In a previous discussion and in reference to a comment about me using a “God-based filter,” Matthew said:
This statement is you seeing things through your particular filter, for sure.
Don’t you also use a non-god filter? Because of our beliefs, we all filter what we experience through them. Have you ever bought a new car and then you start to notice that model everywhere? I’ve had that kind of experience with several vehicles and also with other things. Or once I become a part of some group, I start to notice others of that same group, even though I didn’t even see them before. This is our mental filters in action.
The one problem I see with a “non-god filter” is that a filter can’t detect the absence of something, but only its presence. So, through your filter, you detect the presence of other things that make sense but don’t see evidence of God and therefore might conclude he’s not there.
Here’s an example using simple science. You and I are looking at a picture and I say there is red in that picture. I’m looking through my red filter lens, of course. You, looking through your green lens, insist there is no red in the picture. You only see shades of green, blue, and yellow. Looking through your filter, you would never know if there was red in the picture or not–the shades of red and the absence of any color at all would look the same.
In the world of electronics, we can see the same sort of thing with radio waves and tuned circuits. I might have a radio receiver with a tuned circuit that receives signals between 88 and 108 MHz (millions of cycles per second)–this is the FM radio band. You have a receiver with a tuned circuit that receives signals between .540 and 1.6 MHz–this is the AM radio band. Either of us could insist that a station the other is listening to doesn’t exist because we can’t receive it. If we each understood that we were each using a different radio circuit that received different signals, then we could open up to the idea that each had found something valid and perhaps share both sets of signals for greater enjoyment. Without that understanding, we could waste a lot of time debating the existence of some particular station, and create a lot of contention and so on.
In a less technical example, could one ever know that FM 100 exists, by only watching their satellite TV system? Their frequencies are different as well as their modes of receiving the signals, and the way information is placed on the signal. (I know, maybe if it was satellite with FM stations included, then it would be apparent. But you get the point, right?)
So, it would seem the only way to prove that God does not exist would be to use the God-based filter and still see nothing. I have to say, my God-based filter sees a lot of God in the world. I also understand that your non-god filter does see many important and useful things in the world, without a hint of God in it.
Most evidence of God is in the hearts and minds of faithful people; it comes from the lives of those who look for him and find him. One can’t find God through scientific measurement, if he chooses not to be found that way. I would say it is faith in God that provides the filter we need to see evidence of him.
In my life, I’ve seen too many “coincidences” to believe it’s all just coincidence. There is an intelligent power in this universe–beyond our human understandings–that does indeed respond to us when we seek him. He has power to shake the earth to its foundation, power to create or destroy life in a instant, power to do all things he sees fit to do. I know this intelligent power, this being, as God.
emilt
Confirmation bias, etc.
Yep. The phenomenon is called “confirmation bias”. It’s something I scrupulously attempt to avoid, but can safely be said by anyone to possess. Trying to deny confirmation bias is like trying to deny having bowels; eventually, something will come out that reminds you.
(I find humorous scatological metaphors amusing. I realize not everyone shares my taste, though.)
The same can be said to be true for science and logic. It’s impossible to “prove” a negative assertion of this sort; you end up in a tautology. You can, however, prove a positive assertion, and, of course, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” and all that.
Semantic disagreement: there is a subtle but important distinction between “That’s not true” and “I don’t see a reason to believe that”. The first is an allegation of untruth, while the second is an allegation of insufficient evidence. With respect to the existence of mythological entities in fact, and not just concept, most atheists/agnostics are not concluding “he’s not there”, but “I don’t see a reason to conclude he’s there.”
It is the responsibility of someone making an allegation to provide support for the allegation; the person not making an allegation need provide no support for his position. This is the default position of courts, and the default position of human relationships. If you’re not making a claim, you don’t have to back it up.
I’m making no claim regarding the existence of the supernatural. For many years, I did, and then realizing I had no evidence, I ceased to do so and recanted my previous assertions.
Unfortunately, metaphors fall apart beyond a point, and that point is quite close with this metaphor. Supernatural beings are, by their nature, unprovable entities. You could show me how to “tune in” to another radio frequency, and we’d have consistent, repeatable results. We could write papers on it, and, heck, even establish a government agency to regulate usage of the spectrum.
The problem with supernatural communication is that there is no such consistent, repeatable result. Many have claimed this is so, such as “Moroni’s Challenge” in the Book of Mormon, Moroni 10, but the results of such challenges are not consistent enough to be reliable.
I’ve long suspected that the “temporal lobe” of the brain — an area which, when electrically stimulated, tends to cause “spiritual experiences” for those who consider themselves “spiritual”, and just a mild “high” to those who aren’t — has something to do with someone’s response to certain classically “spiritual” stimuli. Epilepsy in the temporal lobe is known to cause intense hallucinations. And the nature of a hallucination is such that, to the one experiencing it, it seems real. Is it objectively real or not? I don’t know.
Perhaps those who, like me, have a tough time having any “spiritual experiences” may have a defective temporal lobe. Or, the opposite could be true. Or, perhaps, neither is true, and in fact people’s brains are just wired differently.
[Raises hand] Been there, done that, did it for at least twelve years, fervently. I’m not saying “God does not exist”, but I will vouch for my dedication, sincerity, and fervent desire to prove His existence both to myself and others.
Failed miserably.
“Bored now.”
(Buffy reference, if you don’t get it, sorry!)
Vizzini: Inconceivable! Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.
Eyewitness accounts are “testimony”, not “evidence”. There is an important legal difference between the two terms, and it is useful in these kinds of discussions. “Evidence” is tangible, objective, and generally mute; “testimony” is biased, subject to change, and unreliable except when consistent across a broad selection of people who claim to have observed the same event at the same time.
Witness Joseph Smith’s account of the First Vision. Earlier transcripts of his claimed experience were substantially different in both the particulars and generalities. The later accounts — including the one in today’s Pearl of Great Price — are greatly modified to suit the evolving theology of the movement. The one in today’s scriptures was written by a third party, fully twenty years after the claimed event was to have taken place.
I’ve been justifiably accused of “revisionist history” in my own past for events which occurred fifteen years ago. Even seminal events. I must be reminded by another party — usually, one of my friends from this board — as to what actually occurred! The fact is, I have a stake in how I “look” in this history, and I tend to recast the past in the most favorable light towards myself. Everybody does this.
This is the nature of all supernatural entities. Even the word itself — “supernatural” — implies an inability to observe such a thing in nature.
Been there. Done that. Got the special commemorative T-shirt and underwear. I’ve had enough people try to tell me that I didn’t actually believe this stuff, or that I didn’t try hard enough, or that I wasn’t living righteously enough, that I’ve had my fill of it.
I hope you don’t hop on that bandwagon, because I grew tired of it a long time ao. Nobody has a right to tell me what I believe, or believed, or to question my devotion at the time. That right is mine, and mine alone.
Sorry. Touched a sore point. I’ve been “called to repentance” too many times to count in the last three years, that I just want to shout “I did that! Grr! Arrgh!”
See, I’ve seen so many coincidences that it seems really unlikely that things aren’t just coincidences.
— Matthew P. Barnson – – – – Thought for the moment: The Junior God now heads the roll In the list of heaven’s peers; He sits in the House of High Control, And he regulates the spheres. Yet does he wonder, do you suppose, If, even in gods divine, The best and wisest may not be those Who have wallowed awhile with the swine? — Robert W. Service
Poop and Buffy.. Excellent..
I disagree with some of what you say.. but you reference Whedon (TWICE!) and that shoots my argument all to heck.. (Halfway thru the Serenity Commentary.. its really good).
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
In defense of Emilt
Okay, there may or may not be some backlash coming, so I want to hop in first before it comes.
Despite his tactics, and despite my own rejection of Mormonism in favor of Christianity, I understand that Emilt is trying to do good.. he’s doing his best to do what he thinks is right. He is using the wrong tactics with the wrong group of people, and I want to maybe shed some light on this.
I’m a christian.. in fact, I’m kind of in line with the bible thumping born-agains in what I believe theologically.. but I am 1- Not a great Christian, and 2- I come from a New Agey Cetholic dad, a recovering episcopalian Mom (so the whole “Born again” thing resulte din some fights at home), and a Jewish extended family – and most of my friends were Mormon. So, basically, I learned thatthere is a time, a place, and a way to talk about your faith.
Now, I am on the record as saying I think Mormonism is fiction. Mormons believe I’ve missed the point. And you know what, cool. We can agree to disagree and do so respectfully. (Christy, for instance is someone I have spent a decade learning to really admire. Matt’s Mom was really cool to me in a time I needed it). I also am on the record as believing that faith in Christ is a prerequisite for heaven.. of course, all Christians (and most religions have something similar) share that dogma (if not that personal theology).
What’s my point? Very early in my faith, I shouted God from the rooftops and told people they needed to change, and turned off a lot of people I really cared about. Eventually, I learned that my responsibility is to present to people what I believe to be the truth – (World’s stuck in sin, nothing we can do, Christ died, all is forgiven if you ask him to forgive you – cool guy to follow, yada yada yada, lets have bagels) and to try to live in such a way that I’m not giving God a bad name. I screw that one up a lot.
Emilt believes he’s found the holy grail cup from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. He doesn’t consider it his beliefs, he considers it to be true. Him trying to convert you is like someone advocating really hard that smoking is bad, or that you need to stop hitting your kid, or that if you get a bad infection you should take antibiotics. He really is operating from a desire to do good for everyone on this board.
Now, I disagree with his methods a bit, and I disagree with his theology a lot, but before you get too mad about it, please remember this is a guy who wishes no one ill, and really just wants to help poeple.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Belief = ?
How do you differentiate this? Do you, in your own case, differentiate truth from your Christian beliefs? Can you really think to yourself, “I believe I have to accept Christ to avoid hell, but I don’t think it’s true?” That seems to defy the definition of belief.
Mormons, as you probably know, generally would find this “culturally” repugnant, as the typical language employed when sharing one’s beliefs (or testifying in general) is to say “I know that yada, yada is true/was a prophet/is a prophet/is the only way to be happy.” I’ve heard some folk use the “b” word from the pulpit before (including Mormon top dog Gordon Hinkley himself, actually), but it really sticks out as odd. Personally, I consider the “k” word to be sloppily applied here (or based on an illogical epistemology), but that should be obvious to all of you by now.
Sounds like your Joseph Smith filter is broken. Pairs of repairmen are standing by to come and fix it for you…
Beliefs
I had a slight epiphany about this the other day. I believe that I choose my beliefs: I consciously weigh the options, and choose to believe what I want.
I was informed by a co-worker that this is not, then, a “belief”, but an “opinion”. “Beliefs,” he said, “are innate. You don’t pick and choose them. If you find a religion — or, in your case, no religion — you find one which already agrees with your beliefs, not the other way around.”
I thought it was a really interesting observation. I don’t know that it’s “true”, but it’s a unique perspective.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Ironical Episiotomy..
Daniel with the vocab!! Again.. to you its his beliefs, and to him it is fact.. and a fact that he thinks will be helpful. The differentiation is in who is doing the believing.
But thats not really what I’m trying to say –
I guess the point I’m making is this.. as opposed to those who would seek to do harm to someone for being different than them (terrorists, nazis, KKK) Emilt is trying to keep people from harm, based on what he believes will cause people harm and how to avoid it.
Its like, if I believed milk is poison, and I tell you not to drink it, its not the same as if I wanted to harm everyone who drank milk. One is based on a desire to help and one on a desire to hurt. My point is not to debate the semantics of beliefs and opinions here, but rather to look past the forwardness (which is, in its own way very honest, if not also a little inappropriate) – and instead see that this guy is acting out of benevolence, not malevolence.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
thanks
Thanks for the defense.
People are complicated. I guess that’s why I’ve spent most of my working days in jobs dealing with electronic equipment more than people. I’m not a natural people person. I’ve learned some, but I know there’s much more to learn.
emilt
Errnalogies
Your analogies around a God-filter consitently tie back to the physical world–a world that anyone can access in a uniform way. But God-filters aren’t anything of the sort.
A similar analogy I’ve come across involved maps. Secular humanists have road maps, believers have topographical maps, as well as road maps. Thus, when deciding where to build a house, the non-believer will have no idea where the flood plains are, while the Mormon will be able to build both at the top of a hill and close to shopping.
That’s a fine analogy if you assume that everyone who goes looking for a topological map will find the same one. (Or everyone who tunes into your side of the dial will hear the same music.) Of course, I think it goes without saying that that is not the case. Islam, Buddhism, anamist religions, Maoism, Christianity, various suicidal cults, etc. all offer topological maps. Some of them show similar valleys and hills, but mostly they’re totally different. This doesn’t bother any particular map holder–he will be happy to point out how the roads on the road map suggest that his topology is logical (“See that switchback? Right on the slope that my map shows.” “See that long straight road? Right in the valley on my map.”)
So, when you come to an adherent to objective reality and say, “here is my topological map, it will make you wise,” he replies, “get in line.” And, of course, looking at the fact that so many maps exist, and that none of them were creating by looking at the topology, but only by looking at the road map late into the night, he is forced to pass on all of them. If he proposed to march out with surveying equipment to draw a true topological map, it is pointed out to him that topology exists beyond the realm of objective experience, so his pursuit is pointless. Again, the road map is the only logical thing left.
>>>> Thus, when deciding
>>>> Thus, when deciding where to build a house, the non-believer will have no idea where the flood plains are, while the Mormon will be able to build both at the top of a hill and close to shopping.
I’m not entirely sure what this means, but it may just be one of the more brilliant things I’ve ever seen on the board. This rivals the one-hand clapping paradox in terms of enlightenment potential…
Close to shopping
Yeah, I don’t get it. What does religion have to do with topology? Mormons still die of terminal cancer and car accidents and floods, so clearly they don’t have all of the information either.
— Ben
Clearly
Whoops. I should have written topographical. Hopefully that’s less one-hand-clapping-ish. But a topological map kind of makes sense in the analogy in another way, in that most mystics probably don’t claim to know the exact topography, just the key points, with the gaps kind of filled in by estimates.
None of the topographical maps are sound (and most of them don’t match very well). But most of the owners believe that they are the best available in the world. The more extreme are willing to strap on a bomb vest and bet on their view of topography over the universally agreed-upon road map.
Topography
“Whoops. I should have written topographical. Hopefully that’s less one-hand-clapping-ish. But a topological map kind of makes sense in the analogy in another way, in that most mystics probably don’t claim to know the exact topography, just the key points, with the gaps kind of filled in by estimates.”
No, even though I said topology, I understood that you meant topography – mountains and so forth. But it still doesn’t make sense.
Topography is an exact science – religion is anything but.
“None of the topographical maps are sound (and most of them don’t match very well). But most of the owners believe that they are the best available in the world. The more extreme are willing to strap on a bomb vest and bet on their view of topography over the universally agreed-upon road map.”
OK, you’ve lost me. What was the road map again?
— Ben
Layer maps
Let me expand the scenario behind the analogy to clarify. Imagine that everyone lives in a cave where they have been born and from which they can never emerge. They have access to MapQuest, and they are curious about the world above them. Everyone can use their senses to come to an agreement on the lay of the roads. But mystics insist that there is more to the world, namely topography. Mystics add a theological layer to reality (the topographical map); a layer that they believe (and frequently claim to “know”) is as valid as the road map. (Even more frightening, they will sometimes trust it more than the road map.) The empiricist has no choice but to reject these topographical maps as arbitrary. Mystics will smuggly laugh to themselves (okay, not all of them) about how the empiricists are too fixated on their road map, which only gets part of the picture. They believe it allows them to be perfectly rational: “We accept the road map completely. But we also know the topography!”
Perhaps you’re getting caught on the fact that topography is real–not supernatural. But it’s just an analogy. If you think of the cavemen, topography may as well be supernatural, as they will never have any way of accessing it. (A radio frequency, as used above, is also real…)
According to Mormon theology, it should be pointed out, God is not entirely supernatural–he lives with his wives on a planet named Kolob (near the center of the universe), which means you could conceivable “find” Him. (I’m sure the response to this is that he would not let you find Him–maybe make your telescope blurry or something.) He has plenty of supernatural abilities though.
Not quite accurate…
Not entirely accurate. He lives with his wives on a planet entirely made of crystal near a star named Kolob.
Wow. And I knew that without looking it up. I’ve spent entirely too much time studying Mormon theology. I really am trying to pick up new hobbies! I fly airplanes and play computer games…
— Matthew P. Barnson – – – – Thought for the moment: Kill Ugly Radio – Frank Zappa
Look… up in the sky…
God lives on a star made entirely out of crystal? That rocks!
God has a Fortress of Solitude!
God is @*#$(% SUPERMAN!
Except he apparently has wives. Bonus. Are they hot?
See, this is the kind of vivid theology that we in the Catholic church have been lacking. “Those wicked things you do alone in the shower make Jesus cry” doesn’t have nearly the same kind of punch as “If you do that in the shower again, God’s see it with his x-ray vision and then MELT you with super hot beams that come from his eyes!”
This is why every shower in my house is surrounded by lead: to prevent unwanted divine surveillance. I know how to take care of myself.
No pun intended… 😛
And then there was one
Actually, he had wives about 150 years ago. Then, around 100 years ago, he began to divorce them, because now he is described as having a “wife.” Wonder what those alimony payments are like!
Interestingly, Jesus’s wife-count shrunk over the same time frame.
Evidence
“Most evidence of God is in the hearts and minds of faithful people; it comes from the lives of those who look for him and find him. One can’t find God through scientific measurement, if he chooses not to be found that way. I would say it is faith in God that provides the filter we need to see evidence of him.”
This, in my opinion, is the biggest intellectual divide between theists and atheists (or agnostics).
There is no “evidence” of God. Evidence is a material observation which leads towards proof of a hypothesis. The very nature of God defies proof. You say “it is faith in God that provides the filter we need to see evidence of him.” That’s almost right — it is your faith that causes you to decide that your observations amount to “evidence” of the existence of God.
The ONLY reason to believe in God (any god) is faith. It’s a logical fallacy to state that you can come to a belief in God through some sort of deductive reasoning – i.e. “life is so complex that the only logical solution is a supernatural Creator.” Clearly, science knows a great deal more about the natural world than it did a few hundred years ago, and therefore it stands to reason that there is still plenty we don’t know that will eventually be explained through science. If you believe in a supernatural Creator, the only feasible explanation is faith.
Faith is not logical. In fact, what you’re saying is, “Despite the LACK of evidence of God, I continue to believe in him.” THAT is faith. So embrace that – reclaim it. Just say, “I believe in God and that’s it. Nyah.”
I’m a spiritual person. I believe that there is something larger than myself going on in the universe (call it God, or the Force, or whatever). But I have no logical reason or evidence that leads me to that conclusion. I simply believe it because it pleases me to believe that the universe is a certain way. It’s impossible to prove or disprove, and therefore I am content in my own beliefs and you should be content in yours, regardless of what they are.
— Ben
On the other hand..
My belief in Christ comes somewhat from the testimonies given about him, the authentication of their veracity, the anecdotal recollections of the apostles, the stuff presented in “The Case For Christ” – and then, yeah, faith. But its not so blind as one may think.. God did stuff, he said he did stuff and theres some evidence that some of that stuff was done, especially where Christ is concerned, so it makes it easier to believe on the days where my faith is shaky.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Anecdotal evidence
“My belief in Christ comes somewhat from the testimonies given about him, the authentication of their veracity, the anecdotal recollections of the apostles, the stuff presented in “The Case For Christ” – and then, yeah, faith. But its not so blind as one may think.. God did stuff, he said he did stuff and theres some evidence that some of that stuff was done, especially where Christ is concerned, so it makes it easier to believe on the days where my faith is shaky.”
But the testimonies and the anecdotal recollections are all unprovable. Just because it says in the Bible that God exists doesn’t mean that he does. I could write a book stating that I created the world, and then cite the book as evidence that I created the world, but that wouldn’t make it true.
But here’s my point: What’s wrong with blind faith? If you believe it, who the hell are we to tell you you’re wrong? Why do you need to justify your faith with outward evidence? If you’re confident in your beliefs, you shouldn’t have to justify them to the rest of us.
— Ben