world, random events often happen in seemingly peculiar sequences that cry out for meaning.

we usually rise to the occasion, finding patterns in nature even when they do not exist or have no real significance...." a claim somewhat along this line was made in the tv show numb3rs by mathematics professor epps--that people look for, and think they find, patterns in random events.. you can't watch a movie or tv show about crime without seeing detectives attempting to solve crimes by trying to find patterns in a collection of information.

they work backwards from the end result to find links between the pieces of information and possibly back to a cause.. yes, we look for patterns.

hmike

Secondly, proof is available for anyone who doubts in your example. They only need to show the machines being made, or go to the control room and see how things are controlled. There's no proof for a creator being involved with us at all.

Yes, that is a problem. Taking the visitor to the control room may (or may not*) convince him, but when he would try to tell anyone else with the same background, his word—his eyewitness testimony—wouldn't be good enough for many (there are plenty of people who claim to have seen UFOs and aliens, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, etc.). He'd have to gather all kinds of physical evidence, and even then there would still be some skeptics.

*I say may not because he may come to believe that he was halucinating, or was deceived, or any one of a number of other reasons that might cause him to doubt what he saw, or at least his interpretation of it.

23

Seeing Patterns That Aren't There?

by hmike in

in his book, how we believe, religious skeptic michael shermer states "in our complex and contingent world, random events often happen in seemingly peculiar sequences that cry out for meaning.

we usually rise to the occasion, finding patterns in nature even when they do not exist or have no real significance...." a claim somewhat along this line was made in the tv show numb3rs by mathematics professor epps--that people look for, and think they find, patterns in random events.. you can't watch a movie or tv show about crime without seeing detectives attempting to solve crimes by trying to find patterns in a collection of information.

they work backwards from the end result to find links between the pieces of information and possibly back to a cause.. yes, we look for patterns.

hmike

Suppose there is a factory, or maybe a bottling plant, that is fully automated. Everything, from the input and mixing of raw materials, to the manufacturing of containers, and filling, sealing, labeling, and packaging are all done entirely by automation—there is no human involvement from the time the process begins until the finished product rolls out of the plant on a conveyer belt where it is loaded for shipment outside the plant, at which point, the product is finally handled. The production equipment and process is monitored and programmed by someone in a separate part of the facility who checks the process through video displays and instrument readings receiving transmissions via wireless feed to the room. The operator makes adjustments to the production to meet customer orders by wireless remote controls.

Let's say you bring in a visitor who knows nothing about electricity or modern manufacturing equipment or automation—perhaps someone from an isolated, primitive culture where everything is still made by hand. You give this visitor a tour of the manufacturing plant. He gets to see the entire automated process, but he doesn't get to see the operator in the control room and he doesn't get to see the loading of the finished product outside the building. You tell him, "Look at this wonderful process and product man has created." The visitor, who has not seen anyone having anything to do with the production, but rather has seen only mechanical equipment creating the product declares, "There is no person involved in this process. There is no need of any person in this process. Man has nothing to do with this production!" Your statement doesn't fit the visitor's idea of how things are made by people. From what he can see, the visitor is correct—the product is made by machines, not people. Yet, you would also be correct in your statement. Now the visitor notices the changes in the process, for instance, the changing of beverage from cherry to lemon-lime, or the change in container size, but now being convinced there is no human involvement, the visitor just assumes that changes are somehow also controlled by the equipment itself, or control-adjustment is somehow built in to the equipment (which, he might assume, has also been fabricated and assembled soley by machines). Perhaps, after a certain number of units of one type are produced, he assumes the production automatically switches over to a different type—or perhaps it's some kind of accident (he doesn't know of any purpose behind the changes because he doesn't know about the customer orders). The visitor can come to understand the principles of mechanics, and be able to calculate production rates, and can eventually understand the entire production process, but never having seen the operator or control room, has no reason to believe there is human involvement.

To the visitor, the simplest explanation of this process doesn't involve any person because there is no evidence of it or any apparent need for it. All he has to work with is what he can see, and he sees a wonderful manufacturing process performed only by mechanical equipment. He has only your word that there is human involvement in this process, and it runs counter to what he observes and to his experiences.

23

Seeing Patterns That Aren't There?

by hmike in

in his book, how we believe, religious skeptic michael shermer states "in our complex and contingent world, random events often happen in seemingly peculiar sequences that cry out for meaning.

we usually rise to the occasion, finding patterns in nature even when they do not exist or have no real significance...." a claim somewhat along this line was made in the tv show numb3rs by mathematics professor epps--that people look for, and think they find, patterns in random events.. you can't watch a movie or tv show about crime without seeing detectives attempting to solve crimes by trying to find patterns in a collection of information.

they work backwards from the end result to find links between the pieces of information and possibly back to a cause.. yes, we look for patterns.

hmike

serotonin_wraith,

Thanks for the reply.

I'm a little rusty, but aren't all sins meant to be equal in the eyes of God?

I know what you mean—a sin is a sin. What I mean is that on a relative scale, in how they relate to God and people, some sins have a much more significant impact, or I might say, are more grievous. Notice gluttony didn't make it into the Ten Commandments.

Wouldn't Occam's Razor come into this? The simplest explanation would be one of the examples you gave. Adding a god to the equation only needlessly makes it more complex. With every 'miracle' I've heard of, I've been able to think of a few simpler explanations. One that is harder to explain away would be worthy of more study (and more deserving of adding 'God' to the mix) but so far, I've not heard of anything like that.

As I understand the Razor, when competing theories or scenarios come to the same result, the simpliest one is preferred. Sure, why not, especially if we're looking to be purely functional. But at the same time, the simplest explanation is not necessarily the correct one in terms of completeness. Simplicity may be easier to work with, but we may miss details. If we're looking for the whole truth; if we're looking for the complete picture, don't we push beyond functional simplicity? Man strives to go beyond "because it works!"

We can explain how things work without any deity, but can we ever hope to fully explain why?

23

Seeing Patterns That Aren't There?

by hmike in

in his book, how we believe, religious skeptic michael shermer states "in our complex and contingent world, random events often happen in seemingly peculiar sequences that cry out for meaning.

we usually rise to the occasion, finding patterns in nature even when they do not exist or have no real significance...." a claim somewhat along this line was made in the tv show numb3rs by mathematics professor epps--that people look for, and think they find, patterns in random events.. you can't watch a movie or tv show about crime without seeing detectives attempting to solve crimes by trying to find patterns in a collection of information.

they work backwards from the end result to find links between the pieces of information and possibly back to a cause.. yes, we look for patterns.

hmike

I looked at all of the letters in your post and found a message that says: "All bow before LORD SATAN"

OK, we look hard enough, we can find whatever we want. Does it mean anything to you?

Something we can't ignore about anecdotal evidence is the personal significance it has to the person it happened to. It's not just what happened, but the timing of it, and how it related to the person's life situation. There are often all kinds of details that cannot be properly communicated to, or understood by others. People's lives are changed by these events. The biggest mistake may be to state or imply to others that the same thing will happen with them.

23

Seeing Patterns That Aren't There?

by hmike in

in his book, how we believe, religious skeptic michael shermer states "in our complex and contingent world, random events often happen in seemingly peculiar sequences that cry out for meaning.

we usually rise to the occasion, finding patterns in nature even when they do not exist or have no real significance...." a claim somewhat along this line was made in the tv show numb3rs by mathematics professor epps--that people look for, and think they find, patterns in random events.. you can't watch a movie or tv show about crime without seeing detectives attempting to solve crimes by trying to find patterns in a collection of information.

they work backwards from the end result to find links between the pieces of information and possibly back to a cause.. yes, we look for patterns.

hmike

Thanks to all for your interest. Without having anything definitive to work with or subject to rigorous scientific testing, anecdotal evidence—called personal testimony among Christians—plays an important role in growing (bringing in those from the outside) and fortifying (reinforcing conviction of those within) the church. I think it's worthwhile to examine and discuss this subject regardless of perspective.

In that case, because we don't know the true origins of Thor, Ra, Zeus, Atum, Odin, Mithra, Allah, Krishna or most of the other gods worshipped throughout history, it's just as likely to be one of them behind it. I expect it's possible to find the origin of Santa, but the origins of things like faries and pixies, gnomes and trolls are about as hard to find as Yahweh.

serotonin-wraith,

I agree with you. I just meant to narrow down the field, not close it off. From there, we would have to ask questions to narrow down the field further. For example, are the events or apparent connections between events consistent with claims made in their scriptures or ancient texts, i. e., is there any justification in the religious writings for interpreting events a certain way? That may help in some cases, but not in others. From the names you mentioned, this seems to put us in the place of ancient cultures.

For the ice cream example, I'll give you one alternative perspective on it. First of all, I'm not sure that example qualifies as gluttony as mentioned in the Bible. Hey, the gospels state that Jesus went to big feasts on earth, and there's supposed to be a big feast in the future kingdom, so simply a large quantity of food or calories doesn't seem to be the problem. Also, while actual gluttony may be a sin, it's not on the same level as murder, theft, or false testimony against someone, yet those things happen. (From a faith perspective, God often permits us to sin. Why sometimes and not others, and why there are consequences sometimes and not others...well, that can be another topic.) But I'll pass on that issue for now.

As for what happened to the ice cream--well, it didn't have to be sent through an interdimensional portal, or be dematerialized. Its removal did not have to violate natural laws we know of. Even in the Bible accounts, what we call miracles were special events that took place under special circumstances for a reason. Sure Jesus is said to have walked on water, but he normally used more conventional means of transportation--like boats. And sure, he may have fed thousands from a few fishes and loaves, but, as far as we can see in other cases, the disciples ate what they caught, grew, or bartered for just like anyone else.

Here are some conventional explanations for the missing ice cream:

1. Someone there ate it and is lying outright.

2.. Someone may be misleading you through misinterpretation and withholding information. For example, someone may think you meant it was eaten. What happened is that they left it out, it melted, and they threw it away. So they denied taking it, thinking that you meant that also involved eating it. What we think we hear isn't always what is said (thinking of fast-food drive-thrus here).

3. A guest came over and took it without anybody knowing.

4. You thought there was ice cream there, but actually, you forgot you put it in a different freezer.

There are probably other reasonable possibilities, and further investigation might turn up what really happened, or it might not.

Now we could say that's all there is to it. If God's involvement meant things had to be miraculous, we wouldn't have much of an issue here. But the scriptures establish that God works through conventional methods according to natural laws, so being able to explain events through the natural order doesn't eliminate God from the picture. If the ice cream was removed by conventional means, God could still be involved. Where did the idea to remove the ice cream come from? How did the opportunity happen to present itself at that particular time? The more factors we bring in that all had to be a certain way, the more improbable the end result becomes and the harder it is to explain. The ice cream example is not a great one to use for this explanation, but it helps to illustrate the basic problem.

23

Seeing Patterns That Aren't There?

by hmike in

in his book, how we believe, religious skeptic michael shermer states "in our complex and contingent world, random events often happen in seemingly peculiar sequences that cry out for meaning.

we usually rise to the occasion, finding patterns in nature even when they do not exist or have no real significance...." a claim somewhat along this line was made in the tv show numb3rs by mathematics professor epps--that people look for, and think they find, patterns in random events.. you can't watch a movie or tv show about crime without seeing detectives attempting to solve crimes by trying to find patterns in a collection of information.

they work backwards from the end result to find links between the pieces of information and possibly back to a cause.. yes, we look for patterns.

hmike

Thanks for the reply, serotonin_wraith.

It seems that what we think of coincidence is changing, even without bringing God into the mix. The idea that everything in the universe is related, and that anything that happens has an effect beyond it's immediate environment and what is obvious, is gaining popularity. Additionally, globalization has shown us that we are no longer isolated--what happens in other parts of the world affects all of us in some way. So now some may question if there is really anything such as chance or coincidence. Why do things happen when they do? Why does a mechanical part or a part of the human body fail at a particular moment and not another? Why does the unexpected happen, and the expected not happen? We just don't know--we don't know all the principles or what the influences are.

What you said to the Christian is one side of the picture--one possibility. But if the Christian maintains that an unexpected, improbable event is due to God's intervention, how can anyone really dispute it unless the preson presumes God doesn't exist or doesn't intervene. It may look like it could be a coincidence, but that doesn't mean for sure it is.

23

Seeing Patterns That Aren't There?

by hmike in

in his book, how we believe, religious skeptic michael shermer states "in our complex and contingent world, random events often happen in seemingly peculiar sequences that cry out for meaning.

we usually rise to the occasion, finding patterns in nature even when they do not exist or have no real significance...." a claim somewhat along this line was made in the tv show numb3rs by mathematics professor epps--that people look for, and think they find, patterns in random events.. you can't watch a movie or tv show about crime without seeing detectives attempting to solve crimes by trying to find patterns in a collection of information.

they work backwards from the end result to find links between the pieces of information and possibly back to a cause.. yes, we look for patterns.

hmike

Anecdotal evidence can be the basis of superstitions and old wives tales, but it can also be the basis of beneficial practices used by ancient people, and could become the basis of a scientific hypothesis. Without being able to test it, it is hard to evaluate.

Thanks to those who responded, or may yet respond. This didn't generate as much interest as I thought it would. Personal observations and conclusions are important to what we believe--what God did or didn't do. Of course, it's all subjective and only has the weight we give it.

I hope to bring up some other topics soon.