Thinking Christian Comments
Original Post: Divine Hiddenness
Without having read the book myself, I believe that "Divine Hiddenness: New Essays" is a good resource if you are going to dwelve into the issue from a philosophical standpoint.
Tom, I'd also approach the queston in a different way.
Dl and I have recently made the point that, given your premise 2 (God's presence is not obvious), the world would appear the same whether God exists or not. Thus, God's hiddenness is one strike against the hypothesis that he exists (no need to unnecessarily multiply terms). The question of whether premise two is sufficient preclude belief in God's existence is a separate argument.
I agree with Paul. Premises 3, 4 and 5 seem unnecessary.
I was discussing this the other day. One thing that came up was that God's apparent hiddenness can actually be explained by the fact that he is ever-present. We tend not to notice things that are ever-present or things that occur regularly, unless they are taken away. Unless we specifically think about the air we breathe or unless it is taken away from us, it will seem "hidden" to us. Or if a spouse makes you dinner every night, you might take it for granted.
The "hiddenness of God" can be thought about in this way. It is actually our own fault - we take God for granted or we just don't notice God in the same way we don't notice the air we breathe.
Paul and doctor(logic),
Here's how I see the difference between your points and Ebon Musings' point. Ebon Musings is trying to mount an argument against the existence of God. In order to do that in any logically complete, tight way, he has to cover considerable ground.
You, on the other hand, are not trying to mount an argument against the existence of God, but against--what?--I think it might be against the verifiability of God's existence, which is not the same. Is that correct?
Tom--
It seems to me strange that God tells us endlessly He wants to have a relationship with us and then He hides, that's all. It's like He asked us out on a date and then didn't show up 
One interesting thing everybody's God shares is that they appear not to actually be there; you can't actually see Him, they can't talk, etc. Not exactly a selling point when you claim to be in direct contact with a heavy-duty sentient being. [The Great and Powerful Oz says to come back tomorrow!!]
There are many folks out there who claim to have a personal relationship with the Almighty. Can any one of them please ask Him why their Designer can't oh...say something?
macht,
Interesting analogy. Do you have an example?
I may take my wife for granted, but I still can separate her from other phenomena, account for her effects, predict her normal behavior, and would miss my dinner if she didn't make it.
Do you have something analogous for God? Can you say what acts are those of God versus Nature? Can you say which behaviors are like or unlike the God you know? If there were no God, what difference would you see?
I gave you 2 analogies as examples. The analogies were meant to point out that we tend to take for granted things (actions, occurances, people's presence, etc.) that occur regularly and things that are there all the time. That was the point of the analogies - not to suggest that God is like your wife who cooks you spaghetti every Saturday.
What is "Nature?" Why did you capitalize it? Why would you pit God against "Nature?" If there were no God, I (nor you nor anything) would not exist and would therefore see no difference.
Allow me to repeat myself. The point of the analogies was that when things happen regularly, when a person's presence is constant, when a person acts faithfully and consistently, and when things are ever-present, we often times take for granted those people or things or fail to notice them unless those things are taken away from us or unless we specifically make an effort on our part to notice those things. The analogy has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with your wife being a "separate" phenomena or your being able to "predict her normal behavior" or anything like that. I totally admit the analogy breaks down there, but, again, that is not the point. If analogies were meant to be perfect, they'd be called descriptions.
Also, keep in mind that everything I said assumes God exists (as per assumption #1). I am attempting to explain why, given God's existence, do we not see his presence? The answer: humans are sinful and self-absorbed, and we take for granted everything the Creator and Sustainer does.
Assuming God doesn't exist, the reason we don't see his presence is... he doesn't exist.
This is probably the most frequent objection raised by atheists with whom I communicate. It is a great subject to explore.
Some of my initial thoughts are that God had revealed Himself in miraculous ways to humans in order to foster their belief. The fact of Jesus' ministry for 3 years in which he worked wondrous and miraculous signs answers the objection to why doesn't God reveal Himself.
What atheists are really saying at the heart of the matter is why doesn't God reveal Himself on an individual basis to me personally in a way that is beyond interpretation or ambiguity. That question is somewhat different from the more general question of why doesn't God reveal Himself to man.
macht,
Sure, we can grow accustomed to the presence of a thing, and it can become invisible unless we look for it.
However, this isn't the case with God. God is invisible whether we look for him or not. Totally different from air or my wife.
I don't normally capitalize the word 'Nature', but it seemed appropriate when I did it above. I'll refrain.
I pit God against nature because nature is the background. Nature is a bunch of boundary conditions and rules that are quite apparent. We might take air for granted, but we can look for it and find it because air is part of rule-based nature. God is supposedly beyond nature and beyond these rules. Well, what is God doing? If all God is doing is making the rules, then he's still hidden, right?
Michael,
What atheists are really saying at the heart of the matter is why doesn't God reveal Himself on an individual basis to me personally in a way that is beyond interpretation or ambiguity.No, we demand enough evidence to rationally believe in God before we believe in God. Theism lacks that degree of evidential support.
That some people claim to have seen God or spoken to him thousands of years ago is totally inadequate. People would do that whether God existed or not.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to overcome the noise level.
This is not the divine hiddenness argument after all, then. It's just saying that one believes there is insufficient evidence to believe in God. Not quite the same thing.
Tom,
I have not read much at all on the 'issue' of Divine Hiddenness. So, please forgive any naivete on my part. When, for most of my life, I did not see Him, I didn't care; now that I see Him, I don't have any questions. It just seems to me that to try to address 'Why doesn't God make himself more obvious?' from a philosophical perspective is to embark on a frustrating and fruitless endeavor. (I hope H will forgive me for such a blasphemous statement.) Please don't misunderstand, I am sure that many wise and thoughtful comments will appear on your blog in response to the question. However, I doubt that DL or Ron or Paul etc. will change their minds as a result of the interchange.
Long ago, God was very aware of this 'problem' and chose a specific approach to solving it. He has taken on a very large, physical body and performs many miracles every day through this body. No need to go back 2000 years for any miracles. The evidence today for His existence is overwhelming. Certainly, He is not concerned about needing more visibility. There is a 'problem' only in the sense of those who willfully choose not to see Him demanding a better solution than the one God has come up with.
Doctor,
Why would the existence of God be considered an "extraordinary claim"? Statistics have shown that an overwhelming majority (in the 90%) area, believe in the existence of God. That being the case, it does not appear that a God belief is extraordinary at all. To the contrary, it appears that the lack of belief in God is what is extraordinary.
Furthermore, enough evidence to "rationally" believe would simply require a preponderance of the evidence. It cannot honestly be disputed that multitudes of rational people believe in God based on rational reasons. You are in effect saying that the evidence which exists is not sufficient to satisfy you. That is not the same as saying there is no evidence.
Finally, your saying regarding "extraordinary evidence" is really nonsensical. Evidence is either credible or not. However, there are not varying degrees of evidence. Is it an extraordinary claim to assert that somewhere way out in space there exists an object which no one can see but we know its there based on how other things interact with it? What type of "extraordinary evidence" would you require for that type of claim?
Michael, thanks for this:
You are in effect saying that the evidence which exists is not sufficient to satisfy you. That is not the same as saying there is no evidence.
One of the most egregiously incorrect things Sam Harris said about religion was that "no evidence is even conceivable." What he really meant was, "no evidence that seems like evidence to someone like me who is committed to there being no evidence;" for if he were truly open, I'm sure he could at least conceive of evidence. I hope doctor(logic) is not in the same boat.
Michael,
Why would the existence of God be considered an "extraordinary claim"?Because comparable evidence would exist if the claim were false.
For example, sightings of alien spaceships would be claimed even if no alien spaceships were visiting Earth. That means that eyewitness reports of alien spaceships are inadequate. And third-party claims of eyewitness reports are even less trustworthy. It's not impossible that there are alien spaceships visiting us, it's just not rational to conclude that there are given the lack of evidence.
Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all based on similarly flimsy 'evidence'. Hearsay. Exactly what you would expect from humans who jump at every chance to believe in their fantasies. That's why there are so many religions in the world: it's normal for humans to cook them up.
It cannot honestly be disputed that multitudes of rational people believe in God based on rational reasons.Yes, it can.
doctor(logic)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to overcome the noise level.
Simple, elegant, and right on the money.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to overcome the noise level.
A little help. Quantify these terms so we can know when we've actually met the challenge. How much evidence, and in what form? I'd hate for us to give it to you only to have you move the goalposts.
I'm semi-kidding wrt my above comment. I know you can't quantify these terms, but it seems rather obvious that "extraordinary" and "noise level" can mean whatever you want them to mean because it depends on how you interpret/weigh the evidence.
SteveK,
Well, let's use the same standards that we use in everyday life. I would like as much evidence of God's existence as I have of
- my car's existence
- my father's existence
- my mother's passion for literature
- my taste for donuts
- the Big Bang
- global warming
- the Washington Monument
- the existence of a proof for Fermat's Last Theorem or Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
- the death of Elvis
- the D-Day invasion
- the Battle of Agincourt
I have next to zero doubt of these things.
In the case of historic battles like Agincourt, people don't tend to go around making up fake stories about battles that they then pass off for truth. If people did have this tendency, we would have a lot less confidence in the battles of history. We would need extraordinary evidence for every historic battle. Fortunately, we don't need this.
In the case of mythical prophets, there's a huge amount of fraud and delusion. Do you believe the story of Joseph Smith, Jr? It's an utterly ridiculous story. Yet, he had witnesses sign to say they saw the gold plates and the angel that brought them. And millions believe he's telling the truth. Now, what level of evidence would you demand of the LDS? I expect that, like me, you also think that Smith's tale is false. His tale could be true in principle, but there is insufficient evidence given that kooky religions and myths spring up all the time.
The goalposts remain where they have always been.
Yet, he had witnesses sign to say they saw the gold plates and the angel that brought them. And millions believe he's telling the truth. Now, what level of evidence would you demand of the LDS? I expect that, like me, you also think that Smith's tale is false. His tale could be true in principle, but there is insufficient evidence given that kooky religions and myths spring up all the time.
The thing is, I can allow some of his story to be true whereas you can't allow any of it to be true. This is what you, Sam Harris, et al, are forced into. You are forced to reject all religious accounts, whereas Christians can allow some of the story to be true in some way. So to respond to your statement, I don't think all of Smith's religous encounter is completely false.
doctor,
Why don't we take one of you evidences then.
"Well, let's use the same standards that we use in everyday life. I would like as much evidence of God's existence as I have of
- my mother's passion for literature"
Prove that because I don't believe your mother has a passion for literature. I've never met your mother and I deny that she has a passion for literature. I think you are just making that up in your mind in order to satisfy some deep seated need to feel that you are the product of an educated and well read maternal line. There is no evidence that it exists however.
Michael, don't you think that, in principle, DL would be able to produce such evidence? Don't you think he could, if he had to, fly his mother to your city, arrange to meet you, with full ID for his mother, and she could talk to you sufficiently to demonstrate she has a passion for literature?
Now, how do you do something similar for demonstrating God's existence?
That's DL's (and my) point.
Michael,
Well, come and meet my mother. Do a DNA test to confirm that she is my mother. View the family photos and do blind testing on people who know us both. Surprise her friends on the street and ask about her and her passions. Then talk to my mother the way you talk to anyone else, and ask her about her favorite books.
Suppose I decide to be skeptical about my mother and her passion for literature. I can blind myself to my prejudices, and validate my claims in a controlled way.
Now, let's do the same with God. First, where is he? Nowhere to be seen or heard. All of God's friends? Well they seem to have drastically different opinions about God which is not surprising because they've never seen God either. They've heard the wind in the trees, experienced a synchronicity, or something along those lines which they imagine to have been caused by God. Yet they only believe in a personal relationship with God by deliberately amplifying their biases, and magnifying their superstitions. They do this by selectively reporting their personal observations.
Believers cannot say what is God and what isn't God. (In contrast, I can tell the difference between the ocean and my mother, and between you and my mother.)
Their documentary evidence is 100% hearsay, and of a variety that people fake every day.
Paul:
Now, how do you do something similar for demonstrating God's existence?
How about this: Take all the good out of your life experience to demonstrate that evil is objective and real. It's similar to putting DL's mother into your life experience to demonstrate that she has a passion for literature.
SteveK, evil or good is not God's existence, so your suggestion has nothing to do with my request. I'm talking about directly perceiving him as a being (in whatever understandable beinf-form he would choose), not perceiving the *results* of his existence if he existed.
If you try to demonstrate God's existence by such results, and not by perceiving him as a being, it would be as if we never had directly perceived, say, someone walking down the street. But that's clearly not the case, we commonly verify that someone is walking down the street by directly perceiving them, not by perceiving the results of them walking down the street (a cigarette butt on the ground, etc.). Now, indirect evidence is certainly evidence, but my point is that the inference that God exists is highly suspect exactly because of the lack of direct evidence (whereas, we can, in principle, get direct evidence of a person walking down a street who has discarded a cigarette butt).
"If you try to demonstrate God's existence by such results, and not by perceiving him as a being, it would be as if we never had directly perceived, say, someone walking down the street. But that's clearly not the case, we commonly verify that someone is walking down the street by directly perceiving them, not by perceiving the results of them walking down the street (a cigarette butt on the ground, etc.). Now, indirect evidence is certainly evidence, but my point is that the inference that God exists is highly suspect exactly because of the lack of direct evidence (whereas, we can, in principle, get direct evidence of a person walking down a street who has discarded a cigarette butt)."
Paul,
Do you not believe in black holes? They have never been directly perceived.
Doctor,
You've done little to prove your mother has a passion for literature. The best you've offered so far is that she apparently is your mother (although I've not seen any of the alleged tests you talk about) and that she reads a few books. So what? I read books too but I don't have a passion for literature. In fact, many people I know read books but they don't have a passion for literature. Moreover, the books she reads might well not even be classified as literature by experts in the field.
Secondly, after the unfortunate time when your mother is no longer on earth, it will be impossible to prove that she has a passion for literature because any evidence you might offer will all be hearsay.
So far, your attempt at proving your mother's passion for literature is extremely lacking. I really think your belief in that regard is a crutch.
Michael, we still directly observe the lack of light or anything else coming from a black hole, and we then define a black hole as the lack of anything coming from a certain region. It's still a direct observation and an objective conclusion.
Michael, you're taking the circumstantial nature of the fact that DL's mother and you are not in the same room and making it an essential logical point in this issue, which is absurd. The key phrase in my 04.27.07 - 11:43 am post that you ignored in your recent comment about DL's mother is "in principle," which removes the irrelevancy of the circumstances regarding the location of you and DL's mother, etc.
I'm assuming that, if you were in the same room as DL's mother, that you could, *in principle,* determine whether she had a passion for literature or not, also given a sufficiently precise definition of what "passion for literature" means (without which the question is moot and meaningless anyway).
Paul,
"Michael, we still directly observe the lack of light or anything else coming from a black hole, and we then define a black hole as the lack of anything coming from a certain region. It's still a direct observation and an objective conclusion."
I don't believe the definition of a black hold is "the lack of anything coming from a certain region." If that were true, the universe would consist primarily of black holes. In most areas of the universe, there is a lack of light. That lack of light does not equal black hole. Rather, it is how other particles react around a specific area where there is a lack of light that led to the discovery of black holes. You could not prove a black hole exists except by reference to how other things react to it.
OK, Michael, I accept your definition of a black hole. So, what's your point? If your point is that we make inferences when we don't directly perceive something, my response is that, in the case of a black hole, it is, by definition, something we can't directly perceive, but God has no limitation, through definition or ability, on how we could let us directly perceive him. It's exactly that discrepancy betwen the fact that he easily could let us directly perceive him, but doesn't, that leads to the logical conclusion that his hiddenness indicates that he isn't there.
A black hole is "by definition, something we can't directly perceive." That definition applied to anything else would cause most atheists I've met to say that it does not exist. But yet, we all believe black holes exist.
The logic you have asserted doesn't hold up. The fact that God could let us perceive Him in a more direct way than He does, but that He chooses not to, says nothing about His existence. Your logical conclusion is not logic at all. I "could" choose to allow my teenagers to stay out until 2 am. I choose not to. That does not mean that I don't love or that I'm trying to punish them because I don't do something that I could. The fact that God doesn't behave in the way you want Him to says nothing about the logic of His existence. Rather, it says more about what you want.
Michael,
There's a huge difference between black holes and God.
A black hole is a model of a system that is predictive. You can look at a system and ask if it is a black hole and your observations and experiences will either be consistent with the model or inconsistent to some approximation.
Not so for God. You make no predictions at all. So we ask "if we look at the world with God versus without, what difference do we expect to see?"
Your answer is none.
Don't you see? This is nothing like a black hole. If you ask "is the Sun a black hole?" We can say specifically why it isn't. Or we can ask, "is there a black hole in orbit around Jupiter?" Again, there are very specific observations we would expect were the claim true.
Now, suppose you proposed a model called "invisible holes." In this model, the presence of an invisible hole is indistinguishable from the lack of presence of an invisible hole. I cannot prove that there are no invisible holes in your living room, but so what? Are you going to believe they exist because the world looks exactly like the world would look if there were invisible holes in it? That would be irrational.
When we try to make God a legitimate model of the world, the model comes up a negative everytime. The problem of evil. The problem of hiddenness. And so on. So on what grounds are you going to claim that the world is as if God exists when you cannot state what would be different if he did not exist?
The fact that God could let us perceive Him in a more direct way than He does, but that He chooses not to, says nothing about His existence.So, you'd agree that the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster could let us perceive Him in a more direct way than He does, but that He chooses not to, says nothing about His existence, too, right? Of whom, real or not, could you *not* say this about? If anyone, then, it says nothing, doesn't it?
DL, but we know what effect God has on those that have God in their life. You could even predict the effects that He has. So where is the difference?
Gatsby,
DL, but we know what effect God has on those that have God in their life.We always know that "X affects those that X affects." It's a tautology.
Black hole physics is not tautological. It is not the case that "black hole physics applies to those collapsed stars that it applies to." Rather, black hole physics applies to collapsed stars, period.
You could even predict the effects that He has.No, you cannot. You are attributing effects to God after the fact. That's no way to confirm a hypothesis. You are working backwards by saying that "if I attribute this unexpected (but meaningful) effect to God, then my God theory will be confirmed, so I'll keep this data point."
Not a tautology. God is a synthetic concept here. (I mean that in the logical sense of the term, not in the sense of man-made or artificial.)
DL,
Why do you ignore what is plainly obvious?
God had no impact on me until I willingly asked him to come into my life. Before that it was just a concept that I heard. God had (is having) a very real impact on my life, which you can't negate. All you can really do is claim that it is tautological.
No, you cannot. You are attributing effects to God after the fact.
Does that mean the effects are not real? And that those effects would have happened regardless if God was in my life or not?
if I attribute this unexpected (but meaningful) effect to God, then my God theory will be confirmed, so I'll keep this data point.
Well, I have Biblical scriptures that appear to be validating the effects.... almost like a promise to me.
The effect that God has on the lives of those that come to accept Him in their lives seems very consistent from one person to the next. By your reasoning I would expect the response, at an individual level, to have great variance; but I don't notice that at all.
DL,
Why are you so interested in re-interpreting my experience, to explain it away as nothing notable at all?
You don't have a clue as to what I have experienced, what my life was like, what it is like now, how rational I tried to be with this whole experience, my rationalizing abilities, and on and on. Yet, confidently you quickly wave away any significance, you think your interpretation is more fitting than mine (even though you didn't provide one... I'll just assume a general no-God interpretation) and I'm supposed to be impressed with this?
You couldn't even address the fact that God did have an impact in my life. You didn't account for the very real change that occurred... only said that it was tautological.
Gatsby,
Look, here's the bottom line.
I think that the adoption of a superstitious outlook makes a person all but certain to see confirmation of their superstitions, no matter what those superstitions may be. Lucky numbers, black cats, new age powers, or messages from God. Some of these beliefs (e.g., about lucky numbers) are testable, and they turn out to be completely false. That doesn't stop people from falling for them when they adopt a superstitious outlook.
Therefore, resorting to superstition is guaranteed to give you confirmation of your theory, whatever that theory may be. Had you asked Cthulhu to help you in your moment of need, you would have received confirmation of that. Had you been Muslim, the same thing. Hindu, the same thing. Wiccan, the same thing.
Superstition is insidious. It's very difficult to put it out of your head. Even for silly things like lucky numbers. I don't believe numbers are inherently lucky or unlucky, but even I feel the psychological tug that makes me not want to do 13 reps in my workout. I don't think we can be trusted to get the correct answer by relying on our cherry-picking intuitions.
If you don't see any problem here, then I have nothing else to say about it.
doctor(logic)
BTQA. See here.
You have thrown his evidence out of court because it is, in your eyes, superstitious. It is superstitious in your eyes because it is invalid evidence, because you "know" there's no God. My beagle used to chase his tail in circles like that, and it was comical to watch. Here it's just sad.
And you accuse Gatsby of having theories impervious to evidence? The gall.
You have thrown his evidence out of court because it is, in your eyes, superstitious.Wait. Let me get this straight. Are you seriously saying that his evidence is not superstitious?
Or do you dispute my claim that superstitious intuition is unreliable?
I think that the adoption of a superstitious outlook makes a person all but certain to see confirmation of their superstitions, no matter what those superstitions may be.
Again, you have no clue about my thought processes leading up until that moment. When my mom died, I walked the corridors of the hospital randomly asking for various signs to show my mom was in a better place. I received nothing. If there were ever a moment I would have been open to misleading myself it would have been then - right after we took her off of life support. I don't know who was I asking these signs from, but I just asked.... hoping that something would just happen to comfort me. I got absolutely nothing, just more corridors with more flourescent lights flickering above me.
That's when I was most open to superstitious beliefs.
When I prayed in the conference room I was exhausted, uninterested, as close to being an atheist as I have ever been... just a listless lump.
It was a last ditch attempt to rectify my hope. I was already assuming that I would get nothing. Yet you think that I was just jumping at the oppurtunity to imbue my mind with anything superstitious. Wow.
I don't know if I mean this or not, but you're a fool. Trying to re-interpret what I experienced so that it sits well with you. Thinking you know what state my mind was in.
How many hard days have you had in your life? And I don't mean, "great cesar's ghost! I just missed the bus"... I mean, "golly, my mom was raped by her 2nd cousin... and he threatened her that if she told anyone that she would never see her kids again... leading to her becoming an alcoholic" or how about, "shucks, my best friend got hit by a car, is now going to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair... can't talk, can barely move, leading to a divorce between his mom and dad.... and it's my fault".
Hard days like coming home from school and finding your mom passed out on the ground, in her own vomit, non-responsive... and having to rush her to the hospital because you think she's dying (this happening more than a couple of times).
You think you have a clue about how I interpret and deal with hard times? What does it look like from your ivory tower?
I know what these situations are like, I've dealt with them before. What happened to me in the conference room was real. I prayed to God and He answered. I know what it's like to be lost and alone (it was the theme of my life) and I know what it's like to be comforted and reassured - and I got that like I have never got it before, after I prayed to God and then became a Christian.
doctor(logic), I am disputing your circular (not to mention arrogant) grounds for calling his evidence superstitious. I am disputing both your circular method of argumentation and your attitude toward the person with whom you are conversing.
Let me repeat it, because you didn't get it last time: you can know Gatsby's account is superstitious only if you know in advance that it must be, regardless of the circumstances or the experience he reports (regardless of the evidence, in other words).
There's nothing in his account that guarantees it was superstitious in nature; so if you're going to conclude definitely that it was, then you're going beyond the evidence and relying just on your assumptions to give you that certainty.
Gatsby,
I'm sorry you feel that way, but just because you've had a rough time of it does not exempt your methodology from analysis. Do you want me to stop discussing this because it hurts your feelings? If yes, just say so, and I'll be happy to stop. As it stands, your story of personal tragedy only emphasizes my point. Your epistemology is based on personal significance and coincidence.
What do you think it means to be superstitious?
Tom,
What do you think superstition is?
In a superstitious epistemology, one looks for coincidences and correlations that have personal significance, and one deliberately eschews control for alternate causes.
You find yourself in an apparently difficult situation in which you estimate that there is some low probability you will exit successfully. From here you pray or cast your magic bones or whatever in an effort to obtain a good ending of no specific description. If you succeed in exiting (by some unspecified means indistinguishable from natural causes), you ascribe your success to your belief in the ritual. If you fail, you ignore the data point.
If you have a different definition of superstition, I'd like to hear it.
Your problem is that you presume it's a superstitious epistemology. BTQA
Gatsby, do you realize that you're saying that in an extreme situation, an experience of gut-wrenching emotion and exhaustion, you're capable of making a dispassionate, unbiased estimation of the true source of a (nearly) once-in-a-lifetime experience? For something as incredible and amazing as actually talking with God, for the first time no less (if I understand you correctly), a person in your emotional state would be the *last* type of person we'd want making a reasoned, objective conclusion.
Hi Paul,
Why would I be unable to make a reasoned, objective conclusion regarding my experience? It wasn't the 1st time I was in a very hard situation.
And you don't know how rational I can be, or have been in similar situations.
DL,
My beliefs are not based on ignorance. So how is it superstitious?
but just because you've had a rough time of it does not exempt your methodology from analysis.
Does it exempt me from having someone (who doesn't know me) make conclusions about my state of mind, my ability to be rational, and ability to interpret things I have experienced?
Do you want me to stop discussing this because it hurts your feelings?
DL, I just don't care for it when you make assumptions about the aforementioned points I have noted.
As it stands, your story of personal tragedy only emphasizes my point. Your epistemology is based on personal significance and coincidence.
"Personal significance"... such a novel concept considering the God of Christianity is a personal God.
DL, what if it was real? That this was actually a sign from God.
I've been told by others the effect that God has had in their lives, I've been told that God answers prayers, I've read Bible passages that also agree with this.... I pray, ask for help and I get it.
No, my epistemology (in making sense of this) was based on more than just personal significance and coincidence.
Gatsby, I have to tell you I'm very impressed with the way you're responding to all of this. I appreciate the example a lot.
Your problem is that you presume it's a superstitious epistemology. BTQA[snarky retort witheld].
Okay, Tom. Let's play it your way. What would Gatsby have to do to reassure you that it wasn't superstition? And if there's nothing he could do, how do we even know what the word 'superstition' means? If I cannot tell superstition from, say, Bayesian analysis, why do we have a word for superstition?
No, let's play it your way. Why do you discredit his report? Why does it have to be superstition?
To the real point: is there any answer at all we could give you that might satisfy you that it wasn't superstition? I'd like to know before I take the time to answer.
Gatsby, I'd rather talk about the situation in general, and then we can see how it might apply to you.
So, in general, would you say that a person in the situation you described is preferred, not preferred, or it doesn't matter, concerning their ability to make a rational, objective judgment about hearing a voice in their head, or talking to a being that no one else could see or hear?
DL,
I've been thinking about it. I keep on saying, "You don't know me, what I think, how I handle this stuff"...etc.
I agree with you, I'm asking alot of you to accept my conclusion regarding this experience. It's exactly because of these reasons why I should understand your unwillingness to accept my conclusion.
I apologize for how I reacted to your skepticism. I let my emotions do alot of dictating on how I responded to you.
Any more defense I would try to provide would just be treading water. I think I'm better able to understand the reason for your skepticism. It does seem kind of arrogant for me to assume that my one testimonial should be accepted as being of a nature different from any other testimonial you hear. I really wish I could explain it to the degree that it would have a life-changing effect on you, but I don't know how possible that is.
Hi Paul,
It think it is preferred. Preferred that we do trust that they are able of making a rational, objective judgement in a situation such as this.
I'm not saying that we are required to trust them, just that we have good reason for trusting them.
Gatsby, I think you're answering a different question than what I asked. I read your last answer as saying that you would prefer to trust someone in an emotionally charged, exhaustive state of mind, as opposed to someone who was not in an emotionally charged, exhaustive state of mind. Do you see the sense of my question now?
Paul,
I don't understand why you mention "emotionally charged". It seems to immediately invalidate the ability for anyone to be reasonable.
I wasn't emotionally charged, I was quite indifferent and I didn't even think that anything was going to happen. Emotions were not guiding my actions at the time.... I was being quite rational (as rational as anyone who thought he was just trying one last avenue to see if it would provide some relief to his current situation).
I said I was exhausted, I never said I was mentally exhausted.
Paul, I trust the constancy of my mind. I trust my ability to be rational, even in very trying situations (which I had been in prior to this).
Your descriptions are inaccurate: I wasn't emotionally charged, and my mind was not in an exhausted state.
But, even if it was.... why wouldn't I just be able to recorrect 'things' after I recovered from my emotionally charged state and was no longer in an exhaustive state of mind?
As a kid I would sometimes be afraid for monsters or ghosts after watching a horror movie (dame you Nightmare on Elm Street!!!) as I was going to bed, but those fears lifted while I was back in my classroom at school or playing with friends.
Or, in highschool when we would go to supposed haunted buildings to snoop around. My mind would race then and the slightest noise sparked that "could it be?!?!" thought.... but in the car ride back home it was all "ack! that stuff doesn't exist. We didn't see anything!".
That wasn't the case with this though.
Tom, I discredit Gatsby's report because there's no way to verify that he spoke with God. Should we automatically believe someone if they say they spoke with God without any independent verification? Or if they just say it was deeply meaningful? Why should meaningfulness contribute anything toward verifying their claim?
Tom, I discredit Gatsby's report because there's no way to verify that he spoke with God.
This is very hard for me to accept. I'm trying to be understanding, but it's hard. Kind of wish I would have kept my mouth shut now.
Should we automatically believe someone if they say they spoke with God without any independent verification?
I understand your point.
What would constitute independent verification, Paul? I mean, suppose it was a claim of physical healing. We would look at reports of the person's health before and after. We have that, although not with 3rd party agreement.
In science, when doing hypothesis testing, we look for theory to support hypotheses. In the social sciences, at least, an experiment run without a theoretical background just isn't admitted into class projects, much less into the journals. We have such a theory, though, in Biblical theology. There's nothing the least implausible about his account in terms of that theory. It supports the predictions of the theory; it is evidence on behalf of the theory.
Now, it's clear that this is turning into almost a third-degree pointed at one person, which is a hard place to be in. I agree in a way with Gatsby that it is not possible for him to verify his experience or that it came from God, at least not for someone who is determined to doubt it come what may. I don't agree that doubting it come what may is the rational way to respond to it.
I have asked doctor(logic) to let us know under what circumstances he would take this as anything other than superstition. I have a feeling he would not allow any such circumstances. In other words, whether or not Gatsby's experience was real, whether or not it was imagined, whether or not God had anything to do with it, it will always be nothing more than a lucky coincidence for the God-fiction in doctor(logic)'s mind, and just a really nice break for Gatsby that he started to feel better just then. This is his circular reasoning. This is why I'm not inclined to pursue the question with him unless he breaks out of that circular reasoning.
As for your questions, Paul, let's acknowledge that there's a geographic and relational distance separating you from Gatsby, and therefore the full story cannot be investigated. Let's acknowledge also that Gatsby is weary (understandably) of facing all this skepticism. I ask you to consider the possibility that something like this might happen to a family member, friend, colleague, student, etc. Does your knowledge structure admit of a possibility that, in the case that you could investigate the full story, you might find that it's what it appears to be? Or do you need God to show up at Macy's parade?
Gatsby,
My beliefs are not based on ignorance. So how is it superstitious?Superstition doesn't mean the same thing as "based on ignorance."
Superstition is (allegedly) a method of obtaining knowledge.
I don't think that everyone who uses superstition is stupid or ignorant. Many superstitious people are intelligent and well-read. I think we all know very smart people who read horoscopes, use alternative medicine, faith healing, or dabble in the occult.
I fully believe that you are reporting your experiences accurately. I do not doubt that your experience was life-changing. I simply dispute the inference you make from those experiences because the method of inference you used is totally unreliable.
Hi DL,
Superstition doesn't mean the same thing as "based on ignorance."
From dictionary.com
Superstition: a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge.
This sounds like the belief or notion would be based on ignorance.
I used reason to make sense of what happened as well as prior knowledge to understand it.
I'm not saying this to impress upon you that it actually did happen, but to emphasize that I am not superstitious (generally). Nor would I consider my understanding of this experience as being a product of superstition.
Tom,
To the real point: is there any answer at all we could give you that might satisfy you that it wasn't superstition? I'd like to know before I take the time to answer.The reason you want to play it this way is that Gatsby has made it clear that his experience was not part of a controlled experiment, and was superstitious in the manner in which I have defined it.
In particular:
1) Gatsby was not blind to the outcome. As a social scientist, you must be aware of the importance of using placebos and doing blind testing. Gatsby's test wasn't something impersonal, but rather was something of the deepest personal significance.
2) The nature of the allowed confirmation was not specified in advance. Failure to do this enables an experimenter to inadvertently draw a bullseye around the arrow after the fact.
3) Gatsby was not in a normal psychological state at the time of his impressions. I don't think this plays into his rationality significantly, but it certainly is relevant to psychological and psychosomatic effects. Effectively, Gatsby claims that his depression was healed by divine intervention. He stated that he had been diagnosed in the past as clinically depressed, and had been on anti-depressants. I infer from his statements that, on or about the time of this incident, he stopped taking the anti-depressants. His depression may have been transitory or misdiagnosed. It seems pretty relevant to ask what effect this transition on his condition, don't you?
So, it's not a case of my begging the question on what constitutes superstition. I've defined it quite clearly. I also agree with Paul and Ron that God could quite adequately present himself to me in a fashion perceptible without superstition.
If God only makes himself visible to the superstitious, he's effectively hidden.
DL,
That's incorrect. I stated that I had taken SSRIs at various points in my life. I stopped taking them all together in 1999, my mom died in 2003.
His depression may have been transitory or misdiagnosed.
DL,
here you go again. I'm trying to the nth degree to be understanding and patient.... but you make comments like this.
My depression had been verified numerous times, SSRIs would help pull me out of an extended depression. If I didn't actually suffer from depression then why would the SSRIs work? Re-uptake becomes blocked and serotonin is able to cross the synapse. Doesn't sound misdiagnosed to me.
Well, you've made it clear, dl, that there's nothing God could do that would escape the charge of superstition, except if he allowed you to paint your own bullseye and obligingly agreed to put a dart in the middle of it. But it has to be a double-blind bullseye, doesn't it?
God is not going to put you in charge that way. You're looking for the Wrong God. If that means you won't believe in him, I won't stand in your way. I have nothing more to reply.
By the way, Gatsby, there can come a time when questions don't need to be answered, even if you have a good answer to give. It's based on whether there's any reason to think the question is legitimate, or possibly, whether there's any reason to think it would do any good.
You can take that for what it's worth. I'm still impressed with your restraint in view of what you've been faced with, and I appreciate your vulnerability and your willingness to share what God has done.
God is not going to put you in charge that way.But don't we *have* to be in charge of making our own choices, and drawing our own conclusions, as best as we can?
We're not requiring anything of God, we're only requiring *ourselves* to only make those conclusions that are warranted.
Commenting by HaloScan
