Theism, magical thinking and CAM.

[oddmanout]

Well, hell, as a theist who occasionally frequents these environs, I suppose I am obligated to respond. For me, the whole thing boils down to personal experience. Since I think that I experience the presence of God in my own life, there is nothing magical about the idea. It seems to be a real experience. It has nothing to do with dogma or the church or doctrine. I experience steak, and lo, steak is there. I experience wine, and lo, wine is there. I experience sex, and lo, Paraguayan cheerleaders are there.

I experience God, and lo, ....... you get the picture.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Hm, this last bit is lacking. I do not doubt your experience, but can you see God the same way you see the Paraguayan cheerleaders (or the wine, or the stake)? I doubt God will materialize the same way!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Well, hell, as a theist who occasionally frequents these environs, I suppose I am obligated to respond. For me, the whole thing boils down to personal experience. Since I think that I experience the presence of God in my own life, there is nothing magical about the idea. It seems to be a real experience. It has nothing to do with dogma or the church or doctrine. I experience steak, and lo, steak is there. I experience wine, and lo, wine is there. I experience sex, and lo, Paraguayan cheerleaders are there.

I experience God, and lo, ....... you get the picture.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Hm, this last bit is lacking. I do not doubt your experience, but can you see God the same way you see the Paraguayan cheerleaders (or the wine, or the stake)? I doubt God will materialize the same way!

Actually, I expect that he experiences the god and the Paraguayan cheerleaders in exactly the same way - ie. figments of his imagination triggered by and responding to his desires.

[MrFungus420]

Well, hell, as a theist who occasionally frequents these environs, I suppose I am obligated to respond. For me, the whole thing boils down to personal experience. Since I think that I experience the presence of God in my own life, there is nothing magical about the idea. It seems to be a real experience. It has nothing to do with dogma or the church or doctrine. I experience steak, and lo, steak is there. I experience wine, and lo, wine is there. I experience sex, and lo, Paraguayan cheerleaders are there. I experience God, and lo, ....... you get the picture.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

And David Berkowitz experienced dogs that were possessed by demons telling him to kill people.

Personal experience is one of the worst possible arguments.

[floppit]

Well, hell, as a theist who occasionally frequents these environs, I suppose I am obligated to respond. For me, the whole thing boils down to personal experience. Since I think that I experience the presence of God in my own life, there is nothing magical about the idea. It seems to be a real experience. It has nothing to do with dogma or the church or doctrine. I experience steak, and lo, steak is there. I experience wine, and lo, wine is there. I experience sex, and lo, Paraguayan cheerleaders are there. I experience God, and lo, ....... you get the picture.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Do you see that as anecdote? I mean when you think about your own reasoning regarding super natural beings do you have awareness that you rely on anecdotal evidence? Also when you 'experience something' does that then mean it is not magic? If so would anything you see as magic now cease to be once you experienced it?

Last of all do you distinguish between anecdote and empirical evidence? Are they both the same to you or one stronger than the other?

I'm genuinely curious about how you think, I couldn't give two hoots what you think but the how bit is the part that interests me, TBH the how of my own thinking matters more to me than the what so don't be offended.

[Bruce Burleson]

Hm, this last bit is lacking. I do not doubt your experience, but can you see God the same way you see the Paraguayan cheerleaders (or the wine, or the stake)? I doubt God will materialize the same way!

Materialization is more complex when God is the issue. Certainly I can't eat, drink or fuck him, nor would I want to (well, perhaps the Eucharist is an exception, in a way, sort of, kinda). But things have a way of working out for me that seems to suggest some aspect of material presence. Opportunities, prospects, clients, resources all seem to come out of thin air just when I need them. My entire life has seemed like one big answered prayer in a way. Anyway, that's my experience. I'm not trying to impose it on anyone else. I'll retreat into my corner now. With my newly discovered Paraquayan cheerleaders.

[Bruce Burleson]

Personal experience is one of the worst possible arguments.

But I'm not presenting it as an argument. I'm presenting it as an experience.

[Bruce Burleson]

Do you see that as anecdote? I mean when you think about your own reasoning regarding super natural beings do you have awareness that you rely on anecdotal evidence? Also when you 'experience something' does that then mean it is not magic? If so would anything you see as magic now cease to be once you experienced it?

I realize that the evidence we have about Jesus is anecdotal, but much historical evidence is, so that doesn't bother me all that much. I can get into an argument about the historical validity of the accounts about Jesus, but that's boring, so I won't. Suffice it to say I find sufficient basis for believing that the gospel story about Jesus is generally (but not 100%) historically accurate. The fact that my personal experience accords rather well with the NT presentation of Christianity lends credibility to it (for me), and that is at least partially persuasive (to me). An experience by itself does not remove it from the concept of magic, but I don't see anything in my experience that relates to magic. I see it more as an example of the idea that we don't have a full grasp of all the laws of physics, and things can still surprise us. But that's just me.

Last of all do you distinguish between anecdote and empirical evidence? Are they both the same to you or one stronger than the other? I'm genuinely curious about how you think, I couldn't give two hoots what you think but the how bit is the part that interests me, TBH the how of my own thinking matters more to me than the what so don't be offended.

Yes, I distinguish between the two. I am an attorney by profession, and I deal with anecdotal evidence daily. People testify that they have seen or heard something, and that testimony is accepted as evidence in a court of law. If it is persuasive to the trier of fact (judge or jury, as the case may be), it can be the factor that establishes what happened in a particular instance. Historical events (often established by anecdotal evidence) are not repeatable as laboratory events (generally established by empirical evidence) are. Of course, even empirical evidence has an element of anecdote to it - the experimenter has to record the results.

As to which is stronger, it depends on the issue at hand. What happened in Palestine in 33 C.E. is not going to be proved by empirical evidence. Our best evidence is anecdotal. What happened in a laboratory in Palo Alto in 2010 is best determined by empirical evidence, assuming that the anecdotal evidence (that the scientist reported) is accurate. Of course, if the scientist is being paid by a particular corporation or government agency, his report may be slightly skewed. Damn, it's hard to reach absolute certainty, isn't it?

[Bruce Burleson]

double post

[colubridae]

Did I just experience deja vu?

[Bruce Burleson]

Did I just experience deja vu?

Only you know.

[colubridae]

Did you just say that?

[floppit]

I realize that the evidence we have about Jesus is anecdotal, but much historical evidence is, so that doesn't bother me all that much. I can get into an argument about the historical validity of the accounts about Jesus, but that's boring, so I won't. Suffice it to say I find sufficient basis for believing that the gospel story about Jesus is generally (but not 100%) historically accurate. The fact that my personal experience accords rather well with the NT presentation of Christianity lends credibility to it (for me), and that is at least partially persuasive (to me). An experience by itself does not remove it from the concept of magic, but I don't see anything in my experience that relates to magic. I see it more as an example of the idea that we don't have a full grasp of all the laws of physics, and things can still surprise us. But that's just me.

I have to admit I was referring to your own experiences as opposed to historical likelihood of a man called Jesus having lived. Obviously to me the story is fantastical, rising from the dead, demons cast out into pigs, walking on water, loaf reproduction on a grand scale, so I would need utterly compelling evidence to match the fantastic level of the stories, where as when it came to what clothes a certain king would have worn I'd suffice with less. Because as an atheist I view an array of gods rather than just one I wouldn't find it possible to investigate the level of historical accuracy with each one, it would take roughly a lifetime for each god to do well! I was mostly referring to how you evaluate your own personal experiences. You said that you didn't see anything in your experience that relates to magic but rather our incomplete understanding of science (I hope I understood that correctly?). Does that mean that you have experienced thing inexplicable within the current physical science knowledge base or that you have not seen anything inexplicable by science as we know it? Also, when you find what you experience fits with what you already believe do you feel aware of any confirmation bias?

Historical events (often established by anecdotal evidence) are not repeatable as laboratory events (generally established by empirical evidence) are. Of course, even empirical evidence has an element of anecdote to it - the experimenter has to record the results.

As to which is stronger, it depends on the issue at hand. What happened in Palestine in 33 C.E. is not going to be proved by empirical evidence. Our best evidence is anecdotal. What happened in a laboratory in Palo Alto in 2010 is best determined by empirical evidence, assuming that the anecdotal evidence (that the scientist reported) is accurate. Of course, if the scientist is being paid by a particular corporation or government agency, his report may be slightly skewed. Damn, it's hard to reach absolute certainty, isn't it?

I totally get what you mean about the lack of empirical data in 33 C.E but the notion on the table isn't that god/jesus existed then, it's that god/Jesus exists then AND NOW, in 2010 we do have the resources to record and measure so as belief is not based on the past but on the past and present surely the evidence required should reflect that? And yet, not so oddly from my POV but surely oddly from yours, the evidence now still remains anecdotal and (on the whole) from believers, more over those anecdotes are influenced by the culture each person grew up in, despite many groups believing THEIR god is universal each will only see evidence for their own. Surely in a court of law these details would be noted, surely an attorney would pick up on them and question the validity of the anecdotes?

[Bruce Burleson]

You said that you didn't see anything in your experience that relates to magic but rather our incomplete understanding of science (I hope I understood that correctly?). Does that mean that you have experienced thing inexplicable within the current physical science knowledge base or that you have not seen anything inexplicable by science as we know it? Also, when you find what you experience fits with what you already believe do you feel aware of any confirmation bias?

In reverse order, yes, I am aware of the potential of confirmation bias. That is why my experience is in the realm of faith, and I do not claim certainty or knowledge. Experience itself is explained by brain chemistry, but what excites that experience is something else altogether, IMO. External stimuli create brain experiences. My experience of God appears to me to come from external stimuli, just as my happiness in seeing my grandchildren. In other words, I relate it to an objective reality, not simply something that is happening in my head.

I totally get what you mean about the lack of empirical data in 33 C.E but the notion on the table isn't that god/jesus existed then, it's that god/Jesus exists then AND NOW, in 2010 we do have the resources to record and measure so as belief is not based on the past but on the past and present surely the evidence required should reflect that?

I think it is an assumption on your part to state that we should have empirical evidence of the existence of God/Jesus now. This is an epistemological issue. If God is not subject to current scientific experimentation/observation, then there is no way for science to test his existence. If he exists primarily outside of this dimension, then scientific tools will be of no value in determining his existence. Christianity posits another method of acquiring information, which is through revelation. The response to divine disclosure is not knowledge (which is evidence-based), but faith (which is revelation-based). If you a priori exclude the possibility of revelation as a method of inquiring information, then that level of inquiry is closed off to you.

And yet, not so oddly from my POV but surely oddly from yours, the evidence now still remains anecdotal and (on the whole) from believers, more over those anecdotes are influenced by the culture each person grew up in, despite many groups believing THEIR god is universal each will only see evidence for their own. Surely in a court of law these details would be noted, surely an attorney would pick up on them and question the validity of the anecdotes?

Correct, but this is the nature of revelation, which is personal. It's not much different than having multiple witnesses to an intersection collision or a crime. The accounts will vary, but there is a version that is closer to objective reality. By comparing and contrasting the various stories, the jury attempts to come closer to the truth. All revelation is subject to some subjectivity by it's various nature. But the believer accepts that this is how God has chosen to reveal himself. From Christianity's standpoint, there was a divine disclosure in Jesus. However, as we see, even that comes down to personal experience.

Of course, no one ever gets a "revelation" that God does not exist. From whence would such a revelation come? Revelations deal with the existence of God, but are interpreted differently.

[Bruce Burleson]

You said that you didn't see anything in your experience that relates to magic but rather our incomplete understanding of science (I hope I understood that correctly?). Does that mean that you have experienced thing inexplicable within the current physical science knowledge base or that you have not seen anything inexplicable by science as we know it? Also, when you find what you experience fits with what you already believe do you feel aware of any confirmation bias?

In reverse order, yes, I am aware of the potential of confirmation bias. That is why my experience is in the realm of faith, and I do not claim certainty or knowledge. Experience itself is explained by brain chemistry, but what excites that experience is something else altogether, IMO. External stimuli create brain experiences. My experience of God appears to me to come from external stimuli, just as my happiness in seeing my grandchildren. In other words, I relate it to an objective reality, not simply something that is happening in my head.

I totally get what you mean about the lack of empirical data in 33 C.E but the notion on the table isn't that god/jesus existed then, it's that god/Jesus exists then AND NOW, in 2010 we do have the resources to record and measure so as belief is not based on the past but on the past and present surely the evidence required should reflect that?

I think it is an assumption on your part to state that we should have empirical evidence of the existence of God/Jesus now. This is an epistemological issue. If God is not subject to current scientific experimentation/observation, then there is no way for science to test whether he exists or not. If he exists primarily outside of this dimension, then scientific tools will be of no value in determining his existence. Christianity posits another method of acquiring information, which is through revelation. The response to divine disclosure is not knowledge (which is evidence-based), but faith (which is revelation-based). If you a priori exclude the possibility of revelation as a method of inquiring information, then that level of inquiry is closed off to you.

And yet, not so oddly from my POV but surely oddly from yours, the evidence now still remains anecdotal and (on the whole) from believers, more over those anecdotes are influenced by the culture each person grew up in, despite many groups believing THEIR god is universal each will only see evidence for their own. Surely in a court of law these details would be noted, surely an attorney would pick up on them and question the validity of the anecdotes?

Correct, but this is the nature of revelation, which is personal. It's not much different than having multiple witnesses to an intersection collision or a crime. The accounts will vary, but there is a version that is closer to objective reality. By comparing and contrasting the various stories, the jury attempts to come closer to the truth. All revelation is subject to some subjectivity by it's various nature. But the believer accepts that this is how God has chosen to reveal himself. From Christianity's standpoint, there was a divine disclosure in Jesus. However, as we see, even that comes down to personal experience.

Of course, no one ever gets a "revelation" that God does not exist. From whence would such a revelation come? Revelations deal with the existence of God, but are interpreted differently.

[floppit]

In reverse order, yes, I am aware of the potential of confirmation bias. That is why my experience is in the realm of faith, and I do not claim certainty or knowledge. Experience itself is explained by brain chemistry, but what excites that experience is something else altogether, IMO. External stimuli create brain experiences. My experience of God appears to me to come from external stimuli, just as my happiness in seeing my grandchildren. In other words, I relate it to an objective reality, not simply something that is happening in my head.

Would you mind me asking what the objective part of the experience is?

I think it is an assumption on your part to state that we should have empirical evidence of the existence of God/Jesus now. This is an epistemological issue.

I don't state we should have empirical evidence of god, just as I wouldn't suggest we should have empirical evidence of ghosts - if a person has a whim to believe something by and large it is up to them. My own position is that it doesn't concern me until those beliefs are stated as factual and where religion does THAT, THEN I think there is a need for empirical evidence.

If God is not subject to current scientific experimentation/observation, then there is no way for science to test whether he exists or not. If he exists primarily outside of this dimension, then scientific tools will be of no value in determining his existence. Christianity posits another method of acquiring information, which is through revelation. The response to divine disclosure is not knowledge (which is evidence-based), but faith (which is revelation-based). If you a priori exclude the possibility of revelation as a method of inquiring information, then that level of inquiry is closed off to you.

Then this would be a bit of a red herring:

As to which is stronger, it depends on the issue at hand. What happened in Palestine in 33 C.E. is not going to be proved by empirical evidence. Our best evidence is anecdotal. What happened in a laboratory in Palo Alto in 2010 is best determined by empirical evidence, assuming that the anecdotal evidence (that the scientist reported) is accurate.

As you state here:

...this is the nature of revelation, which is personal. It's not much different than having multiple witnesses to an intersection collision or a crime. The accounts will vary, but there is a version that is closer to objective reality. By comparing and contrasting the various stories, the jury attempts to come closer to the truth. All revelation is subject to some subjectivity by it's various nature. But the believer accepts that this is how God has chosen to reveal himself. From Christianity's standpoint, there was a divine disclosure in Jesus. However, as we see, even that comes down to personal experience.

So how do you feel about revelation compared with empirical evidence? Initially I asked about anecdote as you gave anecdote, but if the real issue is what you feel has been revealed to you personally I'd still be interested to know how you feel it compares? Do you accept anyone's revelations as reported, or all those from the same faith, church, group of friends, or is it only your own? I know you argue it is about comparing it to others but on a global scale rather than a more intimate one that doesn't work due to the number of gods and truths. None of which supported by much in the way of observable reality.