dharveymi said:
I'm really enjoying this conversation. You have to be my favorite atheist of all times, please don't take offense.
Thank you, I am also enjoying this conversation
but why would I take offense to your statement?
I have no dought that some"thing" is the cause of everything that has a cause. (I think everything has a cause, but I have no observational basis for this belief.)
Whoa, hang on there. We have an IMMENSE amount of observational evidence to support the notion that things have causes. We've been discovering causes to things for thousands of years, and now we know the causes of things that were once considered totally beyond our knowing.
But, let me give you an example. A man is murdered (I don't know why I like this analogy so well.) It appears that he died of a stab wound based on the but of the knife protruding from the upper left hand side of his back. Case closed. The knife did it. OK, that's a little stupid.
There was a man in the room with him. He was the only person coming or going from the room at the time of the murder. He claims he knows nothing of the murder. So what? Case closed, the man used the knife to murder the other man.
But, what if I were to tell you that the man was his loving father. Now, it's more complicated. You see, it's not observation of the kind that you are talking about that leads me to these kinds of beliefs, instead it is a knowledge of God and what He is like.
I'm not really sure what you are saying here, could you clarify?
John wrote, "Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth."
And Peter wrote, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour"
How do you know what they wrote was true?
There is little dought in my mind that the episepsy which my son suffers from is the result of injury he sustained when he was being born, but I believe that Satan is responsible for that injury, if not directly as with Job, indirectly.
Observation may back that your son received the epilepsy in an injury during his birth, but no observation supports that this injury was caused directly or indirectly by an evil sentient being, much less the very same being described in the New Testament. That is pure speculation on your part and it isn't backed by anything other than your own conviction. Have you ever considered that this belief possibly stems from a desire to blame some"one" rather than chalk it up to chance?
This was in no way limited to Jews, most ancient people had similar believes, but the masses have not developed much. I recently read the results of a nation wide poll in which people where to judge between different retirement plans. The majority of people thought the lottery was a good retirement plan. But, if the ancient Jews believed that Satan was responsible for the evil that befell them, in a sense, they were right. He is responsible, he brought sin into the world, and with it death and disease.
I did not mean to pick on the ancient Jews, I just used them as an example. The point is, religious beliefs are not based on observation. Science is.
There are many that proport to document the existence of supernatural beings. My point was simply that seeing is not believing or I might belive in the Matrix or Lord of the Rings.
The point remains: there is no evidence of angels or demons, or leprechauns. The most likely explanation is that angels, demons, and leprechauns do not exist at all--they are mythological folklore.
Belief in Christian God = Belief in leprechauns. OK! But seriously, I am aware of no one that believes that the stories about leprechauns are any thing other than fiction.
Long ago, people thought leprechauns were real with as much conviction as you think angels and demons are real. Those that believed in leprechauns would probably use arguments similar to yours to explain the lack of evidence. Don't poo poo leprechauns...beleif in them relies on faith (not on evidence) just as some other beliefs do.
Just think about this for a moment: if you had lived in an age and culture where everyone believed in leprechauns, how could you possibly acquire the knowledge that leprechauns don't exist? If you said things like "well, there have been leprechaun sightings...though I've never seen one" or "they are too smart for us to capture to prove their existence conclusively" you would never discover the truth, that leprechauns aren't real.
Now ask yourself: supposing angels and demons don't exist, would I ever realize it? Would I have to adopt better critical thinking than those who once believed in leprechauns to discover this truth?
Seriously consider this. The people who believe(ed) in leprechauns, voodoo, magic, witchcraft, and all sorts of stuff you know is baloney are just as smart as you and I...they have just been exposed to these beliefs, and lack the critical thinking skills (like insistance on evidence) to discover their falsehood.
From what I know of the evidence, the authors of the scripture believed they where writing the truth. They did not write in a fictional voice, I am aware of no tradition of fiction in ancient Jewish literature. The scribes that were responsible for copying the Bible, went to great lengths to make sure that they made an accurate copy, etc. etc. etc.
Leprechauns were, in fact, believed to be truth, just as mermaids were beleived to be truth (sailors came back with tales of witnessing mermaids etc). And the writers of pretty much every religious text believed what they were writing to be truth...the Bible is not unique here.
What you are describing as supernatural, I believe would better be called extranatural - something that does not interact with our dimensional existence. Supernatural would be like supersede, superset, or superman. Supernatural includes the natural, but it goes beyond, encompassing things yet unknown.
How does this affect our discussion?
Well, it affects our discussion a great deal. According to your definition, back when the causes of lightning were unknown, and it was viewed as a mysterious force to be feared, it would be "supernatural". But nowadays, because we know the causes of lightning, it is "natural".
I disagree. Lightning was natural then as it is now, humans just didn't know the causes until relatively recently. "Supernatural" implies that whatever causes lightning, it has properties independent of the rest of the natural world...or that it is possibly caused by a sentient being who has dominion over the natural world. It would be best to describe the causes of lightning as natural, even if we don't know what those natural causes are yet.
Just my point, but even some of these things could be wrong or at least limited.
In that case, would you agree that an assumption like "everything in the Bible is true" could be wrong or limited as well?
I did not intend to suggest that. I believe that religion is concerned with things which are outside of the realm of science. Scientific theories are based on observation, they are repeatable, they are falsifiable. Anything that does not fit into ALL of these categories at the SAME time, is not strictly science. These things are in the realm of religion and faith.
First of all, religion and faith often have beliefs that are falsifiable. Secondly, I would call anything that is not based on observation etc. speculation, because the odds of it being true are the same as the odds of its opposite being true. So for example, a non-falsifiable belief such as "this is caused by a god with the body of a human and the head of a cat" is no more likely than "this is caused by a god with the body of a cat and the head of a human".
Also, the odds of any belief outside the realm of science (as you have described) being true will always be less than the odds of it being false, because of Occum's Razor. We may as well draw non-observable, non-falsifiable beliefs out of a hat (and make sure to stick leprechauns in there).
Finally, you did suggest that religious beliefs were concerned with observation. You said: "Religion is concerned with things that can be observed, but maybe not repeated, tested, or explained, for example. Notice the difference in my wording (the repeated "or's)" In my reply post, I questioned whether religious beliefs were truly concerned with observation.
That would explain why they killed Him. You see it is unfaithful preachers that preach peace and safety. Jesus questioned the Jews' most fundamental beliefs; attacked the sin in their lives, and fortold the destruction of Jerusalem. He told them of all those good things too, but that they must submit to receive the reward. I don't disagree that He did not come to enhance our understanding of this world. Most people, even simple people, have a pretty good practical understanding of the world, eat, sleep, love, be loved, work, rest, and die. What this world lacks is not a knowledge of the world; they lack a knowledge of God. This is why Jesus came.
Change is always unsettling, however Jesus clearly had the notion that by accepting this change of attitudes, people would have a better outlook on life and death, and be happier for it. Remember, "Gospel" means "Good News" not "Bad News". My point was that religion is intended to affect our attitude or affect our feelings (either positively or negatively) while science is intended to affect our understanding.
