Atheist wrote:

---

One asks, “How can a supernatural, all-powerful being have such a terrible communication problem?  How can all the different religions be right when they contradict one another and are mutually exclusive?  However they can all be wrong.  So one reason we don’t believe is because we listen closely to all those who do.

---

Or, by the same logic, you could be wrong.

JL

Atheist wrote:

---

Jameela Lares wrote:
Atheist wrote: One asks, “How can a supernatural, all-powerful being have such a terrible communication problem?  How can all the different religions be right when they contradict one another and are mutually exclusive?  However they can all be wrong.  So one reason we don’t believe is because we listen closely to all those who do. Or, by the same logic, you could be wrong. JL

I agree, Jameela.  But I don't have the "burden of proof" or need to supply evidence because I'm not making the positive claim. 
For example, how do you prove a suicide bomber in Iraq is not receiving instructions from a "supernatural, all-powerful being"?  I have no idea how to go about such a proof.  How about you?  Please remember I'm not talking about what you believe, but proof or evidence they are not receiving these instructions.
I find it funny that most people are atheistic concerning all gods except one, the one of their own religion.  If so I'm just athestic about one more god than you.
 
 

---

I'm sorry, but I think you're arguing more about language here than about any sort of deity. Since statements of conjecture can be stated either way, I don't see how one becomes "positive." It's probably truer to say that you'd have the burden of proof to change my mind, and I would have the burden of proof to change yours.

Cheers,

JL

Athesit wrote:

---

Jameela Lares wrote: Atheist wrote: Jameela Lares wrote: Atheist wrote: One asks, “How can a supernatural, all-powerful being have such a terrible communication problem?  How can all the different religions be right when they contradict one another and are mutually exclusive?  However they can all be wrong.  So one reason we don’t believe is because we listen closely to all those who do. Or, by the same logic, you could be wrong. JL I agree, Jameela.  But I don't have the "burden of proof" or need to supply evidence because I'm not making the positive claim.  For example, how do you prove a suicide bomber in Iraq is not receiving instructions from a "supernatural, all-powerful being"?  I have no idea how to go about such a proof.  How about you?  Please remember I'm not talking about what you believe, but proof or evidence they are not receiving these instructions. I find it funny that most people are atheistic concerning all gods except one, the one of their own religion.  If so I'm just athestic about one more god than you.     I'm sorry, but I think you're arguing more about language here than about any sort of deity. Since statements of conjecture can be stated either way, I don't see how one becomes "positive." It's probably truer to say that you'd have the burden of proof to change my mind, and I would have the burden of proof to change yours. Cheers, JL My background, as you might have guessed, is from science, Jameela.  From my experience, the person who proposes the existence of any entity has the burden of proof. They are the ones that must supply evidence for any entity they propose.  Of course, the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence must be.  I'm not trying to change your mind.  I'm trying to have everyone be rational.  That means people must have reasonable evidence for what they hold to be true.   Most rational people have the default position of nonexistence for any entity until a reason or evidence is provided. (Otherwise we would have pink elephants, easter bunnies and an infinite number of other entities to worry about all the time.)  P.S. I do appreciate this disscussion, especially with you using you name and me not.  I hope you understand my situation when I tell you I'm in the bible belt.  

---

Perhaps we can agree that one can be "rational" in accepting as evidence one's own personal experience (of "god" or "not god") and yet understand that such evidence might remain private and unprovable to anyone else. 

I think the problem is that too many "believers" (and some "unbelievers" occasionally) feel compelled to prove the unprovable.  The idea of "evangel, " I believe, is to be a bringer of "good news"  -- in other words a witness. Being a witness doesn't mean being verbal, argumentative, nor dogmatic . . . it doesn't necessarily mean being overly verbal. It also doesn't exactly appear as good news when it is accompanied by threats, promises of retribution, or invasive methods of persuasion.

I don't know you athetist, although I know Jameela and know her faith to be genuine and undogmatic. I appreciate the discussion the two of you have been conducting here and in the mutually respectful way you have conducted it.

Thank you.

 

. . . Though come to think of it, the biblical proofs for Christianity are very often empirical--what we've seen, tasted, touch, heard, etc. When Jesus healed lepers, he told them to show themselves to the priests, as required by law at the time. True revivals are often accompanied by real miracles, and I've experienced my share. (Now, that's when people will start thinking I'm loony tunes, since they've assumed--though not proven--that miracles are impossible.)

My caveat on nature/supernature more springs from the consideration--as has already been mentioned on this board--that you get into some tricky personal subject ethics issues about putting God into a test tube. Plus, if one doesn't really want there to be a good, that person won't finally accept any evidence.

But yeah, in my case the evidence is not warm fuzzies. They don't last long.

Cheers,

Jameela

Jameela Lares wrote:

---

Hey, cool, Atheist! We both got the nod from Stephen. He even spelled it correctly! I still say you're talking apples and oranges. As a scientist, you can prove things in nature, but you can't assume that the same rules hold true in supernature. I think I do have reasonable "evidence" for what I hold true. And yeah, it's a bummer to hold a different opinion in the Bible belt. I think Harry Potter is okay--and said so in the Hattiesburg American. I'm wondering if I'm going to get lambasted by someone . . . . Cheers, Jameela

---

Yes, I misspelled my own name and thought you may think I was Stephen.  

I believe we need to start at "go".  You say,” As a scientist, you can prove things in nature, but you can't assume that the same rules hold true in supernature." 

What is this "supernature" you are referring to?  I have never seen the "supernatural" defined.  Many lump all that is unknown into the "supernatural".  Scientist just say "we don't know" without inventing "stories" about entities with properties that are even more complicated than what they are trying to explain.   

You also say, "I think I do have reasonable "evidence" for what I hold true."  But what is "evidence" and how do you use it rationally compared to evidence?  Scientists try to use very precisely defined words. So calling subjective feelings evidence is equivocating on the meaning of words, as far as I can tell.  Surely when considering this important subject of the existence of the supernatural we must be very careful with our language so as not to fool ourselves.  Don't you agree? 

Thank you for your reply.

 

 

Atheist wrote:

---

stephen judd wrote: Perhaps we can agree that one can be "rational" in accepting as evidence one's own personal experience (of "god" or "not god") and yet understand that such evidence might remain private and unprovable to anyone else.  I think the problem is that too many "believers" (and some "unbelievers" occasionally) feel compelled to prove the unprovable.  The idea of "evangel, " I believe, is to be a bringer of "good news"  -- in other words a witness. Being a witness doesn't mean being verbal, argumentative, nor dogmatic . . . it doesn't necessarily mean being overly verbal. It also doesn't exactly appear as good news when it is accompanied by threats, promises of retribution, or invasive methods of persuasion. I don't know you athetist, although I know Jameela and know her faith to be genuine and undogmatic. I appreciate the discussion the two of you have been conducting here and in the mutually respectful way you have conducted it. Thank you.   I'm glad to see you come in to the discussion, Stephen.  My fingers slipped and I wrote "Athesit" by mistake.  I feared readers would think I was Stephen Judd. Stephen, you write: "Perhaps we can agree that one can be "rational" in accepting as evidence one's own personal experience (of "god" or "not god") and yet understand that such evidence might remain private and unprovable to anyone else." I can't agree.  This is a fundamental mistake and is not rational because it is not objective, but rather subjective.  Although it may "feel" real to the person, they do not know it is real. Even the person experiencing the experience must interpret it.  It could just be bad brain chemistry, low sugar level or that Italian food causing the "experience".   There is no way the person can use it as evidence even for themselves. I always wondered what an atheist would do if they "heard voices".  What interpretation would they put on it?  Probably "I'm sick and better see a doctor”.  Of course a believer in the supernatural may interpret it as instructions from god to blow something up.  If I’m reading you correctly, according to you this could be a correct and rational action for that theist. P.S. I too think this discussion is an excellent example of how to discuss sensitive issues in an atmosphere of mutual respect.    

---

Well, perhaps you and I do disagree.

But I am thinking rather of the same kind of personally confirming experience that people have that is a complex combination of feeling, evidence they gather from the empirical world, personal experiences, etc, none of which is itself sufficient to prove anything to an outsider, and yet serves as personal evidence and proof. In other words, the "evidence" has the power to comnvince the individual on many levels, but is not something that is likely to convince others. I think that is why we have the phrase "personal conviction."

In art, "rationality" has a slightly different meaning than in science.  We say that things in a work of art "cohere" and somehow make a sense as a whole that goes beyond the parts. One can of course, talk about line and shape and color and space . . . but in the end this is a post hoc attempt to explain something that works on a level that goes beyond the rational -- something the appeals to that invisible part of us that is a combination of mind and body but somehow transcends both. The quality of rationality (aesthetic coherance) in an art work (meaning it consistently follows a set of rules that can be -- mostly -- divined is what helps us to know a work of art from something that is not art, although we may disagree about whether it is good art.

Art can approach the metaphysical -- artists have always tested artmaking at the edge of the "non-art" similar to the way we experience the idea of deity vs non-deity.   

OK -- I've got to get back to designing Enemy of the People.

 

Atheist:

I'm working -- but I can't quite help checking back in to this interesting conversation.

That is interesting in terms of the view of the artistic experience as something conditioned.

I actually agree with you about this and think most artists would also. We do begin our careers with certaoin tendencies and interests which are clearly shaped by our early life or even our genetic predispositions.

We all begin with the experiences and tools that we have and knowlege of "art" that we are exposed to. But the nature of artmaking actually is pretty interesting because the career of an artist is almost inevitably about learning how to escape that conditioning . . . . so much of the work of an artist is often about deliberately provoking creative suprise in order to subvert what we already know and believe, in order to shock us to see the world in a new way, and potentially to help create a new vocabularly for work by revealing to me things about the world or about artmaking that I did not know previously. Even artists working within severely limited forms or mediums are plunging deep into those mediums in a search for new perception. In the best of artists, this is an ongoing odyssey of personal reformation . . . . always reaching for new perceptions, new perspectives, new ways to portray the material world or the internal world. I think this is not so unlike the scientist except that the nature of science is that the scientist (I believe this is true) tries to remove the personal and the emotional (or at least set it aside in order to be able to see more clearly) while the artist uses the personal and the emotional as one of a group of tools. The artist tends to "enter" the work, losing himself/herself in some sense. What happens then is that the artist emerges from this period of intense contact and looks at the work from the outside in order to understand what has happened and how he/she reacts to it as a viewer rather than a maker -- in other words enters a critical phase. This immersion/distancing factor is probably one of the most common phenomena artists share in their activity.

OK -- I really do have to work.

Thank you for your response.

Jameela Lares wrote:

---

Atheist wrote: I'm not sure this is the place to discuss ethics, but you must realize that atheists have ethics without the need for the supernatural.  In fact most civilizations always had very similar ethical rules of behavior that were necessary for their survial.     But of course I agree. One only need read Sartre to see an example of an atheist with firm ethics. Moreover, it is actually odd to see ethics and religion combined in Christianity. In many world religions they are divided into different realms. Precisely defined words do not mean that you have defined all that is. Sorry, you've been getting a very low octane Jameela. Saturdays are my Sabbaths, my vegetable-state day. Sunday is not looking much better, as I have two sets of papers that must be graded by Tuesday, and Monday is already loading up. Sleepy cheers, Jameela

---

It's about my bed time also, Jameela.  I appreciate you thoughtful responses.  One last comment for me:  It’s interesting that ethics and religion get combined in the west.  I have to think that many young people can't make themselves believe the supernatural and tend to reject ethics because the two are connected for them.  These people never are exposed to the rational basis for ethics independent of religion.

You and Stephen made this a very interesting evening for me.  I look forward to when we can do it again.  Good evening.

Godless Liberal wrote:

---

Enjoying the exchange here J, S, and A. I often describe myself as an atheist who believes in the importance of a spiritual life (I am one of those lost scientists also). The notion of a god, gods, or deities just doesn't "resonate" with me (the intuitive, rather than empirical, knowledge I think J and S are alluding to). But throughout my life I have felt that there exist wonderful universal truths that humans are incapable of fully comprehending. On rare occasion we glimpse these truths, as if by a sideways glance, as our species approaches our inevitable extinction. Whether this process is nature or supernature is less important than to understand that we are not the center of the universe, but merely a brief note in the awesome realm of existence. 

---

I share this, Godless Liberal.  I was trying to get S or J to address the problem I perceived of belief in the supernatural being linked to irrational behavior, such as, people blowing themselves up because they believe they are serving a supernatural being.  I couldn't get them to consider how supernaturalists can't really say those people are wrong or that god is not speaking to them.  However if you deny "subjective evidence" and only accept objective evidence the whole supernatural thing goes away.

Moderator wrote:

---

I find it interesting that Stephen Judd and Jamela Lares are entering into this discussion under their real names, but the identities of  "Atheist" and "Godless Liberal" (and, before that, "Scientist") are disguised. Any ideas as to why? 

---

And you, Moderator, are such an inspiration.

Atheist wrote:

---

I was trying to get S or J to address the problem I perceived of belief in the supernatural being linked to irrational behavior, such as, people blowing themselves up because they believe they are serving a supernatural being.  I couldn't get them to consider how supernaturalists can't really say those people are wrong or that god is not speaking to them.  However if you deny "subjective evidence" and only accept objective evidence the whole supernatural thing goes away.

---

I considered it, but just didn't comment on it because I didn't think it was the best objection you could raise. I don't see why different people getting different answers on an issue in religion somehow makes the issue go away just because the issue is about religion. It doesn't make an issue disappear in other fields of inquiry.

I can't speak for the thought processes of others, nor do I know what what range of belief systems you have in mind, but as far as Christianity goes the counsels of the Bible--and by derivation, various commentaries and credal statements within the faith--furnish guidelines as to whether whether God has spoken to someone or not. For instance, if someone predicts a future event that doesn't happen, it isn't God speaking to them. Also--and more to the point here--if that person teaches a doctrine that leads not to life and wholeness but rather to death and fragmentation, that doctrine doesn't come from God, nor actions the result from it. Based on a number of criteria, I'd say God hasn't spoken to the suicide bombers. He also didn't speak to the people who went off on Crusades in the Middle East a millenium ago, or to some nut on the street corner that says he's King Tut. Sometimes what God might be saying is less clear, of course, but all of life here on earth can get a bit murky at times.

Happy resurrection day, everyone.

Jameela

Jameela Lares wrote:

---

...For instance, if someone predicts a future event that doesn't happen, it isn't God speaking to them. .... Jameela

---

Do you mean like Christ saying he would return before the generation of people hearing his words would die?

(Sorry, Jameela, I couldn't help myself.)

Jameela Lares wrote:

---

Hey, A, I really do have to grade papers this afternoon. Just a few notes: I don't share your premise that religion is internal and subjective. There is an external reality behind my words. I didn't put evidence in quotation marks for the reasons you are assuming. In fact, if I could with all due respect say this, you seem to spend a lot of time telling me what I'm thinking, which is impossible for you to know. (And in your own system, such a supposition does not represent evidence.) Cheers, Jameela

---

I hope you're having fun paper grading.

Your response surprised me.  By religion being internal and subjective, I was referring to the fact that it's based on faith supported by an individual’s subject "evidence".  That is why there are so many different religions. However, if you have objective evidence for the existence of the supernatural please share it with me.  There is an organization called "The Society for the Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal" that has scientist that investigate and report on such claims. 

I do think we are speaking past each other.  In science evidence must be objective. So I thought that when Stephen stated, "But I am thinking rather of the same kind of personally confirming experience that people have that is a complex combination of feeling, evidence they gather from the empirical world, personal experiences, etc, none of which is itself sufficient to prove anything to an outsider, and yet serves as personal evidence and proof. In other words, the "evidence" has the power to convince the individual on many levels, but is not something that is likely to convince others. I think that is why we have the phrase "personal conviction."  you were in agreement with this.

What objective evidence do you have that lets you state, "There is an external reality behind my words."?

Jameela, I didn't mean to imply that I "know what you are thinking".  I trying to tell you what you are communicating to me, that is, my interpretation of what your statements mean.  Again I'm coming from a science background where the burden is always on the one proposing the theory. 

Don't work on those papers too long.

 

 

Atheist wrote:

---

 There is an organization called "The Society for the Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal" that has scientist that investigate and report on such claims. 

---

If the work of this Society meets your criteria of science, my friend, your understanding of science is rather poor.