The God or Not God Discussion

[TheFinalWord]

Right - but one of these is not that extraordinary (hallucinations) and the other is quite extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence outside of scripture would one use to convince the non-Christian that Jesus was in fact raised from the dead?

 

.

 

Yes, this is so interesting to me. I think I read somewhere that the gospels were actually written decades after Jesus died. So that alone should make one question the validity of what was written.

 

It's not quite so simple. We have to be careful we are not superimposing our ideas of how text should be handed down, versus methods that were accepted during antiquity. You can learn more about reliability here.

 

Also a good point. My question for what Paul said would be this - what did he mean by "good"?

 

That which is true.

 

Yes indeed! This is pretty much what I'm asking in a nutshell. In my mind, logic, reason and evidence should be the basis of one's beliefs. But is that inherently better than using faith? Or believing in something because of tradition? In my mind that answer is yes (of course), but many don't agree with me.

 

Again, the terrorism example was just an example. Let's use other example of faith based beliefs that result in actions. My question is are these acceptable as they're based on faith? And if not, why not?

 

1. Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse to give a child in need a blood transfusion due to their faith.

2. A follower of Christian Science who doesn't bring their child to the hospital when needed because they believe in the power of prayer.

3. The religious family the performs female genital mutilation because of their faith.

4. The Christian fundamentalists that advocate for teaching their particular creation myth in science classes as opposed to evolution.

 

Are all of these things okay? If one has faith, do the behaviours derived from that faith not matter? And if the above are wrong, on what basis do we decide that?

 

The Greek word faith, pistis, means "to be persuaded." Faith should be reasonable.

 

Faith results in many good things as well, not only bad things. Faith causes people to extended love (Christian charities helping the needy). It seems you are focused on the negative effects of misguided faith. But considering those examples, yes, faith can be misguided. The bible recognizes that and how to discern the difference. Jesus primarily dealt with this very issue during his confrontations with the pharisees. I do not want to quote the bible to you as I do not want to purposely annoy you

Edited June 19, 2015 by TheFinalWord

[pureinheart]

Ditto. I can get...emotional about this sometimes. Part of it is because faith is important to me. And I'll confess, part of it is because there HAVE been some times not too long ago when I questioned a lot, and just got downright mad about what I thought God should be doing

 

I bet we both could write a book about this ... mine would be considered a novel. When I think about some of the things that I wanted God to do or time when made my will His, well, some of it is even too embarrassing to say... it's really that bad.

 

You seem like a very passionate person, so possibly it's that passion that drives you? No?

[autumnnight]

I bet we both could write a book about this ... mine would be considered a novel. When I think about some of the things that I wanted God to do or time when made my will His, well, some of it is even too embarrassing to say... it's really that bad.

 

You seem like a very passionate person, so possibly it's that passion that drives you? No?

 

I am, at times, too passionate. I can also be vengeful and hold grudeges, none of which I am all that proud of.

 

Well, I am not sorry I am passionate, not after about killing myself trying to fit into someone else's "pulseless" mode for so long.

[Timshel]

I know this is for AN, but if you don't mind I'd like to say something... You are a doll BTW (I don't know your gender so forgive me if calling you a doll is uncool).

 

Dude/dudette, please don't be concerned about being offensive. I really don't think you know how to be offensive based on the couple of posts I've read of yours... say it like you want to say it. Most Christians have really thick skin and don't get offended easily... most of us expect to be hated anyway. I think the thing that causes Christians to get a little upset is hypocrisy.

 

Hypocrisy, a Christian phenomenon. I shouldn't say Christian because truthfully it is a human condition and transcends all religions.

 

The miracles pureinheart, the sometimes small, inconsequential things are visible to all hearts but not all see them. Tap, pinch, slap and kick. Then worse. All designed to get attention and worse is never worse, always better though it will take our breath away if the tap and subsequent are ignored.

 

There is Religion and there is Faith. Sometimes they coexist but are not mutually exclusive.

 

I think the best teachers are perceptive experience and religious education because they balance each other and become personal. It should always be personal and not dogma, my opinion.

[pureinheart]

Hypocrisy, a Christian phenomenon. I shouldn't say Christian because truthfully it is a human condition and transcends all religions.

 

The miracles pureinheart, the sometimes small, inconsequential things are visible to all hearts but not all see them. Tap, pinch, slap and kick. Then worse. All designed to get attention and worse is never worse, always better though it will take our breath away if the tap and subsequent are ignored.

 

There is Religion and there is Faith. Sometimes they coexist but are not mutually exclusive.

 

I think the best teachers are perceptive experience and religious education because they balance each other and become personal. It should always be personal and not dogma, my opinion.

 

Love this post...

 

Agree..

 

I am of the opinion that religion is much different than faith. Religion is a product of man. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen:D

[Timshel]

Love this post...

 

Agree..

 

I am of the opinion that religion is much different than faith. Religion is a product of man. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen:D

 

Phew....thanks. I was hoping it would be taken the right way.

[Weezy1973]

.

Probability seems to be a favourite "evidence based" argument for faith centred believers. I will point out (carefully) the fault in the position held by the speaker in this video.

 

Somebody winning the lottery is not at all extraordinary. A particular set of numbers winning is, indeed unlikely, but if enough different combinations of numbers are selected, it is in fact more likely that somebody will win than not. Do you understand why that's the case?

 

The speaker in the video lacks a fundamental misunderstanding of probabilities. I find that religious folks often misinterpret probability to try to support their own beliefs.

 

On the other hand, a human dying, and being dead for a prolonged period of time, and then coming back to life, would be quite extraordinary. We now live with a population of around 7 billion people and there are no recorded events of this happening. If it is something that happens, even rarely, we'd think that the more people there are, the more frequently it would occur. But it doesn't ever. In fact, if defies everything we know about biology.

 

So yes, it would indeed require a lot of evidence to convince those that know anything about biology that someone, being dead for a prolonged period of time could be brought back to life. Of course it's possible that back in the Bronze Age, someone could have been in a coma for a long time and then come out of that coma...

 

 

The Greek word faith, pistis, means "to be persuaded." Faith should be reasonable.

 

"Should" and "reasonable" are subjective in this case, I think.

 

Faith results in many good things as well, not only bad things. Faith causes people to extended love (Christian charities helping the needy). It seems you are focused on the negative effects of misguided faith. But considering those examples, yes, faith can be misguided. The bible recognizes that and how to discern the difference. Jesus primarily dealt with this very issue during his confrontations with the pharisees. I do not want to quote the bible to you as I do not want to purposely annoy you

 

Ok, so this is really something I'd like to address. I fully agree, that people of faith do good things as well as bad. And likely mostly neutral things.

 

But that's not my point. Or does it even address the questions I've asked (I really find it fascinating how most of the questions in my post get ignored!).

 

So, for those of faith, please answer these very general questions/address these points:

 

1. If someone believes something to be true based on faith, that you don't believe is true, on what basis do you base your opinion.

 

2. If people believe things based on faith that you don't believe to be true, it must follow that faith is not a good way to seek truth.

 

3. If faith is not a good way to seek truth, what methods would you propose are the best ways to seek truth?

[pie2]

So, for those of faith, please answer these very general questions/address these points:

 

1. If someone believes something to be true based on faith, that you don't believe is true, on what basis do you base your opinion.

 

2. If people believe things based on faith that you don't believe to be true, it must follow that faith is not a good way to seek truth.

 

3. If faith is not a good way to seek truth, what methods would you propose are the best ways to seek truth?

 

I haven't read any of this thread, so my response will probably either be a repeat of something already said, or I'll be putting my foot in my mouth somehow or other!

 

1 and 2: I don't understand the questions. What do you mean believe something to be true, but don't think it's true? I don't see how that's possible. Are you distinguishing between "belief" and "thought"? Either way, I don't think it's possible to believe something to be true but not think it's true. If there is a distinction, it's a matter of semantics.

 

3. The best way to seek truth? Test, deduce, generalize; test, deduce, generalize etc. etc. The religiously faithful do this, as much as anyone who relies on circumstantial evidence to make the BEST conclusion of the evidence available.

[Weezy1973]

I haven't read any of this thread, so my response will probably either be a repeat of something already said, or I'll be putting my foot in my mouth somehow or other!

 

1 and 2: I don't understand the questions. What do you mean believe something to be true, but don't think it's true? I don't see how that's possible. Are you distinguishing between "belief" and "thought"? Either way, I don't think it's possible to believe something to be true but not think it's true. If there is a distinction, it's a matter of semantics.

 

3. The best way to seek truth? Test, deduce, generalize; test, deduce, generalize etc. etc. The religiously faithful do this, as much as anyone who relies on circumstantial evidence to make the BEST conclusion of the evidence available.

 

Ah, yes, no, I mean in 1 and 2 - somebody else (i.e. not you) believe something to be true based on faith. You don't think their belief is true. On what do you based your stance on their belief?

[pie2]

Ah, yes, no, I mean in 1 and 2 - somebody else (i.e. not you) believe something to be true based on faith. You don't think their belief is true. On what do you based your stance on their belief?

 

Ahh! Got it now .

 

OK, well see #3. Faith isn't completely blind. People generally think they are believing in the best option because they've looked at the evidence around them. At least, if they are searching with an open heart and mind.

 

Many people believe in one religion or another because of culture, family, social pressures etc. Not because they've taken time to evaluate the origins or validity of that group.

 

EDITED: And the non-religious? How do they believe stuff? This has probably been addressed in the thread. But how do you KNOW things? How do you know that running shoes are good for us? How do you know that soap is the best way to clean skin? That the water we drink isn't harmful? Etc. etc.

Edited June 20, 2015 by pie2

[TheFinalWord]

The speaker in the video lacks a fundamental misunderstanding of probabilities. I find that religious folks often misinterpret probability to try to support their own beliefs.

 

I don't think so friend, but we can just disagree on this.

 

So yes, it would indeed require a lot of evidence to convince those that know anything about biology that someone, being dead for a prolonged period of time could be brought back to life. Of course it's possible that back in the Bronze Age, someone could have been in a coma for a long time and then come out of that coma...

 

If you are stating a coma is the best fit to the evidence (Swoon theory), you are basically describing an extraordinary event, which demands extraordinary evidence, based on your own standards. Essentially, you are arguing that the Roman soldiers did not ensure Jesus was actually dead. Jesus was pierced by a Roman soldier to ensure his death. Blood and water poured out, indicating heart failure.

 

Ok, so this is really something I'd like to address. I fully agree, that people of faith do good things as well as bad. And likely mostly neutral things.

 

But that's not my point. Or does it even address the questions I've asked (I really find it fascinating how most of the questions in my post get ignored!).

 

Not intention, my friend. I just do not have a lot of time at this moment. Lots of traveling.

 

So, for those of faith, please answer these very general questions/address these points:

 

1. If someone believes something to be true based on faith, that you don't believe is true, on what basis do you base your opinion.

 

2. If people believe things based on faith that you don't believe to be true, it must follow that faith is not a good way to seek truth.

 

3. If faith is not a good way to seek truth, what methods would you propose are the best ways to seek truth?

 

1. I would say it is rare that anyone bases anything on any one factor. A lot of times, even Christians, base truth on their own desires (we are very good at conjuring up ideas that suit our natural proclivities). If we have some common ground, I think we can use scripture as the foundation. If not, we will have to examine the entire religion. It will have to be a case-by-case basis. For example, you do not believe the bible, so we do not have any common ground. The same idea would be true for what I would consider to be the misguided faith of other religions (Christianity is exclusionary, which many people do not like about it). Accepting the bible as true, is not only based on faith, as I have tried to explain. It can be examined philosophically, historically, scientifically, etc.

 

Of course, some people disagree within Christian circles on faith-based practices, which is why there are many denominations. In that context, I do think it is important to determine if we are dealing with a central doctrine or not. For example, baptism by immersion or sprinkling. Both are faith based practices, but not essential. Others, like United Pentecostals, do not accept the doctrine of the trinity. They do believe the bible, so we can use the bible as a foundation for debating theology.

 

2. Accurate faith is the manifestation of accepting with the Truth. The bible commands Christians to routinely self-assess to determine if we are in the faith, accurately.

 

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

 

Christianity says only Jesus is the real truth (again, unpopular). Christ said He was the way, the Truth, and the life.

 

3.

? One attribute that Christ says must be present to find truth is humility. God will not reveal himself to the proud. Finding truth is not restricted to methods, but also character qualities. Edited June 20, 2015 by TheFinalWord

[Weezy1973]

EDITED: And the non-religious? How do they believe stuff?

 

I can't speak for everybody, but I base my beliefs on reason, logic and evidence.

 

But how do you KNOW things?

 

When it comes to what is true about our universe, I don't think one can know things with absolute certainty. If there is a lot of evidence to suggest that something is true, it's reasonable to believe that it's true, but it's not possible to know that it's true with absolute certainty.

 

How do you know that running shoes are good for us? How do you know that soap is the best way to clean skin? That the water we drink isn't harmful? Etc. etc.

 

I can't speak for everybody, but again logic, reason and evidence seem to be the best way to address these. We can "test" all those questions (or make observations), and gather evidence, and come to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence we gather.

[Weezy1973]

I know this is for AN, but if you don't mind I'd like to say something... You are a doll BTW (I don't know your gender so forgive me if calling you a doll is uncool).

 

Dude/dudette, please don't be concerned about being offensive. I really don't think you know how to be offensive based on the couple of posts I've read of yours... say it like you want to say it. Most Christians have really thick skin and don't get offended easily... most of us expect to be hated anyway. I think the thing that causes Christians to get a little upset is hypocrisy.

 

Haha, thanks (I'm a dude by the way, if it matters..).

 

To be clear I have no hate for Christians and I'm upset by the fact (if it is indeed a fact) that most Christians expect to be hated. I've met many Christians and by and large they've been lovely people (as have non-Christians). I had a relationship with a Christian, very close family friends are Christian, my extended family are mostly Christian, and I love(d) them all.

 

I'm also quite a fan of the teachings of Jesus. The golden rule is pretty great. Even greater, I think, is the concept of loving your enemy. That's a really hard one, but really important. But I'm speaking about Jesus as moral philosopher, as opposed to son of God.

[pie2]

I can't speak for everybody, but I base my beliefs on reason, logic and evidence.

 

When it comes to what is true about our universe, I don't think one can know things with absolute certainty. If there is a lot of evidence to suggest that something is true, it's reasonable to believe that it's true, but it's not possible to know that it's true with absolute certainty.

 

I can't speak for everybody, but again logic, reason and evidence seem to be the best way to address these. We can "test" all those questions (or make observations), and gather evidence, and come to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence we gather.

 

OK, so you employ reason, logic and evidence. But, you hold back on believing anything with absolute certainty. I'd say that is a wise way to approach the world.

 

However, I don't think that's the reality of how we live our lives. I think nearly all of us accept certain things as truth and live our lives based on those truths. There are countless beliefs we all have that affect what we do, decisions we make, how we live. Those beliefs, for all intents and purposes, are held as truth in our lives. If not, we wouldn't do/think them.

 

For example, I have a very trivial example, but it has larger implications in my life. I'm recently reading more about hair care techniques. All my life I've used shampoo and conditioner, and have listened to the claims that I will have softer, shinier, more manageable hair if I use certain products. But, lo and behold, I'm coming to learn that just the opposite may be true! My hair may be drier, frizzier and less manageable due to those products!! Something I've believed all my life might have absolutely no basis in truth whatsoever.

 

I know that example isn't a matter of great universal and spiritual significance (except to me! ). But I think it highlights something that is common for most of us: We hold SO many untested, not-evidence-based, illogical beliefs, and we don't even know it. We make decisions not because we have actually tested something, but because we have emotional, social, cultural influences that affect our beliefs.

 

So, I totally respect what you're saying and would like my life to be based in truth to the fullest extent. But, I do think that some atheists who think they're living a completely empirical life might be surprised at just how many myths, mores, and untruths dictate the course of their lives.

[pureinheart]

Haha, thanks (I'm a dude by the way, if it matters..).

 

No, not really, just don't want to offend you. Sometimes people get irritated when called the gender they are not.

 

 

To be clear I have no hate for Christians and I'm upset by the fact (if it is indeed a fact) that most Christians expect to be hated. I've met many Christians and by and large they've been lovely people (as have non-Christians). I had a relationship with a Christian, very close family friends are Christian, my extended family are mostly Christian, and I love(d) them all.

 

That's way cool Weezy... the Bible tells us that we will be hated because of Him (Jesus). I didn't understand that and hadn't experienced this type of hate until the internet. I live in an area that is predominately Christian, so thankfully I don't have to deal with hate on a personal level at 'home'. Christians do seem to be hated all over the world, especially the ME.

 

I'm also quite a fan of the teachings of Jesus. The golden rule is pretty great. Even greater, I think, is the concept of loving your enemy. That's a really hard one, but really important.

 

This is a hard one, and to understand the concept is even harder IMO. Most don't understand that to love, to forgive your enemy and those who have hurt us is for us. To actually live by this makes for a much healthier existence on this earth. To carry a grudge gives so much power to an enemy, or the enemy that it's crazy! Most of the time those that have harmed us don't even remember nor do they care- they don't give a second thought, while we have spent years stewing over something ridiculous.

 

You know, I didn't even realize how much I had locked up inside, how many grudges I was holding on to, as most of it was on a subconscious level. Once I began to really let go, a bunch of horrible habits dropped off too...

 

But I'm speaking about Jesus as moral philosopher, as opposed to son of God.

 

Understood, you see him much like Ghandi?

[Weezy1973]

I don't think so friend, but we can just disagree on this.

 

So, usually I would agree to disagree, but in this case I think it's important to point out the flawed thinking of the speaker in the video you posted. Remember the context - in this case I was speaking about the claim that Jesus, after have being dead for (I think?) three days was brought back to life. That is an extraordinary claims - and by extraordinary, I mean it defies everything we know about biology and physics and the natural world. And therefore it would require extraordinary evidence, that would overturn our current knowledge about the world around us, for a rational person to believe it was true. Not to say that's not possible (in the sense that anything is possible). I mean we know that it doesn't take long at all for the brain to become irreversibly damaged if it isn't getting any blood to it.

 

But the speaker is equating the possibility of something that defies the laws of physics, to saying that someone winning the lottery is just as extraordinary. Again here's the video you posted:

 

.

 

It's clear that he doesn't understand probability. And probability isn't something that's too difficult in general. It's just math. That being said, people's lack of understanding of probability definitely leads to misguided thinking.

 

If you are stating a coma is the best fit to the evidence (Swoon theory), you are basically describing an extraordinary event, which demands extraordinary evidence, based on your own standards. Essentially, you are arguing that the Roman soldiers did not ensure Jesus was actually dead. Jesus was pierced by a Roman soldier to ensure his death. Blood and water poured out, indicating heart failure.

 

No, I'm not suggesting that a coma is the best fit to the evidence. There are a number of very real possibilities that don't invoke anything supernatural that would be reasonable though.

 

Accepting the bible as true, is not only based on faith, as I have tried to explain. It can be examined philosophically, historically, scientifically, etc.

 

But there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what is true in the bible. Is Genesis a literal historical account of the creation of the universe, humans and animals? Some Christians say yes, and some Christians say no. Which ones are wrong?

 

Of course, some people disagree within Christian circles on faith-based practices, which is why there are many denominations. In that context, I do think it is important to determine if we are dealing with a central doctrine or not. For example, baptism by immersion or sprinkling. Both are faith based practices, but not essential. Others, like United Pentecostals, do not accept the doctrine of the trinity. They do believe the bible, so we can use the bible as a foundation for debating theology.

 

Yes, but my quest for truth doesn't single out Christianity as anything more special than any other religion. I'm arguing that reason, logic and evidence are the best ways to discover truths about our universe. And that sometime we need to force ourselves to open our minds that our current beliefs might be wrong. In which case we can change our minds and beliefs based on what evidence, logic and reason dictates.

 

2. Accurate faith is the manifestation of accepting with the Truth. The bible commands Christians to routinely self-assess to determine if we are in the faith, accurately.

 

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

 

Christianity says only Jesus is the real truth (again, unpopular). Christ said He was the way, the Truth, and the life.

 

This is again assuming the bible to be true in the first place. There's no reason to think that. For example, if your mind was suddenly to be wiped of your beliefs, and you wanted to know the truth, so you went out in the world, made observations, collected facts, used your reason and logic, wold you still come to the conclusion that the bible is true?

 

What if your mind was suddenly wiped of your beliefs and you were dropped into India and a Hindu family. Do you think your observations, facts, reason and logic would still have you conclude that the bible is true?

 

3.

? One attribute that Christ says must be present to find truth is humility. God will not reveal himself to the proud. Finding truth is not restricted to methods, but also character qualities.

 

Humility is important - as I've stated before - we must acknowledge that whatever we believe might be wrong. I find that secular folks are much more open to that than religious folks. The possibility that their particular god might not actually exist (or no gods exist) just seems like an idea that a religious person can't even wrap their heads around.

[Weezy1973]

OK, so you employ reason, logic and evidence. But, you hold back on believing anything with absolute certainty. I'd say that is a wise way to approach the world.

 

Agreed!

 

However, I don't think that's the reality of how we live our lives. I think nearly all of us accept certain things as truth and live our lives based on those truths. There are countless beliefs we all have that affect what we do, decisions we make, how we live. Those beliefs, for all intents and purposes, are held as truth in our lives. If not, we wouldn't do/think them.

 

Also agreed - to be clear, I don't believe in anything with absolute certainty in the philosophical sense, but I don't live my life like that. Nobody could. I mean it's possible that we're all just brains in vats and experiencing life like in the movie the Matrix, but we're not going to live that way.

 

For example, I have a very trivial example, but it has larger implications in my life. I'm recently reading more about hair care techniques. All my life I've used shampoo and conditioner, and have listened to the claims that I will have softer, shinier, more manageable hair if I use certain products. But, lo and behold, I'm coming to learn that just the opposite may be true! My hair may be drier, frizzier and less manageable due to those products!! Something I've believed all my life might have absolutely no basis in truth whatsoever.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about! We should be open to change our minds based on the evidence. We shouldn't accept that what we believe is absolutely true - we must acknowledge that we can be wrong and be willing to change our minds based evidence. This goes for a belief in a god as well as a belief in shampoo and conditioner. It's much easier to change our minds on relatively trivial things of course, but the process should be exactly the same.

 

I know that example isn't a matter of great universal and spiritual significance (except to me! ). But I think it highlights something that is common for most of us: We hold SO many untested, not-evidence-based, illogical beliefs, and we don't even know it.

 

Sometimes. But most of the time we do form our beliefs on evidence. Your example perfectly illustrates this. All the evidence and observations you had made about shampoo and conditioner led you to believe they were good for your hair. And you probably tested it to some degree by seeing how your hair behaved with and without these products. Then you did some research that made you question what you previously believed, and now it appears you've changed your mind.

 

 

We make decisions not because we have actually tested something, but because we have emotional, social, cultural influences that affect our beliefs.

 

Yes, and if we realize this, we need to mitigate those influences as much as possible if we are to seek what is actually true. We must realize that just because (for example) we were born into a family that was a certain religion, in no way does that make it more true. And this is really hard to do and takes a conscious effort which most folks aren't willing to do.

 

So, I totally respect what you're saying and would like my life to be based in truth to the fullest extent. But, I do think that some atheists who think they're living a completely empirical life might be surprised at just how many myths, mores, and untruths dictate the course of their lives.

 

I don't know many atheists that think they're living a completely empirical life. I actually don't know any! I'm certainly not one. But, not to sound like a broken record, but if the quest is for truth, we have to acknowledge that those things you mention are a factor in our beliefs and then do whatever we can to try to mitigate them. The scientific method does a pretty good of it (but still, is not perfect).

[TheFinalWord]

So, usually I would agree to disagree, but in this case I think it's important to point out the flawed thinking of the speaker in the video you posted. Remember the context - in this case I was speaking about the claim that Jesus, after have being dead for (I think?) three days was brought back to life. That is an extraordinary claims - and by extraordinary, I mean it defies everything we know about biology and physics and the natural world. And therefore it would require extraordinary evidence, that would overturn our current knowledge about the world around us, for a rational person to believe it was true. Not to say that's not possible (in the sense that anything is possible). I mean we know that it doesn't take long at all for the brain to become irreversibly damaged if it isn't getting any blood to it.

 

But the speaker is equating the possibility of something that defies the laws of physics, to saying that someone winning the lottery is just as extraordinary. Again here's the video you posted:

 

It's clear that he doesn't understand probability. And probability isn't something that's too difficult in general. It's just math. That being said, people's lack of understanding of probability definitely leads to misguided thinking. .

 

I can see why you do not like this video. I think the content is meant to be broader than that. If you want to dissect this further using Bayes' Therom I recommend this source (for the actual formulas).

 

No, I'm not suggesting that a coma is the best fit to the evidence. There are a number of very real possibilities that don't invoke anything supernatural that would be reasonable though.

 

Can you provide those? We can then see if the evidence fits these alternatives.

 

Three established historical facts include: the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection. We can now see which explanation you come up with that coalesces these three facts. That or you are going to have to claim these three historical events did not occur (extraordinary claims and all of that)

 

But there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what is true in the bible. Is Genesis a literal historical account of the creation of the universe, humans and animals? Some Christians say yes, and some Christians say no. Which ones are wrong?

 

Genesis is opening a whole other can of worms. I request we just stick to the resurrection for now.

 

Yes, but my quest for truth doesn't single out Christianity as anything more special than any other religion. I'm arguing that reason, logic and evidence are the best ways to discover truths about our universe. And that sometime we need to force ourselves to open our minds that our current beliefs might be wrong. In which case we can change our minds and beliefs based on what evidence, logic and reason dictates.

 

This is again assuming the bible to be true in the first place. There's no reason to think that. For example, if your mind was suddenly to be wiped of your beliefs, and you wanted to know the truth, so you went out in the world, made observations, collected facts, used your reason and logic, wold you still come to the conclusion that the bible is true?

 

I have no idea. Certainly many people have started by not knowing anything about the bible, or not believing the bible to be true, and later accepted it. I can only deal with my certain set of circumstances. None of us come into anything without any assumptions. We all rely on heuristics to assist us, or else you would be totally exhausted performing any mental activity. Do any of us have a blank slate like that? Is that what is needed for people to conclude atheism? I'm not sure what your are stating here.

 

What if your mind was suddenly wiped of your beliefs and you were dropped into India and a Hindu family. Do you think your observations, facts, reason and logic would still have you conclude that the bible is true?

 

My advisor was raised Hindu and is now a Christian, so I suppose it is possible. However, you are asking me to argue my way out of hypothetical scenarios. First it was Islam, now Hindu. Which religion do you want me to assume in these scenarios? I'm not sure if it matters but I have been an atheist and have studied most major religions and concluded Christianity is true. I believe I used logic, reason, and evidence. The difference is I think if you do not consider what your personal lines of acceptability are, you will continue to use a rubber ruler and move the benchmark for what constitutes enough evidence for you (I know I fell into this trap a long time).

 

Humility is important - as I've stated before - we must acknowledge that whatever we believe might be wrong. I find that secular folks are much more open to that than religious folks. The possibility that their particular god might not actually exist (or no gods exist) just seems like an idea that a religious person can't even wrap their heads around.

 

I think you are making generalizations. How did you come to that conclusion? Anecdotal evidence or do you have scientific proof? My guess is you are relying on heuristics, like most of us. I could easily make the same assertion about agnostics/atheists. That no matter what evidence is shown, they will automatically discount it to hold to their current system of thinking.

[pie2]

Also agreed - to be clear, I don't believe in anything with absolute certainty in the philosophical sense, but I don't live my life like that. Nobody could.

 

Yes, I totally agree . People aren't able to scientifically test everything they live by.

 

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about! We should be open to change our minds based on the evidence. We shouldn't accept that what we believe is absolutely true - we must acknowledge that we can be wrong and be willing to change our minds based evidence. This goes for a belief in a god as well as a belief in shampoo and conditioner. It's much easier to change our minds on relatively trivial things of course, but the process should be exactly the same.

 

And belief in God, for a Christian believer, is believing the the truest reality based on the evidence (for that person). So, that belief, in your opinion, might be a belief with flimsy evidence to back it up. But it's no more or less flimsy than many of the beliefs we all hold on a daily basis! In other words, non-spiritual people hold firmly onto things with even less evidence than the way Christian believers come to believe in God.

 

But I agree with you...if something came along to completely discount everything we believe in, we should be open to that. I can't see that happening with belief in God, but you never know!

 

 

I don't know many atheists that think they're living a completely empirical life. I actually don't know any! I'm certainly not one. But, not to sound like a broken record, but if the quest is for truth, we have to acknowledge that those things you mention are a factor in our beliefs and then do whatever we can to try to mitigate them. The scientific method does a pretty good of it (but still, is not perfect).

 

Yes! The non-spiritual among us don't live a completely empirical life, as you say .

 

It is nice to use the scientific method. But I think "science" can become the spiritual guide (or God) that some people live by, and put their faith in. So, we're all putting our faith into someone/something. The question is, what will it be?

 

A fallible human? Or the God who has maintained His relevance over the span of thousands of years?

 

No need to answer. That's just how I look at the situation. But I agree, we should keep open minds and hearts on our quest for truth. Because, even spiritual believers have only the tiniest speck of understanding of our omniscient, omnipotent, eternal God.

[Weezy1973]

I can see why you do not like this video. I think the content is meant to be broader than that. If you want to dissect this further using Bayes' Therom I recommend this source (for the actual formulas).

 

So I read a bit of your source - I immediately am leery of anything that involves apologetics (and not just of the Christian variety) as it's not a quest for truth. Instead it's just an attempt to defend what one already believes to be true, which is a pretty bad place to start.

 

I will make the lottery analogy even easier to dissect:

 

Let's say there's a lottery that is from 1-100. If you "buy" one number, you have a 1% chance of winning. If you "buy" 51 different numbers, you now have a 51% chance of winning. That is, the probability of you winning is greater than the probability of you losing.

 

Now just transfer that to the actual lottery - all that has to happen is that the amount of number combinations exceed 50% of those possible and suddenly it becomes more likely than not that the lottery will be won by someone.

 

But of course it doesn't even have to get to that amount - even if only 10% of the possible combinations are selected, it still means that, based on probabilities, 1 out of every 10 times the numbers are drawn, somebody is going to win the lottery. Hardly an extraordinary event. Again this is basic math, and if the speaker had a broader point to make, he certainly shouldn't have used a lottery as an analogy because it's completely inaccurate.

 

Can you provide those? We can then see if the evidence fits these alternatives.

 

Three established historical facts include: the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection. We can now see which explanation you come up with that coalesces these three facts. That or you are going to have to claim these three historical events did not occur (extraordinary claims and all of that)

 

So as I stated before, the only consensus amongst historians that I've seen, seems to be that a man named Jesus likely lived, taught and was crucified (as was the case for many at that time). I'm not sure how you're determining that the above are established facts. It of course is contingent upon your definition of the word fact.

 

Can you provide those? We can then see if the evidence fits these alternatives.

 

I will be honest, and say I haven't studied enough in this area to have any kind of informed opinion. But, if knowledge of the resurrection is based on eyewitness testimony, we know through many studies that eyewitness testimony is very flawed. Even when it's groups of people that claim to have "seen" the same thing.

 

So if the alternatives are that something that literally defies the laws of physics as we know them happened or the very real possibility (as has been observed and studied) that eyewitness testimony is deeply flawed, I think a reasonable person would have to conclude that it's more likely that the eyewitnesses were mistaken.

 

 

Genesis is opening a whole other can of worms. I request we just stick to the resurrection for now.

 

I was just using Genesis as an example to illustrate that there isn't a consensus as to what is true in the bible, even amongst Christians. So how can you hold it up to be true? You'd think there would be enough evidence to form a consensus amongst Christians as to what is considered true. But that isn't happening. In fact, the exact opposite seems to be happening. That should make you question the validity of the bible. Does it?

 

 

I have no idea. Certainly many people have started by not knowing anything about the bible, or not believing the bible to be true, and later accepted it.

 

Although at the moment, the opposite is far more common.

 

 

I can only deal with my certain set of circumstances. None of us come into anything without any assumptions. We all rely on heuristics to assist us, or else you would be totally exhausted performing any mental activity. Do any of us have a blank slate like that? Is that what is needed for people to conclude atheism?

 

None of us has a blank slate - that's a good point. But if we're seeking truth, we should try our best to rid ourselves of that prejudice. The truth is "out there" so whatever influences we personally have had, must be mitigated in the quest. There's no reason why the religion or beliefs our parents had were any closer to the truth than any other parents. But certainly that's what determines the religion of most folks.

 

 

My advisor was raised Hindu and is now a Christian, so I suppose it is possible. However, you are asking me to argue my way out of hypothetical scenarios.

 

Haha, not really - just trying to get you (and me!) to think in different ways. It's always good to expand one's mind I think...hypothetical scenarios are a way to do this...

 

First it was Islam, now Hindu. Which religion do you want me to assume in these scenarios?

 

That's my point. Based on actual evidence (i.e. facts and observations we can make today) there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe in any gods, whether they be Hindu, Muslim, or Christian. You could exchange Islam for Scientology if you want when it comes to beliefs in the supernatural. None of them seem to have facts and observations on their side. Or Thor with Yahweh or Ra or Osiris or Jupiter.

 

I'm not sure if it matters but I have been an atheist and have studied most major religions and concluded Christianity is true.

 

Are you open to the possibility that your conclusion might be wrong? If you feel you were wrong once, could you be wrong again?

 

I believe I used logic, reason, and evidence. The difference is I think if you do not consider what your personal lines of acceptability are, you will continue to use a rubber ruler and move the benchmark for what constitutes enough evidence for you (I know I fell into this trap a long time).

 

I think we all must consider what is good evidence, and I don't think this can be subjective. I believe when something is repeatedly observable, it holds considerably more weight than something that someone said happened once. We must (in my opinion) always consider what type of evidence can be relied on more heavily. As already mentioned, eyewitness testimony is quite weak, so we must keep this in mind when trying to draw any conclusions and measure our levels of certainty accordingly.

 

 

I think you are making generalizations. How did you come to that conclusion? Anecdotal evidence or do you have scientific proof?

 

Well, seeing as one of the fundamental principles of science is falsifiability, I'd say one can make the conclusion fairly confidently that a scientific way of thinking lends itself to being open that one can be wrong. It's quite literally right there in the scientific method. I don't think that exists in most religions does it? Certainly not Christianity...

 

My guess is you are relying on heuristics, like most of us. I could easily make the same assertion about agnostics/atheists. That no matter what evidence is shown, they will automatically discount it to hold to their current system of thinking.

 

I can't speak for others, but I'm as open as one can be about these things. Show me actual physical evidence, facts and observations that one or more gods exist and you can change my mind. And, presumably the evidence would be great enough to build a consensus and change everybody's minds. And it would no longer be considered a "religious belief" anymore but instead just a normal fact about our universe. Like gravity. Or evolution.

[Weezy1973]

And belief in God, for a Christian believer, is believing the the truest reality based on the evidence (for that person).

 

But evidence is that which makes the claim evident to other people. Subjective experience is not evidence. And, as an aside, if it's a belief in the truest reality based on evidence, then what is faith?

 

So, that belief, in your opinion, might be a belief with flimsy evidence to back it up. But it's no more or less flimsy than many of the beliefs we all hold on a daily basis!

 

Remember, I said evidence, reason and logic. Not just evidence. For example if you asked a coworker what they did over the weekend and they said "I went out for ice cream", there would be no question to doubt that even though you have no evidence. It's pretty reasonable that somebody would go for ice cream over the weekend.

 

On the other hand if somebody said "I was shot in the heart on Friday, was dead for Saturday and most of Sunday, and then on Sunday night I came back to life" I think that would (and should) raise your eyebrows about the truthfulness of the claim. It would be reasonable in this case to ask for evidence, and A LOT of evidence, as that would be quite an extraordinary happening. And, likely if the individual continued to claims they were brought back to life, you'd likely think they were mentally ill or on drugs...

 

In other words, non-spiritual people hold firmly onto things with even less evidence than the way Christian believers come to believe in God.

 

Without a doubt - people often believe in things like astrology or psychic abilities or ghosts - all of which have little or no evidence to support them.

 

But I agree with you...if something came along to completely discount everything we believe in, we should be open to that. I can't see that happening with belief in God, but you never know!

 

Well nothing will ever come along to completely discount a belief in any gods. Or leprechauns. Or the tooth fairy. Because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove something doesn't exist. The reason one doesn't believe in tooth fairies, or leprechauns or any gods is because there isn't any evidence that suggest they do exist. So no reason to believe in them.

 

 

It is nice to use the scientific method. But I think "science" can become the spiritual guide (or God) that some people live by, and put their faith in. So, we're all putting our faith into someone/something. The question is, what will it be?

 

Well, science and faith are diametrically opposed so putting one's faith in the scientific method doesn't make sense. If one thinks the best way of discovering truths about our universe is through reason, evidence, and logic (as opposed to faith), that's a different point.

 

A fallible human? Or the God who has maintained His relevance over the span of thousands of years?

 

I'm not sure why you're assuming any gods actually exist. It seems like you already believe in a god before even asking the question as to whether there are any gods or no gods.

 

No need to answer. That's just how I look at the situation. But I agree, we should keep open minds and hearts on our quest for truth.

 

And how open are your mind and heart to the possibility that the god you believe in doesn't actually exist?

[pie2]

But evidence is that which makes the claim evident to other people. Subjective experience is not evidence. And, as an aside, if it's a belief in the truest reality based on evidence, then what is faith?

 

Remember, I said evidence, reason and logic. Not just evidence. For example if you asked a coworker what they did over the weekend and they said "I went out for ice cream", there would be no question to doubt that even though you have no evidence. It's pretty reasonable that somebody would go for ice cream over the weekend.

 

On the other hand if somebody said "I was shot in the heart on Friday, was dead for Saturday and most of Sunday, and then on Sunday night I came back to life" I think that would (and should) raise your eyebrows about the truthfulness of the claim. It would be reasonable in this case to ask for evidence, and A LOT of evidence, as that would be quite an extraordinary happening. And, likely if the individual continued to claims they were brought back to life, you'd likely think they were mentally ill or on drugs...

 

There are other forms of evidence besides direct evidence found through the scientific method. Those forms of evidence are used every day, throughout the day, by everyone on Earth. Our entire legal system relies on circumstantial evidence, for example. If minds much greater than mine can find circumstantial evidence to be a strong, valid tool to make accurate deductions, than I can accept that too!

 

Without a doubt - people often believe in things like astrology or psychic abilities or ghosts - all of which have little or no evidence to support them.

My example had more to do with you (aka someone who does not attest to the metaphysical beliefs). Meaning, even you have beliefs without evidence. You also have faith in things that you haven't backed up, or haven't been backed up at all, by clear, strong evidence. As demonstrated by my previous example (which I'm still working on...the jury is still out on my shampoo). But, you already agreed with that . As you said, it's impractical to test every, single thing. Just don't judge Christians so harshly when even yourself may hold on to untested beliefs.

 

Well nothing will ever come along to completely discount a belief in any gods. Or leprechauns. Or the tooth fairy. Because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove something doesn't exist. The reason one doesn't believe in tooth fairies, or leprechauns or any gods is because there isn't any evidence that suggest they do exist. So no reason to believe in them.

Yes, true.

 

Well, science and faith are diametrically opposed so putting one's faith in the scientific method doesn't make sense. If one thinks the best way of discovering truths about our universe is through reason, evidence, and logic (as opposed to faith), that's a different point.

Well, I beg to differ. People do blindly but their faith in "science" all the time. They hear, "scientifically proven" all the time and it becomes "FACTUAL EVIDENCE FROM THE ALMIGHTY". Well, at least it seems like it. I think it can be easy to lead people astray, or manipulate them with "science". People can sometime just believe in anything, as long it's peer-reviewed, or from a reputable source.

 

Just look at how confused the "research" has made us about the harm/benefit of eggs, salt, wine, chocolate, etc? Well, it seems that the scientific research has some holes in it, and hasn't always been completely able to tell the whole story. And yet, any updated news that comes out with the latest (albeit contradicting) research becomes "gospel", despite past errors.

 

Bottom line, yes, I do think people put faith in what scientists tell them.

 

And how open are your mind and heart to the possibility that the god you believe in doesn't actually exist?

Weezy! I just said, "we should keep open hearts and minds"! I think you're being argumentative now .

 

 

p.s. Where's M30?! He can explain all about the circumstantial, historical evidence etc!

Edited June 24, 2015 by pie2

[TheFinalWord]

So I read a bit of your source - I immediately am leery of anything that involves apologetics (and not just of the Christian variety) as it's not a quest for truth. Instead it's just an attempt to defend what one already believes to be true, which is a pretty bad place to start.

 

I understand. I recommend you just focus on the Bayesian probabilities and not worry about the belief of the individual. The Bayesian probabilities are something objective which you can dissect empirically. It would be as if I, a Christian, were running a RCT. You could study the data very easily without even concerning yourself with my religious affiliation...even if I threw in my christian assumptions into the discussion of the paper. That’s why I thought you would be interested in the exact formulations.

 

I will make the lottery analogy even easier to dissect:

 

Let's say there's a lottery that is from 1-100. If you "buy" one number, you have a 1% chance of winning. If you "buy" 51 different numbers, you now have a 51% chance of winning. That is, the probability of you winning is greater than the probability of you losing.

 

Now just transfer that to the actual lottery - all that has to happen is that the amount of number combinations exceed 50% of those possible and suddenly it becomes more likely than not that the lottery will be won by someone.

 

But of course it doesn't even have to get to that amount - even if only 10% of the possible combinations are selected, it still means that, based on probabilities, 1 out of every 10 times the numbers are drawn, somebody is going to win the lottery. Hardly an extraordinary event. Again this is basic math, and if the speaker had a broader point to make, he certainly shouldn't have used a lottery as an analogy because it's completely inaccurate.

 

Can you provide those? We can then see if the evidence fits these alternatives.

 

I think one of the issues here is they are not basing these probabilities on frequency functions. Are you familiar with Bayesian probabilities and how to construct those?Not sure what you want me to do here. I can try to provide a tutorial on Bayesian theory if you want (not sure how good it will be, I’m not expert myself).

 

as I stated before, the only consensus amongst historians that I've seen, seems to be that a man named Jesus likely lived, taught and was crucified (as was the case for many at that time). I'm not sure how you're determining that the above are established facts. It of course is contingent upon your definition of the word fact.

 

I will be honest, and say I haven't studied enough in this area to have any kind of informed opinion. But, if knowledge of the resurrection is based on eyewitness testimony, we know through many studies that eyewitness testimony is very flawed. Even when it's groups of people that claim to have "seen" the same thing.

 

No problem, I guess out of this entire discussion I would request you do study these issues. Just a request. I think you are someone that would really benefit from taking a survey of the scholarly work on the historicity of Jesus.

 

I was just using Genesis as an example to illustrate that there isn't a consensus as to what is true in the bible, even amongst Christians. So how can you hold it up to be true? You'd think there would be enough evidence to form a consensus amongst Christians as to what is considered true. But that isn't happening. In fact, the exact opposite seems to be happening. That should make you question the validity of the bible. Does it?

 

Good question. One thing to recognize is that Christians should recognize that our knowledge of God increases and changes over time. The bible shows a revelation about God that transpired over many thousands of years. So for example, opinions about how to interpret Genesis are permitted to change. Here is an exert from BioLogos, the thinktank started by Francis Collins:

 

http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis

 

In fact you can see many of the early church fathers wrote volumes on this topic. Augustine wrote a series called “the literal interpretation of Genesis” describing how to go about interpreting the text (before they had any knowledge of the age of the earth). However, there are certain core doctrines, which represent orthodox Christianity, so there are boundaries to these topics. For example, a core doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus, literally, and physically rose from the dead.

 

None of us has a blank slate - that's a good point. But if we're seeking truth, we should try our best to rid ourselves of that prejudice. The truth is "out there" so whatever influences we personally have had, must be mitigated in the quest. There's no reason why the religion or beliefs our parents had were any closer to the truth than any other parents. But certainly that's what determines the religion of most folks.

 

I agree which is why you should not in my opinion, discount something right off the bat. However, we should also be honest that all methods and processes for analyzing information is based on assumptions. For example, RCTs (the most rigorous experimental designs) which I use in my research, have issues with attrition. We can use intention to treat analysis to attempt to overcome attrition, however, that approach reduces our studies’ power. So there are trade-offs. At the bottom of all of these various quantitative approaches there are assumptions.

 

Haha, not really - just trying to get you (and me!) to think in different ways. It's always good to expand one's mind I think...hypothetical scenarios are a way to do this...

 

 

Sure, I don’t mean to discount what you are asking. The main thing I wanted to say is there are methods for conducting internal evaluation of various religions. So they not all the same in that regard. For example, we can examine the historical evidence for the death of Jesus and compare that against the Islamic claim that Jesus did not really die (but fell into a coma). Please note, I am not claiming anything with absolute certainty. But there is data to work with. Not necessarily the scientific data you may want, but other forms such as historical and philosophical.

 

 

That's my point. Based on actual evidence (i.e. facts and observations we can make today) there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe in any gods, whether they be Hindu, Muslim, or Christian. You could exchange Islam for Scientology if you want when it comes to beliefs in the supernatural. None of them seem to have facts and observations on their side. Or Thor with Yahweh or Ra or Osiris or Jupiter.

 

I guess I wish you would stop using this “throw the baby out with the bath water” approach. To keep comparing religions in this way is spurious.

 

Are you open to the possibility that your conclusion might be wrong? If you feel you were wrong once, could you be wrong again?

I think we all must consider what is good evidence, and I don't think this can be subjective. I believe when something is repeatedly observable, it holds considerably more weight than something that someone said happened once. We must (in my opinion) always consider what type of evidence can be relied on more heavily. As already mentioned, eyewitness testimony is quite weak, so we must keep this in mind when trying to draw any conclusions and measure our levels of certainty accordingly.

 

 

Well, seeing as one of the fundamental principles of science is falsifiability, I'd say one can make the conclusion fairly confidently that a scientific way of thinking lends itself to being open that one can be wrong. It's quite literally right there in the scientific method. I don't think that exists in most religions does it? Certainly not Christianity...

 

I can't speak for others, but I'm as open as one can be about these things. Show me actual physical evidence, facts and observations that one or more gods exist and you can change my mind. And, presumably the evidence would be great enough to build a consensus and change everybody's minds. And it would no longer be considered a "religious belief" anymore but instead just a normal fact about our universe. Like gravity. Or evolution.

 

I am familiar with Popperian philosophy, Hill's criteria of causality, as well as all of the short comings of rigorous experimental designs.

 

Yes, I can be wrong, right, and wrong. However, please note I do accept other forms of evidence aside from only scientific evidence. Historical evidence and philosophical evidence is also acceptable to me. So may have a wider range of evidence and methods for analysis I am willing to work with than you? Maybe it’s my many years of training in science that helps me see beyond science as the only way to acquire information. Please note, I am not saying any historical evidence is 100% true, only that it is meets a threshold of satisfaction for me.

 

An interesting question…if you did have all of the evidence you requested. Would that in anyway interfere with your free will to reject God? Could it be as Pascal said that God has made the evidence sufficiently clear to those that want to believe and sufficiently vague to those that do not? Just an interesting thought to entertain.

 

Have a good one!

Edited June 24, 2015 by TheFinalWord

[Weezy1973]

There are other forms of evidence besides direct evidence found through the scientific method. Those forms of evidence are used every day, throughout the day, by everyone on Earth. Our entire legal system relies on circumstantial evidence, for example. If minds much greater than mine can find circumstantial evidence to be a strong, valid tool to make accurate deductions, than I can accept that too!

 

I agree there are other forms of evidence, but we definitely can't say all evidence is equal when it comes to trying to figure out what is true. And our certainty has to be mitigated by the strength of the evidence, regardless of what type of evidence it is.

 

 

My example had more to do with you (aka someone who does not attest to the metaphysical beliefs). Meaning, even you have beliefs without evidence. You also have faith in things that you haven't backed up, or haven't been backed up at all, by clear, strong evidence.

 

Although I agree with this in the most general sense, I'd say the things that the vast majority of us believe without evidence are more of the philosophical nature (ex. how do we know anything we experience is actually as we experience it?) than anything else. What do you consider to be a common non-evidence belief the people hold that isn't purely philosophical in nature?

 

 

 

As demonstrated by my previous example (which I'm still working on...the jury is still out on my shampoo). But, you already agreed with that . As you said, it's impractical to test every, single thing. Just don't judge Christians so harshly when even yourself may hold on to untested beliefs.

 

I don't judge Christians at all. It's ideas that I judge (or more accurately, assess), not people. Never people.

 

Well, I beg to differ. People do blindly but their faith in "science" all the time. They hear, "scientifically proven" all the time and it becomes "FACTUAL EVIDENCE FROM THE ALMIGHTY". Well, at least it seems like it. I think it can be easy to lead people astray, or manipulate them with "science". People can sometime just believe in anything, as long it's peer-reviewed, or from a reputable source.

 

Although I don't advocate completely believing anything based on one study, I do think that a study from a peer-reviewed journal or a reputable source should certainly be paid attention to. We should take that seriously and incorporate it into our opinion of whatever it is the journal article is speaking to. And if we completely disagree with it based on our prior beliefs, we need to open ourselves to the possibility we might be wrong and the evidence might be right. We need to be open minded.

 

Just look at how confused the "research" has made us about the harm/benefit of eggs, salt, wine, chocolate, etc?

 

The speaks more to scientific illiteracy than anything else. And people aren't being persuaded by the research, they are getting persuaded by the media reporting the research. One should always go to the source before believing anything. Read the actual study rather than just how the media chooses to portray it.

 

Well, it seems that the scientific research has some holes in it, and hasn't always been completely able to tell the whole story. And yet, any updated news that comes out with the latest (albeit contradicting) research becomes "gospel", despite past errors.

 

Of course there are "holes" in scientific research and science hasn't been able to tell the whole story!! Nobody knows this better than scientists! Why do you think they're doing the research? Anybody that is learned in science does not consider it gospel. In fact in the world or science, nothing is ever "proven". We can only ever get close to the truth through evidence. It tends to be religious folks who claim to know the absolute truth. Like the OP.

 

 

Bottom line, yes, I do think people put faith in what scientists tell them.

 

Again, faith and science are diametrically opposed. One says believe something because of evidence, the other does not.

[FleshNBones]

Yes, I realize this. For a lot of people, maybe even most people, uncertainty is a scary prospect. It doesn't scare me though, but I look at things a little differently. I'd prefer to try to learn what is actually true about the universe. That is the goal when it come to acquiring knowledge. And being uncertain about things just goes with the territory.

 

I also build my beliefs upon logic, reason, and evidence. It's kind of "bottom up" rather than "top down". The more logical and reasonable something is, and if there's a lot of evidence to support it, the greater my confidence that it's true. I'm never 100% certain beyond any doubt though, and my mind could definitely be changed if sufficient quality evidence were found to dispute my belief.

 

I'm open minded. My mind can be changed by evidence, logic and reason. Many people prefer to be closed minded because it gives them comfort in their certainty. I get that.

What makes you think that we live in an ordered universe, or a universe that can be understood? Logic and reason are tools. What your foundation?

 

Could it be the idea that there is an almighty rational God who created the universe, and imposed a set of laws for us to discover them. On what other basis would you have a universe guided by a set of laws? I believe the Buddhists concluded that the universe is unpredictable, and cannot be understood.